Pub Date : 2022-11-02DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2135451
Sebastian Stier, Bernd Weiss, Timo Hartmann, Fabian Flöck, Johannes Breuer, Ines Schaurer, Mirjan Kummerow
ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by intense debates about the role of the information environment. On the one hand, citizens learn from public information campaigns and news coverage and supposedly adjust their behaviours accordingly; on the other, there are fears of widespread misinformation and its detrimental effects. Analyzing the posts of the most important German information providers published via Facebook, this paper first identifies a uniform salience of subtopics related to COVID-19 across different types of information sources that generally emphasized the threats to public health. Next, using a large survey conducted with German residents during the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 we investigate how information exposure relates to perceptions, attitudes and behaviours concerning the pandemic. Regression analyses show that getting COVID-19-related information from a multitude of sources has a statistically significant and positive relationship with public health outcomes. These findings are consistent even across the ideological left/right spectrum and party preferences. These consistent correlational results demonstrate that during the first wave of COVID-19, a uniform information environment went hand in hand with a cautious public and widely accepted mitigation measures. Nonetheless, we discuss these findings against the backdrop of an increased politicization of public-health measures during later COVID-19 waves.
{"title":"The role of the information environment during the first COVID-19 wave in Germany","authors":"Sebastian Stier, Bernd Weiss, Timo Hartmann, Fabian Flöck, Johannes Breuer, Ines Schaurer, Mirjan Kummerow","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2135451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2135451","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by intense debates about the role of the information environment. On the one hand, citizens learn from public information campaigns and news coverage and supposedly adjust their behaviours accordingly; on the other, there are fears of widespread misinformation and its detrimental effects. Analyzing the posts of the most important German information providers published via Facebook, this paper first identifies a uniform salience of subtopics related to COVID-19 across different types of information sources that generally emphasized the threats to public health. Next, using a large survey conducted with German residents during the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 we investigate how information exposure relates to perceptions, attitudes and behaviours concerning the pandemic. Regression analyses show that getting COVID-19-related information from a multitude of sources has a statistically significant and positive relationship with public health outcomes. These findings are consistent even across the ideological left/right spectrum and party preferences. These consistent correlational results demonstrate that during the first wave of COVID-19, a uniform information environment went hand in hand with a cautious public and widely accepted mitigation measures. Nonetheless, we discuss these findings against the backdrop of an increased politicization of public-health measures during later COVID-19 waves.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42869866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-28DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372
C. Wiesner
ABSTRACT Research in Political Science is increasingly based on qualitative and interpretative methods. Based on concrete experiences in a comprehensive qualitative interpretative study, this article discusses general challenges of interpretative methodologies and their application in Political Science. It fills a gap in the current methods literature by concretely explaining how the methodological presumptions of interpretative research are to be carried out in such a way that they lead to substantial findings, irrespective of the material, cases and method one choses. To do so, it is core to analyse not only the ‘what’, but also the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ in the material. A classical qualitative content analysis consists in analysing the ‘what’ in a text, a field, or a visual, that is, utterances, arguments, or concepts that are used in it. Beyond this, in a qualitative interpretative project, the second part of analysis targets the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of constructing meanings, narratives, arguments, topoi, or (mental) images. Analysing the ‘how’ and ‘why’ requires specific analytical and interpretative steps which are, however, barely discussed in the methods literature. Based on the experiences in a concrete research project, the article explains how to structure analytical steps for researching the ‘how’ and the ‘why’.
{"title":"Doing qualitative and interpretative research: reflecting principles and principled challenges","authors":"C. Wiesner","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research in Political Science is increasingly based on qualitative and interpretative methods. Based on concrete experiences in a comprehensive qualitative interpretative study, this article discusses general challenges of interpretative methodologies and their application in Political Science. It fills a gap in the current methods literature by concretely explaining how the methodological presumptions of interpretative research are to be carried out in such a way that they lead to substantial findings, irrespective of the material, cases and method one choses. To do so, it is core to analyse not only the ‘what’, but also the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ in the material. A classical qualitative content analysis consists in analysing the ‘what’ in a text, a field, or a visual, that is, utterances, arguments, or concepts that are used in it. Beyond this, in a qualitative interpretative project, the second part of analysis targets the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of constructing meanings, narratives, arguments, topoi, or (mental) images. Analysing the ‘how’ and ‘why’ requires specific analytical and interpretative steps which are, however, barely discussed in the methods literature. Based on the experiences in a concrete research project, the article explains how to structure analytical steps for researching the ‘how’ and the ‘why’.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49276436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-28DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2134809
Katja Mäkinen
ABSTRACT This article uses an ethnographic approach to study citizens’ participation in the context of participatory practices organized in the framework of cultural policy of the European Union. It focuses on one EU policy action, European Heritage Label (EHL) and one cultural heritage site that has received this label. The research data was collected through participant observation and interviews with young people who participated in the activities organized on and by the site. This article asks: what meanings the participants give to participation. By analysing the participants’ experiences of the site and their conceptions of participation, I develop the notion of ‘polyspatial agency’. The ethnography of participation introduced in the article enables recognizing diverse conceptions of participation and agencies as well as the possibilities and problems related to participation in the micro-level realities of the sites, thus deepening and diversifying the understanding of participation, EU policies and participatory governance.
