Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Aging Studies

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jag ing

“Not for the fainthearted”: Engaging in cross-national comparative research

Paula Gardner a,b,⁎, Keiko Katagiri c, John Parsons d, Jeonghwa Lee e, Radha Thevannoor f

a Bridgepoint Collaboratory for Research and Innovation Bridgepoint Health, Canadab Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto, Toronto, Canadac Institute for Social Gerontology, Nipponkoa Welfare Foundation, Tokyo, Japand School of Nursing, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealande Department of Family Environment & Welfare, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Republic of Koreaf School of Communication and Management Studies (SCMS), Cochin, Kerala, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: Dalla Lana School of Puof Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

E-mail address: PGardner@bridgepointhealth.ca (P

0890-4065/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaging.2012.02.004

a b s t r a c t

Keywords:

Gerontologists are increasingly taking up the challenge of cross-national research and whilethere has been an increase in reporting on the product (findings) of this type of scholarship,there has been much less written about the process (methodology) of this approach, particu-larly in the gerontological literature. In 2009 our newly formed research team enthusiasticallyembarked on a cross-national comparative research study of social isolation and aging. In thispaper, we ‘publicly’ reflect on our research process, sharing what we have learned — what‘happened’, strategies that ‘worked’, places along the way where we might have intervenedto mitigate the difficulties we encountered, and the implications of our experience on ourresearch. Integrating the knowledge gained through our lens as newcomers to internationalcomparative research, we end by presenting a Conceptual Framework for Cross-NationalResearch.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

International researchConceptual frameworkResearch teamsSocial isolation

Introduction

The increasingly globalized and technological world with-in which we now live and work means that our interest, andability, to extend our research gaze beyond our national bor-ders is greater than it has ever been. Cross-national researchis premised on the understanding that we have much to learnfrom each other – not only in terms of what is happeningelsewhere in the world and how this may guide individualcountry practices and policies – but also in terms of providinggreater insight and awareness into our own research processesand procedures. As globalization and population aging coalescein many countries around the world, there is growing interna-tional interest in cross-national aging research.

blic Health University

. Gardner).

ll rights reserved.

International comparative research crosses methodo-logical and disciplinary boundaries and incorporates sever-al interrelated terms including ‘cross-national research’,‘international cross-cultural research’, ‘cross-national com-parative research’, and ‘international research’. Althoughthere may be subtle differences between these terms, alldescribe research aimed to examine and compare a particu-lar issue or phenomena across two or more countries whereculture, either explicitly or implicitly, is understood to playa role.

The value and benefit of cross-national research have beenextensively reported, particularly in the business and man-agement literature where international collaboration is awell-developed topic of study. Reported benefits include theway in which cross-national study causes us to re-evaluateour own individual country data, the development of newand exciting insights, and a deeper understanding of issues(Hantrais, 1999; National Research Council, 2001). Revisinginterpretations that take account of cross-national differencesand inconsistencies reveals an understanding and results that

254 P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

some believe (e.g., Kohn, 1987) could never be uncovered insingle-nation research.

Despite mainly positive and enthusiastic reports of cross-national research however, many scholars also describe aprocess riddled with challenges. These include obtainingfunding (Hantrais, 1999); difficulty dealing with languageissues (Mangen, 1999) and methodological problems relat-ed to samples and data collection procedures (Iwarsson,Wahl, & Nygren, 2004). Indeed, it seems clear from a reviewof this work that Teagarden and colleagues' warning that“Cross-cultural research is not for the fainthearted” (p.1262) —should not be taken lightly.

Increasingly, gerontologists have taken up the challengeof cross-national research and results are presented in mostaging-related journals and international conferences. Whilethere has been an increase in reporting about the product(findings) of cross-national research (see for example theCanadian Journal on Aging 23(2), 2004 Edition), there hasbeen much less written about the process (methodology) ofthis approach, particularly in the gerontological literature.

Unfamiliar with Teagarden's warning and as newcomers tointernational research, in 2009 our newly formed research net-work (Pacific Rim Gerontological Research Network, PRGRN)enthusiastically embarked on a cross-national comparative re-search study of social isolation and aging. Since our formationin 2009 we have completed a comparative study of the socialisolation and aging literature (Stage I) and developed andpilot-tested a survey guide to measure social isolation acrossfive countries (Stage 2).

