Volume 6, No. 3, Art. 24 – September 2005

A Cartography of Qualitative Research in Switzerland

Thomas Samuel Eberle & Florian Elliker

Does it make sense to ask what is the state of the art of qualitative research in the different European countries? Do national boundaries bear any significance for certain types of research? The state of the art, is it not a matter of quality assessment by an international peer review based on cross-national scientific standards? What is the point in a globalized world to distinguish national traditions of sociology? In our view, it does make sense. The criteria for such an assessment are always context-dependent on a specific theoretical and methodological perspective. Most sociological theories and methodologies have an identifiable historical origin in a certain country (and often with certain authors), and in spite of their subsequent international dissemination we still find quite different quantitative distributions of each approach in different countries. There are still specific national traditions (which may also be reinforced by the policies of national funding agencies). Switzerland may be considered a special case as it encompasses several languages and cultures. [1]

Qualitative research is usually context-sensitive and encompasses a broad spectrum of theoretical and methodological premises. Therefore, the state of the art of an approach is often assessed quite differently by its own representatives than by those advocating another qualitative approach. This situation is aggravated by the fact that each approach has usually many different facets stirring debates among insiders which often seem to be fiercer than those with outsiders. Our contribution tries to avoid these arguments: we skip quality assessments and rather focus on the description of the present-day state of qualitative research in our country, and as sociologists we focus above all on qualitative research in sociology. After a brief introduction into the institutional structure of sociology in Switzerland, we sketch in the first step a brief impressionist picture. In the second step we analyze what type of qualitative research was used in the sociological projects funded by the Swiss National Foundation. In the third step we investigate the self-descriptions of qualitative researchers using an open questionnaire.¹⁾ [2]

1. A Brief Impressionist Picture

Switzerland is a small country in the Alps located between its five neighbors Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and tiny Liechtenstein. The current population is about seven million and it has four different official languages and cultures which can be identified along geographical lines (see map 1): there are 63.7% German Swiss, 20.4% French Swiss, 6.5% Italian Swiss and 0.5% Romanch Swiss; there are 9% other languages of foreign immigrants across the country.²⁾ As all science, sociology is practiced in social organizations at concrete geographical locations. There are ten sites with universities: Basel (founded in 1460; 9,200 students), Bern (1834; 12,500), Zurich (1833; 23,400 students), St Gallen (1898; 5,000 students), and Lucerne (2000; 1,500) in the German speaking area, Lausanne (1537; 10,200), Geneva (1559; 14,700), Neuchâtel (1838; 3,300) and Fribourg (1889; 9,000) in the French speaking area plus Lugano (1995; 1,500) in the Italian speaking part (there is no university in the small Romanch speaking area). All of these universities except St Gallen and Lugano offer a degree in sociology at a bachelors', masters', and a Ph.D. level. Up to now, Zurich and Geneva have had the largest sociology departments.³⁾

Map 1: Language Regions and University Sites [3]

When talking of a cartography of qualitative research in Switzerland, we indeed think of geographical locations: there are concrete persons at concrete institutions at concrete places either teaching or doing qualitative research. All of us have an impressionist picture of the sociological scene in our country. Which university would you recommend for studying qualitative methods? Which sociologists from which institution are known in qualitative research? To study qualitative methods, you would certainly not go to Zurich, as this has been a stronghold of quantitative sociology with only marginal interest in qualitative research. And up to now, you would not have gone to Basel, which has not been known for empirical research. In the German part of Switzerland, the only place to get a reputable training in qualitative research during the past 15 years was Berne, with the research group of Claudia HONEGGER. The scene in the Romandie, the French part of Switzerland, is a little less transparent to us. But it seems fair to state that so far there has been no systematic training in qualitative research, neither in Geneva, nor in Lausanne, Fribourg or Neuchâtel. In recent years, you could get some training in qualitative (as well as quantitative) methods at the doctoral level, in the newly introduced summer schools sponsored by the Swiss Priority Programme "Switzerland: Towards the Future" 1996-2004. And the situation is rapidly changing: new professors have been hired in many places, and in the context of the "Bologna reform,"⁴⁾ new courses and curricula are being developed. Getting a bachelor degree in sociology at Basel, for example, now requires an equal share of training in quantitative and qualitative research. It will be the first site in Switzerland with a mandatory training in qualitative methods. [4]

At most Swiss universities, however, a considerable amount of qualitative research has been conducted, mostly by doctoral students. And it obviously encompasses a vast variety of different methods and approaches. A cartography also means to map the different approaches which dominate at the different locations. Indeed, certain specialties have developed: Berne is well known for objective hermeneutics, St. Gallen for ethnographic sociology; at Fribourg and Lausanne we find interesting work in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and in Geneva there has been some research using observation, content analysis and interviews (in the French tradition of BOURDIEU and KAUFMANN). We also observe some differences in theoretical orientation: Semiotics (de SAUSSURE, GREIMAS), for example, seems to play a much more important role in French (as well as Italian and Spanish) sociology than in German sociology, which is reflected in different theoretical traditions of the French and the German part of Switzerland. There is also a lot of interesting work done at other places, e.g. at the renowned Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Lausanne and at the newly founded Universities of Applied Sciences and similar institutions. In all these places you cannot study sociology as a major but there is often intriguing work going on using qualitative methods. [5]

