WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 |

«The Methodological Challenge of Cross-National Research: comparing cultural policy in Britain and Italy Eleonora Belfiore Research Fellow Centre for ...»

-- [ Page 7 ] --

Another important factor that also bears important implications for the cross-national analysis of the development of cultural policy in the two countries is the fact that Britain is a common law country (where changes in public administration can be made without largescale law-making exercises being required), whereas Italy is a public law country (where change in law is required in advance, though is generally not sufficient to insure the implementation of changes in actual policy) (Lo Schiavo 2000, 693).

TOWARDS AN APPROPRIATE COMPARATIVE METHODOLOGY: THE

CONCEPT OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

In the light of the preceding arguments and the case study of Britain and Italy, we are forced to conclude that the methodologies that currently guide comparative cultural policy research are largely inappropriate, and do not meet the specific requirements of cross-national research.

The final section of this paper will thus attempt to offer some suggestions towards the development of a more appropriate methodology for comparative, cross-national analysis within the cultural policy field. To this end, inspiration can be drawn from research and debates that have taken place in the context of other academic disciplines. In particular, comparative social research and comparative policy studies seem to be the areas that can provide the richest wealth of implications for the field of cultural policy studies. In particular, the notion of contextualization elaborated by social researchers will be shown to be especially significant and useful.

The reason why it seems convenient to look at these disciplines for a way out of the methodological impasse in which comparative cultural policy research seems to have been trapped, is that the theorization and discussion of methodological concerns in cross-national research are more developed within these academic fields. Moreover, a review of the available literature in cross-national social research and policy analysis reveals that the problems that scholars within these fields have had to face, when developing suitable research methodologies, are substantially similar to those facing the cultural policy researcher. Significantly, Hantras and Mangen (1999, 91), who have written extensively on the topic, consider that some of the crucial issues inherent in a comparative approach to social research stem from the fact that “[m]uch of the officially sponsored research is primarily dictated by pressures to extract ‘lessons from the homeland’”. They report that only recently the sector has witnessed the establishment of a more robust research agenda aiming at the definition of wellconstructed models and the testing of theories. However, they conclude that much of the extant literature on the comparative research process tends to focus on ‘thematic content and findings’ rather than on theorizations and explorations of the theory and

methodology of the research process. They maintain that:

[T]he growing interest in cross-national comparisons within the social sciences since the 1970s has not therefore been matched by commensurate advances at the theoretical and practical level.

As a result, the material collected in international projects is often not directly comparable, and the findings reported to sponsors may be biased or misleading” (Hantrais and Mangen 1999, 91).

These observations indeed reflect the objections moved against current practices in cross-national research in the cultural policy field cited earlier in this paper. These methodological difficulties, thus, are not exclusive to this field of study, but seem rather intrinsic to international comparisons of cultures and policies. However, the existence of these problems has been acknowledged and thus appropriately confronted in the social sciences. A number of ways have hence been suggested in order to be able to compare cultures and policies across nations in a more rigorous and meaningful way.

In particular, the most interesting contribution that comes from the sociological field is the development of contextualization as an approach to cross-national comparative research that can successfully circumvent some of the difficulties inherent in this type of research (Hantrais and Mangen 1999; Hantrais 1999).

Linda Hantrais (1999) maintains that contextualization is central to all the possible approaches to comparative social research. Currently, social scientists are indeed showing an increasing interest in issues surrounding contextualization, which is now considered a fundamental component in cross-national comparative studies. Hantrais (1999, 94) writes that “… an in-depth understanding of the socio-cultural, economic and political context in which social phenomena develop is a precondition for successful cross-national comparative research”. In the same paper, she also delineates the development of the discipline over time, and the changing attitudes toward the importance of context in cross-national research. She identifies three possible approaches to comparative social research: the universalist, culturalist and societal approach.

