See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317889541

Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and

innovation research - The rise of a method

Article  in  International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s11365-017-0461-8

CITATIONS READS

73 2,233

3 authors, including:

Sascha Kraus Miriam Schüßler

Durham University University of Liechtenstein
338 PUBLICATIONS   5,281 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entrepreneurial Orientation View project

Coopetition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miriam Schüßler on 31 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int Entrep Manag J
DOI 10.1007/s11365-017-0461-8

Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)

in entrepreneurship and innovation research –
the rise of a method

Sascha Kraus 1 & Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano 2 &

Miriam Schüssler 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract This article reviews and critically examines 77 journal articles published
from 2005 to 2016 on the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) applied
in business and management research on the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation
research. The findings reveal that the number of fsQCA applications has sharply
increased during the past few years. Stemming from the systematic literature review,
core aspects dealing with firm performance and innovation are identified. Ultimately,
we provide promising areas with future potential for the application of fsQCA such as
the elaboration of the antecedents leading to business model innovation.

Keywords Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis . fsQCA . Method . Overview .

Application . Business and management . Entrepreneurship . Innovation . Research

Introduction

The volume of contextual studies within comparative research has been increasing
during the last decades. Qualitative Comprative Analysis (QCA) emerged from

* Sascha Kraus
sascha.kraus@uni.li

Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano
domingo.ribeiro@uv.es
Miriam Schüssler
miriam.schuessler@uni.li

1
Institute of Entrepreneurship, University of Liechtenstein, Fürst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490 Vaduz,
Liechtenstein
2
Facultad de Economía, Campus de los Naranjos, Universitat de València, València, Spain
 Int Entrep Manag J

political science and sociology and is a methodology which is characterized through

causal asymmetry and well applicability of small sample sizes because causal condi-
tions or their combinations which can lead to an equifinal outcome are observed (Ragin
1987, 2000; Rihoux et al. 2013). Based on set-theoretical logics, new comparative
methods have been developed that constitute a major trend in the recent years. One of
the most prominent methods is the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)
that is used with increasing frequency particularly in business and management re-
search (Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Rihoux et al. 2013; Denk and Lehtinen 2014).
While mostly unknown by researches in this field before 2013, fsQCA is recently
applied increasingly also in entrepreneurship and innovation related studies (e.g.,
Cheng et al. 2013; Dai and Huang 2015; Mas-Verdú et al. 2015; Wu and Huarng
2015; Covin et al. 2016; Kraus et al. 2016, 2016c). Because of the high degree of
complexity that can be captured through testing theory based conditions and contextual
influences rather than focusing on single effects of individual variables, fsQCA is
gaining momentum in research (Kvist 2007; Marx and van Hootegem 2007;
Greckhamer et al. 2008; Woodside 2011; Rihoux et al. 2013; Schneider and Eggert
2014). Rubinson (2013) even states that fsQCA is the most superior one of the QCA
kind. Thereby, key success paths get identified based on case study analysis which
allows to build theories of sufficiency (Woodside et al. 2012). By this, fsQCA seems to
be the long awaited answer to the question of how to discover different configurations
(e.g., Harms et al. 2007) of multiple interrelated variables all leading to the same
desired output.

The method fsQCA

Origin and development

A methodology for obtaining linguistic summarizations from data that are associated
with cases, developed by the social scientist Charles Ragin, is the fsQCA (Ragin 2000).
It is a more recent and extended version of the QCA that may be used for contextual
analysis, which investigates how causal relationships are dependent on contextual
conditions, and is furthermore much closer to statistical approaches (Stokke 2007;
Denk and Lehtinen 2014; Mas-Verdú et al. 2015). fsQCA is a diversity-oriented
approach which proposes different alternative paths to understand the construct of an
outcome and is furthermore well suited for observing stochastic but complex (small-n)
phenomena (Kent 2005; Shipley et al. 2013; Henik 2015). Especially, the analysis of
such small-n situations in which the number of cases is too large for traditional
qualitative analysis and on the same time too small for many accustomed statistical
analysis e.g. between ten and fifty cases, presents one of the strength of the fsQCA
method (Ragin 2000; Fiss 2007; Ragin 2008b). Primarily, fsQCA was developed for a
small sample size and has, so far, been used mainly with small to medium sized
samples. Nevertheless, the method can also be applied with large datasets (Cooper
and Glaesser 2010). While in most of the cases fsQCA had been applied in the fields of
political and sociological research, in organization science and in marketing, recent
studies are bridging configurational analysis using fsQCA with complexity theory in
sub-disciplines of business and management (e.g. finance and strategic management)
Int Entrep Manag J

that expands previous contributions and shows diversification of disciplines (Fiss 2007;
García-Castro et al. 2013; Rihoux et al. 2013; Woodside 2014).
Scholars have called for using fsQCA to supplement regression analysis when the
relationships between the dependent and independent variables are asymmetric (Kent
2005; Ragin 2008b; Woodside 2011, 2013). fsQCA Bbridges quantitative and qualita-
tive approaches because the methods in this tool kit are simultaneously qualitative and
quantitative^ (Ragin 2008b, p. 82). Unlike more quantitative methods which are based
on correlation, fsQCA seeks to establish logical connections between the combinations
of causal conditions (conjunctural causation) and an outcome, which results in rules
that summarize the sufficiency between subsets of all the possible combinations based
on their causal conditions (or their complement) and the outcome. The rules are
connected to the output by the word OR whereby each of the rules represents a possible
path from the causal conditions to the coveted outcome and represents equifinal
causation, i.e. different causal combinations leading to the same desired outcome
(Mendel and Korjani 2013). When causality in the research phenomenon is both
multiple – when an outcome has more than one cause – and conjunctive – when these
causes work together to produce the outcome, fsQCA represents an appropriate
method. Multiple conjunctural causations are identified by testing various combinations
of antecedent conditions. Thereby, fsQCA aims to show conditions that are sufficient
but not necessary to cause an outcome (Woodside 2011). Thus, rather than estimating
some net effects of independent variables, fsQCA employs Boolean algebra logic to
examine the relationships between an outcome and all binary combinations of the
independent variables. This methodological approach provides the opportunity to
detect relevant configurations that guarantee a high performance in the outcome
condition (Ragin 2000; Fiss 2007; Mayrhofer 2009; Aguilera-Caracuel et al. 2014;
Henik 2015). In other words, fsQCA is an appropriate tool for identifying the casual
conditions to produce a given outcome of interest so the condition always leads to the
outcome, but otherwise the condition is not the only cause. Stokke 2007) argues that
even the few comparative studies which have applied the fuzzy-set version, show the
potential that Bit will strengthen QCA’s claim to the methodological middle ground
between qualitative and quantitative analysis^ (p. 510). Furthermore, Woodside 2010)
points out that besides other methods, the fuzzy-set attains both high generalization as
well as high accuracy. fsQCA compensates critical aspects of the case study research
(CSR) method, by attaining high accurate portraits of real-world processes and on the
top it enables a high generalization across other contexts.

