Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

the babel of European Union studies: beyond the trans-Atlantic divide

  • Research
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines four lines of scholarly difference in European Union (EU) studies – meta-theoretical, (sub)disciplinary, epistemological and methodological – and whether these are linked to the geographical and institutional affiliations of the authors operating in the field. The study uses a novel dataset based on a quantitative content analysis and human coding of 1597 articles in leading journals dealing with the EU published in the period 2003–2012. The article shows that USA-based scholars score on average – though in many cases, not significantly – higher when it comes to indicators of a comparative politics approach to the EU, use of a rational choice, positivist and statistical vocabulary, and articles coded as quantitative. However, on most of these indicators scholars in some European countries, and especially some institutions, score significantly higher, suggesting that we should disaggregate ‘Europe’ when discussing scholarly differences in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler-Nissen, R. and Kristoffer, K. (2015) ‘Making Europe: The sociology of knowledge meets European integration’, Journal of European Integration 37(2): 155–318 (Special issue).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (2013) Statistical Methods For the Social Sciences, San Francisco, CA: Dellen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D.M. (2012) ‘The rise and fall of EU studies in the USA’, Journal of European Public Policy 19(5): 755–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady, H.E. and Collier, D. (eds.) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunea, A. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2014) ‘The state of the discipline: Authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(10): 1412–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. (2003) ‘Going native’ in Europe? Theorizing social interaction in European Institutions’, Comparative Political Studies 36(1–2): 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. (2005) ‘International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework’, International Organization 59(4): 801–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. and Moravcsik, A. (2001) ‘A constructivist research program in EU studies?’, European Union Politics 2(2): 219–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, T., Jorgensen, K.E. and Wiener, A. (1999) ‘The social construction of Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(4): 528–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M., Nugent, N. and Paterson, W. (eds.) (2010) Research Agendas in EU Studies, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2006) Debates on European Integration. A Reader, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Exadaktylos, T. and Radaelli, C.M. (2009) ‘Research design in European studies: The case of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies 47(3): 507–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favell, A. and Guiraudon, V. (eds.) (2011) Sociology of the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B.M. (2013) ‘Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts’, Political Analysis 21(3): 267–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R.P. and Carroll, C. (2011) DICTION: The Text-Analysis Program, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (1994) ‘The study of the European community: The challenge to comparative politics’, West European Politics 17(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (1998) ‘The study of the European Union II: The ‘new governance’ agenda and its rival’, Journal of European Public Policy 5(1): 38–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American social science: International relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2008) ‘European Union?’, West European Politics 31(1–2): 108–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • http://www.statistics.com/resources/glossary/, retrieved 1 May 2014.

  • Hurrell, A. and Menon, A. (1996) ‘Politics like any other? Comparative politics, international relations and the study of the EU’, West European Politics 19(2): 386–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Association of Universities (2017) World higher education database. http://whed.net/home.php, retrieved 8 May 2017.

  • Jensen, M.D. and Kristensen, P.M. (2013) ‘The elephant in the room: Mapping the latent communication pattern in European Union studies’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jupille, J. (2006) ‘Knowing Europe: Metatheory and Methodology in European Union studies’, in M. Ciniand and A.K. Bourne (eds.) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209–233.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jupille, J., Caporaso, J.A. and Checkel, J.T. (2003) ‘Integrating institutions rationalism, constructivism, and the study of the European Union’, Comparative Political Studies 36(1–2): 7–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, K. (1965) ‘L’europe Des Savants European Integration and The Social Sciences’, Journal of Common Market Studies 4(1): 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, W. (2008) ‘History meets politics: Overcoming the interdisciplinary Volapük in research on the EU’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(2): 300–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeler, J.T.S. (2005) ‘Mapping EU studies: The evolution from boutique to boom field 1960–2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies 43(3): 551–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2009) ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, I. and Whitman, R. (2016) ‘Another theory is possible: Dissident voices in theorising Europe’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 54(1): 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H.V. (1998) ‘Rationalizing politics: The emerging synthesis of international, American and comparative politics’, International Organization 52:759–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (2001a) ‘Bringing constructivist integration theory out of the clouds: Has it landed yet?’, European Union Politics 2(2): 226–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (2001b) ‘Constructivism and European Integration: A Critique’, in T. Christiansen, K.E. Jørgensen and A. Wiener (eds.) The Social Construction of Europe, London: Sage, pp. 176–188.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M.A. (2005) ‘Theorizing the European Union: International organization, domestic polity or experiment in new governance?’, Annual Review of Political Science 8(1): 357–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayson, P. and Garside, R. (2000) ‘Comparing Corpora Using Frequency Profiling’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, Held in Conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2000), 1–8 October 2000, Hong Kong, pp. 1–6.

