Upload
haliem
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thomas GreckhamerLouisiana State University
Presentation for PDWQualitative Comparative Analysis
AoM 2013, Lake Buena Vista
Building on logic of method… Illustrate logic of set-theoretic analysis Introduce QCA and its mechanics using crisp
sets (e.g. Ragin, 1987, 2000, Greckhamer, Misangyi, Elms, & Lacey, 2008)
1. Select cases & theoretically relevant attributesa) Based on substantive interest
2. Construct sets—Crisp sets distinguish ‘in’ (1, full membership), and ‘out’ (0, full non-membership)
3. Construct truth-table—all logically possible configurations of included attributes
4. Analyze set relationships between attributes and outcome of interest
5. Evaluate and interpret results
Illustrate these with simple hypothetical example
Question: What drives high firm performance in bicycle manufacturing?
Hypothetical sample of 25 manufacturers
Five key firm attributes: Firm Size Length of experience producing bicycles R & D intensity New MRP system implemented or not Vertical integration into distribution
(For empirical example, see also Greckhamer, Misangyi, Elms, & Lacey, 2008)
Define sets of firms with: Large size (alternative: e.g., “small size”) Extensive Experience High R&D intensity New MRP system Vertical forward integration High Performance
Decide membership: In crisp-sets only full membership versus full non-membership (1/0) Use theory and empirical knowledge to set
breakpoints
Common points of critique of crisp sets Information loss through dichotomization Thresholds potentially arbitrary
Some responses Maintain complexity while simplifying it When dichotomization is not straightforward,
experiment Consider fuzzy sets to enable degrees of
membership (later)
Case Experience R&Dintense NewMRP FirmSize VertInt HPFirm1 1 0 1 1 0 0Firm2 0 0 0 0 1 0Firm3 1 1 1 1 1 1Firm4 1 0 1 0 1 1Firm5 0 0 1 0 0 0
Construct Truth Table: Each row logically possible combination of crisp-
sets (2n logically possible) / Boolean expression In this example: 5 attributes = 25 = 32 logically
possible combinations
Sort cases into configurations and record outcomes & consistency
Code outcome value
Experience R&Dintense NewMRP Firmsize VertInt Number Raw Consist.0 0 0 0 0 5 00 0 1 0 0 5 0.41 1 1 1 1 5 11 0 1 0 1 3 10 0 0 0 1 2 01 0 1 1 1 2 11 1 1 1 0 2 00 0 1 0 1 1 01 0 1 1 0 1 00 0 0 1 0 0
Experience R&Dintense NewMRP Firmsize VertInt Number HP Raw Cons.0 0 0 0 0 5 0 00 0 1 0 0 5 0 0.41 1 1 1 1 5 1 11 0 1 0 1 3 1 10 0 0 0 1 2 0 01 0 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 0 2 0 00 0 1 0 1 1 0 01 0 1 1 0 1 0 00 0 0 1 0 0
Boolean algebra is used to reduce truth table to expression covering combinations with same outcome (superior performance)
Simple example: size AND R&D intensity OR size AND ~R&D intensity → superior performance size AND (R&D intensity OR ~ R&D intensity) → superior performance =size → superior performance
“Complex” solution “Parsimonious” solution “Intermediate” solution In consequent example: assume absence of new
MRP system enhances performance
Conditions Solution 1 Solution 2
Experience W WLarge Size W
R&D Intensity m
New MRP system
Vertical Integration W WConsistency 1 1Raw Coverage 0.58 0.42
Unique Coverage 0.42 0.25Solution ConsistencySolution Coverage
W W = Core/peripheral condition present
m m = Core/peripheral causal condition absent
Table 1: Configurations achieving High Performance
10.83
Do not interpret “independent effects” separate from combinations, e.g., •Experience is positively associated with high
financial performance•Size is positively associated with high financial
performance in case of experienced firms
Crisp sets contain basic logic of set-theoretic methods• Analytic unit is configuration; each is potentially
qualitatively different•Limited to 1/0 membership •Fuzzy sets are more sophisticated, rely on same
principles Systematic comparison for small N as well as
large N settings (Greckhamer, Misangyi, and Fiss, 2013)
Value of alternative model of causality