No abstract

No abstract

Qualitative comparative analysis is increasingly popular as a methodological option in the evaluator’s toolkit. However, evaluators who are willing to apply it face inconsistent suggestions regarding the choice of the ‘solution term’. These inconsistent suggestions reflect a current broad debate among proponents of two approaches to qualitative comparative analysis. The first approach focuses on substantial interpretability and the second on redundancy-free results. We offer three questions to guide the choice of a solution term in the context of impact multi-method evaluation research. They are related to the intended use of the findings, goals of the analysis and regularity theory of causality. Finally, we showcase guidelines through three potential applications of qualitative comparative analysis. The guiding questions would almost always lead to choosing the substantial interpretability approach. However, the redundancy-free approach should not be disregarded. Whatever the choice, researchers should be aware of the assumptions each approach is based on and the risks involved.

Investment subsidies are the most popular means of public support for enterprises. However, evaluation studies measuring their net effect suggest that their effectiveness is highly debatable. The social mechanism of investment subsidies has been investigated in the article with a flexible, abductive methodological approach. Both methodological and data source triangulations have been applied: qualitative and quantitative methods deployed; and viewpoints of manifold groups (policy-makers, beneficiaries, journalists) reconstructed. The article goes beyond previous findings indicating the small net effects of intervention by investigating the social mechanism accounting for the size of the effects. It also indicates that the permanency of the programme may be explained by the analysis of the programme theories of stakeholders involved in implementation.