Transcending the qualitative‐quantitative divide in is research using QCA as a configurational, comparative approach

In August 2021, we issued a call for papers (CfP) with the aim of bringing together information systems (IS) research that transcends the qualitative-quantitative divide using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a configurational, comparative approach. We received 35 submissions and eventually selected six papers for publication in the special issue (SI). We want to thank the anonymous Reviewers and the SI Associate Editors for their insightful and constructive feedback to the authors and the Scientific Advisors for their invaluable help throughout the peer-reviewing process. Table 1 below categorises the papers published in this SI with regard to their mode of reasoning, theoretical approach, and methodological approach. Thus far, QCA studies in IS have primarily followed an abductive reasoning mode. Drawing on Ragin (1987) insight that social science advances most when it entails an iterative dialogue between ideas and evidence (Ragin, 1987), IS scholars have developed configurational propositions (or hypotheses) based on their dialogues between existing theories and empirical evidence. Compared to a purely deductive approach that relies on theoretical logic rather than empirical evidence, IS scholars have used QCA to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence. Compared to a purely inductive approach that focuses on empirically grounded knowledge, IS scholars have used QCA to develop middle-range theory often in the form of substantive theory to advance knowledge of IS phenomena in a specific area of inquiry. More recently, IS scholars have advocated using either deductive or inductive approaches by developing a set of prescriptive guidelines for conducting QCA research (Park et al., 2020). While the deductive approach is based on the intersection between theoretical propositions formulated in Boolean notation and empirically identified configurations, the inductive approach is based on an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of interest and the ensuing formulation of empirically grounded propositions drawing on previous QCA findings. Drawing on these prescriptive guidelines, recent IS studies have used the theorised–observed configuration comparison technique to test whether their configurational hypotheses were supported (Sun et al., 2024). For example, Sun et al. (2024) drew on the Technology-Organisation-Environment framework and incorporated strategic orientation as an aspect of decision-making for organisational technology adoption. Their study matched the theorised and observed configurations and outlined four possibilities: 'when a configuration is theorised and observed, the hypothesis is supported. When a configuration is theorised but not observed, it indicates that the hypothesis is only supported under certain conditions, that is, conditionally supported. When a configuration is not theorised but observed, the hypothesis is rejected and some emergent findings are derived. When a configuration is not theorised nor observed, it is consistent yet irrelevant due to the asymmetry of configurational approaches' (Ibid, p. 19). By expanding the scope of application of configurational theorising from exploratory to confirmatory research, Sun et al. (2024) have pushed the boundary of QCA methodological knowledge. Notably, they have argued that "the theorization of configurations should contain arguments for the presence or absence of an element, while simultaneously, arguing for the co-presence or absence of other pertinent elements" (Ibid, p. 22), thus setting two principles for hypothesis testing, namely, (1) matching theorised and observed configurations and (2) analysing configuration in anatomical fashion. A few articles published in this SI join this evolving QCA discourse on the mode of reasoning. Drawing on a mixed-methods study, Meier et al. (2023) use deductive fsQCA to refine, extend, and delimit theory. More specifically, in their paper entitled 'Cooking a telework theory with causal recipes: Explaining telework success with ICT, work and family related stress,' they aim to offer novel insights on telework success that relies on the use of ICT at the intersection of work and family lives. They conducted two studies: in study 1, they used a quantitative approach to identify configurations of ICT, work and family-related challenge and hindrance stressors that lead to high or low telework success; in study 2, they used a qualitative approach to shed light on the interplay among ICT, work and family related conditions. By following Park et al. (2020) guidelines, Meier et al. (2023) first developed theoretical propositions in Boolean notation and subsequently conducted fsQCA to identify sufficient configurations of conditions. Then, they intersected the hypothesised theoretical propositions with the empirically identified fsQCA findings to refine, extend, or delimit their theory (cf. Schneider methodologically, they demonstrate that 'theorising on theoretical mechanisms across sufficient configurations offers insights into important boundary conditions, such as disruptive situations, that shape explanations of complex outcomes' (Ibid, p. 20). Soltani Delgosha et al. (2024) make another outstanding contribution to the evolving QCA discourse with their mixed-methods study entitled 'A person-centred view of citizen participation in civic crowdfunding platforms: A mixed-methods study of civic backers.' By using a sequential, mixed-methods approach, they integrate their fsQCA findings with the results of an in-depth qualitative study. Accordingly, they discover five distinctive configural profiles that display the heterogeneity of civic backers' motivations first in their quantitative study and subsequently identify four boundary conditions in their follow-up qualitative study. Compared to Meier et al.'s (2024) condition-oriented study, Soltani Delgosha et al.'s (2024) study is a case-oriented exploration of boundary conditions (cf. Thomann footnote 11) claim that, in their paper, they do not make any assumptions about directional relationships or "easy counterfactuals", thus arriving at complex and parsimonious solutions rather than intermediate solutions. Alas, the studies published in this SI echo Park and Mithas' (2020) claim. For example, Zhang and Ramesh (2023), p. 13; footnote 1, argue that they 'do not assume a directional expectation,' but rather they recognise that either the presence or absence of each condition may contribute to their outcome of interest. Likewise, Meier et al. (2024, p. 14) report the difference between core and periphery conditions for the 'sake of transparency,' but they do not distinguish between them in their theoretical interpretations. Ultimately, on par with Zhang and Ramesh (2023), Meier et al. (2024) arrive at an intermediate solution that matches the complex solution because they do not formulate (conjunctural) directional expectations a priori (see also Soltani Delgosha et al., 2024, p. 14). We believe there is still room for advancing QCA's methodological knowledge. In his ground-breaking book, Ragin (2009, p. 175), explicitly argued that 'when limited diversity is substantial, complex solutions can be exceedingly intricate because little or no simplification occurs. Likewise, under the same conditions, parsimonious solutions can be unrealistically simple due to the incorporation of many (easy and difficult) counterfactual combinations. Intermediate solutions strike a balance between parsimony and complexity, based on the substantive and theoretical knowledge of the investigator.' Accordingly, intermediate solutions should be preferred because they are often the most interpretable solutions (see also Thomann pp. 377–378).