According to Hantrais’s schematisation, the belief of the early sociologists in the possibility of deriving general laws from sociological observation (in order to explain social phenomena across different cultures) deeply affected the international comparative research that was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s. Cross-national social research at this stage “…was grounded in the assumption that universal characteristics could be identified in social phenomena, independently from a specific context… This is because universalist theory was culture or context free” (Hantrais 1999, 94). The problem with the universalist approach is that it results in a research process which places its emphasis on the search for similarities and points of convergence among nations and cultures. It thus ignores the specificity of the social, political and cultural contexts of the social phenomena studied, since it is based on the assumption that “there are shared, universally identifiable, pressures and trends working across all industrialized societies” (O’Reilly quoted in May 1997, 181) Alongside this school of thought, a rather different approach was elaborated by the Chicago School in the 1920s and 1930s, on the basis of a number of studies that were undertaken on cultural diversity in urban settings. Whereas the universalists’ body of research aimed at seeking uniformity and commonalities among countries (in order to draw generalizations and infer theories from observations), the Chicago School chose to concentrate their attention rather on particularism and national uniqueness. They aimed at trying to underline differences among countries and cultures through comparative research. If the universalist approach takes no regard of context, the culturalist one is based on relativism and culture-boundedness.





Accordingly, the very possibility of generalizing from field observations was rejected on the basis of the denial of the existence of universal concepts that could be meaningful across national boundaries. Indeed, this approach “placed such great emphasis on social contexts and their specificity, distinctiveness or uniqueness, that meaningful comparisons and generalization were made very difficult, if not impossible” (Hantrais 1999, 95).

In between these two extremes, Hantrais (1999, 96-97) places an intermediate position which she defines as the ‘societal approach’. This is based on the view that it is possible to generalise from observation, and hence derive theories, provided that the national specificity of the social, cultural and political contexts in which social phenomena manifest themselves is properly accounted for. This last, societal approach to comparative research is indeed at the basis of the methodological model that this paper strives to advocate for the achievement of a meaningful cross-national cultural policy research. Such an approach might successfully contribute to overcoming some of the limitations, and prevent some of the abuses, of current comparative research in this area. The problems that the comparative researcher might incur are made clearer by the distinction made in 1990 by Else Øyen (1990, 5between four archetypes of comparative researchers: the purists, the ignorants, the totalists, and finally, the genuine comparativists.

The ‘purists’ are those who firmly believe that comparative work is no different from any other type of sociological research. They would therefore not feel the need to accompany their comparative studies with any particular methodological discussion relative to the specific problems of cross-national comparisons. The second group is represented by the ‘ignorants’, who are clearly ethnocentric in their approach. They indeed recognize the special nature of cross-national work, but they tend to ‘import’ uncritically in their research theories and principles developed in other countries, irrespectively of social contexts and historical and cultural differences. In Øyen’s words, they “pursue their ideas and data across national boundaries without ever giving a thought to the possibility that such comparisons may add to the complexity in interpreting the results of the study” (1990, 5). This is unfortunately a very common tendency in the sociological tradition. The third group are the ‘totalists’ who are – at least in theory – aware of the complications and the methodological issues involved in comparative research. However, “[t]hey consciously ignore the many stumbling blocks of the non-equivalence of concepts, a multitude of unknown variables interacting in an unknown context and influencing the research in question in unknown ways. And they deliberately ignore the scientific requirements regarding the testing of hypotheses in settings which do not and cannot meet the conditions for such testing” (Øyen 1990, 5). Finally, the ‘comparativists’, believe that comparative social research is a type of research that poses very specific methodological problems that need to be addressed, and they tackle their research questions accordingly.

Øyen’s categorization is obviously based upon ideal types, and it is thus somewhat artificial and schematic. However, it has the distinct advantage of facilitating the task of qualifying the most common type of comparative research that has so far been undertaken within the field of cultural policy research. It seems possible at this stage of the discussion, to suggest that extant cross-national cultural policy analysis is markedly ‘totalist’ in nature. Indeed, the intent of this paper is precisely to argue in favour of the need for comparative cultural policy research to shift from a ‘totalist’ to a more genuinely ‘comparativist’ position.

