定性比较分析中的病例与条件比率:添加病例而不是删除条件

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Field Methods Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1177/1525822x241231479
Judith Glaesser
{"title":"定性比较分析中的病例与条件比率:添加病例而不是删除条件","authors":"Judith Glaesser","doi":"10.1177/1525822x241231479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In qualitative comparative analysis, as with all methods, there is a question about how many cases are needed to make an analysis robust. In deciding on the number of cases, a key consideration is the number of conditions to be analyzed. I suggest that adding cases is preferable to dropping conditions if there are too many conditions relative to the number of cases. I first consider the relationship of low n and limited diversity, followed by an exploration of two scenarios: (1) cases in the study are the universe; (2) more cases could exist. I suggest that a simple rule or benchmark on how many cases to include in relation to the number of conditions is unlikely to be helpful since this depends at least in part on the goals and circumstances of the research. Finally, this issue is not confined to QCA but affects all types of research.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case-to-Condition Ratios in Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Adding Cases Instead of Removing Conditions\",\"authors\":\"Judith Glaesser\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1525822x241231479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In qualitative comparative analysis, as with all methods, there is a question about how many cases are needed to make an analysis robust. In deciding on the number of cases, a key consideration is the number of conditions to be analyzed. I suggest that adding cases is preferable to dropping conditions if there are too many conditions relative to the number of cases. I first consider the relationship of low n and limited diversity, followed by an exploration of two scenarios: (1) cases in the study are the universe; (2) more cases could exist. I suggest that a simple rule or benchmark on how many cases to include in relation to the number of conditions is unlikely to be helpful since this depends at least in part on the goals and circumstances of the research. Finally, this issue is not confined to QCA but affects all types of research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Field Methods\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Field Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x241231479\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x241231479","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与所有方法一样,在定性比较分析中也存在一个问题,即需要多少案例才能使分析稳健。在决定案例数量时,一个关键的考虑因素是要分析的条件的数量。我建议,如果相对于案例数量而言条件过多,增加案例比放弃条件更可取。我首先考虑了低 n 与有限多样性之间的关系,然后探讨了两种情况:(1) 研究中的案例就是宇宙;(2) 可能存在更多案例。我认为,关于根据条件的数量纳入多少案例的简单规则或基准不太可能有帮助,因为这至少部分取决于研究的目标和情况。最后,这个问题并不局限于 QCA,而是影响到所有类型的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Case-to-Condition Ratios in Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Adding Cases Instead of Removing Conditions
In qualitative comparative analysis, as with all methods, there is a question about how many cases are needed to make an analysis robust. In deciding on the number of cases, a key consideration is the number of conditions to be analyzed. I suggest that adding cases is preferable to dropping conditions if there are too many conditions relative to the number of cases. I first consider the relationship of low n and limited diversity, followed by an exploration of two scenarios: (1) cases in the study are the universe; (2) more cases could exist. I suggest that a simple rule or benchmark on how many cases to include in relation to the number of conditions is unlikely to be helpful since this depends at least in part on the goals and circumstances of the research. Finally, this issue is not confined to QCA but affects all types of research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting Invited Review: Collecting Data through Dyadic Interviews: A Systematic Review Offering Web Response as a Refusal Conversion Technique in a Mixed-mode Survey Network of Categories: A Method to Aggregate Egocentric Network Survey Data into a Whole Network Structure Developing a Modular Survey App Using Co-design Principles
×
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