Has Switzerland produced a school of qualitative research of its own? Or has it just imported approaches which were developed abroad? And have Swiss social scientists contributed to methodological debates in a way that was received and respected abroad? The most encompassing Handbook of Qualitative Research of Uwe FLICK, Ernest von KARDOFF and Ines STEINKE (2003, pp.72-84) and its English edition (2004, pp.40-47) mentions Anselm STRAUSS, Erving GOFFMAN, Harold GARFINKEL and Harvey SACKS, Paul WILLIS, Clifford GEERTZ and Norman K. DENZIN, but also a Swiss group of researchers, namely Paul PARIN, Fritz MORGENTHALER, and Goldy PARIN-MATTHEY, the founders of ethnopsychoanalysis. During several trips to West Africa, the three psychoanalysts became aware of the enormous influence of social forces and the interdependency of psychological and social processes. They focused their analyses on the interplay between individual and social structures, while keeping the model, the techniques and methods of psychoanalysis. Their research was qualitative as they used case studies and story telling, observed sequences, interpreted meanings in their situational and subjective contexts, and they made the relationship between researcher and researched persons transparent (NADIG & REICHMAYR 2003, pp.72-84). Interestingly enough, they created an approach of their own but were not affiliated with a university. [6]

There are only a few researchers from Switzerland mentioned in FLICK et al.'s handbook. Thomas S. EBERLE is a co-author of "phenomenolocial life-world analysis" (HITZLER & EBERLE 2003/2004). Further citations include, in alphabetical order: EBERLE for his work on phenomenology and methodology (1984, 1993, 1999a, b), phenomenology and economics (1988) and ethnomethodological conversation analysis (1997); MAEDER for his work on expert knowledge (HITZLER, HONER & MAEDER 1994) and his ethnographic studies (MAEDER 1995); Eberhard ULICH for his analyses of work (1994); and Jean WIDMER for his work on GOFFMAN (1991). Cited are also several researchers who worked with Thomas LUCKMANN and who either spent a considerable amount of research time at the University of St. Gallen or had regular teaching assignments there, like Hubert KNOBLAUCH, Ronald HITZLER, Anne HONER and, coming from a different background, Michaela PFADENHAUER. The bibliography of the handbook contains publications of additional Swiss researchers, who were not cited in the text. [7]

Of course, consulting a handbook is only a lose indication of what is going on in the Swiss scene of qualitative research. That is why we did it under the heading of an "impressionist view" which is always subjective and selective. We also would have to consult an equivalent handbook in France to check if French Swiss researchers are received there more prominently than in a German handbook. Mais alas!, we do not know of such a handbook in France. This fits finally another impression we have: that to write on methods and methodology independently from substantive matters and actual research, is much more common in the German tradition of social science than it is in France. Which implies that our view of such issues is inevitably culturally biased. [8]

2. Quantitative Distribution of Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Let us move to a more systematic analysis now. The general impression is that qualitative research has gained more ground in the last ten years. However, when we asked the major research funding agency, the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), they could not confirm it. And nobody knows which methods are primarily used or which theoretical premises and research approaches are applied. We therefore endeavored to analyze the databank of the Swiss Information and Data Archive (SIDOS). SIDOS is located in Neuchâtel and was founded in 1992. Since 1993 it has been conducting regular annual surveys in order to maintain an inventory of research projects. Addressees are academic institutions, public administrations, and private research institutions. It is the most complete databank on social scientific projects in Switzerland, but it does not contain all the research projects as their declaration is still voluntary. However, the SNSF asks each researcher who gets a grant to notify SIDOS of the new research project⁵⁾ and also to deliver the data after completion of the project.⁶⁾ The SNSF also delivers the lists of funded projects to SIDOS which contacts the project leaders directly if they do not initiate action themselves. [9]

2.1 Data selection

The description of the research projects in the SIDOS databank is based on the information provided by the researchers. It is organized in several categories such as "institutions," "authors," "disciplines," "methods," "project description," "financial funding," "beginning/end," etc. Most of these categories invite free descriptions, whereas some of them also provide pre-structured answers (e.g. "scientific disciplines").⁷⁾ As of July 15, 2005, the databank had 6422 research projects. For our analysis, we used the following criteria for data selection:

• The project was started between 1995 to 2004. This does not take into account the first years (1992-1994)⁸⁾, based on the assumption that the database was far from representative in the early years and that the practice of declaration spread considerably during that time. (Of a total of 6270 projects registered until the end of 2004 there remained 5392.)

