A comprehensive introduction and teaching resource for state-of-the-art Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) using R software. This guide facilitates the efficient teaching, independent learning, and use of QCA with the best available software, reducing the time and effort required when encountering not just the logic of a new method, but also new software. With its applied and practical focus, the book offers a genuinely simple and intuitive resource for implementing the most complete protocol of QCA. To make the lives of students, teachers, researchers, and practitioners as easy as possible, the book includes learning goals, core points, empirical examples, and tips for good practices. The freely available online material provides a rich body of additional resources to aid users in their learning process. Beyond performing core analyses with the R package QCA, the book also facilitates a close integration with the R package SetMethods allowing for a host of additional protocols for building a more solid and well-rounded QCA.

This article presents the functionalities of the R package SetMethods, aimed at performing advanced set-theoretic analyses. This includes functions for performing set-theoretic multi-method research, set-theoretic theory evaluation, Enhanced Standard Analysis, diagnosing the impact of temporal, spatial, or substantive clusterings of the data on the results obtained via Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), indirect calibration, and visualising QCA results via XY plots or radar charts. Each functionality is presented in turn, the conceptual idea and the logic behind the procedure being first summarized, and afterwards illustrated with data from Schneider et al. (2010).# We load the SetMethods package:

Measures to cope with the COVID‐19 pandemic have put a sudden halt to street protests and other forms of citizen involvement in Europe. At the same time, the pandemic has increased the need for solidarity, motivating citizens to become involved on behalf of people at risk and the vulnerable more generally. This research note empirically examines the tension between the demobilisation and activation potential of the COVID‐19 crisis. Drawing on original survey data from seven Western European countries, we examine the extent, forms, and drivers of citizens’ engagement. Our findings show the remarkable persistence of pre‐existing political and civic engagement patterns. Concurrently, we show that threat perceptions triggered by the multifaceted COVID‐19 crisis have mobilized Europeans in the early phase of the pandemic. Similarly, the role of extreme ideological orientations in explaining (regular) political engagement indicates that the current situation may create its specific mobilisation potentials.

We present the reaction of the EU and eight member states to the refugee crisis 2015/16 as a case of 'defensive integration'. In the absence of a joint EU solution, the member states were left to their own devices and took a series of national measures that varied from one country to the other, depending on their policy heritage, and the combination of problem pressure and political pressure which they were facing. As a result, debordering responses prevailed at first. Only in a second stage a set of national and EU measures aiming at internal and external re-bordering were introduced. At this stage, destination states proved to be the most important drivers of a joint solution, with Germany taking the lead. The overall outcome is an example of 'defensive integration', aiming squarely at joint solutions to stop the refugee flow outside the EU but not to manage it inside the EU.

Nationwide lockdowns implemented by governments to confront the COVID-19 pandemic came at a high economic price. The article investigates citizens' evaluation of the trade-off between public health measures and their economic consequences. Using a vignette experiment conducted in June 2020 on 7,500 respondents in seven European countries the article tests whether perceived threats of the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic affect citizens' preferences for strict or mild lockdown measures. Findings show that European citizens tend to prefer strict measures protecting public health despite their damage to the economy. Even individuals more concerned about the pandemic' s economic impact do not prefer milder restrictions. Sociodemographic factors only indirectly affect public preferences, through perceived threats. Additionally, findings show that trust in experts and political orientations matter. These results resonate with previous research showing that public opinion in hard times is likely to be guided by risk perceptions and subjective attitudes. KEYWORD COVID-19; policy preferences; public opinion; risk perceptions; survey experimentThe COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to decision making in contemporary representative democracies. Handling the pandemic is a collective action problem as the spread of the virus could only be contained if individuals follow strict hygiene rules and physical distancing. Meanwhile, given that coordination among the entire populations is challenging, if not impossible, this crisis also represents a democratic dilemma because national governments had to enforce 'war-style' confinement measures that harshly restricted civil liberties and damaged national economies.In the early weeks of the pandemic, the public in various countries was highly supportive of the social confinement measures implemented by their

The robustness of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) results features high on the agenda of methodologists and practitioners. This article aims at advancing this debate on several fronts. First, in line with the extant literature, we take a comprehensive view on robustness arguing that decisions on calibration, consistency, and frequency thresholds should all be tested. Second, we introduce the notion of “sensitivity range” as the range of values for any of these parameters within which the solution formula remains unchanged. Third, we argue that interpreting robustness is more intricate than simply checking if solutions remain unchanged. Beyond sensitivity ranges, researchers should assess robustness by evaluating changes in parameters of fit and the classification of cases as robust, shaky, or possible. Fourth, we enable researchers to perform more than one robustness test at a time by proposing the notions of a “test set”: the overlap between conceptually plausible alternative solutions that can be generated; and of a “robust core”: that part of a QCA solution that withstands the robustness checks. Fifth, we present functionalities implemented in the R package SetMethods that enable researchers to put in practice our proposals. These advancements are integrated into a comprehensive QCA Robustness Test Protocol consisting of three main tests: sensitivity ranges, fit-oriented robustness, and case-oriented robustness. We illustrate the protocol’s implementation with an example on high life expectancy across the globe.

We propose a methodology for comparative cross-national focus group research and illustrate how this methodology is useful for advancing our understanding of political protest. Focus group research allows researchers to study the collective process of meaning making and formation of intersubjective attitudes. This process has been shown to be relevant for how people discuss politics, and how in turn it could influence participation in politics. However, a systematic methodology for examining the influence of the historical, social, and political context in different countries has not been developed hitherto. In order to allow for comparisons between the formation of attitudes in different countries, we put forward several methodological decisions aimed at achieving standardization in cross-national focus group research design. Group composition, recruitment strategies, and moderation style are the key facets of focus group research that need to be standardized in order to make meaningful cross-national comparisons, but more practical considerations in implementing focus groups cross-nationally are also discussed. We illustrate and critically assess the proposed methodology based on data from an international comparative research project in which 80 focus groups were conducted in nine different countries in Europe and Latin America.

No abstract