• Abstract

    MSDO / MDSO: A TECHNIQUE FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CAUSAL CONDITIONS IN QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

    DOI 10.14210/alcance.v29n1(Jan/Abr).p2-19
    Published date: 24/02/2022
    Objective: this paper aims to exemplify and analyze each of the operational steps of the MSDO / MDSO technique in order to reduce the systemic complexity in the use of the csQCA method, with the support of the MDSO / MSDO web application. Methodological Design: Comparative analysis: more different cases with equal results and more similar cases with different results (MDSO / MSDO). An application of the technique was carried out to identify the causal conditions that explain the differences in innovative performance in 26 innovation networks in Brazil and Spain. Results From the twenty causal conditions analyzed, which were grouped into four categories (clusters) called Structural, Human, Financial and Organizational Resources, eight causal conditions explaining the difference in performance were identified. Methodological implications: Considering that one of the main problems in social research, including recent innovation studies, is the size of systemic complexity. The difficulty of reducing systemic complexity has been manifested repeatedly when researchers in the field of Administration and Innovation have used case analysis with binary data, called Crisp Set Comparative Qualitative Analyzes - csQCA. The MSDO / MDSO analysis (more different cases with equal results and more similar cases with different results) contributed to minimize this problem Originality: the technique has been less used in Brazil. The four stages of application of the technique are detailed demonstrated and analyzed.
  • References

    Berg-Schlosser, D. & De Meur, G. (2009). Comparative research design: case and variable selection. In: Rihoux, B. & Ragin, C. (Ed.) Configurational comparative methods. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (Chap. 2, pp. 19-32.). California, USA: Sage.

    De Meur, G. (1996). La comparaison des systemes politiques: recherche des similarites et des differences. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 3, 405-438.

    De Meur, G. D. & Beumier, J. C. (2015). MDSO/MSDO (Version 1.1). Retrieved from http://www.jchr.be/01/v11.htm.

    De Meur, G., Bursens, P., & Gottcheiner, A. (2006). MSDO/MDSO Revisited for Public Policy Analysis. In: Rihoux, B. & Grimm, H. (Ed.), Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis (pp. 67-94): Springer US.

    De Meur, G. & Gottcheiner, A. (2009). The Logic and Assumptions of MDSO–MSDO Designs. In: Byrne, D. & Ragin, C. (Ed.). The sage handbook of case-based methods. (Cap, 11, pp. 208-211). California: Sage. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249413.n12

    Dias, A. T. (2013). Conjuntos parcimoniosos configuracionais estratégicos pelo método acq-análise comparativa qualitativa: um estudo do desempenho de firmas nos setores de indústria e serviço. Anais do Encontro de Estudos de Estratégia. Bento Gonçalves, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

    Dias, C. N. (2015). A influência das redes interorganizacionais e da complementaridade de recursos no desempenho da inovação: um estudo comparativo Brasil-Espanha no setor de pesquisa agropecuária. (Tese de Doutorado em Administração. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF.

    Dias, C. N.; Dias, M. F. P. & Martinéz-Fernández, M. T. (2018). Recursos competitivos para o desempenho inovador no setor de pesquisa agropecuária do brasil e espanha. EnANPAD 2018. Universidade Positivo, Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil.

    Dias, M. F. P.; Pedrozo, E. A. (2015). Metodologia de Estudo de Caso com Múltiplas Unidades de Análise e Métodos Combinados para Estudo de Configurações. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management (IJSM), 14, 23-39.

    Lucidarme, S.; Cardon, G.; & Willem, A. (2016). A comparative study of health promotion networks: configurations of determinants for network effectiveness. Public management review, 18(8), 1163-1217.

    Marx, A. & Dusa, A. (2011). Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA), contradictions and consistency benchmarks for model specification. Methodological innovations, 6(2), 103-148.

    Mill, J. S. (1973) The collected works of John Stuart Mill. Volum VII - a system of logic, raciocinative, and inductive. (7, 388-406). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Pattyn, V. (2015). Explaining variance in policy evaluation regularity. The case of the flemish public sector. Public Management Review, 17(10), p. 1475-1495.

    Ragin, C. C. & Becker H. S. (1992). What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Ragin C.C., Sonnett J. (2005) Between Complexity and Parsimony: Limited Diversity, Counterfactual Cases, and Comparative Analysis. In: Kropp S., Minkenberg M. (Ed.) Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80441-9_9

    Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 19-32). California: Sage Publications

    Schneider, C. Q. & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Revista Alcance

Revista Alcance is a Brazilian free access journal, published every four months, linked to the Graduate Program in Administration and the Professional Master’s degree in Administration, Internationalization and Logistics Program of the University of Vale do Itajaí – Univali. We seek to publish theoretical-empirical and technological articles in the areas of Business Administration. Different theoretical and methodological perspectives are welcome, as long as they are consistent with and relevant to the development of the area.

Access journal