'Managing and Compromising in Cross-National Research: Is it worth the effort?'

1. Real Life Methods Part of the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods 'Managing and Compromising in Cross-National Research: Is it worth the effort?' Louise Ackers and Bryony Gill School of Law, University of Leeds

3. Why do empirical comparative work? • Adding value to a topic? • Example: Migration • Understanding different perspectives • Context in sending / receiving regions critical to nuanced understanding of migration determinants • Researching return Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

4. Can you do research on migration ‘within country’? • Flows/drivers or post-migration experience? Why work in cross-national TEAMS? • Scale Sharing data – e-research IMPAFEL database, Mobex 2 nodes Costs – funding bodies and funding policies • ESRC v European Commission eg

5. Selecting your approach • ‘Safari’ method criticised in the past (by us too!) as form of essentialism or cultural arrogance – lack of understanding of social processes/phenomenon in their national context. What can we know as outsiders? • Early forms of ‘unequal’ partnerships; again criticised as a form of exploitation of ‘weaker’ partners – as data gatherers. Dominant co-ordinator – often in the West. Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

6. But: • Many partners want to be unequal – want to undertake the quantifiable aspects of research – and dont want the responsibilities of application/report writing/ financial management/ dissemination [task-based] • Do partners share common goals? Motivations (publication or finance driven?) • How to deal with failing or ‘sleeping’ partners? ‘compromises in methods’ • Enforcing objectives – ensure comparability some standardisation? • Finding Good Partners and nurturing them – • arranged marriages?

7. Lost in translation? • Practical difficulties • Language • Reliance on data provided (e.g. transcripts) – use of pilots etc and ‘sanctions’ but…. • Both cross-cultural and inter-disciplinarity limits, non-academic partners- common approaches • Respect and effective co-working: Credibility of researchers (gendered? age and experience) • Conceptual difficulties • Common concepts? (e.g. pension/ staff levels) • Credibility e.g. is qualitative research valued/understood? Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

8. Achieving comparability • Developing the research together • Meeting Together – project planning stage – ‘kick-off’ designing instruments– analysis – costs of meeting • Using Templates versus ‘leading by example’ • Pilot • Involving areas of interest (egICT?) • If problems are encountered? • The partner as ‘gatekeeper’ • Mediation – and knowing when to stop. • Finding alternatives – other partners? • Data Analysis • Reporting/writing up Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

9. Achieving understanding • Working together • Ethnography - example • Visits – building trust and avoiding misunderstandings • Tying the partner in to the end – national level dissemination/impact Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

10. Benefits of comparative work • Academic case • Potential for long-term future collaboration • Team working – sharing the load • Reflexivity – esp at project design stage • Insights into our own country / system / self • Creates a more European identity • Challenging or Reinforcing stereotypes? Real Life Methods, part of the National Centre for Research Methods

11. The Bulgarian Academy of Science

12. Stereotypes Contact Details: h.l.ackers@leeds.ac.uk or b.gill@leeds.ac.uk