{"title":"Ethnographic approach to participation in EU policy: developing polyspatial agency","authors":"Katja Mäkinen","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2134809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2134809","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article uses an ethnographic approach to study citizens’ participation in the context of participatory practices organized in the framework of cultural policy of the European Union. It focuses on one EU policy action, European Heritage Label (EHL) and one cultural heritage site that has received this label. The research data was collected through participant observation and interviews with young people who participated in the activities organized on and by the site. This article asks: what meanings the participants give to participation. By analysing the participants’ experiences of the site and their conceptions of participation, I develop the notion of ‘polyspatial agency’. The ethnography of participation introduced in the article enables recognizing diverse conceptions of participation and agencies as well as the possibilities and problems related to participation in the micro-level realities of the sites, thus deepening and diversifying the understanding of participation, EU policies and participatory governance.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42437190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-21DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2136036
Sabine Volk
ABSTRACT This article explores the link between the ritualization of public protest and movement persistence in the context of contemporary far-right politics. Drawing from interpretive approaches in political science, social movement studies, and anthropology, it introduces the under-researched analytical category of protest ritual to scholarship on far-right social movements. It argues for a strong link between ritualistic protest and far-right movement persistence, conceptualized as symbolic continuity, and suggests the use of ethnographic methods to gain insights into the concrete processes of ritualization. Empirically, the article provides a case study on one of Europe’s most sustained instances of far-right protest: the German ‘Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident’ (PEGIDA). Based on an original ‘patchwork’ ethnographic dataset generated in both conventional and virtual ethnographic fieldwork in 2019–21, the analysis redefines PEGIDA as a symbolic performance expressing dense meanings of ‘democratic resistance’ and highlights the constitutive role of the ‘PEGIDA ritual’ both on the streets and online as a novel explanation for PEGIDA’s continuity beyond its peak in 2014–15. Overall, this study contributes to an emerging body of research focusing on local and extra-parliamentary far-right actors, particularly taking an emic perspective on the meaning-making processes in far-right activism.
{"title":"Explaining PEGIDA’s ‘strange survival’: an ethnographic approach to far-right protest rituals","authors":"Sabine Volk","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2136036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2136036","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the link between the ritualization of public protest and movement persistence in the context of contemporary far-right politics. Drawing from interpretive approaches in political science, social movement studies, and anthropology, it introduces the under-researched analytical category of protest ritual to scholarship on far-right social movements. It argues for a strong link between ritualistic protest and far-right movement persistence, conceptualized as symbolic continuity, and suggests the use of ethnographic methods to gain insights into the concrete processes of ritualization. Empirically, the article provides a case study on one of Europe’s most sustained instances of far-right protest: the German ‘Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident’ (PEGIDA). Based on an original ‘patchwork’ ethnographic dataset generated in both conventional and virtual ethnographic fieldwork in 2019–21, the analysis redefines PEGIDA as a symbolic performance expressing dense meanings of ‘democratic resistance’ and highlights the constitutive role of the ‘PEGIDA ritual’ both on the streets and online as a novel explanation for PEGIDA’s continuity beyond its peak in 2014–15. Overall, this study contributes to an emerging body of research focusing on local and extra-parliamentary far-right actors, particularly taking an emic perspective on the meaning-making processes in far-right activism.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47156720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124923
Louise Skoog, David Karlsson
ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to study why politicians in the same elected assembly perceive political polarization differently, as well as whether and how this influences perceptions of their behaviour. The findings reveals that there is a relationship between local politicians’ perceptions of polarization and winner-loser partisanship and trust. The results show that politicians who have higher levels of trust perceive a lower level of antagonistic behaviour. Being a political winner (in a ruling party coalition) or loser (in opposition) fosters a specific form of partisanship, which affects politicians’ perceptions. Politicians who are winners tend to perceive lower levels of polarization and antagonistic behaviour. More insight into how and why political actors perceive the same situation differently could potentially foster a greater understanding – a political empathy – among political combatants, facilitating interaction. The study is based on data from a survey conducted among all councillors in the 290 municipalities in Sweden.
