Fuzzy sets on shaky ground: Parameter sensitivity and confirmation bias in fsQCA

Political Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 21-41

  Krogslund, Chris ^a   Choi, Donghyun Danny ^a   Poertner, Mathias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942102278     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpu016     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Achen, C. 2005. Two cheers for Charles Ragin. Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):27-32.
2. Ahn, S.-H., and S. S.-Y. Lee. 2012. Explaining Korean welfare state development with new empirical data and methods. Asian Social Work and Policy Review 6(2):67-85.
3. Brady, H. E., and D. Collier. 2010. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
4. Freedman, D. 2010. Statistical models and causal inference: A dialogue with the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Gerring, J. 2011. Social science methodology: A criterial framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Glaesser, J., and B. Cooper. 2014. Exploring the consequences of a recalibration of causal conditions when assessing sufficiency with fuzzy set QCA. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17(4):1-15.
7. Huber, E., C. Ragin, J. D. Stephens, D. Brady, and J. Beckfield. 2004. Comparative welfare states data set. Northwestern University, University of North Carolina, Duke University, and Indiana University.
8. Hug, S. 2013. Qualitative comparative analysis: How inductive use and measurement error lead to problematic inference. Political Analysis 21(2):252-65.
9. King, G., R. O. Keohane, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Koenig-Archibugi, M. 2004. Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign policy and security policy. International Organization 58(1):137-74.
11. Krogslund, C., D. D. Choi, and M. Poertner. 2014. Replication data for: Fuzzy sets on shaky ground: Parameter sensitivity and confirmation bias in fsQCA. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/27100 (accessed October 13, 2014).
12. Lucas, S. R., and A. Szatrowski. 2014. Qualitative comparative analysis in critical perspective. Sociological Methodology 44:1-79.
13. Maggetti, M., and D. Levi-Faur. 2013. Dealing with errors in QCA. Political Research Quarterly 66(1):199-204.
14. Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15. Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Samford, S. 2010. Averting disruption and reversal: Reassessing the logic of rapid trade reform in Latin America. Politics and Society 38(3):373-407.
17. Schneider, C. Q., and C. Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Seawright, J. 2005a. Assumptions, causal inferences, and the goals of QCA. Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):39-42.
19. Seawright, J. 2005b. Qualitative comparative analysis vis-à-vis regression. Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1):3-26.
20. Skaaning, S.-E. 2011. Assessing the robustness of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA results. Social Methods Research 40(2):391-408.
21. Thiem, A. 2014. Membership function sensitivity of descriptive statistics in fuzzy-set relations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17(6):625-42.
22. Thiem, A., and A. Duşa. 2013. QCA: A package for qualitative comparative analysis. R Journal 5(1):87-97.