The field of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is witnessing a heated debate on which one of the QCA’s main solution types should be at the center of substantive interpretation. This article argues that the different QCA solutions have complementary strengths. Therefore, researchers should interpret the three solution types in an integrated way, in order to get as much information as possible on the causal structure behind the phenomenon under investigation. The parsimonious solution is capable of identifying causally relevant conditions, the conservative solution of identifying contextually irrelevant conditions. In addition to conditions for which the data provide evidence that they are causally relevant or contextually irrelevant, there will be conditions for which the data neither suggest that they are relevant nor contextually irrelevant. In line with the procedure for crafting the intermediate solution, it is possible to make clear for which of these ambiguous conditions it is not plausible that they are relevant in the context of the research.

定性比较分析 (QCA) 领域正在发生一场激烈的辩论，即 QCA 的主要解决方案类型之一应该成为实质性解释的中心。本文认为不同的 QCA 解决方案具有互补优势。因此，研究人员应该综合解释这三种解决方案类型，以便尽可能多地了解所调查现象背后的因果结构。简约的解决方案能够识别因果相关的条件，而保守的解决方案能够识别上下文不相关的条件。除了数据提供证据表明它们是因果相关或上下文不相关的条件外，还有数据既不表明它们相关也不表明它们与上下文无关的条件。