Cross National Comparisons in Educational Research:

An obvious necessity for innovative practices

Cross national comparison in research

When individuals or teams set out to examine particular issues or phenomena in
two or more countries with the express intention of comparing their manifestations in
different socio- cultural settings(institutions, customs, traditions,value systems, life styles,
language, thought patterns), using the same research instruments either to carry out
secondary analysis of national data or to conduct new empirical work.

Advantages of cross National Research

 when researchers from different backgrounds are brought together on collaborative
or cross national projects
 valuable personal contacts can be established.
 Enabling them to capitalize on their experience and knowledge of different
intellectual traditions and to compare and evaluate a variety of conceptual
approaches.


ing finding in ae Research Methods

Key points
 Comparative research methods have long been used in cross-cultural studies to
identify, analyse and explain similarities and differences across societies.
 Whatever the methods used, research that crosses national boundaries increasingly
takes account of socio-cultural settings.
  Problems arise in managing and funding cross-national projects, in gaining access
to comparable datasets and in achieving agreement over conceptual and functional
equivalence and research parameters.
 Attempts to find solutions to these problems involve negotiation and compromise
and a sound knowledge of different national contexts.
 The benefits to be gained from cross-national work include a deeper
understanding of other cultures and of their research processes.
The comparative approach to the study of society has a long tradition dating back to Ancient
Greece. Since the nineteenth century, philosophers, anthropologists, political scientists and
sociologists have used cross-cultural comparisons to achieve various objectives.
For researchers adopting a normative perspective, comparisons have served as a tool for
developing classifications of social phenomena and for establishing whether shared phenomena
can be explained by the same causes. For many sociologists, comparisons have provided an
analytical framework for examining (and explaining) social and cultural differences and
specificity. More recently, as greater emphasis has been placed on contextualisation, cross-
national comparisons have served increasingly as a means of gaining a better understanding of
different societies, their structures and institutions.
The development of this third approach has coincided with the growth in interdisciplinary and
international collaboration and networking in the social sciences, which has been encouraged
since the 1970s by a number of European-wide initiatives. The European Commission has
established several large-scale programmes, and observatories and networks have been set up to
monitor and report on social and economic developments in member states. At the same time,
government departments and research funding bodies have shown a growing interest in
international comparisons, particularly in the social policy area, often as a means of evaluating
the solutions adopted for dealing with common problems or to assess the transferability of
policies between member states.
Yet, relatively few social scientists feel they are well equipped to conduct studies that seek to
cross national boundaries, or to work in international teams. This reluctance may be explained
not only by a lack of knowledge or understanding of different cultures and languages but also by
insufficient awareness of the research traditions and processes operating in different national
contexts.
Approaches to cross-national research
For the purposes of this article, a study is held to be cross-national and comparative, when
individuals or teams set out to examine particular issues or phenomena in two or more countries
with the express intention of comparing their manifestations in different socio-cultural settings
(institutions, customs, traditions, value systems, lifestyles, language, thought patterns), using the
same research instruments either to carry out secondary analysis of national data or to conduct
new empirical work. The aim may be to seek explanations for similarities and differences, to
generalise from them or to gain a greater awareness and a deeper understanding of social reality
in different national contexts.
In many respects, the methods adopted in cross-national comparative research are no different
from those used for within-nation comparisons or for other areas of sociological research. The
descriptive or survey method, which will usually result in a state of the art review, is generally
the first stage in any large-scale international comparative project, such as those carried out by
the European observatories and networks. A juxtaposition approach is often adopted at this stage:
data gathered by individuals or teams, according to agreed criteria, and derived either from
existing materials or new empirical work, are presented side by side frequently without being
systematically compared.
Some large-scale projects are intended to be explanatory from the outset and therefore focus on
the degree of variability observed from one national sample to another. Such projects may draw
on several methods: the inductive method, starting from loosely defined hypotheses and moving
towards their verification; the deductive method, applying a general theory to a specific case in
order to interpret certain aspects; and the demonstrative method, designed to confirm and refine a
theory.
Rather than each researcher or group of researchers investigating their own national context and
then pooling information, a single researcher or single-nation team of researchers the 'safari'
approach may formulate the problem and research hypotheses and carry out studies in more than
one country, using replication of the experimental design, generally to collect and analyse new
data. The method is often adopted when a smaller number of countries is involved and for more
qualitative studies, where researchers are looking at a well-defined issue in two or more national
contexts and are required to have intimate knowledge of all the countries under study. The
approach may combine surveys, secondary analysis of national data, and also personal
observation and an interpretation of the findings in relation to their wider social contexts.
Irrespective of the organisational structure of the research, a shift is occurring in emphasis away
from descriptive, universalist and 'culture-free' approaches to social phenomena. The societal
approach, which has perhaps been most fully explicated in relation to industrial sociology
(Maurice et al., 1986), implies that the researcher sets out to identify the specificity of social
forms and institutional structures in different societies and to look for explanations of differences
by referring to the wider social context. Another result of the greater emphasis on
contextualisation in comparative studies is their increasingly interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary character, since a wide range of factors must be considered at the lowest
possible level of disaggregation.
Problems in cross-national comparative research
The shift in orientation towards a more interpretative, culture-bound approach means that
linguistic and cultural factors, together with differences in research traditions and administrative
structures cannot be ignored. If these problems go unresolved, they are likely to affect the quality
of the results of the whole project, since the researcher runs the risk of losing control over the
construction and analysis of key variables.
Managing and funding cross-national projects
The mix of countries selected in comparative studies affects the quality and comparability of the
data as well as the nature of the collaboration between researchers. In ideal conditions, a project
team manager will be able to select the countries to be included in the study and researchers with
