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.

The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal perception: A meta-analysis

There is little consensus regarding how verticality (social power, dominance, and status) is related to accurate interpersonal perception. The relation could be either positive or negative, and there could be many causal processes at play. The present article discusses the theoretical possibilities and presents a meta-analysis of this question. In studies using a standard test of interpersonal accuracy, higher socioeconomic status (SES) predicted higher accuracy defined as accurate inference about the meanings of cues; also, higher experimentally manipulated vertical position predicted higher accuracy defined as accurate recall of others’ words. In addition, although personality dominance did not predict accurate inference overall, the type of personality dominance did, such that empathic/responsible dominance had a positive relation and egoistic/aggressive dominance had a negative relation to accuracy. In studies involving live interaction, higher experimentally manipulated vertical position produced lower accuracy defined as accurate inference about cues; however, methodological problems place this result in doubt.