Technique of analysis

fsQCA is a technique that identifies meaningful cases and Bsits midway between
exploratory and hypothesis-testing research^ (Kent 2005, p. 226). Thus, it provides a
flexible tie between qualitative and quantitative characteristics because continuous
variables are reinterpreted as the presence or absence of a specific feature while discrete
variables are transformed into a continuous degree of Bbelonging^ or Bmembership^.
By enabling contributions to explain complexity at the case level and generality
across cases, fsQCA bridges quantitative and qualitative examination (Crilly 2011;
Aguilera-Caracuel et al. 2014). The sophisticated method is particularly appropriate
when causality is complex. It offers understanding of which factors are relevant for a
 Int Entrep Manag J

desirable outcome and how to combine those to achieve such an outcome which helps
furthermore to increase the understanding of the complementarities and substitutes in
configurations (Fiss 2011; Chang and Cheng 2014).

Calibration - transforming data into fuzzy sets

In the first step of the fsQCA analysis, values of variables are operationalized as
membership scores within predefined sets and are obtained through calibration
(Ragin 2008a; Meuer 2014). This technique is based on fuzzy-set membership scores
that express the degree to which cases belong to a set and which is any collective of
distinct objects that can be described by certain properties or characteristics. The data
can be imported from SPSS files, but will almost certainly need to be ‘fuzzified’ (Kent
2005). In order to transform Likert scores into fuzzy-set membership scores, variables
are calibrated for their degree of membership in sets of cases to produce scores ranging
from 0.00 = full non membership to 1.00 = full membership in which 0.5 illustrates the
crossover point and maximum ambiguity. Such calibration is possible only through the
use of theoretical and substantive knowledge that is essential in the specification of the
three mentioned qualitative breakpoints (Ragin 2008b, p. 30). In specifying the referred
breakpoints, a rational can be developed (Ragin 2009). This is applied to match fuzzy-
set calibration with the Likert-type seven-point scales (Chang and Cheng 2014).
Based on the membership scores, sub-set relations can be analyzed whereby two
aspects, the consistency and coverage are mainly analyzed (Ragin 2006). In this
context, set-theoretical consistency indicates how closely the sub-sets of conditions
and outcome are related to each other and refers to the degree to which cases share
conditions or combinations of conditions. Whereas the set-theoretical coverage pro-
vides information on the relevance of conditions for the outcome by referring on an
indication of the degree to which the minimal formula is an outcome of the analysis
covering observed cases. A low degree of coverage indicates several paths (combina-
tions of conditions) to the same outcome (Ragin 2008b, 2009; Schneider and
Wagemann 2012; Denk and Lehtinen 2014). By using the calibrating function of the
fsQCA software program, following the procedure detailed in Ragin (2008b), the
interval scale variables and thus all research constructs can be converted to fuzzy-set
membership scores (Ragin 2008c).

Constructing the truth table

Once the variables were calibrated, the second step contains the determination of the
truth table. The fuzzy-set scores are used to construct a data matrix as a truth table with
2k rows to operate the Boolean algebra (Ragin 2008c). In effect, the impact of each
cause is examined in all logical contexts whereby 2k indicates the configurations of
conditions and k represents the number of causal conditions (Ragin 2008b). Therefore,
a thorough analysis of the effects of relevant causal conditions can be offered through
examining all combinations of causal conditions that enables to construct experiment
design-like contrasts in which only one causal condition at a time is allowed to vary
(Ragin 2008b; Woodside and Baxter 2013). However, limited sample cases do not
necessarily meet all configurations and some of the rows have zero cases or so-called
remainders (Ragin 2009). In this case, the initial truth table needs to be improved by the
Int Entrep Manag J

second pillar in which the key task of the analysis is to determine which combinations
of conditions are relevant based on the number of cases that exceed the crossover point
of 0.5 membership in each combination by establishing a number of cases threshold
(Ragin 2008c, 2009).

Analysis by using Boolean algebra logic

fsQCA examines entire combinations of conditions simultaneously, instead of compar-

ing individual variables. Therefore, in the third step these configurations are then
minimized by algorithms and the initial truth table gets reduced by specifying the
frequency and consistency threshold (Ragin 2008b, 2009; Chang and Cheng 2014).
The frequency threshold determines which combinations of conditions are relevant and
should be between 1 or 2. While in a small-size sample situation (e.g. 10–50 cases) a
threshold of 1 is appropriate, for large-scale samples (e.g. 150 and more cases)
frequency cutoffs should set higher (Ragin 2008b). The consistency threshold indicates
which combinations exhibit high scores in the outcome, combinations with
consistency scores below the threshold of 0.75, indicating substantial inconsis-
tency, are coded with 0 and at or above the threshold, indicating a high
consistency, are coded with 1 (Ragin 2009). So, it eliminates irrelevant condi-
tions and thus identifies structures that may be characterized by the simultaneous
presence of multiple crucial elements (Meuer 2014). Therefore, the third stage of
analysis, following a review of the truth table, simplifies combinations and minimizes
solutions by using an algorithm (Mas-Verdú et al. 2015).

