| dc.description.abstract | This chapter follows Rihoux and Ragin (2009b: xviii) and understands Configurative Methods as methods of ‘systematic cross-case comparisons, while at the same time giving justice to within-case complexity, particularly in small- and intermediate-N research designs’ (2009b: xviii). This definition is part of how QCA can be seen (see Schneider and Wagemann, 2012: 8ff.), but can also be extended to other methods, as will become clear later in this chapter. Admittedly, all QCA applications recently also increasingly include examples of large-N studies (see the bibliographic overviews in Buche and Siewert, 2015; Rihoux et al., 2013; Wagemann et al., 2016), which has led to a discussion about this further diversification of QCA approaches (Fiss et al., 2013; Greckhamer et al., 2013). However, this amplification of the perspective is still connected to the basic principles of configurative analysis that had been developed in the early years of QCA methods so that, nowadays, a definition makes less explicit reference to the N of a study (although the diffusion of large-N studies may have some impact on the case-orientation of Configurative Methods, as Wagemann et al. (2016) empirically demonstrate). Thus, for our purposes, the term Configurative Methods mainly refers to systematic cross-case comparisons with a strong case-orientation and a recognition of case complexity. | en |