You are on page 1of 12

Exploring large-scale,

multi-national qualitative
research within the EU

Laura C Engel & John Holford


University of Nottingham
The EU’s Research Programmes

 EU one of the world’s largest funders of cross-


national social science research
 Many involve qualitative methodologies
 ‘Framework programmes’ for Research &
Technological Development (FPs):
 Seven since 1984; each lasts 4-5 years
 Budget allocation approved by European Parliament
 Shaped by EU policy – not just research
 Projects selected for scientific merit and relevance to
EU policy goals
The EU’s Research Programmes

 Problems identified (c. 2000):


 Funding: EU invests less of GDP in R&D than competitors (<2% vs
approx 3% for US, Japan)
 Poor environment for research and exploitation of results
 Fragmentation of research activities and resources across member
states
 Solution proposed 2000: “European Research Area”
 Creating an "internal market" in research: area of free movement of
knowledge, researchers and technology, aimed at increasing
cooperation, stimulating competition and achieving a better allocation
of resources;
 Restructuring of European research fabric, by improved coordination of
national research activities and policies (these account for most of the
research carried out and financed in Europe);
 Developing a European research policy.
The 6th Framework Programme

 FP6 2002-2006 - budget: €17.5 bn


 dominated by natural sciences and engineering (funding for
social sciences only begin in FP4)
 budget for social sciences (FP6): approx. €250m.
 Increased emphasis on “big science”:
 FP6 seen as chief instrument to develop ERA
 applied to social sciences too
 Shift from medium- to large-scale projects: typical social
science projects:
 FP5: €1-1.5m, 2-3 years, 5-7 partners from across EU
 FP6: €4-6m, 5 years, 12-15 partners from across EU
 marked increase in managerial and financial complexity
The FP6 project on E&T
 Large-scale: 14 research partners
 Cross-national: Across 13 European countries
 11 EU + Norway, Russia
 including 7 from former socialist countries
 Long-term: 5 years
 Qualitative and quantitative elements
 English as the working language (11/14)
 Focus on first phase of project
 18 months
 documentary research, by teams in 13 countries
 analysed/reported by small co-ordinating group
Issues in large-scale cross-
national research (1)
 How do international research teams form, function,
and learn from one another?
 How are discourses of power generated and
conveyed with the research team?
 “intercultural learning … results from intercultural
experience” (Somekh & Pearson 2002, p. 500)
 “research projects with different cultural research traditions
can result in much time being spent early in the projects
devising a common methodology” (Troman & Jeffrey 2007,
p. 512).
 “it takes courage to risk giving precious time to such a
lengthy process [communal negotiation] when … deadlines
for deliverables and accountability … are coming up”
(Somekh & Pearson 2002, p. 501)
Issues in large-scale cross-
national research (2)
How are key concepts (e.g., ‘lifelong
learning’) translated & conceptualised?
 Cross-national research is more than “conveying
concepts, but part of the conceptual system,
reflecting institutions, thought processes, values
and ideology”,
 “the approach to a topic and interpretations of it
will differ according to the language of
expression” (Hantrais 1995. p. 4).
Our research questions

 What issues arise in the management of


large-scale cross-national research projects?
 How do cultural factors (including institutional
and historical diversity) affect the research
process?
 How does linguistic diversity affect the
research process?
Methodology
 questionnaire to 40 individual members of the
14 national project teams
 after completion of first phase of the research
(i.e., during second year of the full project)
 completed individually at in session of a
project meeting
 nine open-ended questions
Some Findings: Culture
 most team members saw differences between post-socialist and
western countries, particularly in the deployment of concepts:
 “since 1991 our understanding of those concepts [e.g., formal,
non-formal, informal learning] is getting closer to Western
understanding, but historical influences are still present”
(PM7)
 “it also depends on the culture in a broader sense. The longer
we are part of the EU, the better the common understanding
gets. At the moment, there is for example, a great difference
in what is considered learning, among not only academics, but
nations in a wider sense” (PF11)
 such projects develop inter-cultural learning and knowledge:
 “to work together is a good experience for western as well as
eastern European partners” (PF1)
 “different perspectives” are necessary to “capture the full
magnitude of Europe” (PF25)
Some Findings: Language
 Central concepts are difficult to translate and understand
 “Definitions of learning, formal learning, lifelong learning etc. vary
significantly in different national contexts, … formed an interesting
perspective for comparative research … [and] made the dialogue
between different teams highly complicated” (PF23 - EAL)
 In a multi-linguistic, multi-cultural research team working in
English, first-language English-speakers are advantaged but tend
to treat language as more transparent than it is:
 “just by observing the entire group in action it would appear that
those with the best English have always had the most to say at
meetings” (PF16 – native English-speaking)
 “it was interesting to see how native-speakers tried to translate
something in plain English, while it meant only adopting their local
contextual meaning to the words – they seem to be not thinking
outside their contexts and feel English words should have the
same meaning in England, Scotland, Ireland but also Estonia,
Austria, etc.” (PF15 - EAL)
 But “there has to be a working language! No difference if this is
English or any other language” (PM10 - EAL)
Some Findings: Management
 Building trust in a diverse research team takes time and effort:
 “finding common ground is very difficult with such a
heterogeneous partnership” (PF12)
 “important to put time and energy into team-building” (PF20)
 Discussion is essential in building a community of practice:
 “The problem is not language, but [being] part of one
community of practice” (PM10 – EAL)
 Deadlines for deliverables generate tensions:
 “did not give enough time to really discuss issues and come
out with a compromise which would fit” (PF3)
 “don’t put too many vital ‘outputs’ or ‘deliverables’ too early”
(PM4)

You might also like