A review of extant research

Review approach

The selection of relevant eligible literature on fsQCA was performed with a systematic,
evidence-informed literature review. Following the guidelines suggested by Tranfield
et al. (2003), the researchers excluded articles which do not disclose sufficient details of
the conducted fsQCA in order to implement a quality assessment. The literature review
was a systematic selection of articles published only in academic peer-reviewed
journals, written solely in English. Using the keywords Bfuzzy-set qualitative compar-
ative analysis^ or BfsQCA^ or Bfs/QCA^ in the respective title or abstract, the academic
databases, as shown in Table 1 (following Gast et al. 2015). ABI Inform/ProQuest,
EBSCOhost/Business Source Premier, JSTOR, Science Direct, Emerald, SAGE,
SpringerLink and Web of Science as well as Google Scholar were scanned for
publications in peer-reviewed academic journals.
After non-business-related disciplines and duplicates in the different electronic
databases had been excluded, an initial sample of N = 99 was identified by reading
all abstracts and checking for a discussion related to the fsQCA method in business and
management literature. To provide a contextual threshold for business and management
research, we also differentiated within the fsQCA applications between the level of
analysis on an organizational and individual level and excluded the country level as it
focuses on institutional conditions and categories of countries which don’t fit in our
Table 1 Database search results

ProQuesta Business source ScienceDirecta JSTORa Emeralda Springera Total

completea

After search in title and/or abstract 88 78 71 30 8 28 303

No. of relevant papers after excluding non-business 60 40 39 11 5 3 158
related papers
No. of total duplicates 59
After deleting duplicates 99
After reading all the title and abstract 67
After reading the entire articles 60
No. of articles found in the residual search 12
Final sample size 77
a
Search limiters: Only peer-reviewed journals in English language
Int Entrep Manag J
Int Entrep Manag J

research domain. To ensure the relevance, the remaining articles were read completely
and scanned multiple times, and we developed patterns of recurrent themes (Fig. 1).
Furthermore, the type of analysis (literature review, conceptual article, empirical
case studies, and empirical quantitative article), the unit of analysis as well as the final
sample size and company sizes (small, medium, large) were analyzed. We also
performed a residual search as well as scanned the major outlets for the application
of the fsQCA method in entrepreneurship and innovation related research by manually
checking the indexes. In the end, the systematic research approach, as illustrat-
ed in Fig. 1, yielded to a final sample of 77 articles published up to 2016.

FsQCA in business and management research

The first scientific article on fsQCA in the field of business and management research
was published in 2005 by Raymond A. Kent in the International Journal of Market
Research and explains the fsQCA procedure on basis of marketing data compared to
traditional analysis. Since then, the number of scientific articles has been growing
steadily and from 2012 on increasing sharply with a strong tendency upwards. The
graphical representation in Fig. 2 shows the high increase between the years 2012 and
2014.
Figure 2 clearly illustrates the increased attention paid to the fsQCA method within
the business and management research especially in recent years. Also Rihoux
et al. (2013) mentioned that in particular management studies have been the
fastest-growing field of published applications in the most recent period. While
the majority of the top-rated articles were published since 2011 which is
represented in the following Table 2 with the main themes in business and
management literature.

Electronic literature search

Databases
ABI Inform/ProQuest, EBSCOhost/Business Source Premier,
JSTOR, ScienceDirect, Emerald, SAGE, SpringerLink, Web of
Science, Google Scholar

Selection criteria
Keywords: “fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis” or “fsQCA”
or “fs/QCA” in title and/or abstract
Peer-reviewed articles in business and management journals
published until 2016

n = 99 publications

Application of quality and contextual threshold

n = 77 publications

Assessment, in-depth review and residual search

Fig. 1 Systematic research approach

 Int Entrep Manag J

25

20

15

10

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Series1
Peer-reviewed journal articles

Fig. 2 Chronological Development of fsQCA articles in Business & Management Research, 2005–2016
(n = 77)*

Sample characteristics and descriptive results

Table 3 gives an overview of the distribution of articles. The main outlet for research on
fsQCA within the field of business and management is the Journal of Business
Research with an outcome of 28 articles that represents 36.4% of the total sample.
Followed by the Academy of Management Journal and Quality and Quantity with each
6 articles representing both times 7.8%. The Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of
International Business Studies, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Family
Business Strategy, Management Decision, Organization Science and Organizational
Research Methods. All are high ranked journals at a BC^ level or higher and count
altogether 85% of the total sample. As the two leading journals in this field
which are categorized as top journals with VHB-Jourqual and ABS rankings of

Table 2 Main themes and final samples used within business & management research

Field Main Themes Articles

Business & (1) Ambidexterity and
Management performance
(2) environmental performance
standardization
(3) distances between home and
host country
(4) relationship development
(5) relational attractiveness
(6) global integration and local
responsiveness
(7) international business strategies
(8) global stakeholder orientation
(9) corporate social responsibility
(10) international competitive
advantages
Joshi et al. (2015), Henik (2015), Ho and Lu (2015),
Huarng (2015), Iseke et al. (2015), Leischnig and
Kasper-Brauer (2015), Ni et al. (2015), Tho and
Trang (2015), Tóth et al. (2015), Aguilera-Caracuel
et al. 2014, Chang and Cheng (2014), Garcia-Castro
and Aguilera (2014), Fan and Zhu (2014), Leischnig
et al. (2014), Misangyi and Acharya (2014),
Peltoniemi (2014), Prado and Woodside (2015),
Schneider and Eggert (2014), Skarmeas et al.
(2014), Wu et al. (2014), García-Castro et al.
(2013), Chia-Wen et al. (2013), Ford et al. (2013),
Woodside and Zhang (2013), Crilly et al. (2012),
Crilly (2011), Fiss (2011), Valliere et al. (2008),
Kent and Argouslidis (2005)
Int Entrep Manag J

