Uncertainty, Possibility, and Causal Power in QCA

IF 6.5 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Sociological Methods & Research Pub Date : 2021-07-27 DOI:10.1177/00491241211031268
R. Rutten
{"title":"Uncertainty, Possibility, and Causal Power in QCA","authors":"R. Rutten","doi":"10.1177/00491241211031268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Uncertainty undermines causal claims; however, the nature of causal claims decides what counts as relevant uncertainty. Empirical robustness is imperative in regularity theories of causality. Regularity theory features strongly in QCA, making its case sensitivity a weakness. Following qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) founder Charles Ragin’s emphasis on ontological realism, this article suggests causality as a power and thus breaks with the ontological determinism of regularity theories. Exercising causal powers makes it possible for human agents to achieve an outcome but does not determine that they will. The article explains how QCA’s truth table analysis “models” possibilistic uncertainty and how crisp sets do this better than fuzzy sets. Causal power is at the heart of critical realist philosophy of science. Like Ragin, critical realism suggests empirical analysis as merely describing underlying causal relationships. Empirical statements must be substantively interpreted into causal claims. The article is critical of “empiricist” QCA that infers causality from the robustness of set relationships.","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00491241211031268","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211031268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Uncertainty undermines causal claims; however, the nature of causal claims decides what counts as relevant uncertainty. Empirical robustness is imperative in regularity theories of causality. Regularity theory features strongly in QCA, making its case sensitivity a weakness. Following qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) founder Charles Ragin’s emphasis on ontological realism, this article suggests causality as a power and thus breaks with the ontological determinism of regularity theories. Exercising causal powers makes it possible for human agents to achieve an outcome but does not determine that they will. The article explains how QCA’s truth table analysis “models” possibilistic uncertainty and how crisp sets do this better than fuzzy sets. Causal power is at the heart of critical realist philosophy of science. Like Ragin, critical realism suggests empirical analysis as merely describing underlying causal relationships. Empirical statements must be substantively interpreted into causal claims. The article is critical of “empiricist” QCA that infers causality from the robustness of set relationships.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
QCA中的不确定性、可能性和因果力
不确定性破坏了因果关系主张;然而,因果索赔的性质决定了什么是相关的不确定性。在因果关系的规律性理论中,经验稳健性是必不可少的。正则性理论在QCA中具有很强的特色,使其对大小写的敏感性成为一个弱点。根据定性比较分析(QCA)创始人查尔斯·拉金对本体论实在论的强调,本文认为因果关系是一种力量,从而打破了规则性理论的本体论决定论。行使因果力使人类代理人有可能取得结果,但并不决定他们是否会取得结果。这篇文章解释了QCA的真值表分析如何“建模”可能性不确定性,以及清晰集如何比模糊集更好地做到这一点。因果力是批判现实主义科学哲学的核心。和拉金一样,批判性现实主义认为实证分析只是描述潜在的因果关系。经验陈述必须被实质性地解释为因果声明。这篇文章批评了“经验主义”QCA,它从集合关系的稳健性推断因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.
期刊最新文献
Sharing Big Video Data: Ethics, Methods, and Technology Dynamics of Health Expectancy: An Introduction to the Multiple Multistate Method (MMM) Seeded Topic Models in Digital Archives: Analyzing Interpretations of Immigration in Swedish Newspapers, 1945–2019 A Primer on Deep Learning for Causal Inference Untapped Potential: Designed Digital Trace Data in Online Survey Experiments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1