• The project assigned itself to the discipline of sociology. (There remained 762.)

• The project was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation or by the German Research Community (DFG) or the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). As the databank encompasses all kinds of research projects we needed a criterion which allows to assess the scientific quality of the research project. Each project funded by the SNSF⁹⁾, the DFG or the CNRS has been evaluated in a peer-review process by experts in the corresponding field. (There remained 261, most of them funded by the SNSF.)¹⁰⁾

• The project dealt with empirical data. We disregarded theoretical and methodological projects, even if they discussed qualitative research. We only counted projects, which were practicing qualitative research and produced data. (There remained 246.)¹¹⁾

• Of a total of 6470, there finally remained 246 projects fitting these criteria. Each project was counted only once, namely in the year when it started (in order to include the most recent projects).¹²⁾ [10]

2.2 Data analysis

2.2.1 Comparison of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods

In the first step we divided our data into quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods projects.¹³⁾ This allows us to ask a range of questions which are apt to make the empirical research scene a little more transparent:

• What are the proportions between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods projects and how have they developed over the past ten years?

• Are there any striking differences between these three types concerning language area, gender or institutions? [11]

Table 1 shows that on the average, quantitative projects clearly dominate the research scene. Of the 246 projects, 121 (49%) used a quantitative, 69 (28%) a qualitative, and 56 (23%) a mixed methods design.¹⁴⁾ Changes in the proportions occur from year to year—the percentage of qualitative research ranges from 20 to 47%—but over the 10 years there is no recognizable trend in these proportions. The general impression that qualitative research has increased during the last decade, cannot be substantiated by our data, i.e. we cannot observe an increase of the (relative) number of qualitative research projects funded by the SNSF.

Table 1: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Projects 1995-2004 [12]

Are there any preferences for quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods designs in the different language areas? And is qualitative research better represented in the German or in the French part of the country, based upon their different sociological traditions? Table 2a shows in what language areas the projects were located (according to their institutional affiliations¹⁵⁾). The percentages approximately reflect the respective distribution of the Swiss population: 64% stem from German, 27% from French Switzerland, and some have a cooperation of institutions across the language borders (7% in German and French, 1% in Italian and French and 1% in German and Italian Switzerland). Italian is clearly underrepresented. Concerning qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods projects we find no significant preference for the one or the others by the two major language areas. There are only slight differences (Table 2b): While 31% of the German Swiss projects are qualitative, 46% are quantitative and 23% employ mixed methods. Of the French Swiss projects 28% are qualitative, 53% quantitative, and 19% use mixed methods. Taking into account that we are dealing with relatively small numbers, we may conclude that the distribution is fairly similar.

Table 2a: Language Proportions in Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Projects¹⁶⁾

Table 2b: Language Specific Preferences for Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Projects [13]

Striking differences are found in relation to gender. Tables 3a+b show the gender proportions of the project leaders¹⁷⁾. As the same persons were sometimes engaged in several projects or co-responsible for a project in cooperation with other project leaders, we counted them each single time. This amounts to a total of 307 project involvements. All in all, 70% of the project leaders were male, 30% were female. If male and female project leaders had the same preferences we should find 70% male and 30% females in qualitative as well as in quantitative and mixed methods. Table 3a shows however that males are overrepresented in quantitative (85%) while underrepresented in qualitative (53%) and mixed methods projects (60%), while females are overrepresented in qualitative (47%) and mixed methods (40%) and underrepresented in quantitative methods (15%) projects. Table 3b takes the view from the persons and asks in which kind of projects males and females are involved. 60% of the males worked in quantitative, 22% in qualitative and 18% in mixed methods projects. Only 25% of the females are involved in quantitative but 45% in qualitative and 30% in mixed methods projects. It is fair to conclude from our data that there is a gender-specific preference of Swiss researchers to employ qualitative or quantitative or mixed methods designs.¹⁸⁾

Table 3a: Gender Proportions in Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Projects

Table 3b: Gender Specific Preferences for Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Projects [14]

Our final question regarding the distribution of these different types of research designs is what kind of institutions are involved and to what degree they cooperate. The total number of institutions involved in our sample of 246 research projects is 104. As with the project leaders above, we counted each institution in each single case. As several institutions were involved in more than one project, there resulted a total of 354 institutional project involvements. Table 4a shows in which of the three types of research the major institutions were involved: Universities are engaged in about half of the project engagements, the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology in about 7%, the Universities of Applied Sciences in about 14%, others in about 29%. The numbers across the three different kinds of research are fairly even. [15]

Table 4b tackles the question if we can observe a clear difference in the degree of institutional cooperation across the three research types. Our guess was that we would find lower numbers in qualitative projects and the highest numbers in mixed methods projects. The numbers point indeed into that direction but only in a slight manner: there are no significant differences in that respect either.