Transcript Cross-national research: challenge, co

Cross-national research: challenge,
co-operation and compromise
ESRC/NCRM TRAINING
SEMINAR 12-13 June 2006
Institute of Education London
Susanne MacGregor
LSHTM University of London
June 13 2006: The use and integration of different types of
methods and data in cross-national comparative research





Taking context into account
Specifics of cross-national research
Specifics of policy- or problem-focused
research
Influence of paradigm and choice of design
Organising and managing complexity
FRAMES AND PERSPECTIVES – the pivotal phase
in developing relevant research is framing the
questions
Failing to take context into account



Policy transfers – eg. social enterprise
Misinterpretation of secondary data
Waste of resources on experimental designs
Comparing across nation-states







Constitution
Laws and regulations
Institutions
Language
Economy
Population
Territory
Research-policy interface – distinct
approaches
Theory
Science and rationalism
Experience
Pragmatism
Critical stance
Accept bounds of what is
possible
Analysis
Solutions
Independent universities
and research centres
Accountable public
administration
Policy research: desires and wants








Useful
Understandable
Relevant
Timely
Practical
Clear
Simple
Certain
Policy research - issues







Availability of evidence or data
Research capacity
Ethics and governance
Partnership working
Scaling up and policy transfer
Ownership
Publication and dissemination
Multi-city study of drug misuse in
Europe: R. Hartnoll et al 1989





Aim at Europe-wide approach to indicators
Amsterdam, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Paris, Rome
and Stockholm
Method – iterative process: review available data;
critical review of common indicators; compare trends
and prevalence
Survey data reviewed; use of case studies;
involvement of experts
Recommendations on how to improve indicators
Conclusions




‘indicators even when they seemed to reflect
comparable entities were created in social systems
based on substantial differences in perspective and
practice regarding drug misuse’
Variability in terms of who or what was counted;
population base to which referred; time period
involved
Indicators to be looked at as a package
Need for administrative structure to produce routine
information
Recommendations for consistent standard
information from different sources – EMCDDA in
Lisbon



A centre with sufficient resources to routinely
collate information both statistical data and
qualitative information and intelligence
required to make sense of the data
Standard guidelines and protocols for
collecting and reporting data
A consistent format for producing reports
and mechanisms for dissemination
Précarité

‘few English speakers understand what is
meant by ‘precariousness of employment’.
By contrast the equivalent terms in French,
Italian and Spanish convey an unequivocal
meaning. The notion has rarely been used in
Germany’ (Barbier).
DESIGN AND DISCIPLINES
SCIENCE
SOCIAL SCIENCE
HUMANITIES
Research design
generalisable
Engineering
model
universal
RCT
SURVEY
Illuminating
local
enlightenment
particular
CASE-STUDY
DESIGN AND CONTEXT
Single unit
Individual or event
Host in an
environment
CONTROL
appropriateness
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE
Complex interaction
Systems analysis
Vignettes
Model cases
Context – institutions
Policy debates
Perceptions of issue
Distinct intellectual
traditions
CONTEXT AS OBJECT OF STUDY
DESIGN AND MEASURES
Mortality rates
Life expectancy
Common standards
Human rights
UNIVERSAL MEASURES
Targets
Quality measures
Social expenditure
Decommodification
Social rights
Agreed negotiated
standards
League tables
BENCHMARKS
Capturing difference
TYPOLOGIES AND MODELS
Rapid Situational Assessment





Routine and existing data plus some new
data collection
Physical, social, economic, policy
Focused, targeted, multi-method, working
with the community
3 months minimum, intensive team activity
Training of field workers, action research
Taking context into account – methods







Delphi methods – experts – how identified?
National partners’ knowledge – vary re. discipline,
location, career paths, expectations
Panels or juries
Public opinion surveys
Standard measures – McDonald’s prices
Human development index
Observatories or Monitoring Centres
Organising and managing complexity






Networks
Observatories
Liaison roles
Partners
Multi-disciplinarity
Communication
Conclusion – key issues






Resources
Negotiating common criteria
Balance of external and internal standards
Role of coordinator and local focal point
Risk of misinterpretation
Bureaucratic versus scientific missions