appropriate knowledge and expertise to undertake the work. In small-scale bilateral comparisons,
this may be feasible, but more often the reality is different, and participation may be determined
by factors (sometimes political) which do not make for easy relationships between team
members. European programmes often include all EU member states, although the countries
concerned may represent very different stages of economic and social development and be
influenced by different cultural value systems, assumptions and thought patterns.
The financial resources available for the research differ considerably from one national context
to another. Funding bodies have their own agenda: a topic that may attract interest in one country
may not obtain funding elsewhere.
The amount of time that can be allocated to the research, the ease with which reliable data can be
obtained and the relative expense involved are also likely to affect the quality of the material for
comparisons.
The problems of organising meetings which all participants in a project can attend, of negotiating
a research agenda, of reaching agreement on approaches and definitions and of ensuring that they
are observed are not to be underestimated. Linguistic and cultural affinity is central to an
understanding of why researchers from some national groups find it easier to work together and
to reach agreement on research topics, design and instruments. Even within a single discipline,
differences in the research traditions of participating countries may affect the results of a
collaborative project and the quality of any joint publications.
Accessing comparable data
In many European projects, national experts are required to provide descriptive accounts of
selected trends and developments derived from national data sources. The co-ordinators then
synthesise information on key themes and issues (see for example, Ditch et al., 1995). Since
much of the international work carried out at European level is not strictly comparative at the
design and data collection stages, the findings cannot then be compared systematically. Data
collection is strongly influenced by national conventions. Their source, the purpose for which
they were gathered, the criteria used and the method of collection may vary considerably from
one country to another, and the criteria adopted for coding data may change over time.
In some areas, national records may be non-existent or may not go back very far. For certain
topics, information may be routinely collected in tailor-made surveys in a number of the
participating countries, whereas in others it may be more limited because the topic has attracted
less attention among policy-makers. Official statistics may be produced in too highly aggregated
a form and may not have been collected systematically over time. In many multinational studies,
much time and effort is expended on trying to reduce classifications to a common base.
Concepts and research parameters
Despite considerable progress in the development of large-scale harmonised international
databases, such as Eurostat, which tend to give the impression that quantitative comparisons are
unproblematic, attempts at cross-national comparisons are still too often rendered ineffectual by
the lack of a common understanding of central concepts and the societal contexts within which
phenomena are located. Agreement is therefore difficult to reach over research parameters and
units of comparison.
For example, the demographic and employment statistics compiled at European level are socially
constructed and often conceal quite different national situations (Hantrais and Letablier, 1996).
Even the definition of a country or society can be problematic, since there is no single
identifiable, durable and relatively stable sociological unit equivalent to the total geographical
territory of a nation.
Language can present a major obstacle to effective international collaboration, since it is not
simply a medium for conveying concepts, but part of the conceptual system, reflecting
institutions, thought processes, values and ideology, and implying that the approach to a topic
and interpretations of it will differ according to the language of expression.
Although defining a time span may appear to be a simple matter for a longitudinal study,
innumerable problems can arise when national datasets are being used. These problems are
compounded when comparisons are based on secondary analysis of existing national datasets,
since it may not always be possible to apply agreed criteria uniformly.
Solutions to the problems of cross-national comparisons
Most researchers engaged in cross-national comparative work admit that such research, by its
very nature, demands greater compromises in methods than a single-country focus.
The problems of building and managing a research team can often be resolved only by a process
of trial and error, and the quality of the contributions to multinational projects may be very
uneven. The managerial skills and experience of the co-ordinators are, therefore, critical in
holding the team together, in obtaining material and providing the comparative framework for
the research, which also requires a sound knowledge and understanding of other national
contexts, their languages and intellectual traditions.
When existing large-scale data are being re-analysed, the solution is not to disregard major
demographic variables, since they may indicate greater intranational than international
differences. An attempt has to be made to establish comparable groupings from the most detailed
information available the raw data and to focus on the broader characteristics of the sample.
The solution to the problem of defining the unit of observation may be to carry out research into
specific organisational, structural fields or sectors and to look at subsocietal units rather than
whole societies.
Where new studies are being carried out, it should, theoretically, be possible to replicate the
research design and use the same concepts and parameters simultaneously in two or more
countries on matched groups.
Whatever the method adopted, the researcher needs to remain alert to the dangers of cultural
interference, to ensure that discrepancies are not forgotten or ignored and to be wary of using
what may be a sampling bias as an explanatory factor. In interpreting the results, wherever
possible, findings should be examined in relation to their wider societal context and with regard
to the limitations of the original research parameters.
Why undertake cross-national comparisons?
Although the obstacles to successful cross-national comparisons may be considerable, so are the
benefits:
 When researchers from different backgrounds are brought together on
collaborative or cross-national projects, valuable personal contacts can be established,
enabling them to capitalise on their experience and knowledge of different intellectual
traditions and to compare and evaluate a variety of conceptual approaches.
 Comparisons can lead to fresh, exciting insights and a deeper understanding of
issues that are of central concern in different countries. They can lead to the
identification of gaps in knowledge and may point to possible directions that could be
followed and about which the researcher may not previously have been aware. They
may also help to sharpen the focus of analysis of the subject under study by suggesting
new perspectives.
 Cross-national projects give researchers a means of confronting findings in an
attempt to identify and illuminate similarities and differences, not only in the observed
characteristics of particular institutions, systems or practices, but also in the search for
 possible explanations in terms of national likeness and unlikeness. Cross-national
comparativists are forced to attempt to adopt a different cultural perspective, to learn
to understand the thought processes of another culture and to see it from the native's
viewpoint, while also reconsidering their own country from the perspective of a
skilled, external observer.
References and further reading
Castles, F. (ed.) (1993) Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western
Democracies, Aldershot: Dartmouth.

