Comparative Studies

In 2010, The International Benchmarking Review of UK Sociology aimed to explore how

brought together to comment on the strengths and limitations of British sociology in contrast to the discipline in the rest of the world (HaPS, 2010). There was little consensus among the panel as to what topics could be considered core to the discipline in the UK. Equally, the panel struggled to identify any distinctive methods or methodologies associated with the discipline. Further, while no particular method or methodology could be constituted as distinctively British, it was noted that the spread of approaches adopted in the discipline was uneven with an obvious preference toward using qualitative methods to investigate micro-sociological issues. Interviews with PhD candidates in the discipline further exacerbated the panels’ concerns over this uneven level of engagement with quantitative and qualitative techniques (HaPS, 2010). The junior researchers interviewed expressed a widespread ambivalence toward method and methodological issues. Additionally, the same review suggested that the ‘anti-quantitative’ culture of the discipline could prevent British sociology from having authority over the investigation of social phenomena and could also impact on the discipline’s ability to engage with sociology in other parts of the world.

Parker et al. (2008) compared the provision of research methods and quantitative methods teaching across eight countries; USA, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. They used information from higher education institutions’ websites to calculate the availability and range of research methods and quantitative methods courses available to social science students in each country. They also investigated whether students had to complete research projects or dissertations as a mandatory part of their degree and if so, the number of projects required. The results of their content analysis revealed that the level of engagement with research and specifically quantitative research was determined more by country than degree programme. For instance, across all social science disciplines investigated, Sweden and the Netherlands consistently required students to complete a higher mean number of research methods and quantitative methods modules, this was regardless of degree programme (business, economics, geography, political science, psychology and sociology). All countries examined reported higher levels of engagement with quantitative methods in the social science disciplines than the UK.

MacInnes et al. (2016) compared the amount of quantitative research methods teaching that students studying different social science degrees received in various countries. Convenience and snowball sampling were used to enable the researchers access to social scientists in different higher education institutions across the globe who were either involved in the design or delivery of quantitative methods training or who had extensive knowledge of the content of these modules. Sixteen universities were included in the sample from a variety of

countries including, USA, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand. Five distinct skills in social science quantitative research methods were compared and discussed across the different degree programmes. These were, 1) research design; 2) data analysis; 3) statistics; 4) using computers, and 5) understanding the relationship between method, theory and substantive issues. MacInnes et al. (2016) concluded that across all of these areas students in the majority of the countries investigated had higher levels of proficiency compared to students in the UK. This difference in skill level was most apparent for data analysis and statistics. In many of the degree programmes offered in the other countries, students were required to engage with a greater variety of multivariate techniques and data reduction techniques than social science students in the UK. They were also more likely to have greater experience integrating methodological discussions with substantive issues.

MacInnes et al. (2016) also highlighted some common features across degree programmes in these other countries which they believed may be leading to the higher levels of quantitative research methods competency among social science students. Firstly, in many of the higher education institutions in the study, undergraduate students were introduced and taught quantitative methods from very early on in their degree programme. As well as this, research methods were often given greater space in the social science curriculum.

Intensive continuous assessments, particularly tests, were a common feature that emerged in the interviews from the international higher education institutions studied. Furthermore, the quantitative methods curriculum in these institutions tended to be more progressive and cumulative than courses in the UK. Students were gradually introduced to concepts with increasing complexity, which built on and consolidated their earlier learning. Finally, students were often encouraged to write results from studies in the style of scientific papers as opposed to writing essays. For example, at the University of Mannheim, sociology and politics undergraduate assessment often took the form of a scientific paper and students were expected to produce a great deal of statistical content for these papers. This style of assessment affords students greater insights into the research process and the practice of writing academic papers. The authors concluded that in order to address the quantitative skills deficit in the UK more curriculum space needs to be devoted to both research methods and quantitative methods in social science degree programmes. They called for the strategic recruitment of staff with the expertise necessary to teach quantitative methods confidently and to incorporate examples of quantification in substantive modules.

Although MacInnes et al. (2016) highlighted some interesting examples of best practice in teaching quantitative research methods, it is useful to note that not all the case studies were based on teaching and learning within social science departments. For instance, the example of the quantitative methods training that social science students received at the University of Auckland was based in the department of statistics as opposed to the social science department. Therefore, while this is an example of best practice (for instance, Cardiff University’s School of Social Sciences has adopted Auckland’s introductory statistics module), as the training was based in the department of statistics, the specific social science examples of quantification that social science students received were still minimal. Moreover, without social scientists teaching their students research methods or embedding examples of quantification in their substantive lectures, there is still a risk that students will not be able to see the value of quantitative research to their own substantive disciplines.

Somewhat in contrast to MacInnes et al. (2016), in the concluding comments of the British Academy Conference ‘Quantitative Skills: Learning Lessons from Overseas’, Adam Roberts (2012) noted that the presentations given throughout the conference suggested a widespread, international resistance among social science students toward learning quantitative methods and speculated that the issue was not restricted to just the UK. There was an acceptance that the struggles faced by the UK to engage academics and students with quantitative methods was an international one. Roberts emphasised the necessity to learn about both positive and negative experiences of engaging students with quantitative methods in other countries to avoid social science departments across the globe making the same mistakes with regard to methods teaching and training.

Indeed, Murtonen and Lehtinen (2003) demonstrated widespread anxiety among social science students in Finland toward learning quantitative methods. The authors described how students still reported negative experiences of being taught and learning research methods and especially quantitative methods despite considerable investment into resources to improve research methods teaching. Based on data from learning diaries of nineteen education students and fifteen sociology students at a Finnish university, these authors identified five reasons for students’ resistance toward learning quantitative methods. These ranged from: superficial or rushed teaching; abstract examples used in teaching; unfamiliarity with key concepts and lack of prior knowledge; little understanding of when and why to use particular approaches or techniques, to a general lack of interest or negative attitude among students toward learning. Those students in the study who reported the highest levels of anxiety toward learning quantitative methods were most likely

(58%) to cite superficial teaching as the reason behind their resistance toward quantitative research methods. Meanwhile, those more confident with quantitative methods learning, were most likely (50%) to report their own lack of interest or negative attitude as preventing them from engaging with quantitative research.