In this paper, we ‘publicly’ reflect on our research process,sharing what we have learned — what ‘happened’, strategiesthat ‘worked’, places along the way where we might have in-tervened to mitigate the difficulties we encountered, and theimplications of our experience on our research. Integratingthe knowledge gained through our lens as newcomers to in-ternational comparative research, we end by presenting aConceptual Framework for Cross-National Research.

Background

Introducing the PRGRN ‘team’

In 2009 the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU),Seoul National University, and the University of Tokyo hostedan international gerontology conference — Challenges andOpportunities of Aging Asia: Toward the New Social System andCulture for Aging Society: Networking of Junior Gerontologists inthe Pacific Rim countries.1 This conference was uniquelydesigned to foster international collaboration within the PacificRim where emerging scholars seldom have the opportunityto develop international research networks. Through ajuried process 40 applicants from 20 different countrieswere selected and invited (all expenses were covered bythe organizers) to attend the conference in South Korea.Researchers – most of whom although new to internationalcollaborative research were not new to gerontological schol-arship were placed into teams of 10 and presented with thetask of developing a proposal for an international and

1 The first APRU Conference was held in Tokyo in 2008.

interdisciplinary aging research project. At the end of the 5-day meeting, our group (which we named the Pacific RimGerontology Research Network, PRGRN) “won” the competi-tion andwas awarded start-up funds ($10,000 US) to initiatethe study. Our group originally consisted of 9 researchers from7 countries (Japan, China, India, South Korea, New Zealand andthe United States). Early on in our process two members optedout of the project due to other commitments. Since then therehave been some minor changes among the group (people leav-ing due to health reasons and the addition of a new member)however a core of 5 have been actively involved in the work.As a team we are from 5 different countries (Japan, Korea,India, New Zealand and the United States) and 5 different dis-ciplines (social psychology, family studies and social work,management studies, physiotherapy and public health). All ofus have a long-standing interest in aging issues and in utilizingresearch to improve the well-being and quality of life forour aging citizens. As a group we arrived at the APRU confer-ence with previous gerontological research experience, andskills and expertise in a variety of qualitative and quantita-tive research methodologies (e.g., secondary data analysis,survey design, ethnography, phenomenology, and mixed-methods).

Introducing the research

The aim of the research proposal that we developed inSeoul – A cross-national comparative study of social isolationand aging across 6 Asia-Pacific Rim countries –was to examinesocial isolation among the oldest-old across our six individualcountries.

Stage I: Cross national comparison of the literatureWe began our research with a study comparing the liter-

ature across our six Asia-Pacific Rim countries. The overallaim was to identify similarities and differences within theliterature across three factors of social isolation: definition,measures, and predictors (detailed results are forthcoming2).A central finding supported the work of others (e.g., Perlman,2004) who report loneliness (and, we assert, social isolation)is “culture bound”. Based on our results, supported by the liter-ature, and, in light of the increased attention to cross-nationalaging research internationally, we ended Stage 1 by concludingthat future researchwas needed to explore new, culturally sen-sitive definitions and measures.

Stage 2: A cross-national exploratory study to understand andmeasure social isolation among the oldest-old

Based on findings from our literature review and throughan extensive process of group consultations (via biweeklySkype meetings and ongoing Email conversations), we devel-oped a semi-structured questionnaire that integrated estab-lished social isolation and loneliness scales (Lubben SocialIsolation Scale and UCLA Loneliness Scale) with open-endedquestions. The purpose of the study was to gain insight intothe experience and processes of social isolation among theoldest old and to explore the efficacy of using existing

2 Results from the cross-national literature review on social isolation andaging are published in a separate manuscript (in preparation).

255P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

measurement tools for this population and in cross-nationalcomparisons.3 Using government and service organizationseach researcher recruited 10 participants who lived alone,were over the age of 75 and were identified by the recruitingorganizations as isolated (or at risk of isolation). The question-naire included basic demographic characteristics and wastranslated into Korean and Japanese. The interviews were con-ducted from October 2010 to August 2011 and lasted between30 and 90minutes. Data was transcribed and then (where nec-essary) translated into English. Preliminary results from thiswork were presented at IAGG's IXth Asia/Oceania RegionalCongress in Melbourne, Australia (October 2011).

