Comparing ‘deep’ insider knowledge: developing analytical strategies for cross-national qualitative studies

Abstract

One overarching question in scholarly methodological discussions on qualitative comparative approaches concerns how it is possible to compare and generalise deep insider knowledge across (nationally) specific contexts. The aim of this article is to propose a research strategy that both facilitates the comparison and theorisation of such knowledge across nations and limits the risks of reproducing naturalised national 'truths'. The strategy is developed within a feminist, cross-national, qualitative comparative analysis of how European countries addressed military deaths in connection with the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. The article underlines the importance of collective analytical work and of strategies that allow continuous movement between insider and outsider positions throughout the research process. A number of analytical strategies are presented: collective project design, alternating between analytical closeness and distance, and de-familiarising writing practices.

Public Funding of Higher Education and Student Access

“…The problem with the term "comparison" is that it is mainly used as a flag of convenience, intended to attract international interest and money and the result is a "soft comparison" lacking any solid methodological grounds (Wendt, 2020). This study contributes to comparative higher education by showing that while universities have things in common, there are also differences.…”

Metatheme Analysis: A Qualitative Method for Cross-Cultural Research

“…Our protocols were designed carefully to avoid documented pitfalls to the largest extent possible, such as eliciting non-comparable datasets or the lack of documentation for implicit cultural knowledge (Hirsch et al, 2009, Quilgars et al, 2009). We prioritized the systematic aspects of research, developed shared sampling strategies, and built shared interview protocols that drew on our linguistic and ethnographic knowledge of each of the sites (Hirsch et al, 2020; Wendt, 2020; Wutich & Brewis, 2019). This included bringing on additional team members with relevant long-term ethnographic field experience to ensure adequate capacity at each field site.…”

“…Then, to perform cross-cultural analyses, researchers must produce meaningful translations that require careful translation and back-translation (Behr, 2017; Choi et al, 2012; Hennink, 2008; Regmi et al, 2010; Tsai et al, 2004). Finally, researchers must make complex and intersecting analytic decisions about how to compare texts generated across research groups (Quintanilha et al, 2015; Wendt, 2020). Thus, rigorous metatheme analysis across sites, cultures, and languages requires that all these challenges be addressed and resolved before even beginning to identify themes in the data.…”

Families and Food in Hard Times

“…This term refers to the risk of overemphasising aspects of cultural context in interpreting data within one societal context. There is, furthermore, a second danger that in comparing the same phenomenon we fail to realise that questions or concepts that seem self-evident may have an entirely different meaning in other contexts (Quilgars et al 2009;Wendt 2019). As Hantrais (2009, 72) suggests, 'concepts cannot be separated from contexts'; each national context has its own demography, cultural expectations and social welfare regime, based in political, cultural and ideological traditions.…”