“It’s the Method, Stupid.” Interrelations between Methodological and Theoretical Advances: The Example of Comparing Higher Education Systems Internationally

Abstract

This article argues that strong interrelations between methodological and theoretical advances exist. Progress in, especially comparative, methods may have important impacts on theory evaluation. By using the example of the “Varieties of Capitalism” approach and an international comparison of higher education systems, it can be shown that the use of improved data and of advanced analysis techniques changes the acceptance or rejection of the theoretical approach. As a conclusion, the article advocates data improvements, the use of advanced methods, more generally a methodologically reflexive interpretation of comparative research results as well as a closer cooperation between theory and method development.

Everybody’s monkey is important: LEGO® Serious Play® as a methodology for enabling equality of voice within diverse groups

“…There is broad consensus on the need for International Education (IE), for a variety of reasons; including the diversity of educational drivers around the world, globalisation and increasing mobility and recognition of the importance of global perspectives in the social sciences (Crossley and Watson, 2009;Hoelscher, 2017;Takayama et al, 2017).…”

Bringing the Theory and Measurement of Teaching into Alignment

“…From these two premises, we ask whether there is alignment between the community of practice's theoretical understanding of teaching quality, which undergirds the observation system, and the assumptions about the nature of teaching quality that are implied by choices in the measurement and analysis process. These must be in alignment if observation systems are to contribute to an improved understanding of teaching quality (Hoelscher, 2017;Kelcey, 2015;Shavelson & Towne, 2002;Stein et al, 2017).…”

“…A key takeaway here is that we cannot straightforwardly borrow measurement approaches across fields (or even across observation systems) without very carefully considering the assumptions about teaching quality that are implicit in those measurement approaches. We believe that stronger, coherent connections between theoretical understandings of teaching quality and the measurement of teaching can lead to (a) stronger connections between observation scores and measures of student learning, (b) clearer guidance for teachers from observation scores, (c) joint refinement of both theories of instruction and methods for measuring instruction (Hoelscher, 2017;Kelcey, 2015;Stein et al, 2017).…”

Between context and comparability: Exploring new solutions for a familiar methodological challenge in qualitative comparative research

“…We can use these patterns to theorise and build new theoretical assumptions about higher education's mode of operations and social dynamics (Diogo, 2015(Diogo, , 2019Kogan, Bauer, Bleiklie, & Henkel, 2006;Kosmützky, 2018;Teichler, 2014). However, comparative research (in higher education and beyond) also faces particular methodological challenges (for higher education, see, e.g., Antonucci, 2013;Kosmützky & Nokkala, 2014;Reale, 2014;and beyond, see, e.g., Hantrais, 2009;Hölscher, 2017;Smelser, 1976). Finding the balance between adequately describing the uniqueness of the context of the studied phenomena and maintaining sufficient common ground for comparability and analytical generalisation has widely been recognised as a key challenge in international comparative research for both variable-oriented quantitative research and case-based qualitative research (see, e.g., Goldthorpe, 1997;Przeworski & Teune, 1970;Ragin, 1987;Scheuch, 1967;Smelser, 1976; and for comparative higher education in particular, see, e.g., Goedebuure & van Vught, 1996;Teichler, 1996;Välimaa & Nokkala, 2014).…”

“…Meanwhile, a pronounced lack of methodological considerations exists for qualitative comparative research in the method literature. A partial explanation for this lack of reflection of qualitative comparisons in the methods literature might stem from the fact that quantitative comparative procedures and techniques have largely become dominant with the proliferation of large cross‐country data sets and also the data processing techniques itself have advanced enormously (e.g., Hölscher, ; Seeber, ). Another partial explanation might be related to the fact that hermeneutic and reconstructive methods of data analysis often consider a comparison to being their normal practice of research and basis procedure of analysis (e.g., in the grounded theory methodology (GTM), the documentary method, or the narrative analysis.…”