Zotero library for WP series

Zotero is a free and open-source reference manager. We have created a Zotero library for the WP series. The library is public; anybody may browse and download working papers. If you use Zotero and wish to add the library to your installation, log into the Zotero website and then click the “Join” button on the group page. For more details, please see the WP Series page.

APSA Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)

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.

Monograph on Case Study Analysis & QCA

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.

Journals friendly to 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.

Comparative Methods for Systematic Cross-Case Analysis