From Carsten Schneider:

As you may know, APSA’s Qualitative and Multi-Method Research section is currently running a deliberative process about research transparency for qualitative empirical scholarship. The QTD is a broadly inclusive process through which a wide range of qualitative communities are thinking through the meaning, costs, benefits, and practicalities of transparency for the types of inquiry in which they engage. At the end of the process, the QTD Working Groups will produce a set of statements that articulate understandings and practices of research transparency that are relevant for different forms and contexts of qualitative research. These statements will be an invaluable resource for a wide range of constituencies grappling with issues of research transparency, from journal editors to researchers and graduate students.

From now until Dec. 1, the QTD Working Groups — each of which is focused on a particular method or context of qualitative research — are consulting with scholars who use and are knowledgeable about that form of inquiry. I am a member of the Working Group on “Algorithmic Analytic Approaches”, which covers both QCA and automated content analysis. It would be enormously valuable to get your thoughts on some of the issues our Group is considering. We have posted some specific questions on the Group’s discussion forum, which is here: https://www.qualtd.net/viewforum.php?f=23.

To post “on the record,” if you’re not already registered on the qualtd.net site, please first fill out the very short registration form, here: “https://www.qualtd.net/ucp.php?mode=register

We are very keen to hear your thoughts. I’m also happy to have a one-on-one email exchange or Skype call about these issues if that would be more convenient for you. The main thing is to get your input as we think through the meaning and practice of transparency for set-theoretic comparative methods.

Two methodological contributions were recently published in Field Methods: Cooper and Glaesser (2016) on “Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Necessary Conditions, and Limited Diversity: Some Problematic Consequences of Schneider and Wagemann’s Enhanced Standard Analysis” with a reply by Schneider and Wagemann (2016), “Assessing ESA on What It Is Designed For.”

Dave Garson (North Carolina State University) is seeking comments on a monograph he is finalizing, “Case Study Analysis & QCA.” The monograph is 130pp, two-thirds of which is on QCA using fsQCA software with worked examples, and is intended as an introductory graduate-level text. If interested in reviewing it and commenting, please contact Dr. Garson at garson@ncsu.edu, who will send you the current draft and later the final version. Reviewers may use it in classes, as long as it is not posted to the internet. The final monograph will be distributed free in pdf form and at low cost ($5) in Kindle format.

The May 2016 issue of Comparative Political Studies is a special issue devoted to “Debating Set Theoretic Comparative Methods” and includes articles by Jack Paine; Alrik Thiem, Michael Baumgartner, and Damien Bol; Gerardo Munck; and Carsten Schneider.

The Journal of Business Research 69(4) is a special issue titled “Set-Theoretic Research in Business”, and includes almost 50 articles applying QCA.

As a by-product of [his] work as the management board member of COMPASSS responsible for the bibliography, [Alrik Thiem] has published a blog entry on [his] personal website that presents a ranking of QCA-friendly journals. If you want to know at which journals your risk of being rejected because of the method you have employed should be relatively low, you might want to check out this table.

Domingo Ribeiro Soriano (University of Valencia, Spain), Kun Huang Huarng (Feng Chia University, Taiwan) and Norat Roig-Tierno (Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain) organize a Special Section Issue titled “Configurational Comparative Research Methodologies” in the journal Quality & Quantity. The Special Section Issue seeks to provide a forum for topical issues that demonstrate the usefulness of configurational comparative research methodologies. A description of the method, its empirical applications, and potential methodological advances that increase its usefulness in research and practice will be emphasized. Submissions should be made using Editorial Manager (authors must say in a cover note that their paper is intended for the Special Section Issue). The deadline for submissions is 15 December 2015.

Four methodological contributions on Qualitative Comparative Analysis fully published in Quality & Quantity: “Contextual Analyses with QCA-Methods” by Thomas Denk and Sarah Lehtinen; “But not Both: The Exclusive Disjunction in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)” by Ursula Hackett; “Parameters of Fit and Intermediate Solutions in Multi-Value Qualitative Comparative Analysis” by Alrik Thiem and “Parsimony and Causality” by Michael Baumgartner. Three further QCA articles as advance online publications: “Analyzing Multilevel Data with QCA: Yet Another Straightforward Procedure” by Alrik Thiem; “ Analysing Necessity and Sufficiency with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How do Results Vary as Case Weights Change?” by Barry Cooper and Judith Glaesser; and “ Why Simulations are Appropriate for Evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis” by Ingo Rohlfing.