Qualitative Comparative Analysis as a Tool for Concept Clarification, Typology Building, and Contextualized Comparisons in Gender and Feminist Research

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for the systematic analysis of cases. A holistic view of cases and an approach to causality emphasizing complexity are some of its core features. Over the last decades, QCA has found application in many fields of the social sciences. In spite of this, its use in feminist research has been slower, and only recently QCA has been applied to topics related to social care, the political representation of women, and reproductive politics. In spite of the comparative turn in feminist studies, researchers still privilege qualitative methods, in particular case studies, and are often skeptical of quantitative techniques (Spierings 2012). These studies show that the meaning and measurement of many gender concepts differ across countries and that the factors leading to feminist success and failure are context specific. However, case study analyses struggle to systematically account for the ways in which these forces operate in different locations.

Modelling of aircraft manufacturing cost at the concept stage

The work presented is concerned with the estimation of manufacturing cost at the concept design stage, when little technical information is readily available. The work focuses on the nose cowl sections of a wide range of engine nacelles built at Bombardier Aerospace Shorts of Belfast. A core methodology is presented that: defines manufacturing cost elements that are prominent; utilises technical parameters that are highly influential in generating those costs; establishes the linkage between these two; and builds the associated cost estimating relations into models. The methodology is readily adapted to deal with both the early and more mature conceptual design phases, which thereby highlights the generic, flexible and fundamental nature of the method. The early concept cost model simplifies cost as a cumulative element that can be estimated using higher level complexity ratings, while the mature concept cost model breaks manufacturing cost down into a number of constituents that are each driven by their own specific drivers. Both methodologies have an average error of less that ten percent when correlated with actual findings, thus achieving an acceptable level of accuracy. By way of validity and application, the research is firmly based on industrial case studies and practice and addresses the integration of design and manufacture through cost. The main contribution of the paper is the cost modelling methodology. The elemental modelling of the cost breakdown structure through materials, part fabrication, assembly and their associated drivers is relevant to the analytical design procedure, as it utilises design definition and complexity that is understood by engineers.