Reflections on engaging in cross national comparativeresearch

Using a process of reflection we individually and thencollectively reviewed our research processes. This highlightedindividual perceptions and group challenges and made ex-plicit the strategies we used to address these challenges. Inthis section we ‘set the scene’ by describing the circumstanceswithin which our team established, and then share what wehave learned through our process of reflection.

Establishing our team — The APRU Conference

When we met in Seoul Korea at the APRU conference, theorganizers ‘rolled out the red carpet’ and provided a four-daygrand tour of the city including the local government, severalseniors' homes, and key historical sites. On the fifth day theyplaced each team in a university room and gave us 24 h todevelop a research proposal that we were to present to theconference the next morning. We were all extremely gratefulto our hosts and wanted to express our gratitude by giving100% to this task. Despite our commitment to the project, de-veloping an interdisciplinary, international research proposalin 24 h with people we had just met from 6 different coun-tries was intense.

The excitement of discussing a topic we were all passionateabout from the perspective of so many different countrieswas palpable; in the university room where we spent theday our voices rose, and then silence ensconced us; confusionand misunderstanding were routine. It was incredibly chal-lenging (and amazing to those of us who are unilingual) todiscuss complex concepts in English when for many Englishwas not their first language. The pressure was intense aswe had just 24 h to complete the proposal and at 2 a.m. frus-trations ran high as fatigue set in. (Paula, USA)

It was clear from the start that engaging in internationalcomparative research was not going to be easy. Indeed,throughout the day as we labored on developing our researchproposal there were many times when it seemed impossibleand several moments when it appeared we would give up.

3 We selected the Lubben Social Isolation Scale and the UCLA Lonelinessscale because although developed in the United States they have been trans-lated and used in international research, and we were unable to identifyestablished social isolation scales from our other countries.

Compassion and laughter prevailed however, and in the endwe developed a research proposal with enough promise thatwe were awarded the prize (start-up funds) to begin to bringour work to fruition. The seed funding we received althoughnot large was nevertheless significant as it built a sense of re-sponsibility to the conference goals and organizers and a com-mitment to the project. We left Seoul five days later feeling likecolleagues, teammates and friends— relationships that usuallytake years to develop.

The difficulties revealed during that first meeting – aroundcommunication and language difficulties, the role of culture intheway inwhich researchers interact with each other and en-gage in the research process, conceptual differences in mean-ing across cultures, and the mechanics of conducting researchacross many different countries – foreshadowed what havebeen our core challenges throughout our research process.

Language barriers and difficulties

Our meetings are going to be very short AND very quiet if wetry to do this in Japanese or Korean. (John, NZ)

Conducting research in English was necessary, not perfect.We found communicating in a language that is not your ownis problematic to the research process in two important ways.First, for members whose primary language is not English,the need to always translate their thoughts and ideas is in-credibly exhausting and frustrating. Sentences needed to beconstantly rephrased, words explained, and dictionaries re-ferred to; patience and understanding from all team mem-bers was critical and research timelines had to be extendedon many occasions to accommodate this process.

It was for the first time for me to conduct cross-nationalcomparative research. When I became a team member, Iworried about my English skills and my contribution to thisproject as a researcher. But owing to the team member'sleadership, patience and help, I adjusted and found my role.To participate to cross-national comparative research gaveme fluent experience to understand about other countriesand to make understanding of Korean culture to my col-leagues. Our team members keep our friendships for morethan 2 years. I have participated in many conferences inabroad, but I had not been experienced intimate team relation-ships such as our research team. I think I have a good fortune.(Jeonghwa, South Korea)

As subtleties of language are not always translatable, orthe effort or capability to do so sometimes too great, wealso mourned what was inevitably ‘lost’ in the research. AsMangen (1999) explains, the use of one language in multilin-gual research environments imposes serious limits as it canconceal the “culturally-loaded” meaning of data. We thoughtthis was a particularly salient issue for our project as we wereconfronted with trying to articulate to each other what areimplicit and culturally-constituted meanings of social isolationand loneliness. We later reflected on how these discussionscreated some of the only silences we experienced as a team.