RESEARCH VS. ADVOCACY

This paper has attempted to argue against a purely quantitative methodology, and against using public expenditure as the main cultural policy output measure, whilst at the same time alerting the reader to the inadequacy of the already mentioned ‘ten countries, ten chapters and a staple’ literature to generate true understanding of cultural policy issues across countries (Schuster 1996, 30). As noted earlier, changing patterns of public funding throw light on government’s changing priorities, which are of great importance in cultural policy. However, our argument is that comparisons of data on public expenditure on cultural policy alone do not suffice to offer explanations of developments within national cultural policies. Indeed, we have seen that one of the main problems with the currently available literature is its descriptive nature, and the fact that it does not always aim at providing an interpretation of the phenomena under observation, The descriptive moment is the necessary first step of any comparative research, but it will only produce information, not understanding. This is why there is a great need for a more theory-building approach to the study of cultural policy (Kawashima 1995; Schuster 1988, 6).

Equally important in defining an appropriate comparative methodology is the need to distinguish policy analysis from policy advocacy17. In Understanding Public Policy, Thomas R. Dye maintains unequivocally that “[l]earning why governments do what they do and what the consequences of their actions are is not the same as saying what governments ought to do, or bringing about changes in what they do. Policy advocacy requires the skills of rhetoric, persuasion, organisation, and activism. Policy analysis encourages scholars and students to attack critical policy issues with the For a discussion of the often-blurred divide between advocacy and research see Schuster (2002, 27-29) and Bennett (2004).

tools of systematic enquiry” (Dye 1975, 5). Unfortunately, as Dye himself recognises (1975, 14), this is often easier said than done, since the people who are actually undertaking policy research are often programme administrators, who have a vested interest in proving the success of their programmes. It is thus essentially important to separate as much as possible research from policy implementation and advocacy for funding. This is very difficult to achieve in practice though, in view of the way the cultural sector is structured and the way it works. More recently, Radin (2000, 92) has explicitly acknowledged that “[a]nalysts cannot insulate themselves from the dynamics of politics, interest groups, and deadlines”.

At the end of a detailed discussion of the many pressures that policy analysts have to operate under, Radin (Ibid., 105) concludes:

… the tensions between the imperatives of the two cultures – the cultures of analysis and politics – are not easy to avoid. They are a part of the day-to-day life of the policy analyst, playing out in different ways in different environments, and the stress that emanates from them is part of the lifeblood of the policy analysis profession and should be expected in a democratic system.

Analysts are rarely in the controlling role in this relationship, and most have acknowledged that their legitimacy is derived from elected or appointed political officials.

Although public policy experts agree that there has been a shift away from the belief that policy research can be fully apolitical (Radin 2000, 104), Oliver Bennett (2004) in a recent article warns about the consequences that are unavoidable whenever the researcher succumbs to the temptation of blurring of the boundaries between

research and advocacy:



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 |


Similar works:

«IMPORTANT: This policy memo has been partially or fully superseded by the USCIS Policy Manual. Please visit www.uscis.gov/policymanual for effective policy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000 November 15, 2013 PM-602-0091 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Parole of Spouses, Children and Parents of Active Duty Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Former Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or...»

«Inter-Institutional Academic Agreements Policy Academic Policy Group 1. Purpose: At a time when the University is entering into an increasing number of inter-institutional academic agreements, it is important that the University has a clear statement as to what it expects to achieve by entering into such agreements. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all future Inter-Institutional Academic Agreements (IAAs) support the strategic direction of Victoria University of Wellington, are...»

«CHAPTER 5 The Underlying Assumptions, Theory, and Practice of Neoliberal Land Policies Saturnino M. Borras Jr. In the early 1990s, neoliberal land policies emerged within, and became an important aspect of, mainstream thinking and development policy agendas. These policies have increased in prevalence since their inception at the end of the Cold War. They deal with both public and private lands, and have manifested in four broad policy types: (1) privatization and individualization of...»

