ABSTRACT
A key driver of the evolution of any discipline is the development of research methods that enable the exploration of (certain kinds of) research questions and theoretical arguments (Greckhamer, Koro-Ljungberg, Cilesiz, and Hayes, 2008; Hitt et al., 1998; Ketchen, et al., 2008). By the same token, configurational approaches have contributed important theoretical advances to strategy and organization studies by pointing to the exploration of viable phenomena. Configurations generally have been defined as “any multidimensional constellation of conceptually distinct characteristics that commonly occur together” (Meyer et al., 1993: 1175) and that are meaningful collectively as opposed to individually (Dess et al., 1993). Despite having a long history in and having become a vital part of strategic management research (Doty et al., 1993; Ketchen et al., 1997, 1993; Miller, 1986, 1996), the promise of configurational approaches has remained largely unfulfilled because of a dearth of advances in methodological tools needed to match their theoretical assumptions (Fiss, 2007; Fiss, Marx, and Cambré, 2013). As an important recent contribution towards fulfilling this promise, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) has been added to the repertoire of research methodologies available to strategy scholars (e.g. Fiss, 2007, 2011; Greckhamer, Misangyi, Elms, and Lacey, 2008; Greckhamer and Mossholder, 2011; Kogut et al., 2004).
