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