{"title":"Perceptions of polarization among political representatives","authors":"Louise Skoog, David Karlsson","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124923","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to study why politicians in the same elected assembly perceive political polarization differently, as well as whether and how this influences perceptions of their behaviour. The findings reveals that there is a relationship between local politicians’ perceptions of polarization and winner-loser partisanship and trust. The results show that politicians who have higher levels of trust perceive a lower level of antagonistic behaviour. Being a political winner (in a ruling party coalition) or loser (in opposition) fosters a specific form of partisanship, which affects politicians’ perceptions. Politicians who are winners tend to perceive lower levels of polarization and antagonistic behaviour. More insight into how and why political actors perceive the same situation differently could potentially foster a greater understanding – a political empathy – among political combatants, facilitating interaction. The study is based on data from a survey conducted among all councillors in the 290 municipalities in Sweden.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48725422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-28DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124922
Katja Freistein, Frank Gadinger
ABSTRACT Since visuality in the (self-)representation of politicians and other influential figures has become an important part of political storytelling, we propose to use visual narrative analysis (VNA) as a systematic approach for its better understanding. VNA is particularly suited for this performative strand of interpretive analysis, as it does not study images in isolation but in the broader context of political narratives. By analysing different layers of communication (images, narratives, competing narratives) VNA enables us to identify internal contradictions that undermine political efforts of self-representation in contexts of global governance (e.g. multilateral diplomacy) and render them unstable and contestable. By analysing competing (self-)representations at a G7 meeting in 2018, we show how VNA can be applied fruitfully to the study of international politics and, second, how VNA can explain some of the reasons why one image became iconic (Angela Merkel as female leader of the liberal world), i.e. appealed to a wider audience, and others (focusing on Emmanuel Macron or Donald Trump) did not. While our article is primarily a demonstration of the methodological benefits of VNA for various research contexts in world politics, it also contributes to conceptual debates on the combination of visuality, narratives and emotions in changing practices of political storytelling.
{"title":"Performing leadership: international politics through the lens of visual narrative analysis","authors":"Katja Freistein, Frank Gadinger","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124922","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2124922","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since visuality in the (self-)representation of politicians and other influential figures has become an important part of political storytelling, we propose to use visual narrative analysis (VNA) as a systematic approach for its better understanding. VNA is particularly suited for this performative strand of interpretive analysis, as it does not study images in isolation but in the broader context of political narratives. By analysing different layers of communication (images, narratives, competing narratives) VNA enables us to identify internal contradictions that undermine political efforts of self-representation in contexts of global governance (e.g. multilateral diplomacy) and render them unstable and contestable. By analysing competing (self-)representations at a G7 meeting in 2018, we show how VNA can be applied fruitfully to the study of international politics and, second, how VNA can explain some of the reasons why one image became iconic (Angela Merkel as female leader of the liberal world), i.e. appealed to a wider audience, and others (focusing on Emmanuel Macron or Donald Trump) did not. While our article is primarily a demonstration of the methodological benefits of VNA for various research contexts in world politics, it also contributes to conceptual debates on the combination of visuality, narratives and emotions in changing practices of political storytelling.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42358073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-26DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2126792
M. Hameleers, Andreas C. Goldberg
ABSTRACT The media’s attention to populism is oftentimes associated with its electoral success. In this paper, we propose that the relationship between media coverage and populist beliefs among citizens can be understood as an over-time cultivation of support for populist ideology due to the media’s attention to populist ideas and policies. The media may devote attention to ideas high on the populist agenda, such as Euroscepticism, which may prime populist worldviews among individuals. To test this expectation, we first use a comparative study in nine EU countries for which we link content analytic data on negativity toward the EU in the media to panel survey data measuring populist attitudes. Overall, we find that exposure to negative news on the EU does not trigger populist attitudes. In a more detailed case study in the Netherlands across multiple panel waves, we do find that social media exposure is more likely to be associated with populist attitudes than traditional news exposure. Together, our study offers limited support for the notion that attention to Euroscepticism in established media can fuel populist attitudes among voters.
