Cross-national research: challenge, co-operation and compromise

1. 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

2. 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

3. FRAMES AND PERSPECTIVES – the pivotal phase in developing relevant research is framing the questions

4. Failing to take context into account • Policy transfers – eg. social enterprise • Misinterpretation of secondary data • Waste of resources on experimental designs

5. Comparing across nation-states • Constitution • Laws and regulations • Institutions • Language • Economy • Population • Territory

6. Research-policy interface – distinct approaches

7. Policy research: desires and wants • Useful • Understandable • Relevant • Timely • Practical • Clear • Simple • Certain

8. Policy research - issues • Availability of evidence or data • Research capacity • Ethics and governance • Partnership working • Scaling up and policy transfer • Ownership • Publication and dissemination

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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).

13. DESIGN AND DISCIPLINES

14. Research design

15. DESIGN AND CONTEXT

16. DESIGN AND MEASURES

17. 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

18. 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

19. Organising and managing complexity • Networks • Observatories • Liaison roles • Partners • Multi-disciplinarity • Communication

20. 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