In addition to extending timelines and exercising patience,we found written ‘conversation’ was helpful for addressing

256 P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

language difficulties. We often integrated text into our verbalSkype meetings – either using the ‘send a message’ feature inSkype or Emailing larger documents to each other during themeeting. The opportunity to read the English while simulta-neously hearing it was useful to everyone and particularly im-portant for team members whose first language was notEnglish. Having text they could re-read themselves later orask someone else to interpret for them was instrumental totheir full understanding.

Difficulties associated with cultural norms and beliefs

Culture played negatively for me since in India we expressourselves loudly while in Japan, we do not. I commentedbluntly and that affected my dear friend. That was an in-stance of ‘impact of cultural diversity’, which I'm happy wecame over on meeting one another. But in any internationalresearch that is imperative. Keiko was mature enough tounderstand that I am blunt not because I really am and that Idid not mean to hurt. An inevitable situation in such a study.(Radha, India)

The inherent differences between people from severalcultures may help them to offer alternative perspectives thatcan contribute new insights. However, different cultures alsohave their own norms about who should initiate communica-tion, what constitutes an affront, and how polished an ideashould be before it is exposed. In some cultures maintainingharmony and respect within the group is more importantthan individual expression.

Sometimes other members' words and behaviors mademe shocked or puzzled. But gradually I noticed we are alldifferent and if we cannot accept the differences, interna-tional research cannot accomplish. I think we have to acceptand respect this divergence each other. (Keiko, Japan)

A heightened awareness of cultural differences and effortsto value these differences helped us to consciously develop ateam environment in which members feel comfortable. Thiskind of environment fosters a style of communication thatis more likely to achieve the problem solving and relationshipbuilding necessary to achieve the project goals. For example,being cognizant of the Western tendency to ‘take up a lot ofspace’ during conversations, those of us from the USA andNew Zealand tried to be extra-sensitive to cultural and lin-guistic differences during our bi-weekly Skype meetings. Wemade a conscious effort to not take over or drive the agendaand to allow for long silences as others grappled with under-standing in a language thatwas not their own.We found a use-ful strategy for this was to keep post-it notes on the front of ourcomputers during these meetings with reminders such as“DON'T TALK TOO MUCH!” and “LET OTHERS SPEAK”.

Finding shared meaning in cross-national research

Finding ‘equivolence’ or consistency of meaning, has beenhighlighted as a significant challenge in cross-national research(see for example, Fitzgerald & Jowell, 2010; Jowell, 1998).Problems in finding shared meaning came to a head for ourgroup during our first meeting in Korea when we were

finally able to come to a consensus on our research topic –

‘social isolation among the oldest old’ – only to realize howdisparate our understandings were about what this meansin each of our countries. We learned that the oldest old inJapan are centenarians, whereas in India oldest old refersto those who live to 80 and while social isolation amongthe elderly is a major concern in the United States, in Koreathe concept of social isolation is not readily understood orused to describe older adults.

Issues related to equivolence were somewhat mitigated inour research because we had representation from each coun-try of study. Having at least one research from each studycountry provides key ‘insider’ insights and knowledge. Stillhowever, we found it was incredibly difficult to find commonground on the meaning of certain terms and concepts, partic-ularly when framing the questions for our research tool andalso when interpreting the data.

We found the best way to address this problem was todedicate a lot of time to the discussion and negotiation ofterminology. Again timelines were revised and we made thedecision to meet more often (biweekly rather than monthly).

Working across distance and time

All research teams face challenges related to the day-to-day operations of research including communication, organi-zation and funding. We ran into many problems due to in-compatible computer operating systems, reference softwareand communication tools — technical problems that wereexacerbated by our language differences. It was not uncom-mon to upload a document where formatting was completelyaltered, references were missing, or “track-changes” were inKorean. We experimented with many different kinds of com-munication software including Yahoo Groups, Google Docsand WebEx. In the end we settled on Skype for our meetingsalthough it was not without problems including ‘dropped calls’and older versions not ‘speaking to’ newer versions that werenot yet available in some countries. We used Yahoo Groups tohelp us stay organized, however over time we found that wepreferred using Email to share documents, make arrangementsfor meetings, and to continue discussing ideas between Skypemeetings.

