How we took our cases to the “Comparison Clinic” – A report

Welcoming guest researchers to the Collaborative Research Center (CRC) is always an exciting opportunity to engage in discussions about theoretical ideas, research approaches, or findings. From May 20^th to June 7^th, we had the pleasure of having renowned geographer Jennifer Robinson with us. Jennifer engages with questions regarding urban development and explores tactics for studying cities in the 21^st century, delving extensively into the methodologies of comparative research. As various CRC projects pursue research questions by drawing on comparative case studies from different places around the world, Jennifer, Séverine Marguin, and Silke Steets initiated a special workshop format: the “Comparison Clinic.” On June 5, various CRC researchers presented and discussed the issues they are dealing with in their comparative work, and of course explored the intriguing potentials of comparative research. In this blogpost, we aim to highlight key aspects of our discussion.

The workshop kicked off with an input from project C05, which focuses on the question of how urban spaces are being refigured by means of urban climate adaptation. Indrawan Prabaharyaka’s presentation took us through the history of the climatope concept, which characterizes areas with similar microclimatic qualities. The concept originated in Stuttgart and then became a comparison tool for climatologists doing climate assessments in different cities. While being developed in Germany, the concept traveled to other world regions through scientific collaborations. Margherita Tess traced the exchange between German and Japanese urban climatologists. The empirical focus was on practices of comparison enacted by climatologists themselves when their respective epistemologies about climate came in contact. Margherita presented how the translocal circulation of knowledge happened in unpredictable ways: pieces of knowledge get lost, forgotten or equivocated, as in the case of the process of translation of the concept of “wind corridors.” Tracing these processes of knowledge circulation using comparisons made by climatologists as a lens, served as a starting point to highlight the messy entanglements of spatialities of knowledge.

In his presentation, Carl-Jan Dihlmann from project A01 took us to rural British Columbia, Canada. By comparing the rather prosperous Powell River and the more peripheralized Burns Lake area, he aims to shed light on the connection between geographic imaginations and feelings of ontological security. He spoke about one of the project’s less intuitive findings; under certain circumstances less infrastructure can lead to a higher degree of well-being in remote rural areas. As a possible means for comparing the different research sites in British Columbia, Carl-Jan discussed the potentials of a CRC key concept: the spatial figures. He provided examples in how far the four figures of ‘territory,’ ‘place,’ ‘trajectory,’ and ‘network’ can be empirically identified, and in which way their logics might conflict (e.g., during the 2018 wildfires in British Columbia). Based on the assessment that the spatial figures are indeed excellent tools for approaching and sorting interview data, we discussed different possibilities to take advantage of this. Being a sensitizing concept that has to be filled with meaning in specific cases, the spatial figures can serve as a tool to profoundly engage in active theorizing in qualitative research. Thus, in comparative research they can prevent us from collapsing our rich material from different cases by streamlining the material along predetermined theoretical paths, which of course also holds true for the spatial figures themselves. As a heuristic process and on a more abstract level however, thinking through spatial figures opens interesting questions for comparative thinking, for example regarding their varying relevance, meaning, and/or entanglement in our cases.

The next input was given by Christina Hecht from project C07, who took us through her reflections on starting a comparative analysis. By conducting and comparing case studies on conflicts around Airbnb in Cape Town and Berlin, she wants to explore how platform companies become embedded in established markets. Positionality emerged as one key aspect in our discussion. We delved into the topic of how we, as researchers, are on the one hand positioned very differently vis-à-vis our cases (e.g., as a citizen and long-term resident in Berlin and a short-term visiting scholar in Cape Town). On the other hand, we are one common denominator of the research conducted; we bring different cases into conversation. One key prerequisite to do so is to identify what our case is analytically, to answer the question: which elements of both cases shall be brought into the conversation?

What is brought into conversation in the cases of Qusay Amer from project C08 are the relationships between various actors involved in the governance of migration. He is investigating the construction of spaces of refuge in Amman and Berlin. In comparing these cities, Qusay gives particular attention to the influence of translocal networks and organizations on local planning policies and governments approaches to deal with migration more generally. We discussed how the agendas of translocal actors intersect with the interests of local ones, and how this might lead to disconnects between the needs of refugees and the policies implemented. Again, in tracing these relationships and their entanglements across cases, by shedding light on shared features and singularities, comparative research is a powerful practice to investigate how policies emerge and shape (public) spaces of refuge.

We all are in different stages of our comparative endeavors. However, taking our cases to the “Comparison Clinic” helped each of us. We loved the format of talking about our cases, empirical materials, and issues in-depth over the course of a whole day and want to thank Jennifer, Séverine, and Silke for initiating the workshop. Several aspects recurred in our discussions throughout the day. For example, the need to really bring cases into conversation with each other, going back and forth instead of linearly staring at one case and ending on another. Exploring shared features, variations, divergences, or singularities in horizontal but nonlinear exchange provides a promising route for developing and refining concepts. Continuing our conversations about comparative practice and research can therefore only be beneficial for the CRC’s objective to arrive at a theory of refiguration.

Author Bio: Christina Hecht is a sociologist researching spatial conflicts and the platform economy in project C07 at the CRC. In her dissertation, she analyzes how Airbnb gets embedded in social structures in Cape Town and Berlin through the lens of comparative field analysis.