Even after two decades of debate, proponents of Configurational-Comparative Methods (CCMs) and those of Regressional-Analytic Methods (RAMs) continue talking at cross-purposes. In this article, we rectify three misunderstandings still prevalent between as well as within these two communities: 1) CCMs and RAMs use the same logic of inference, 2) the same types of hypotheses can be tested with one or the other set of methods, and 3) multiplicative RAM interactions and CCM conjunctions constitute the same concept of causal complexity. Taking up each point one by one, we provide the first systematic and formal correction of these common misapprehensions. Our objective is to contribute to a more informed debate between methodologists in political science and sociology than has been the case so far, which should eventually lead to a greater appreciation of the possibilities and limits of each set of methods.