In addition to identifying communication tools and tech-nologies that are available, accessible and compatible to allmembers in all countries, finding funding sources for interna-tional research projects including those that provide fundsfor travel was difficult. We were able to secure additionalfunds for our research through the Pfizer Health ResearchFoundation however like many other funding sources wewere not permitted to use these funds for travel.

Skype is a useful and cheap communication tool, but it is notenough. It is better to meet face-to-face sometimes or usingvideo conference, which provide better quality of communi-cation. We were lucky some of us met in Singapore (2010APRU conference), we had one video conference, and thenmet again in person in Melbourne. Our discussion was pro-moted and deepened much more by face-to-face communi-cation in Melbourne. If not, we might not notice our culturematters much to social isolation and how the perception of“reality” is different across our disciplines. (Keiko, Japan)

257P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

In our experience staying organized, motivated and en-couraging effective team development is particularly difficultwithin cross-national research teams as members are ‘out ofsight’ for extended periods. Without face-to-face meetingsit is easy to misconstrue intentions and actions in the absenceof non-verbal communication cues, it is easy to neglect pro-ject tasks when collaborators are not in the next office oreven the next town, and it is easy to skip steps in team devel-opment without dedicating space and time to this process.

In my discipline –management studies –we understand thatproper team development is critical to group success and wededicate a lot of time and effort to understanding this process.I was thinking about this and believe that although our teamreally grew over the two years we have been together, wecould have benefited from more attention to this. (Radha,India)

It is easy as an individual working in collaborative teamsto believe someone else is taking care of things, to avoid gen-eral tasks and feel less pressured by upcoming deadlines.Reflecting back on our own research process we recognizethat leadership was critical to our team staying organizedand productive. In our own case, it is very clear to our teamthat had Keiko not taken on the role and responsibilities ofPI for our group that we would not have completed the tworesearch projects and, likely would not still be together as afunctioning research team.

At first, I was reluctant to be a PI because I did not think I wasqualified as I knew my English ability was not enough forleader of international team. Also it could be easily imaginethat PI should be really time consuming. But now I am reallyhappy to have undertaken this role. It develops not only myability for international research but for collaborative inter-disciplinary research a lot. Moreover it is really beneficialfor me to understand the problem of social isolation frombroader view, and deepen insight. But honestly speaking,the most fruitful outcome of this research is acquaintanceof good friends. It really heartwarming soon after tsunamihit at Japan, I got e-mails from my team worrying me andmy family's safety especially I was shocked and depressed. Ireally thank this valuable experience. (Keiko Japan)

The impact of diverted attentions

What we learned can happen when everyone is trying tobe very sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences andneeds and when distances and time are great and face-to-face meetings rare, is that there can be a tendency to compro-mise more and challenge each other less, even on points thatcould influence the quality of the research.

Even with the frequent Skype conversations the communica-tion of some fundamental issues were not comprehensivelyaddressed until we were able to again meet in person. (John,NZ)

Negotiating the unique circumstances created by cross-national research can divert the attention of international

teams (particularly those who are new to this form of schol-arship) making them more vulnerable to problems andmissed research opportunities. Reflecting back we recognizethat in our enthusiasm and commitment to equal participa-tion of all members, we did not allow adequate time to in-ventory individual researchers' methodological strengths orepistemological positioning. As such we did not fully capital-ize on the expertise within the group and epistemologicaldifferences sometimes created tension and misunderstand-ings that may have been avoided.

Suggestions for the development of international researchteams

Summarizing our lessons learned we make several sug-gestions that we believe are important to the developmentof successful international research teams.

Face-to-face team building is critical to success

Establish your team using a face-to-face team buildingstrategy. The management literature on developing effectivecollaborative teams is extensive and at the top of many listsis face-to-face team building. Face-to-face team building fos-ters trust, camaraderie and communication while revealingindividual and group strengths and weaknesses.

Trust among research members is important for manyreasons and in particular for the way that it facilitates open com-munication inwhich teammembers feel comfortable (or at leastmore comfortable) expressing concerns and fears and disagree-ingwith one another— things thatwe realizedwere increasinglyimportant when working with people from different cultures.We agree with others (Easterby-Smith & Malina, 1999;Teagarden et al., 1995) that trust plays a key role in cross-national research and is necessary for rich and productive collab-oration.