This authoritative book examines the what, why and how of international comparative research. It offers
a comprehensive topic-based overview of the theory and practice of comparative research and
addresses the possible concerns of those both funding the research and using the findings.

Drawing on illustrations from the extensive international literature as well as real-life comparative
studies, the chapters guide readers through the many stages in the research process, from research
design and data collection to the analysis and interpretation of findings.

In a book that crosses national, societal, cultural and disciplinary boundaries, the author:
• Pinpoints practical problems and directs readers to tried and tested solutions, including multiple
method strategies.
• Draws on examples of policy transfer to examine how comparative research can inform policy making
• Provides guidance on the management of international research teams and projects.

This resource is the ultimate reference tool for students, researchers and practitioners undertaking
comparative research projects in international settings across the social sciences and humanities.

Chapter One1
International Comparative Research: Understanding the Past, Restructuring the
Present and Rethinking the Future
By Danielle Cliche, ICP Group, Canada
Introduction: Why Make the Effort?
International comparative research and analysis has become an important tool in the
development of domestic public policies and programs. It offers models for understanding and,
through the examination of similar efforts elsewhere, reduces the uncertainties inherent in policy
making. As we witness the transborder effects of integrating regions, national authorities also
recognize the effects of their decision making beyond their jurisdictions. Distinct from traditional
research fields of study, international comparative cultural research is multifaceted, multipurpose
and multidisciplinary, and employs techniques from other recognized disciplines. It has,
therefore, yet to receive its own academic legitimacy. In order for international comparative
cultural research to achieve "disciplinary" status, it must be built upon an area of knowledge and
comprised of basic assumptions, guiding principles and theories.
One of the main objectives of the Researchers' Forum was to take stock of some of the existing
methods and strategies of international comparative cultural research and to develop a common
understanding of related concerns with researchers from all over the world. It should be noted
that the purpose of this one-day session was not necessarily to discover solutions to various
scientific questions, but to unearth some basic assumptions about the work that has been done to
date. With this preliminary information in hand, further in-depth discussion on specific
methodological issues can be pursued.

Throughout the presentations and discussions over the three days of Crossing Frontiers, four
broad themes emerged as comparative research priorities for reflection. These included:
• examining the economies of applied research for policy development, and exploring the
linkages between public policy and international comparisons;
• recognizing the importance of both formal and informal networking in order to collect reliable
information;
• evaluating and reconstructing our methodologies. There was an eloquent call by participants
and researchers to rethink and surrender traditional research paradigms in order to ensure that
methodologies are inclusive; and
• collecting and processing international cultural statistics with both qualitative and quantitative
tools, and establishing new and better indicators.
This chapter will address each of these issues and will conclude with a compilation of
recommendations made by speakers and participants.