Over the last decade there has been a significant growth in comparative, crossnational research and recognition of its potential significance in responding to globalisation pressures. A range of methodological approaches have been documented. However, whilst a growing literature exists on undertaking comparative research generally, less has been published on the experiences of undertaking qualitative research in a cross-national context, particularly in social and housing policy. Qualitative research provides opportunities to gain more detailed understandings of behaviour, attitudes and experiences across countries, but it also raises some of the greatest challenges with respect to interpreting data. This article utilises an eight nation study on housing security and insecurity to make transparent some of the key issues raised in qualitative, cross-national work, including the selection of locations and interviewees, interviewing and analysing material within an institutional context. It argues that further critical sharing of research accounts is required in this important area.Comparative, cross-national social research has a long history, particularly within political science and sociology, but it has developed at a fast pace in the last 15 years in recognition of what might be learnt from policies in other countries in a context of increasing globalisation processes. Whilst all social science is comparative (Doling, 1997), and international comparisons can be made at many levels (including across localities, institutions, regions and even continents), the main focus of comparative analysis has been on explaining the differences and/or similarities between nation states (Hantrais, 1999). In line with broader social science, a range of approaches have dominated comparative housing policy, most particularly Universalist/Macro perspectives that stress convergence between countries and Culturalist/Middle-range perspectives that have highlighted diversity and divergence, with an acknowledgment that studies often combine elements of both (Doling, 1997;Kemeny & Lowe, 1998;Lowe, 2004). Within both approaches, but particularly the former, quantitative research has dominated research, with this balance not being redressed with the emergence of 'micro-scale' comparative housing studies (focussing on cities or regions) utilising