Introduction

Life is easy for social scientists engaged in international comparative research. Yet, at the same time, it is also hard. Within the social sciences, this kind of research is regarded as the ultimate in terms of scientific quality, especially when the results are international publications. The interest in international comparative research among policy makers has been growing over the years, due to, among others, processes of globalisation. Where globalisation goes hand-in-hand with political integration, as is the case in Europe, policy makers do not only want information about other countries. This information should also help them to develop, evaluate and implement policy measures. In this situation substantial resources are made available for international, comparative research.

The empirical research on this international level is predominantly based on a scientific model that can be referred to, in Giddens’ (1979) phrase, as the ‘orthodox consensus’. At the centre of the orthodox consensus is the empiricalanalytical research model that emphasises theory testing, large-scale research, primarily based on quantifiable data and aimed at finding general explanations of social behaviour in terms of causality. The orthodox consensus is based on methodological principles (objectivity, generalisation, decontextualisation, and so on) that are not only well-adapted to international comparative research, but also invite and encourage researchers to do this kind of research. In most cases, the policy maker too has an image of social research that is in line with the orthodox consensus. In this sense, life for the international, comparative researcher is easy.

At the same time, though, his or her life is hard or, at least, should be hard. Within the social sciences, the methodological principles which lie at the root of the orthodox consensus have been fundamentally criticised. As a result of this criticism, more emphasis is being put on trying to understand the way people think and act as social and reflexive actors in a specific social context. Central notions in this so-called ‘reflexive social science’ are the competent actor, a relation between common sense and scientific knowledge based on reciprocal adequacy, and the contextuality of knowledge. The contradiction between empirical research dominated by the orthodox consensus on the one hand, and the direction in which the methodological discussion is taking us on the other, is getting more acute. This contradiction, often in an implicit way, is also reflected in the experience of the policy maker.