We started our research project with such big passion, howeverit is not easy to keep the same level of passion and fullinvolvement. It seems that we are mature enough to guessothers' situation, for example, John has to be a good father forChristmas, Paula is busy for searching a good job in Canada,Jeonghwa is occupied with educational duties, Radha is travel-ling abroad. But none of us think the other is inactive becauseof laziness. I think it is so because we developed mutual respectand trust to each other. We are so mature researchers that wecan wisely guess all of us cannot always fully involve but weare sure when other work is done, they come back. (Keiko,Japan)

Shared passion and interest in the research topic

We found a shared topic of interest and passion for the areaof study is also critical when establishing a cross-national re-search team. This quality is important in any collaborative ven-ture – for example, in a survey of experienced collaborators inthe business community, “enthusiasm for the subject matter”was rated as the most important criteria for an ideal collabora-tor (Ditkoff, Allen, Moore, & Pollard, 2005) – howeverwe arguethat it is particularly important for cross national study. Cross-

258 P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

national research is time consuming, costly, and complicated(Jackson, 2002) — circumstances that foster frustrationand anxiety and can lead to disagreements. During these timeswe relied heavily on our shared interest and dedication ourtopic of study and believe this was key to the sustainability andproductivity of the group. A sense of humor – a quality sharedby all members of our team –was also critical to our success.

Team development

There is considerable evidence within the management lit-erature to demonstrate that simply forming a team does notguarantee it will function well or that the outcome of the pro-cess will be the desired one (Hall & Weaver, 2001; Long &Wilson, 2001; McCallin, 2001). To be effective, teams need topay attention to their development as they progress throughthe key stages: ‘forming’ (identifying a research group's visionand obtaining agreement about it), ‘storming’ (developing amore detailed understanding of research task, and of howit can be achieved), ‘norming’ (developing procedures forachieving the tasks), ‘performing’ (identifying activities toachieve the task and concern for quality), and ‘terminating/adjourning’ (completing the research tasks and evaluatingif what was achieved matched the goal) (Drinka & Clark,2000).

Personality inventory

In looking back over the past two years we can identifysome specific personality characteristics that we believelend themselves well to successful cross-national collabora-tive research. These are flexibility, open-mindedness, pa-tience, respect and compassion, confidence, a desire to workcollaboratively, and a (really good) sense of humor. Thesequalities are routinely mentioned in the business and sportliterature to describe ‘good team players’. In other disciplineshowever, including aging studies, there is much less discus-sion of important individual characteristics and the role ofpersonality in international research teams. We think thatspending time to inventory individual personality character-istics as well as researcher expertise (e.g., methodologicalskill) could benefit the research process by providing forexample, a ‘check in’ to help individuals decide if they arewell-suited to CNCR.

Overall, we feel strongly that the APRU conference in Seoulwas a well-developed team-building exercise that played acritical role in establishing our group, laying the foundationfor our work, andmaintaining our commitment to the projectand each other. In reflecting on this event however, we sug-gest that conference participants and in particular the win-ning team would have benefited from some CNCR (cross-national comparative research) training. Conference sessionsand workshops dedicated to the process of CNCR includingkey challenges, as well as instruction on how to address thechallenges that are sure to arise (e.g., cultural competency;language barriers; technology) would have been invaluable.In addition, knowledge and training on team developmentprocesses would have been helpful. Trainings such as thesemay also facilitate the ongoing work among the other teams(those who did not win), as many of the projects developedthrough the APRU process were exceptional.

A conceptual framework for cross-national research

Wanting to make a contribution to the literature and sup-port the development and success of other international re-search teams we developed a conceptual framework forcross national research (Fig. 1: Conceptual framework forcross-national research). The framework builds on the workby others (Easterby-Smith & Malina, 1999; Teagarden et al.,1995) and integrates what we have learned and sharedthroughout this paper. The framework visually illustrates aprocess for conducting cross-national research that acknowl-edges the particular challenges associated with internationalcollaboration. Many components are easily recognizable (e.g.,Project Goals, Methodology/Methods), others although as-sumed are often not made explicit (e.g., Inventory of Re-searcher Expertise and Positioning), and several may appearnew to this context (e.g., Team Building).

