This paper explores the compatibility of QCA and PT research designs. The core concern is that whereas QCA designs study configurational theories of conditions that are either necessary and/or sufficient to produce an outcome, PT theory-tests investigate theoretical mechanisms in-between X and Y. In effect, there is the risk that we are studying two different things empirically: X:Y in QCA, and the parts in-between X and Y in PT.
How can these two methods communicate with each other? The paper utilizes a mixed-methods design combining QCA and PT to investigate challenges and develop suggestions for how they can be overcome.
The substantive research question attempts to investigate what explains when and why governments adopt positions in EU constitutional negotiations that closely reflect public opinion.