  • Reinhard, J. (2012) ‘Because we are all Europeans! ’When do EU Member States use normative arguments?’, Journal of European Public Policy 19(9): 1336–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2004) ‘Social Constructivism and European Integration’, in A. Weinerand and D. Thomas (eds.) European Integration Theory, Oxford: University Press, pp. 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosamond, B. (2006) ‘The Political Sciences of European integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies’, in K.E. Jørgensen, M.A. Pollack and B. Rosamond (eds.) Handbook of European Union Politics, London: Sage, pp. 7–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosamond, B. (2007) ‘European integration and the social science of EU studies: The disciplinary politics of a subfield’, International Affairs 83(2): 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosamond, B. (2015) ‘Field of dreams: The discursive construction of EU studies, intellectual dissidence and the practice of ‘normal science’, Journal of Common Market Studies 54(1): 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2001) ‘The community trap: Liberal norms, rhetorical action, and the eastern enlargement of the European Union’, International Organization 55(1): 47–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2000) ‘The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science?’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 2(3): 374–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. (2001) ‘Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist difference? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles among EU decision-makers’, Journal of European Public Policy 8(1): 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2016) World Social Science Report 2016, Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdun, A. (2003) ‘An American/European divide in European integration studies: Bridging the gap with international political economy’, Journal of European Public Policy 10(1): 84–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2006) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, Mason, OH: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warleigh-Lack, A. and Phinnemore, D. (eds.) (2009) Reflections on European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, W. (2006) ‘Differences, controversies and convergence in European Union studies’, in M. Cini and A.K. Bourne (eds.) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–246.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1988) Science: The Very Idea, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers and the participants at Center for European Politics’ research meeting at University of Copenhagen and the Globalization and Europeanization Research Group at University of Roskilde where we presented earlier versions of the paper. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Dirk Leuffen and Kristoffer Kropp who read and commented on the paper. The paper could not have been written without research assistance from several people including Benjamin Carl Egerod, Casper Waldemar Hald, Egil Andreu Gräs and Mikkel Kinch-Jensen. We would also like to thank Holly Snaith for proofreading. Finally, we are in debt to Center for European Politics for financing the project. The standard disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde School of Governance, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Mads Dagnis Jensen

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen K, Denmark

    Peter Marcus Kristensen

Authors
  1. Mads Dagnis Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Marcus Kristensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mads Dagnis Jensen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Table 8 Constructivist vocabulary
Full size table
Table 9 Rational Choice vocabulary
Full size table
Table 10 Positivistic vocabulary
Full size table
Table 11 Statistical vocabulary
Full size table

Appendix 2

Bivariate correlations and logit model

  

Statistics

Rational Choice

Positivism

Constructivism

Statistics

Coefficient

1000

0.112***

0.638***

−0.316***

Sig. (2-tailed)

–

0.000

0.000

0.000

N

1597

1597

1597

1597

Rational Choice

Coefficient

0.112***

1000

0.190***

−0.207***

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.000

–

0.000

0.000

N

1597

1597

1597

1597

Positivism

Coefficient

0.638***

0.190***

1000

−0.195***

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.000

0.000

–

0.000

N

1597

1597

1597

1597

Constructivism

Coefficient

−0.316***

−.207***

−0.195***

1000

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.000

0.000

0.000

–

N

1597

1597

1597

1597

  1. * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
 

Dependent variable

Qualitative/quantitative

Statistics

0.907***

(0.005)

   

Rational Choice

 

0.992***

(0.001)

  

Positivism

  

0.959***

(0.002)

 

Constructivism

   

1.019***

(0.003)

Constant

15.151***

(0.119)

3.120***

(0.084)

60.052***

(0.179)

1.522***

(0.075)

Observations

1597

1597

1597

1597

Log likelihood

−611.798

−973.581

−585.346

−958.064

Akaike inf. crit.

1227.596

1951.162

1174.691

1920.129

  1. Coefficients are odds ratios. Standard errors are in parentheses.
  2. * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jensen, M.D., Kristensen, P.M. the babel of European Union studies: beyond the trans-Atlantic divide. Eur Polit Sci 17, 437–465 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0125-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0125-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation