LIST OF PANELS

The policy process is characterized by a considerable degree of complexity regarding institutional settings, actor and preference constellations, policy goals, contents, and tools. Simultaneously, there is a practical demand for better knowledge of “what works” in public policies and under what conditions or in what contexts. In order to better match methods with theories and empirical realities, the analysis of public policies faces several challenging tasks (Brans and Pattyn 2017). First, it needs to model the complexity that characterizes the policy process and trace the underlying mechanisms. Second, comparative policy analysis detects regularities and achieves a modest degree of generalization. Finally, comparative policy analysis often deals with small or intermediate numbers of cases.

Case-oriented and set-theoretic approaches to comparative policy analysis, such as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Coincidence Analysis (CNA), explanatory typologies, and comparative process tracing, are designed to address these challenges. Situated within a “critical realist” paradigm of social research (Gerrits and Verweij 2013), they model different aspects of causal complexity, such as configurations of different factors leading to policy outputs or outcomes, equifinality (multiple configurations can result in the same outcome), contextual contingencies, and causal asymmetry. Moreover, they can be applied within a variety of small-N or large-N research approaches to evaluate as well as generate theories through a combination of systematic comparison with targeted in-depth case studies (Thomann and Maggetti 2017). As interactive and iterative methods, they also lend themselves to interpretative comparative analysis (Brans and Pattyn, 2017).

Set-theoretic and case-oriented methods are increasingly common in comparative policy analysis (see e.g. Rihoux et al. 2011; Thomann 2019), particularly in policy implementation and evaluation research (Gerrits and Verweij 2018; Pattyn et al. 2017). This panel gathers both theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contributions that deal with the state of the art of case-oriented and set-theoretic approaches and illustrate their potential and limitations to contribute to the theory and practice of policy analysis.

References

Brans, M., & Pattyn, V. (2017). Validating methods for comparing public policy: Perspectives from academics and “pracademics”. Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19(4): 303-312.

Gerrits, L., & Verweij, S. (2013). Critical realism as a meta-framework for understanding the relationships between complexity and qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Critical Realism 12(2): 166-182.

Gerrits, L., & Verweij, S. (2018). The evaluation of complex infrastructure projects: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pattyn, V., Molenveld, A., & Befani, B. (2017). Qualitative Comparative Analysis as an Evaluation Tool: Lessons From an Application in Development Cooperation. American Journal of Evaluation, DOI:1098214017710502.

Rihoux, B., Rezsöhazy, I., & Bol., D. (2011). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis: An Extensive Review. German Policy Studies 7(3): 9-82.

Thomann, E. (2019). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an approach to Comparative Policy Analysis. In: Handbook of Methodology for Comparative Policy Analysis. Edward Elgar (Editors Guillaume Fontaine and B. Guy Peters).

Thomann, E., & M. Maggetti (2017). Designing Research with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Approaches, Challenges, Tools. Sociological Methods & Research, DOI: 10.1177/0049124117729700.

Recent years have seen an impressive proliferation of set-theoretic and case-oriented methods in comparative policy analysis in general (see e.g. Rihoux et al. 2011; Thomann 2019), and in policy implementation and evaluation research in particular (Gerrits and Verweij 2018; Pattyn et al. 2017). Case-oriented and set-theoretic approaches to comparative policy analysis, including but not limited to methods such as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Coincidence Analysis (CNA, explanatory typologies, and comparative process tracing, are designed to address the challenges of contemporary policy analysis. Situated within a “critical realist” paradigm of social research (Gerrits and Verweij 2013), they model different aspects of causal complexity, such as the prevalence of configurations of different factors leading to policy outputs or outcomes, equifinality (multiple policy strategies or instruments resulting in the same outcome), contextual contingencies, and causal asymmetry. Moreover, they can be applied within a variety of small-N or large-N research approaches to evaluate as well as generate theories through a combination of systematic comparison with targeted in-depth case studies (Thomann and Maggetti 2017).

This panel gathers theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contributions by both junior and senior scholars that deal with case-oriented and set-theoretic approaches and illustrate their potential and limitations to contribute to the theory and practice of policy analysis. We particularly invite contributions that either comprehensively review or systematize the state of the art, apply methodological innovations to empirical settings, connect methods with theories, and/or contribute to methodological innovation themselves. Papers should engage in a critical reflection of methodological aspects and their connection with the theory and/or practice of policy analysis in general, or implementation and evaluation in particular. Abstracts should include a clear puzzle, research question, outline of the approach, research design, and main contribution of the proposed paper. Preference is given to abstracts that demonstrate an understanding of recent methodological developments.