Best practice

Statistics

Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)

Qualitative comparative analysis

Hybridity

Economics

Computer science

Anthropology

Management science

Qualitative research

Systematic review

Obstacle

Regional science

Psychology

Mathematics

Management

Political science

Sociology

Data science

MEDLINE

Positive economics

Qualitative analysis

Machine learning

Social science

Swiss Political Science Review

The Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methodology has evolved remarkably in social science research. Simultaneously, the use of QCA too often lags behind methodological recommendations of good practice. Improper use is a serious obstacle for QCA to enrich the social science ‑methodology toolkit. We explore whether the coherence of analytic approaches can help us understand good practices in applied QCA by performing a systematic review of 86 QCA studies. Although adherence to technical GPs has improved over time, we find a high prevalence of incoherent, “hybrid” approaches. As the hybridity of a study increases, its adherence to good practices decreases. The case‐oriented, realist, exploratory QCA studies do not consistently follow recommendations of good practice. Instead, the only consistently good‐practice approach is case‐oriented, realist, but explicitly theory‐evaluating. We conclude that consistently aligning methodological choice with the underlying analytic approach and the use of theory can help foster good practices in applied QCA.

Approaches to Qualitative Comparative Analysis and good practices: A systematic review