Highlights of ggVennDiagram include: (1) Subset/Region filling Venn diagram up to seven sets; (2) Upset plot with unlimited sets; (3) Venn Calculator for two or more sets; (4) Provide as R package, Shiny App, and TBtools plugin.
Besides an increase in the number of empirical applications, the widening landscape of tailored computer programs attests to the success of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a social research method. Users now have the choice between three graphical user interface (GUI) and three command line interface (CLI) solutions. In addition to different functional foci, each program possesses several technical particularities, some of which the vast majority of end users remain unaware of. Since these particularities may influence results and in turn substantive conclusions, this review is a timely undertaking. More specifically, we compare the two most common GUIs fs/QCA and Tosmana as well as the CLI QCA. By reanalyzing data from a sociological study on rural grassroots associations in Norway, major differences and similarities with respect to truth table construction, minimization algorithms, and prime implicant chart management are illustrated.
The main objective of the qualitative comparative analysis is to find solutions that display sufficient configurations of causal conditions leading to the presence of an outcome. These solutions should be less complex than the original observed configurations, as parsimonious as possible, without sacrificing the sufficiency requirement. Sufficiency and parsimony are two requirements that act in opposition, and an optimal solution is one that accommodates both. There are different search strategies that lead to different types of solutions, with an ongoing debate about which solution type is closest to the true, underlying causal structure. This article presents the different logics behind each simplification system in order to explain how and why they lead to different results and introduces the concept of “robust sufficiency” to clear the debate. It analyses the correctness ratios for the different solution type and provides an improved set of procedures to measure correctness that captures the best features from each system. Out of the competition between the conservative and the parsimonious search strategies, the intermediate solution emerges as the best hybrid that is suitable for causal analysis, outperforming the parsimonious solution in recovering a known (even parsimonious) causal structure.