A+/4* and B/3 represent in total nearly one half of the sample, the high
relevance of the fsQCA method within business and management literature
can be manifested due to the high quality standards which need to be met on
this level.
A further important aspect that needs to be mentioned, is the number of articles
published in the last two years because it represents with 45 articles around 58% of the
total sample based on a timeline of 10 years back to its origin. This illustrates that
fsQCA is gaining recently much more relevance and importance within the field of
business and management research.
As Table 3 illustrates impressively, business and management studies have been a
sharply growing field of published applications of the fsQCA method in the most recent
period. The following section reveals the great importance of fsQCA in recent times, in

Table 3 Distribution of articles by time period and journal

Number of articles per time

period

a
Journal ABS VHBb 2005– 2008– 2011– 2014- Total Percentage
2007 2010 2013 2015c of sample

Journal of business research 3 B 3 3 22 28 36.4

Academy of management journal 4* A+ 2 4 6 7.8
Quality and quantity NA NA 1 1 4 6 7.8
Journal of business ethics 3 B 1 2 3 3.9
Journal of international business studies 4* A 1 1 2 2.6
Industrial marketing management 3 B 1 1 2 2.6
Journal of family business strategy 2 C 1 1 2 2.6
Management decision 2 C 1 1 2 2.6
Psychology and marketing 3 B 1 1 2 2.6
Information systems research 4* A+ 1 1 1.3
Organization Studies 4 A 1 1 1.3
Academy of management review 4* A+ 1 1 1.3
Journal of the operational research 3 B 1 1 1.3
society
R&D management 3 B 1 1 1.3
International journal of entrepreneurial 2 C 1 1 1.3
Behaviour and Research
Corporate governance an 3 C 1 1 1.3
international review
German journal of research in 2 C 1 1 1.3
human resource management
Journal of marketing management 2 C 1 1 1.3
Journal of services marketing 2 C 1 1 1.3
Journal of small business and 1 C 1 1 1.3
entrepreneurship
Management research review 1 C 1 1 1.3
Technology analysis and strategic 2 C 1 1 1.3
management
Residuals ≤2 NA 1 1 3 6 11 14.3
Total 6 6 20 45 77 100

a Academic Journal Guide 2015

b VHB-Jourqual 3 Edition 2015
c Note that the interval from 2014 to 2015 is a 2-year interval
 Int Entrep Manag J

particular, in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation related research while mostly
unknown by research before 2013.

FsQCA in entrepreneurship and innovation research

By focusing explicitly on localizing causal complexity, the fsQCA method may

contribute to business and management research (Fiss 2007; Ragin 2008b).
As the fsQCA method is increasing sharply in the most recent period of
strategic management and organization studies, the researchers will take a
deeper analysis into the research fields of entrepreneurship (ENT) and innova-
tion (INNOV) that counts around 30% of the total journal sample. The follow-
ing Table 4 demonstrates the main fields of the sample and shows particularly
in which journals the fsQCA method was applied in entrepreneurship and
innovation research.
Furthermore, Table 4 acknowledges that the method can be used with both small to
medium sized samples and also large datasets. Therefore, the novel method applied in
business and management particularly in entrepreneurship and innovation research also
bridges the chasm between qualitative and quantitative analysis and complements
recent research that adopts mixed methods to study the mentioned business phenomena
(Crilly 2011).
As from 2014 on, 15 articles in total were published in the field of entrepreneurship
and innovation related research which counts more than 50% of the total business and
management sample in this time period, the huge importance of the fields is

Table 4 Main theoretical fields and final samples used in the 77 articles

Journal ABS VHB No Øn Theoretical fields

Journal of business research 3 B 23 420a Management, ENT, INNOV

5 - conceptual
Academy of management journal 4* A+ 5 385 Management, ENT,
1 - conceptual
Journal of business ethics 3 B 3 635b Management, ENT
Journal of international business studies 4* A 2 64 Business, INNOV
Management decision 2 C 2 27 Management, INNOV,
1 - conceptual
Organization studies 4 A 1 56 Management, INNOV
International business research NA NA 1 111 Business, INNOV/ENT
Industrial management & data systems 2 NA 1 172 Management, INNOV
Knowledge management research & practice 1 D 1 251 Management, INNOV
Asian economic and financial review NA NA 1 15 ENT
International journal of entrepreneurial 2 C 1 75 ENT
behaviour and research
Journal of small business and entrepreneurship 1 C 1 16 ENT
Residuals − 15 136 Business and Management
− 13 − conceptual
Total 77 301

a including outlier with a sample of 2.295 cases

b including outlier with a sample of 1.241 cases
Int Entrep Manag J

acknowledged. Table 5 reveals the main themes and in particular the average sample
size within the mentioned research areas.
The analysis shows that fsQCA was applied in average with a medium sample size
ranging from an average n of 100 to 400 within entrepreneurship and innovation related
research fields. Moreover, a diversity of the corresponding main themes and so sub-
disciplines within the respective fields can be analyzed and is an additional indication
for further research streams in the future.
As Table 5 reveals, the research fields of entrepreneurship and innovation can be
differentiated between an organizational and individual level of analysis.
To enrich the dataset and give a fundamental and updated analysis for potential
future research, we analyzed the special issue of the Journal of Business Research that
represents the main outlet for research of fsQCA and was published in April 2016. The
special issue focuses on qualitative comparative analysis in business management and
was discussed and enriched by the Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy
(GIKA) conference. According to our field of analysis, we reviewed the special issue
and excerpt relevant articles of the clusters entrepreneurial activity and management
performance by Roig-Tierno et al. (2016) that are presented in the last table.