«Cultura política e ideología. Enfoques contrarios o complementarios. Sherline Chirinos Evelyn de Tortolero (Investigadores de INFACES) RESUMEN En el marco de la investigación de los aspectos culturales de la política, pueden identificarse dos enfoques que corresponden a otros tantos paradigmas en el campo de las ciencias sociales. Uno, que desarrolla el concepto de cultura cívica, desarrollada especialmente por los sociólogos norteamericanos Almond y Verba; otro, que gira en torno del...»

«FIPS 140-2, BlockMaster Document Version: 1.3 BlockMaster BM-C1000 FIPS 140-2 Security Policy, Level 2 Revision Date: 19th of April 2011. Firmware Version 4.0 Hardware versions: BM-C1000-01, BM-C1000-02, BM-C1000-04, BM-C1000-08, BM-C1000-16, BM-C1000-32, BM-C1000-64 BM-C1000 Device ©Copyright 2011, BlockMaster. This document may be freely reproduced and distributed whole and intact including this copyright notice. FIPS 140-2, BlockMaster Document Version: 1.3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction...»

«820 First Street NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: 202-408-1080 Fax: 202-408-1056 center@cbpp.org www.cbpp.org Revised, April 26, 2006 WIC BUDGET PROPOSAL WOULD DISCOURAGE COST CONTAINMENT AND REPRESENTS UNSOUND POLICY By Zoë Neuberger and Robert Greenstein Summary The Administration’s budget proposes a significant policy change in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) that would have adverse effects on the program. This same proposal was...»

«Teen Dating Abuse Program Contact: Naomi Shatz 395 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014 (212) 925-6635 peo@legalmomentum.org www.legalmomentum.org/teens Model Dating Abuse and Sexual Violence Policy A Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Dating Abuse and Sexual Violence in New York City Schools Founded as NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1970. About Legal Momentum Founded in 1970 as NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Momentum is the nation’s oldest legal advocacy organization...»

«ACCREDITATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Effective for Reviews During the 2014-2015 Accreditation Cycle Incorporates all changes approved by the ABET Board of Directors as of October 26, 2013 Please Note: The ABET Board of Directors adopted revisions to ABET Constitution and the ABET By Laws in October 2012. This ABET Accreditation Policy & Procedure Manual is undergoing review and potential revision to ensure alignment with the ABET Constitution and By Laws. As this work proceeds, and until...»

«Research Policy Brief 26 Managing Capital Flows in Asia: Policy Issues and Challenges Masahiro Kawai and Mario B. Lamberte June 2008 The Asian Development Bank Institute’s (ADBI) research policy briefs are short, nontechnical pieces that summarize the key messages from ADBI research projects. They are available online via http://www.adbi.org/publications/ and in hardcopy. Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building 8F 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan Tel:...»

«ADA233 480 DlitDinmlent li Concept and Poli'cy Ed,~.~. Containment Concept and Policy No longer sold by GPO per telecon. 4/3/91 JK Containment Concept and Policy Based on a Symposium Cosponsored by the National Defense University and the Foreign Service Institute Edited by Terry L. Deibel John Lewis Gaddis IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME ONE National Defense University Press Washington, DC I.wym, llm • [I l National Defense University Press Publications To increase general knowledge and inform...»

«Careers and the Study of Political Science A Guide for Undergraduates Revised and expanded 6th edition Copyright © 2003 American Political Science Association All rights reserved. For noncommercial use only. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from APSA. ISBN 1-878147-30-7 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Choosing a Career Federal Government State/Local Government Nonprofits Law Business International Careers Journalism Campaigns and Polling...»

«211 CMR 65.00 211 CMR 65.00: LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE Sections 65.01: Purpose 65.02: Applicability 65.03: Authority 65.04: Definitions 65.05: Minimum Standards for Individual Policies 65.06: Mandatory Benefit Offers for Individual Policies 65.07: Form and Rate Filing Procedures for Individual Policies 65.08: Requirements for Agent Training and Marketing 65.09: Requirements for Disclosure 65.10: Protection against Unintentional Lapse 65.11: Prohibition against Post-Claims Underwriting 65.12:...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.