Combining methods: a key to understanding complexity in European societies?

ABSTRACT

Large-scale European research programmes have provided an impetus for social science researchers to co-operate more closely not only across national and cultural boundaries but also across disciplines and research paradigms. Attempts to make sense of diversity have led to a blurring of the traditional methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, opening up new perspectives and creating opportunities for synergy and complementarity. The paper draws on examples of the methods used in a cluster of European projects and networks in the field of family and welfare to illustrate the epistemological and practical problems raised when applying multi-methods approaches to research into European societies. It argues that, once these problems have been overcome, by combining methods within and across projects, researchers can expect to gain a deeper understanding of social phenomena in different national settings and develop new insights into complex issues.

Keywords:

• methods
• cross-national comparisons
• quantitative and qualitative paradigms
• social science
• family and welfare
• research and policy

Notes

1. The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) has strongly argued the case for remedying what is described as ‘an astonishing discrepancy between the potency and research ambitions across Europe and the current state of the European infrastructure backbone, where data on a European level either do not exist, are not available, or are not comparable’ (Christensen 2004: 6). In their report on the subject of infrastructures in the social sciences, the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB 2003) advocates adopting the widest possible definition of research infrastructures to cover the needs of the social sciences and ensure the competitiveness of European research.

2. A year after the first round of projects was launched under FP5, DG RESEARCH commissioned a monitoring exercise for a cluster of projects on the theme of Family and Welfare. Twelve projects and three networks were identified, including two from the TSER strand of FP4, nine from the first call and four from the second call of FP5. The brief for the expert reviewer was to report on the contribution of projects to the analysis of public policies and to organise two dialogue workshops between researchers and policy makers, at which the results would be presented and discussed.

3. A proposal (Communication from the Commission dated 16 June 2004) for funds to be earmarked under FP7 to support projects selected on the basis of scientific quality alone, irrespective of the number of countries, disciplines or topics of study, can be seen as recognition that the FPs do, and are likely to continue to, take account of non-scientific factors in promoting research in priority areas.

4. Following the launch of the ERA in 2000, the European Commission established networks to foster co-operation in research policy and practice between funding agencies. New Opportunities for Research Funding and Co-operation in Europe (NORFACE), which was one of the first social science ERA-NETs to be launched, is a partnership between the Academy of Finland, Research Council of Norway, Economic and Social Research Council (UK), Swedish Research Council's Scientific Council for Humanities and Social Sciences, Danish Research Agency's Danish Social Science Research Council, Icelandic Centre for Research and Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

5. Building on this experience, in 2003, DG RESEARCH commissioned 20 policy reviewers to identify EU policy directions in 280 or so projects and networks in the social science areas covered by the FPs, to draw out important policy conclusions or policy lessons, and to advance scientific understanding on matters relevant to EU policy.