Table 5 Main themes and final samples used within ENT and INNOV research until 2016

Field Main themes Ø n Articles

Entrepreneurship (1) franchising, business models and performance 261 Wu (2015), Bell et al. (2014),
(2) high-technology firms Chandra Balodi and Prabhu
(3) firm performance recipes (2014), Shang-Yung and
(4) corporate governance Song-Ching (2014), Yen
(5) foreign IPOs & agency theory et al. (2014), Kask and
(6) social entrepreneurship models Linton (2013), Mair et al.
(7) entrepreneurial resources, counseling (2012)
activities and performance
(8) business relationships of start-ups
Innovation (1) innovative learning paths 365 Huang and Huarng (2015),
(2) performance of biotechnology firms Mikalef et al. (2015), Primc
(3) firm and export performance and Cater (2015), Meuer
(4) management innovation (2014), Ganter and Hecker
(5) restructuring the business model (2014), Castro et al. (2013),
(6) change of organizational structures, Stanko and Olleros (2013),
processes or boundaries El Sawy et al. (2010),
(7) new business models Schneider et al. (2010)
(8) organizational innovation and sources
(9) product and process innovation, inhibitors
(10) conditions of firms’ innovation performance
(11) intellectual capital and technological innovation
(12) outsourcing of innovation activities and
profitability
(13) dynamic capabilities and IT systems
(14) radical innovation in high tech industries
ENT & INNOV (1) impact of business incubators and 107 Mas-Verdú et al. (2015),
innovation on business survival Pustovrh and Jaklic (2014),
(2) innovation commercialization through ENT Cheng et al. (2013)
(3) open innovation and innovation policies
(4) product innovation performance
(5) entrepreneurial orientation
 Int Entrep Manag J

The analysis of the samples shows main clusters that are in conjunction with firm
performance and business model innovation and thus in the next chapter, we disclose
future potentials of fsQCA for this areas which can be used as an impulse for
forthcoming projects (Table 6).

Conclusion

Discussion

The purposes of this study were to provide a comprehensive mapping of fsQCA

applications in business and management research and to examine in this context the
sub-fields of entrepreneurship and innovation research (e.g., Ferreira et al. 2017) which
have expanded significantly during the past few years. To shed more light on the
current body of literature, we conducted a systematic literature review based on a
sample of 77 peer-reviewed journal articles, from the first application of fsQCA in
business and management research in 2005 until 2016. Therefore, to the best of our
knowledge it provides a complete overview of the existing literature in the domain of
fsQCA application in entrepreneurship and innovation research and reveals implica-
tions for future uses. Looking at the journals which have published fsQCA applications,
it can be noticed that the main outlet for research on fsQCA applications in business
and management is the Journal of Business Research (26 articles) followed by the
Academy of Management Journal (6 articles). Despite more than 10 years of interest for
the application of fsQCA in business and management research, a strong upturn can be
observed only since 2012. The method which has its roots in political science and
sociology, represents one type of QCA. One strength relies in the calibration of
measures that are transformed into concepts by assigning a membership on the interval
of 0 to 1. This procedure is derived from theory and thus well applicable for research
with a limited number of cases (Ragin 2000; Häge 2007). Especially, the situational
context and possible contingencies among the different conditions get observed and
allow to capture a high degree of complexity (Häge 2007; Woodside 2010). However,
one possible weakness of fsQCA refers to determining the membership criteria because

Table 6 Relevant articles of the special issue of the journal of business research

Field Main themes Articles

Business & Entrepreneurial Activities
Management - global entrepreneurship
monitor
- innovation systems
- social entrepreneurship
- entrepreneurial orientation
& performance
Management performance
- customer orientation
- consumption values
- business model design
Coduras et al. (2016), Beynon et al. (2016),
Chaparro-Peláez et al. (2016), Jenson et al.
(2016), Kuckertz et al. (2016), Ott and Kimura
(2016), Domenech et al. (2016), Leischnig and
Kasper-Brauer (2016), Muñoz and Kibler (2016),
Lisboa et al. (2016), Ospina-Delgado and
Zorio-Grima (2016), Wang et al. (2016),
Mozas-Moral et al. (2016), Navarro et al. (2016)
Frambach et al. (2016), Kulins et al. (2016),
González-Cruz and Cruz-Ros (2016), Nair and
Gibbert (2016), Gonçalves et al. (2016), Hai et al.
(2016)
Int Entrep Manag J

different conclusions can emerge from different cross-over points (Garcia-Castro and
Casasola 2011). But as the number of fsQCA studies increases sharply, the calibration
procedure can be improved through the disclosure of the different criteria types e.g.,
through online appendices and thus improve the overall understanding of the respective
theoretical field (Garcia-Castro and Casasola 2011; Rihoux et al. 2013). Our findings of
the literature review show that particularly firm performance often in conjunction with
innovation represent the major focus of treated subjects. In order to investigate future
research, we suggest that attention should be paid to the causal configurations of firm
performance and the role of business model innovation in relation to the firms’ growth
process.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the limitations to the objectivity of the
analysis results. First, we tried to refine a representative overview of the evolution
and current state of the application of fsQCA in business and management research
with the special focus on the sub-fields of entrepreneurship and innovation. However,
our literature review may not have captured all related articles. Further, the choice of
data according to the selected fields and its interpretation also for future potential
directions represent another limitation to the subjectivity of the researchers.
Overall, we believe that fsQCA is already much more than a Bfancy^ method, it is an
accepted and growing analysis that shapes thinking and crafts theory. Above all, it
finally answers the question of how to empirically identify success paths proposed
through the configuration approach theory (e.g., Mugler et al. 2003; Harms et al.
2009). It is highly adequate for social science studies due to the availability to fulfil
generality of results, to achieve accuracy of outcomes and to capture the complexity of
causally relevant conditions. The method furthermore contributes to the mixed methods
paradigm by combining quantitative analyses not only with a qualitative viewpoint, but
especially with the potential to do qualitative follow-up interviews afterwards to either
confirm the quantitative results or find better reasoning for deviations between expected
and actual results for specific success paths. It will therefore for sure enrich the
possibilities of any kind of entrepreneurship- and innovation-related research in the
future.

