Still Lost in Translation! A Correction of Three Misunderstandings Between Configurational Comparativists and Regressional Analysts

Abstract

Even after a quarter-century of debate in political science and sociology, representatives of configurational comparative methods (CCMs) and those of regressional analytic methods (RAMs) continue talking at cross purposes. In this article, we clear up three fundamental misunderstandings that have been widespread within and between the two communities, namely that (a) CCMs and RAMs use the same logic of inference, (b) the same hypotheses can be associated with one or the other set of methods, and (c) multiplicative RAM interactions and CCM conjunctions constitute the same concept of causal complexity. In providing the first systematic correction of these persistent misapprehensions, we seek to clarify formal differences between CCMs and RAMs. Our objective is to contribute to a more informed debate than has been the case so far, which should eventually lead to progress in dialogue and more accurate appraisals of the possibilities and limits of each set of methods.