Dear fellow researchers,
I just embarked on a journey with QCA, more specifically csQCA. I model the likelihood of network (tie formation: 0/1) as a function of two condition.
The truth table demonstrates two causal paths: one with only one of the conditions, say A, another one with both present: A and B (no logical remainders)
When I move on with the analysis of the necessary conditions for the presence of the outcomes, I do not find a support for the condition A to be a necessary one (raw consistency different from 1) although all of my cases with this condition present have invariably the outcome being present. For the analysis of necessary condition of the absence of outcome, the absence of A is a necessary condition for absence of outcome.
Finally, all of the: complex, intermediate and parsimonious analysis demonstrate A as consistent solution for the outcome only.
My questions are:
1) I know the analysis of absence and presence of outcomes are not symmetrical, but If i refer to my data it clearly shows that presence of A leads to presence of the outcome, can it be correct that there is no support for this in the first analysis of necessary condition? (simultaneously, absence of A correlates perfectly with absence of outcome indeed).
2) with only part of the necessary condition (for the absence of the outcome) being supported, is this enough evidence to support my hypothesis on A being a necessary condition for the outcome?
3) last one: since the truth table shows two causal paths - is this enough evidence towards my hypothesis on equifinality (multiple paths leading to the outcome?)
Thank you so much for your help!
Best
Aga
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Statistical Software
- SPSS