Avenues for further research

Anchored in our research on the application of the fsQCA method in business and
management research, we subsequently delineate exemplary potential research gaps
from the review which can be used for further research in specific sub-fields of
entrepreneurship and innovation:

Causal configurations of firm performance: Theoretical concepts and configurational

paths

As emphasized by various studies there are several different concepts that facilitate firm
growth which has become a key indicator for overall success within the multi-
dimensional construct of firm performance (Straub et al. 2004). One concept which
has been in conjunction with firm performance in various studies can be derived from
the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) literature which suggests that EO is an entrepre-
neurial decision-making process that can be characterized through the sub-dimensions
 Int Entrep Manag J

innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness (e.g., Bouncken et al. 2016; Rigtering

et al. 2014; Semrau et al. 2016). In this context, decisions about the firm’s core
activities, investments, relationships and networks outline the firm’s business model
which gets designed by the entrepreneur and is crucial for the survival and success of a
firm in the long run (Onetti et al. 2012). Thereby, DaSilva and Trkman (2014) suggest
that the right combination of resources and transactions should be considered.
Accordingly, the several theoretical elements can build configurational paths to an
innovative business model design (BMD). As the decision-making process of entre-
preneurs is pivotal to design an effective business model, a multi-level model following
the configuration approach (e.g., Mugler et al. 2003; Harms et al. 2009) can be
developed in which the individual as well as the organizational paths get examined
simultaneously by taking an holistic view into consideration. But rather than focusing
on effects of individual variables of the constructs, future research should focus on the
several configurations of the divergent theoretical concepts with their contextual
influences that explain firm performance.

Antecedents of business model innovation: Researching entrepreneurial activities

and capabilities

A significant number of scholars focus on business model innovation as a vehicle for

corporate transformation and renewal according to the firm’s life cycle where innova-
tion is a key success factor for firm performance (e.g., Chesbrough 2010; Trimi and
Berbegal-Mirabent 2012; Kraus et al. 2017). According to Zott et al. (2011), there is an
increasing consensus that business model innovation is the key to firm performance.
Thereby, business models represent a component of innovation commercialization that
is managed separately, but in accordance with the value innovation process (George
and Bock 2011). Doz and Kosonen (2010) propose that companies can be made more
agile and dynamic through developing three meta-capabilities: strategic sensitivity,
leadership unity, and resource flexibility. In a similar vein, Smith et al. (2010) highlight
how the effective management of complex business models Bdepend[s] on leadership
that can make dynamic decisions^ (p. 448) and Svejenova et al. (2010) highlight the
importance of relational dynamics at an informal level of organization. So far, only
limited research has been conducted in order to deepen the understanding of the
capabilities that are needed to implement business model innovation in a firm’s
organization and innovation processes. By including entrepreneurial oriented activities
and decision-making processes, development of relational dynamics and networks,
future research could result in models with multiple outcome types that investigate
the conjunctive conditions.

References

Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Fedriani, E. M., & Delgado-Márquez, B. L. (2014). Institutional distance among
country influences and environmental performance standardization in multinational enterprises. Journal
of Business Research, 67(11), 2385–2392.
Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors' perceptions of
foreign ipo value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301–320.
Int Entrep Manag J

Beynon, M. J., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2016). Country-based comparison analysis using fsQCA investi-
gating entrepreneurial attitudes and activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1271–1276.
Bouncken, R. B., Plüschke, B. D., Pesch, R., & Kraus, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical
alliances: Joint product innovation and learning from allies. Review of Managerial Science, 10(2)381–
409.
Castro, G. M.-d., Delgado-verde, M., Amores-salvadó, J., & Navas-lópez, J. E. (2013). Linking human,
technological, and relational assets to technological innovation: Exploring a new approach. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 11(2), 123–132.
Chandra Balodi, K., & Prabhu, J. (2014). Causal recipes for high performance. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 20(6), 542–561.
Chang, M.-L., & Cheng, C.-F. (2014). How balance theory explains high-tech professionals' solutions of
enhancing job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2008–2018.
Chaparro-Peláez, J., Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., & Pascual-Miguel, F. J. (2016). Conjoint analysis of drivers and
inhibitors of e-commerce adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1277–1282.
Cheng, C.-F., Chang, M.-L., & Li, C.-S. (2013). Configural paths to successful product innovation. Journal of
Business Research, 66(12), 2561–2573.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning,
43(2–3), 354–363.
Chia-Wen, C., Ting-Hsiang, T., & Woodside, A. G. (2013). Configural algorithms of patient satisfaction,
participation in diagnostics, and treatment decisions' influences on hospital loyalty. Journal of Services
Marketing, 27(2), 91–103.
Coduras, A., Clemente, J. A., & Ruiz, J. (2016). A novel application of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative
analysis to GEM data. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1265–1270.
Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2010). Using case-based approaches to analyse large datasets: A comparison of
Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(1),
31–48.
Covin, J. G., Eggers, F., Kraus, S., Cheng, C.-F., & Chang, M.-L. (2016). Marketing-related resources and
radical innovativeness in family and non-family firms: A configurational approach. Journal of Business
Research, in press. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.069.
Crilly, D. (2011). Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory.
Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 694–717.
Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in
response to stakeholder pressures. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1429–1448.
Dai, C.-Y., & Huang, D.-H. (2015). Causal complexities to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial instruction.
Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 894–899.
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning,
47(6), 379–389.
Denk, T., & Lehtinen, S. (2014). Contextual analyses with QCA-methods. Quality and Quantity, 48(6), 3475–
3487.
Domenech, J., Escamilla, R., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2016). Explaining knowledge-intensive activities from a
regional perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1301–1306.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business
model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 370–382.
El Sawy, O. A., Malhotra, A., YoungKi, P., & Pavlou, P. A. (2010). Seeking the configurations of digital
Ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 835–848.
Fan, D., & Zhu, C. J. (2014). How do Chinese multinationals perceive factors affecting the integration-
responsiveness framework? International Journal of Emerging Markets, 9(2), 181–204.
Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & Kraus, S. (2017). Entrepreneurship research: Mapping intellectual
structures and research trends. Review of Managerial Science. doi:10.1007/s11846-017-0242-3.
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review,
32(4), 1180–1198.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research.
The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Ford, L. R., Seers, A., & Neumann, J. (2013). Honoring complexity. Management Research Review, 36(7),
644–663.
Frambach, R. T., Fiss, P. C., & Ingenbleek, P. T. M. (2016). How important is customer orientation for firm
performance? A fuzzy set analysis of orientations, strategies, and environments. Journal of Business
Research, 69(4), 1428–1436.
 Int Entrep Manag J

Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: Qualitative comparative
analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1285–1292.
Garcia-Castro, R., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Family involvement in business and financial performance: A set-
theoretic cross-national inquiry. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 85–96.
Garcia-Castro, R., & Casasola, M. J. (2011). A set-theoretic analysis of the components of family involvement
in publicly listed and major unlisted firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(1), 15–25.
García-Castro, R., Aguilera, R. V., & Ariño, M. A. (2013). Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: A
fuzzy set analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(4), 390–407.
Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: Towards a better understanding of
past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(4),
492–521.
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship
research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(1), 83–111.
Gonçalves, H. M., Lourenço, T. F., & Silva, G. M. (2016). Green buying behavior and the theory of
consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1484–1491.
González-Cruz, T. F., & Cruz-Ros, S. (2016). When does family involvement produce superior performance in
SME family business? Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1452–1457.
Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in
strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit
effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695–726.
Häge, F. M. (2007). Constructivism, fuzzy sets and (very) small-N: Revisiting the conditions for communi-
cative action. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 512–521.
Hai, D. P., Roig-Dobón, S., & Sánchez-García, J. L. (2016). Innovative governance from public policy unities.
Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1524–1528.
Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Reschke, C. H. (2007). Configurations of new ventures in entrepreneurship research -
contributions and research gaps. Management Research News, 30(9), 661–673.
Harms, R., Kraus, S., & Schwarz, E. (2009). The suitability of the configuration approach in entrepreneurship
research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(1), 25–49.
Henik, E. (2015). Understanding whistle-blowing: A set-theoretic approach. Journal of Business Research,
68(2), 442–450.
Ho, H., & Lu, R. (2015). Performance implications of marketing exploitation and exploration: Moderating role
of supplier collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1026–1034.
Huang, C.-W., & Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Evaluating the performance of biotechnology companies by causal
recipes. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 851–856.
Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Configural theory for ICT development. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 748–756.
Iseke, A., Kocks, B., Schneider, M. R., & Schulze-Bentrop, C. (2015). Cross-cutting organizational and
demographic divides and the performance of research and development teams: Two wrongs can make a
right. R&D Management, 45(1), 23–40.
Jenson, I., Leith, P., Doyle, R., West, J., & Miles, M. P. (2016). Testing innovation systems theory using
qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1283–1287.
Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences
in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545.
Kask, J., & Linton, G. (2013). Business mating: When start-ups get it right. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 511–536.
Kent, R. A. (2005). Cases as configurations: Using combinatorial and fuzzy logic to analyse marketing data.
International Journal of Market Research, 47(2), 205–228.
Kent, R. A., & Argouslidis, P. C. (2005). Shaping business decisions using fuzzy-set analysis: Service
elimination decisions. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(5/6), 641–658.
Kraus, S., Brem, A., Schüssler, M., Schüssler, F., & Niemand, T. (2017). Innovative born Globals:
Investigating the influence of their business models on international performance. International Journal
of Innovation Management, 21(1)1–54.
Kraus, S., Mensching, H., Calabrò, A., Cheng, C.-F., & Filser, M. (2016). Family firm internationalization: A
configurational approach. Journal of Business Research 69,(11)5473–5478.
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Brem, A., Cheng, C.-F., & Chan, M.-L. (2016c). Strategies for reward-based
crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1), 13–23.
Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S. C., & Mpeqa, A. (2016). The more the merrier? Economic freedom and
entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1288–1293.
Kulins, C., Leonardy, H., & Weber, C. (2016). A configurational approach in business model design. Journal
of Business Research, 69(4), 1437–1441.
Int Entrep Manag J

Kvist, J. (2007). Fuzzy set ideal type analysis. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 474–481.
Leischnig, A., & Kasper-Brauer, K. (2015). Employee adaptive behavior in service enactments. Journal of
Business Research, 68(2), 273–280.
Leischnig, A., & Kasper-Brauer, K. (2016). How to sell in diverse markets? A two-level approach to industry
factors and selling factors for explaining firm profitability. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1307–
1313.
Leischnig, A., Geigenmueller, A., & Lohmann, S. (2014). On the role of alliance management capability,
organizational compatibility, and interaction quality in interorganizational technology transfer. Journal of
Business Research, 67(6), 1049–1057.
Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D., & Saridakis, C. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to performance: A
fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1319–1324.
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for Society: A typology of social Entrepreneuring
models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.
Marx, A., & van Hootegem, G. (2007). Comparative configurational case analysis of ergonomic injuries.
Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 522–530.
Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and
business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–796.
Mayrhofer, W. (2009). Groping in the dark? Recent contributions to progress in interpretative research - a
review. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 23(2), 166–182.
Mendel, J. M., & Korjani, M. M. (2013). Theoretical aspects of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA). Information Sciences, 237(0), 137–161.
Meuer, J. (2014). Archetypes of inter-firm relations in the implementation of management innovation: A set-
theoretic study in China’s biopharmaceutical industry. Organization Studies (01708406), 35(1), 121–145.
Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., Batenburg, R. S., & Wetering, R. v. d. (2015). Purchasing alignment under multiple
contingencies: A configuration theory approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(4), 625–
645.
Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of
corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.
Mozas-Moral, A., Moral-Pajares, E., Medina-Viruel, M. J., & Bernal-Jurado, E. (2016). Manager's educational
background and ICT use as antecedents of export decisions: A crisp set QCA analysis. Journal of
Business Research, 69(4), 1333–1335.
Mugler, J., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Korunka, C. (2003). The entrepreneurial personality in the context of
resources, environment, and the startup process. A Configuration Approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 28(1), 23–42.
Muñoz, P., & Kibler, E. (2016). Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach.
Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1314–1318.
Nair, L. B., & Gibbert, M. (2016). Analyzing inconsistent cases in management fsQCA studies: A method-
ological manifesto. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1464–1470.
Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction
using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339.
Ni, N., Egri, C., Lo, C., & Lin, C. Y.-y. (2015). Patterns of corporate responsibility practices for high financial
performance: Evidence from three Chinese societies. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 169–183.
Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M., & McDougall-Covin, P. (2012). Internationalization, innovation and
entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management &
Governance, 16(3), 337–368.
Ospina-Delgado, J., & Zorio-Grima, A. (2016). Innovation at universities: A fuzzy-set approach for MOOC-
intensiveness. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1325–1328.
Ott, U. F., & Kimura, Y. (2016). A set-theoretic analysis of negotiations in Japanese MNEs: Opening up the
black box. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1294–1300.
Peltoniemi, M. (2014). How do the determinants of firm survival change in the course of the industry life
cycle? A fuzzy-set analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(2), 223–239.
Prado, A. M., & Woodside, A. (2015). Deepening understanding of certification adoption and non-adoption of
international-supplier ethical standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 105–125.
Primc, K., & Cater, T. (2015). Environmental proactivity and firm performance: A fuzzy-set analysis.
Management Decision, 53(3), 648–667.
Pustovrh, A., & Jaklic, M. (2014). National innovation policies in the eu: A fuzzy-set analysis. Economic and
Business Review for Central and South - Eastern Europe, 16(1), 39–62.
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
 Int Entrep Manag J

Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political
Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.
Ragin, C. C. (2008a). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier,
H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 174–198). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2008b). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2008c). User's guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. www.fsqca.com.
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin
(Eds.), Configurative comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related tech-
niques (pp. 87–121). London: Sage Publications.
Rigtering, C., Kraus, S., Eggers, F., & Jensen, S. H. (2014). A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial
orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms. Service Industries Journal,
34(4), 275–294.
Rihoux, B., Álamos-Concha, P., Bol, D., Marx, A., & Rezsöhazy, I. (2013). From niche to mainstream
method? A comprehensive mapping of QCA applications in journal articles from 1984 to 2011. Political
Research Quarterly, 66(1), 175–184.
Roig-Tierno, N., Huarng, K.-H., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis: Crisp and
fuzzy sets in business and management. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1261–1264.
Rubinson, C. (2013). Contradictions in fsQCA. Quality and Quantity, 47(5), 2847–2867.
Schneider, M. R., & Eggert, A. (2014). Embracing complex causality with the QCA method: An invitation.
Journal of Business Market Management, 7(1), 312–328.
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social science: A guide to qualitative
comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional Capital of High-
Tech Firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International
Business Studies, 41(2), 246–266.
Semrau, T., Ambos, T. C., & Kraus, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across
societal cultures. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1928–1932.
Shang-Yung, Y., & Song-Ching, F. (2014). An exploration on the business model of social enterprises owned
by Chinese entrepreneurs in Taiwan. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 4(10), 1275–1289.
Shipley, M. F., Johnson, M., Pointer, L., & Yankov, N. (2013). A fuzzy attractiveness of market entry (FAME)
model for market selection decisions. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(4), 597–610.
Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C. N., & Saridakis, C. (2014). Examining the role of CSR skepticism using fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1796–1805.
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes
simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 448–461.
Stanko, M. A., & Olleros, X. (2013). Industry growth and the knowledge spillover regime: Does outsourcing
harm innovativeness but help profit? Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2007–2016.
Stokke, O. S. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness.
Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 501–511.
Straub, D., Rai, A., & Klein, R. (2004). Measuring firm performance at the network level: A Nomology of the
business impact of digital supply networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 83–114.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M., & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the making: A Chef’s quest
for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 408–430.
Tho, N. D., & Trang, N. T. M. (2015). Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to business
organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. Journal of Business
Research, 68(6), 1332–1340.
Tóth, Z., Thiesbrummel, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2015). Understanding configurations of relational
attractiveness of the customer firm using fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 723–734.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Trimi, S., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012). Business model innovation in entrepreneurship. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(4), 449–465.
Valliere, D., Na, N., & Wise, S. (2008). Prior relationships and M&a Exit Valuations: A set-theoretic approach.
Journal of Private Equity, 11(2), 60–72.
Wang, D. H.-M., Yu, T. H.-K., & Chiang, C.-H. (2016). Exploring the value relevance of corporate reputation:
A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1329–1332.
Int Entrep Manag J

Woodside, A. G. (2010). Bridging the chasm between survey and case study research: Research methods for
achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 64–75.
Woodside, A. G. (2011). Responding to the severe limitations of cross-sectional surveys: Commenting on
Rong and Wilkinson’s perspectives. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 19(3), 153–156.
Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a
paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of
Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.
Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple
realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.
Woodside, A. G., & Baxter, R. (2013). Achieving accuracy, generalization-to-contexts, and complexity in
theories of business-to-business decision processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 382–393.
Woodside, A. G., & Zhang, M. (2013). Cultural diversity and marketing transactions: Are market integration,
large community size, and world religions necessary for fairness in ephemeral exchanges? Psychology &
Marketing, 30(3), 263–276.
Woodside, A. G., Ko, E., & Huan, T. C. (2012). The new logic in building isomorphic theory of management
decision realities. Management Decision, 50(5), 765–777.
Wu, C.-W. (2015). Antecedents of franchise strategy and performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(7),
1581–1588.
Wu, C.-W., & Huarng, K.-H. (2015). Global entrepreneurship and innovation in management. Journal of
Business Research, 68(4), 743–747.
Wu, P.-L., Yeh, S.-S., Huan, T.-C., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service
dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional
services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1647–1670.
Yen, S.-Y., Tseng, T.-H., & Fan, S.-C. (2014). Exploring sufficiency conditions for entrepreneurial
environment and counseling activities on entrepreneurial performance. International Business
Research, 7(7), 1–9.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

View publication stats