Commentary on the comparative process

Working closely together for two years since June 2006, the 21 national teams that comprise the EU Kids Online network have developed constructive working arrangements designed to capture similarities and diversity across member states so as to facilitate the identification of common patterns, themes and best practice. This twin dynamic of recognising difference and drawing out shared understandings was originally developed in our three- national ‘pilot’ comparison (Hasebrink et al, 2007) and has proved productive.

Thus, we developed a comparative strategy to ‘add value’ on a European level to the many national studies conducted in different countries, disciplines and languages (identified in Staksrud et al, 2009). For those in similar or related domains who are contemplating the conduct of an cross-national analysis of similarities and differences in findings, we propose that our analytic framework and working methods can be of considerable value.

As illustrated in figure 4.1, the strategy required a set of countries (C1… Cn) to work collaboratively to frame research questions relevant to all (RQ1… RQn). These research questions and hypotheses provided a means of explicating the possible cross national similarities and differences, trends and associations that can be derived from the existing research literature and/or are of relevance to safety and risk policy. These were addressed in turn in chapter 2, as summarised above.

The process of comparative analysis can be represented schematically as a grid. • Reading horizontally, country level

reports were generated by using the available data to answer each research questions at the national level (i.e. findings for Belgium, France, UK, etc). These national reports are available on the EU Kids Online website for the 21 countries included in the network.

• Reading vertically, comparative reports are generated by using the cross-national data pertinent to each research question (i.e. findings for age, gender, skills, coping, etc).

• Insofar as the comparative reports identified cross- national similarities, the focus was on the individual level of analysis (c.f. figure 1.1). Insofar as they identified differences, the focus was on the country level of analysis (i.e. the five contextual factors also shown in figure 1.1, plus a series of background factors).

This approach, we conclude, achieves a systematic and

structured outcome in terms of comparative analysis.

Regarding Kohn’s (1989) main rationales for comparative research, outlined at the start of this report and here pursued in terms of three of his four approaches, the present strategy permitted us to achieve the following: • Treat countries as objects of analysis in their own

right. This approach employs an idiographic lens to understand countries for their own sake; comparison provides a useful strategy for ‘seeing better’ and determining what is distinctive (or not) about a country. It was achieved through production of the country reports.

• Treat countries as the context for examining general hypotheses. This approach analyses tests general theoretical models across nations, hypothesising similarities across countries while also permitting findings of cross-national differences to challenge or limit claims. It was here achieved through production of the comparative reports at the individual level of analysis.

• Treat countries as units in a multidimensional analysis. This approach seeks to explain patterns of similarities and, particularly, differences across countries, by inquiring into the external indicators that explain how and why nations vary systematically. This was achieved, here through production of comparative reports at the country level of analysis (i.e. explaining the cross-national classification in terms of contextual factors).

We conclude that this comparative strategy has been broadly successful, and offer the following brief comments in terms of methodology.

• Specifically, our approach permitted a clear translation of three main rationales for cross-national research into an effective strategy for comparing countries on multiple dimensions, as organised through a clear theoretical framework.

• The analysis could thereby respect findings of both pan-European similarities and differences. It could test specific hypotheses and also address open research questions. It could situate each country in the context of others, and it could situate the individual child in the context of national cultural factors.

• On the other hand, the process was undoubtedly demanding in terms of research effort – both for each national research team and in terms of the management of and commitment to a highly collaborative and iterative working process.

• The analysis was also limited by the quality and extent of the available evidence base – the many gaps in the data and the many differences in definitions, sample and methods used for such core issues as online use

and risk meant that all claims and conclusions in this report must be treated as indicative rather than conclusive.

• Simply put, some data was weaker than could be wished, some was lacking and some was difficult to interpret. We proceeded, therefore, on the bold assumption that conducting comparisons is preferable to saying nothing about pan-European patterns, since some added value must surely be extracted from the many studies conducted. But we did so with extreme caution, not least in order to stimulate more and better research in the future.

• The hardest task, other than locating relevant data and negotiating its significance across the network, was in producing the country classifications. Some may argue that these are too reductive, turning differences in degree into absolute differences. But for theoretical and pragmatic reasons, we propose that country classifications are useful, providing a means of discussing similarities and differences as well as focusing attention on policy priorities (notably, high risk countries).

• It is also noteworthy, if unsurprising, that although most available findings were national studies, for many purposes the comparative European data (mainly Eurobarometer, though other sources were also useful) provided the strongest basis for cross-national analysis.

• In terms of quality control, we have sought to explicate the basis for our claims and conclusions throughout, facilitating a ‘read back’ from conclusions to the evidence base for those and, further back, to the country reports and original reports of data (available at www.eukidsonline.net) from which they were derived.

• Many comparative studies produce the empirical basis for cross-national comparisons but end their work at the stage of producing a series of country reports, effectively leaving the task of identifying and explaining observed similarities and differences to the reader. We hope our present work provides a model for the crucial stage of comparative analysis that can systematize and maximise the benefits of cross-national research. While it has been our intention to extract as much value for the diversity of studies conducted on topic of children’s online use, opportunities, risk and safety, there can be little doubt that more research, rigorously conducted on a