We developed a four-stage process for conducting crossnational research that worked well for us and highlights twoprocedural steps that are not common in other research— ‘con-textualization’ and ‘making sense of findings with culturalsensitivity’. These stages are embedded into our frameworkand explained in more detail here:

a)Individual (inter) country review and data collection: Theresearchers immerse themselves in the topic literature specificto their country to become familiarwith applicable research, re-sources, policies, andprograms. They thenworkwithin their in-dividual country to collect and summarize study data.b)Contextualizing the (inter) individual country data: In-depthdiscussions (via Email, online group forums, and bi-weeklySkype meetings) among group members over an extensiveperiod of time are conducted to allow members to providecontext (e.g., political, social, cultural) to the individualcountry data. A useful strategy is to produce a demographic‘sketch’ of the population and topic of study for each indi-vidual country.c)Integrating data and cross national (intra) analysis: Datafrom a) and b) are integrated to identify key similarities, dif-ferences, concerns and surprises.d)Making sense of the data: In the final stage the group workstogether to make sense of the findings while keeping in mindthe role of culture in the research process. Having an in-personmeeting or several meetings is very helpful when interpretingfindings.

Cross-national research can benefit from a systematic pro-cess of research that ensures researchers become aware andknowledgeable about the uniqueness of the situation and its in-herent challenges, and alsowork – individually and as a team –

to try to address these challenges.We have found that within the exciting, interesting, and

incredibly complicated cultural environment within whichinternational research occurs, the research process is increas-ingly vulnerable to oversights, omissions, and errors. As such,we cannot stress enough that this kind of research demandsthat we pay close attention to, address, and make visible allof the mechanics of research, including those that we oftentake for granted, are implicit, or assumed. Explicitly embed-ding reflexivity throughout the research process is, we be-lieve, a useful strategy for this.

Fig.

1.Co

ncep

tual

fram

eworkforcross-na

tion

alresearch

.

259P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

260 P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

In our framework the reflexive process includes bothindividual scrutiny of the self as researcher as well as asocial-practice whereby knowledge and understanding aredeveloped through collaborative group discussion referredto as collaborative Knowledge Building (CKB). The processbegins with an individual researcher presenting his/her ownperspectives to the group and evolves through a process ofclarifying, questioning each other's understanding, and pre-senting reasoning for arguments. Collaborative reflectionhas been shown tohelp to solve contradictions aswell as devel-op shared understanding (see Singh, Hawkins, & Whymark,2007 for more details).

Discussion

There are many benefits to international research perhapsmost important of which is the opportunity to feel connectedto the ‘global village’ in a way that not only enriches us asindividuals but also enhances our work as researchers. Com-municating regularly with people from countries around theworld is exciting and interesting. International research pro-vides an opportunity to meet new people from around theworld, a chance to gain new insights and to be (re-) inspiredby a topic and population of interest. Cross-national researchalso provides a window into global events that reverberateacross international borders. During the past two years forexample, we ‘witnessed’ the tsunami in Japan, the earth-quake in New Zealand, the Olympics, and World Cup Soccerand Rugby through the eyes of our research members. Indoing so, we felt much more connected to these events asthey now had a ‘face’ for us; we had a better understandingof the particular context in which these events occur andwhat that means for these places and the people who livethere.

I can't believe how amazing it was to learn about the goingson in Tokyo while we were Skyping and Emailing back andforth with Keiko in Japan. As she was forced to sleep in heroffice the night of the earthquake we stayed connected toher and shared her worry for her father who she was unableto locate or communicate with for such a long time. (Radha,India).

Responding to calls for new and innovative models forconducting cross-national comparative research we maketwo contributions to the literature. First, we provide insightinto the process of conducting international comparative re-search as seen through the lens of newcomers — as far aswe can ascertain, this is a new perspective in the field of in-ternational gerontological research. Secondly, based on our‘lessons learned’, we present a framework for cross-nationalresearch that may be a useful and practical tool; the frame-work extends the work of others to embed reflexivity directlyinto the process, articulates the specific procedural compo-nents, and identifies those that are critical and/or particularlychallenging for this kind of research.

