Tilastomenetelmien rajamailla pertti töttö

”Variable-Oriented Research” f(Y) = X1 + X2 P(asunnoton) = 2,718 281 828 459 045 (mies + alkoholi)/ (1 + 2,718 281 828 459 045 (mies + alkoholi)) X1 JA X2 → Y

”Assumptions and judgements embedded in conventional quantitative methods” (Ragin 2000, 311-315): The dependence on fixed, preferably ”given” populations The dependence on an ”accounting” approach to diffenrence The de facto dependence on simplifying assumptions about kinds of cases not found in a data set The dependence on a correlational understanding of causation, an approach that is insensitive to necessity and sufficiency The dependence on additive, linear models ans their consequent inability to unravel causal complexity The reliance on open-ended ”variables” containing unspecified and often unknown quantities of irrelevant variation The dependence on mechanistically derived anchors to structure the interpretation of scores

”Diversity-oriented research borrows from case-oriented research the following features” (Ragin 2000, 39-40): Its understanding of cases as configurations Its view of populations as flexible, manipulable constructions Its emphasis on outcome-oriented investication Its view of causation as conjunctural and heterogeneous

”Variable-Oriented Research” f(Y) = X1 + X2 P(asunnoton) = 2,718 281 828 459 045 (mies + alkoholi)/ (1 + 2,718 281 828 459 045 (mies + alkoholi)) X1 JA X2 → Y

”Case/Diversity-Oriented Research” f(Y) = X1 ? X2 X1TAI X2 → Y

1: Ethnic political mobilization ”Crisp-set social science” N = 36

Ragin: (large JA growing) TAI (fluent JA wealthy) → Ragin: (large JA growing) TAI (fluent JA wealthy) → ethnic political mobilization Linreg: M = large · wealthy + large · growing + wealthy · growing – fluent · wealthy · growing – large · wealthy · growing Y = X1 + X2 + X1 · X2

2: Generous welfare state ”Fuzzy-set social science”

Ragin s. 296: ”… conditions ’almost always’ sufficient for generous welfare states” left unions JA homogeneity corporatist JA homogeneity unions JA corpotatist JA heterogeneity ”Almost always” = 0,80

Ragin s. 304: ”…what the solution would have been if the analysis had been restricted to … instances with membership scores exeeding .5” left JA unions JA corporatist unions JA corpotatist JA homogeneity

Ragin s. 306: ”Adding these four to the five expressions that pass sufficiency without simplifying assumptions and then simplifying the results with the containment rule yields the following solution:” left JA unions JA corporatist left JA unions JA homogeneity left JA corporatist JA homogeneity unions JA corpotatist JA homogeneity

ML(Amos), MLR(Mplus)

LCA ”ehdoille”+ Y:n keskiarvo