All empirical research has to be based on appropriate methods to uncover empirical patterns. This is easier said than done, however, since most macro-political developments, such as political regime changes, are very complex and defy easy descriptions, explanations, and generalizations. In this paper we will provide a discussion of the use of set-theoretic methods in democratization research. Democratization studies have been accused of being “careless about basic methodological details” (Geddes 1999, 117). We evaluate the extent to which this claim is valid regarding the employment of different kinds of QCA and explanatory typologies for the analysis of democratic transitions and consolidation. More generally, we attempt to answer three interrelated questions: 1) What are the patterns in the use of set-theoretic methods in democratization studies over time? 2) What contributions to the accumulation of knowledge in the field of democratization research have been made based on set-theoretic methods? 3) What are the major methodological limitations/challenges of set-theoretic methods for democratization studies? To answer these questions, we first review empirical applications of these methods in democratization studies and thereafter discuss the recent dispute between proponents and opponents of set-theoretic methods.