To those interested in cross-national research we offer twospecific suggestions — first, focus a great deal of attention anddiscussion on Phase I and II of the process. Secondly whenembarking on cross-national research for the first time, weadvocate for a very simple and straightforward research

project; thework is already inherently complex andwe cautionagainst making it even more challenging by adopting compli-cated research questions or methodologies.

We hope that our reflections on the research process andthe conceptual framework we have presented will be helpfulto those just beginning this exciting yet challenging form ofscholarship. For the veterans of cross-national comparativeresearch, we offer our work as a point of discussion, and wel-come your comments and feedback.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Gyounghae Han,Professor, Department of Human Development & FamilyStudies and Director, Translational Gerontology & RetirementResearchCenter, SeoulNational University. ProfessorHan orga-nized the conference in Seoul that provided the opportunity forthe team to meet, develop the proposal and obtain funding.Since that time she has been truly remarkable in her generositythrough advice and mentorship to all members of the team.Without her, the project would never have begun. Additionalthanks go to Dr. Yoshiko Umezawa— one of the original mem-bers of PRGRN and the team lead for the Pfizer Health ResearchGrant, which has been critical to our ongoing work. We alsowant to thank the Pfizer Health Research Foundation in Japanfor their generous support. Without their funding supportand also their understanding of the challenges associatedwith international research teams, wewould have been unableto complete Stage 2 of our research.

Finally we would like to extend our appreciation to thereviewers for the insightful feedback and also to the editorsof this special issue – Sheila Neysmith and Jane Aronson – fortheir thoughtful suggestions and ongoing support for our team.

We dedicate this work to Dr. Jenny Chung— a valuedmem-ber of PRGRN who passed away in 2011.

References

Ditkoff,M., Allen, C.,Moore, T., & Pollard, D. (2005). The Ideal Collaborative Team.Retrieved from www.ideachampions.com/downloads/collaborationresults.pdf

Drinka, T. J. K., & Clark, P. G. (2000). Health care teamwork: Interdisciplinarypractice and teaching. Praeger Publishers.

Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. (1999). Cross-cultural collaborative research:Toward reflexivity. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 76–86.

Fitzgerald, R., & Jowell, R. (2010). Measurement equivalence in comparative sur-veys: The European Social Survey (ESS)—From design to implementationand beyond. Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and MulticulturalContexts, 485–495.

Hall, P., & Weaver, L. (2001). Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: Along and winding road. Medical Education, 35, 867–875.

Hantrais, L. (1999). Contextualization in cross-national comparative research.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 93–108.

Iwarsson, S., Wahl, H., & Nygren, C. (2004). Challenges of cross-nationalhousing research with older persons; lessons from the ENABLE-AGE pro-ject. European Journal of Ageing, 1, 79–88.

Jackson, J. S. (2002). Conceptual and methodological linkages in cross-cultural groups and cross-national aging research. Journal of Social Issues,58(4), 825–835.

Jowell, R. (1998). How comparative is comparative research? The AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 42(2), 168–177.

Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-national research as an analytic strategy. AmericanSociological Association, 1987 Presidential Address. American SociologicalReview, 52(6), 713–731.

Long, D. M., & Wilson, N. L. (2001). Houston geriatric interdisciplinary teamtraining curriculum. Houston: Baylor College of Medicine's HuffingtonCenter on Aging.

261P. Gardner et al. / Journal of Aging Studies 26 (2012) 253–261

Mangen, S. (1999). Qualitative research methods in cross-national settings.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 109–124.

McCallin, A. (2001). Interdisciplinary practice — a matter of teamwork: anintegrated literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 419–428.

National Research Council (2001). Preparing for an aging world. Washington,D.C.: National Academy Press.

Perlman, D. (2004). European and Canadian studies of loneliness amongseniors. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement,23(02), 181–188.

Singh, G., Hawkins, L., & Whymark, G. (2007). An integrated model of collab-orative knowledge building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge andLearning Objects, 3, 85–105.

Teagarden,M. B., Vonglinow,M. A., Bowen, D. E., Frayne, C. A., Nason, S., Huo, Y. P.,et al. (1995). Toward a theory of comparative management research —

an ideographic case–study of the best international human-resourcesmanagement project. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1261–1287.