Advertisement

European Political Science

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 354–368 | Cite as

framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: case study and process-tracing methods

  • benedetta voltolini
  • rainer eising
Symposium

Abstract

This article discusses the potential of case study and process-tracing methods for studying lobbying and framing in the European Union (EU). It argues that case studies and process tracing allow us to explore different sets of questions than large-N and quantitative approaches and to shed light on the mechanisms that contribute to policy change. Through these methods it is possible to study long-term processes and under-researched areas, to analyse the social construction of frames and to single out the conditions that lead to successful framing. In order to show the advantages of case studies and process tracing, illustrative examples drawn from the case study of EU foreign policy towards the Israeli–Palestinian conflict are provided.

Keywords

framing case study process tracing lobbying EU foreign policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Rainer Eising, Helene Helboe Pedersen, the participants of the 2014 ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop in Methodological Challenges and Contradictory Results in the Study of Interest Groups in Salamanca and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on previous versions of this article.

References

  1. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1970) Power and Poverty. Theory and Practice, New York; London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F. and Mahoney, C. (2008) ‘The two faces of framing’, European Union Politics 9(3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, D. and Pedersen, R.B. (2013) Process-Tracing Methods, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, A. and Checkel, J.T. (2014) Process Tracing From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, A. and Elman, E. (2007) ‘Case study methods in the international relations subfield’, Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 170–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. (2004) ‘Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations’, European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., Chaqués Bonafont, L., Dür, A., Eising, R., Fink-Hafner, D., Lowery, D., Mahoney, C., Maloney, W. and Naurin, D. (2014) ‘The INTEREURO project: Logic and structure’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W. (2008) ‘Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know?’ West European Politics 31(6): 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Binderkrantz, A. and Pedersen, H.H. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.17.Google Scholar
  10. Boräng, F., Eising, R., Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., Naurin, D., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2014) ‘Identifying frames: A comparison of research methods’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 188–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouwen, P. (2004) ‘The logic of access to the European parliament: Business lobbying in the committee on economic and monetary affairs’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42(3): 473–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouwen, P. and McCown, M. (2007) ‘Lobbying versus litigation: Political and legal strategies of interest representation in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryman, A. (2004) ‘Interviewing in Qualitative Research’, in A. Bryman (ed.) Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bunea, A. and Ibenskas, R. (2015) ‘Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups’, European Union Politics 16(3): 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bunea, A. and Ibenskas, R. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Estimating interest groups’ policy positions through content analysis: A discussion of automated and human-coding text analysis techniques applied to studies of EU lobbying’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.15.Google Scholar
  17. Checkel, J.T. (2008) ‘Process Tracing’, in A. Klotz and D. Prakash (eds.) Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coen, D. (2007) ‘Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coen, D. and Richardson, J. (eds.) (2009) Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Collier, D., Brady, H.E. and Seawright, J. (2010) ‘Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology’, in H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Council of the European Union. (2012) ‘Council conclusions on the Middle East peace process – 3209th Foreign Affairs Council Meeting’, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134140.pdf, accessed 20 January 2015.
  22. De Keyser, V. (2012) ‘Working Document. Additional Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an EC-Israel Association on an EC-Israel Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA)’, Committee of Foreign Affairs, European Parliament.Google Scholar
  23. Dür, A. (2008) ‘Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology’, European Union Politics 9(4): 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eising, R. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying interest groups: Methodological challenges and tools’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.14.Google Scholar
  25. Eising, R., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2015) ‘Institutions, policies, and arguments: Context and strategy in EU policy framing’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Entman, R.M. (1993) ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. European Voice. (2012) ‘Stuck at the Borders’, European Voice, 26 April, available at: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/stuck-at-the-border/74217.aspx, accessed 20 January 2015.
  28. Freedman, D.A. (2008) ‘Does the N’s Justify the Means?’ Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 6(2): 4–6.Google Scholar
  29. George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: BCSIA.Google Scholar
  30. Gerring, J. (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Goertz, G. (2008) ‘Choosing cases for case studies: A qualitative logic’, Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s Organised Section on Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 6(2): 11–14.Google Scholar
  32. Greenwood, J. (2003) Interest Representation in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Halperin, S. and Heath, O. (2012) Political Research. Methods and Practical Skills, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan, S. (2008) ‘Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty’, Organization Science 19(5): 729–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kittel, B. and Kuehn, D. (2013) ‘Introduction: Reassessing the methodology of process tracing’, European Political Science 12(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klüver, H. (2009) ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klüver, H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union. Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klüver, H. and Mahoney, C. (2015) ‘Measuring interest group framing strategies in public policy debates’, Journal of Public Policy 35(2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klüver, H., Mahoney, C. and Opper, M. (2015) ‘Framing in context: How interest groups employ framing to lobby the European commission’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koenig, T. (2006) ‘Compounding mixed-methods problems in frame analysis through comparative research’, Qualitative Research 6(1): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lupovici, A. (2009) ‘Constructivist methods: A plea and manifesto for pluralism’, Review of International Studies 35(1): 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. (2006) ‘A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research’, Political Analysis 14(3): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mills, A., Durepos, G. and Wiebe, E. (eds.) (2010) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morris, Z.S. (2009) ‘The truth about interviewing elites’, Politics 29(3): 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Payne, R.A. (2001) ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations 7(1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Snow, D.A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S.K. and Benford, R.D. (1986) ‘Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation’, American Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas, C.S. (ed.) (2004) Research Guide to US and International Interest Groups, Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  50. Tocci, N. (2007) The EU and Conflict Resolution. Promoting Peace in the Backyard, Abingdon; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Varone, F., Ingold, K. and Jourdain, C. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying policy advocacy through social network analysis’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.16.Google Scholar
  52. Vennesson, P. (2008) ‘Case studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices’, in D. Della Porta and M. Keating (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Abingdon; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Voltolini, B. (2015) ‘Non-state actors and framing processes in EU foreign policy: The case of EU–Israel relations’, Journal of European Public Policy, advance online publication 25 September, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1085429.Google Scholar
  54. Voltolini, B. (2016) Lobbying in EU Foreign Policy-Making: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’études européennes, Sciences PoParis Cedex 07France
  2. 2.Department of Social Science, Ruhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations