Configurational Comparative Methods In Social Work Research: Navigating Multiple Pathways, Contextual Conditions, and Asymmetric Outcomes

Can the same social problem emerge through entirely different conditions? Why does identifying the causes of a problem not automatically reveal what would prevent it? Finally, why does a factor that reduces the problem in one community have little effect in another?

Social work researchers and practitioners grapple with these questions regularly, yet conventional regression-based analyses often struggle to answer them well. Conventional analyses typically require large samples and explain whether variable A is associated with variable B after controlling for other variables. While statistically appropriate, this understanding of causation does not fully capture the major aspects of causal complexity inherent in social problems. First, it does not capture equifinality, where different conditions can produce the same social problem. Second, it overlooks conjunctural causation, in which social problems emerge from the combinations of multiple conditions rather than from the net effects of individual factors. Third, it assumes causal symmetry, even though the conditions associated with the presence of a social problem may differ from those associated with its absence. In this roundtable, presenters introduce configurational comparative methods (CCMs) as an innovative methodology that more effectively examines the equifinal, conjunctural, and asymmetric nature of social problems.

The first presenter will provide a basic overview of CCMs, including their origin, theoretical logic, research design and processes, and different approaches: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Coincidence Analysis (CNA). The first presenter will also discuss how to examine the necessary and sufficient conditions for a given outcome in CCMs. Necessity refers to conditions that must be present for the outcome to exist, while sufficiency refers to conditions whose presence is enough to produce the outcome.

The second presenter will demonstrate how QCA is useful to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for goal attainment and failure in hospice social work. The analysis revealed that the provision of funeral support was a major sufficient condition across all pathways to goal attainment. In contrast, goal failure consistently involved cancer diagnosis and emerged either in the absence of grief support and counseling or when supportive interventions were insufficient. QCA demonstrates potential in illustrating the effectiveness of direct practices.

The third presenter will provide an example of how CNA was used as part of a mixed methods approach to identify factors that differentiated child welfare agencies implementing an evidence-based intervention with high vs. low fidelity. The presenter found that either strong leadership or, in high needs communities, third-party resource support from local behavioral health boards was sufficient for high fidelity. Similarly, in high-needs communities, the absence of third-party resource support was sufficient for low fidelity. In contrast, in low-needs communities, the absence of communication quality was sufficient for low fidelity.

The final presenter will synthesize the potential of CCMs for social work research and facilitate a discussion with participants regarding candid considerations in the use of CCMs, including similarities and differences between QCA and CNA, situations where CCMS are more or less appropriate, and opportunities to integrate CCMs with other quantitative and qualitative methods.