Abstract
Comparative research design, at its best, in an international project focused on a complex topic, is a dynamic, iterative and on-going process. In the CINHEKS study this proved to be the case, both by design and in several ways our team did not, nor could not, anticipate. The tensions between purposeful planning, inevitable setbacks and serendipity turned out to be one of the most interesting aspects of CINHEKS and the purpose of this chapter is to take a step back, well outside methodological convention, to holistically and critically reflect on the lessons learned during the planning and execution of the CINHEKS comparative study. This chapter is an analysis of our efforts regarding the complexities of the evolution of an international research project from its genesis to its conclusion. The authors, both members of the primary grant-writing team focus on research design and the relationship between successes beyond our wildest expectations and serious challenges we did not always fully appreciate or anticipate: And the ways in which the two ends of this spectrum are inextricably bound together.
To accomplish our purpose, we firstly elaborate the CINHEKS research design, challenges and novelty. Secondly, we draw specific attention to the challenges we encountered while preparing for and executing CINHEKS. Thirdly, we spotlight examples of novelty that arose during the project, especially those which arose out of a volatile mix of situation management, damage control and opportunity. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of our original design and its execution with three questions:
-
What would we repeat?
-
What would we do differently?
-
What new ideas come to mind, given the experience we just shared and what are the implications of our efforts, when viewed as a whole?
This chapter is intended for those who wish to more fully understand the rationale of the research design we proposed and executed and especially the implications, risks and challenges inherent in this type of undertaking. At the same time, this chapter will benefit others considering this type of project, whether initiating a funding application or joining an effort initiated by others. Further, this chapter is written with evaluators in mind. Whether one is evaluating a project in a competitive funding process, an assessment of completed research or reviewing a journal article concerning a comparative study.
Plans are useless. But planning is essential
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The third major type of mixed-methods study , the transformative design (Creswell 2002) was grounded in our efforts and related to CINHEKS, in part, although outside the scope of the CINHEKS study per se. Specifically, several opportunistic studies, fully focused on process, arose during the course of the CINHEKS study and were jointly undertaken with members of sister research projects in the same ESF research program as CINHEKS (Hoffman et al. 2013a, 2014). In this sense, depending on the perspective one took, three major design options (Sequential, concurrent and transformative) were fully in use when thinking about CINHEKS, in the broadest sense.
References
Aittola, H. (2001). Academic life and the pressure of massification. In Finnish higher education in transition: Perspectives on massification and globalisation (pp. 111–138). Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bennett, M. (1993). Torwards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21–72). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). The science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Geiger, R. (1999). The ten generations of American higher education. In American higher education in the 21st century (pp. 38–70). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Hoffman, D. (2010, November) Articulation work and key tension areas. Conference symposium contribution with Välimaa, J., Kollasch, A., Horta, H., Ewen, A., Blasi, B., & Kosmützky, A. In Key challenges in mixed-methods international comparative higher education studies. Association for the Study of Higher Education conference. Charlotte, NC, USA.
Hoffman, D., Raunio, M., & Korhonen, M. (2011). Finnish universities: Car dealerships, churches or cultural institutions? In Public vices, private virtues? Assessing the effects of Marketization in higher education (pp. 273–296). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.
Hoffman, D., Blasi, B. Cools, C., Ćulum, B., Dragšić, Ž., Ewen, A., Horta, H., Nokkala, T., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Saarinen, T. (2013a, May). Hacking the methodological firewall: The sociological imagination and international comparative higher education studies. Conference paper. Ethnographies of higher education: Researching and reflecting “at home”. Prague, Czech Republic.
Hoffman, D., Babila Sama, T., El-Massri, A., Korhonen, M., & Raunio, M. (2013b). The best science, The best science in Finnish – And English – Or the best Finnish scientists? Recherches en Éducation (Research in Education), ISSN: 1954-3077, 48–62
Hoffman, D., Lee, J. Rhoades, G., & Shahjahan, R. (2013c, November). Domestic insights and comparative constructs: From Clark’s triangle to new heuristics. Symposium at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference. St. Louis, MO, USA.
Hoffman, D., Blasi, B., Ćulum, B., Dragšić, Ž., Ewen, A., Horta, H., Nokkala, T., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2014). The methodological illumination of a blind spot: Information and communication technology and international research team dynamics in a higher education research program. Higher Education, 67(4), 473–495.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Horta, H., Veloso, F. M., & Grediaga, R. (2010). Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science, 56(3), 1–16.
Kealey, D., & Protheroe, D. (1995). Cross-cultural collaborations: Making north-south cooperation more effective. Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency.
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2000). The market for publications in top economic journals: concentration and export ratios of authors’ current and Ph.D affiliations for the last two decades and power laws of scientific productivity. Discussion paper. Institute of Public Economics, University of Innsbruck.
Kosmützky, A., & Nokkala, T. (2014). Challenges and trends in comparative higher education: An editorial. Higher Education, 67(4), 409–422.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Shahjahan, R. A., & Kezar, A. (2013). Beyond the “national container”: Addressing methodological nationalism in higher education research. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 20–29.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Teichler, U. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An agenda for the future. In Academic mobility in a changing world: regional and global trends (pp. 338–358). London: J. Kingsley Publishers.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26.
Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education. New York: McGraw Hill.
Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2007). The future of Finnish higher education challenged by global competitive horizons. In Prospects of higher education: Globalization, market competition, public goods and the future of the university (pp. 185–200). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Vertovec, S. (2006). The emergence of super-diversity in Britain (Working paper 25). Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford.
Vulpe, T., Henderson, R., Bertrand, J., Hope-Simpson, M., MacDonald, D., Owen, L., Dasah, B., Kealey, D., Markwick, I., Weekes, R., & Protheroe, D. (2000). A profile of the interculturally effective person. Toronto: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hoffman, D.M., Horta, H. (2016). The CINHEKS Research Design: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. In: Hoffman, D., Välimaa, J. (eds) RE-BECOMING UNIVERSITIES?. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7368-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7369-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)