{"title":"Europe against the people: does eurosceptic news exposure relate to populist attitudes? Evidence from a linkage study across nine European countries","authors":"M. Hameleers, Andreas C. Goldberg","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2126792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2126792","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The media’s attention to populism is oftentimes associated with its electoral success. In this paper, we propose that the relationship between media coverage and populist beliefs among citizens can be understood as an over-time cultivation of support for populist ideology due to the media’s attention to populist ideas and policies. The media may devote attention to ideas high on the populist agenda, such as Euroscepticism, which may prime populist worldviews among individuals. To test this expectation, we first use a comparative study in nine EU countries for which we link content analytic data on negativity toward the EU in the media to panel survey data measuring populist attitudes. Overall, we find that exposure to negative news on the EU does not trigger populist attitudes. In a more detailed case study in the Netherlands across multiple panel waves, we do find that social media exposure is more likely to be associated with populist attitudes than traditional news exposure. Together, our study offers limited support for the notion that attention to Euroscepticism in established media can fuel populist attitudes among voters.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47953857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-23DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2125327
Hugo Canihac
ABSTRACT While most authors have attempted to conceptualize populism by exploring its relation with representative democracy, this note is concerned with a different, yet equally pressing issue: How is populism related to the other building block of contemporary democracies – political liberalism? Most commonly, populism has, in academic as political discourses, been described as ‘illiberal’. But the precise meaning of this ‘illiberal’ character is elusive, and often overlaps with other concepts such as ‘anti-liberal’ or even ‘post-liberal’. This conceptual haze is not only detrimental to political theorists, but to comparative political scientists as well. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to clarify these concepts, in order to cast light on the relationship between populism and political liberalism. It provides a review and critical discussion of the concepts of ‘illiberalism’, ‘anti-liberalism’ and ‘post-liberalism’; further, it offers to organize them in a coherent, and empirically productive, manner. In particular, it argues that ‘illiberalism’ should be treated with much caution; instead, it defines more workable concepts of ‘anti-liberalism’ and ‘post-liberalism’. So doing, it suggests how these concepts could be used in combination to fruitfully account for different dimensions of the study of populism, namely research on populist discourses, ideas and practices.
{"title":"Illiberal, anti-liberal or post-liberal democracy? Conceptualizing the relationship between populism and political liberalism","authors":"Hugo Canihac","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2125327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2125327","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While most authors have attempted to conceptualize populism by exploring its relation with representative democracy, this note is concerned with a different, yet equally pressing issue: How is populism related to the other building block of contemporary democracies – political liberalism? Most commonly, populism has, in academic as political discourses, been described as ‘illiberal’. But the precise meaning of this ‘illiberal’ character is elusive, and often overlaps with other concepts such as ‘anti-liberal’ or even ‘post-liberal’. This conceptual haze is not only detrimental to political theorists, but to comparative political scientists as well. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to clarify these concepts, in order to cast light on the relationship between populism and political liberalism. It provides a review and critical discussion of the concepts of ‘illiberalism’, ‘anti-liberalism’ and ‘post-liberalism’; further, it offers to organize them in a coherent, and empirically productive, manner. In particular, it argues that ‘illiberalism’ should be treated with much caution; instead, it defines more workable concepts of ‘anti-liberalism’ and ‘post-liberalism’. So doing, it suggests how these concepts could be used in combination to fruitfully account for different dimensions of the study of populism, namely research on populist discourses, ideas and practices.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47657653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2022.2123744
S. Kröger, Thomas Loughran
ABSTRACT Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Yet, we know rather little about where scholars’ normative support of DI begins and where it ends, and whether there is scholarly consensus about which type of DI warrants support. This contribution addresses which type of DI scholars support, and which policy areas should be exempt. It explores these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Three broad observations can be made. First, whilst support for DI is strong in the abstract, it becomes much weaker when empirically applied. Second, the high levels of support are not necessarily in tune with the perceived risks of DI. Third, there is a fair amount of expert disagreement around DI. We defend the view that the type of disagreement we see in the findings is valid and substantively relevant because it highlights genuine diffusion (as opposed to conceptual confusion) in the distribution of preferences among experts that has previously been largely obscured. The article thereby also makes a contribution to the literature on expert surveys, discussing the distinction between benchmarking and non-benchmarking expert surveys, and the legitimacy of expert disagreement.
{"title":"The limits of support for differentiated integration in the European Union as perceived by academic experts","authors":"S. Kröger, Thomas Loughran","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2022.2123744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2123744","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union has recently attracted considerable scholarly and political attention. Yet, we know rather little about where scholars’ normative support of DI begins and where it ends, and whether there is scholarly consensus about which type of DI warrants support. This contribution addresses which type of DI scholars support, and which policy areas should be exempt. It explores these questions by means of a novel expert survey (n = 95). Three broad observations can be made. First, whilst support for DI is strong in the abstract, it becomes much weaker when empirically applied. Second, the high levels of support are not necessarily in tune with the perceived risks of DI. Third, there is a fair amount of expert disagreement around DI. We defend the view that the type of disagreement we see in the findings is valid and substantively relevant because it highlights genuine diffusion (as opposed to conceptual confusion) in the distribution of preferences among experts that has previously been largely obscured. The article thereby also makes a contribution to the literature on expert surveys, discussing the distinction between benchmarking and non-benchmarking expert surveys, and the legitimacy of expert disagreement.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41645822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：