A Political Sociology to Compare Regionalisms: A Methodological Approximation

  • Kevin Parthenay


The methodological side of comparative regionalism has often been minimized. The adoption of a political sociology approach involves rethinking the research strategy in depth and drawing a more qualitative, even inductive, framework of research. That enables us to start from the ground up to better understand the functioning, outputs and outcomes of regionalism. The data-collection effort on actors’ relationships, their social characteristics, collective beliefs as well as daily practices, is at stake in this chapter.


Qualitative research Socio-biographical analysis Institutional ambiguity Regional practices 


  1. Adler-Nissen, R. (2016). Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies: The Everyday of European Integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börzel, T. A. (2007). European Governance – Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy. In: UNSPECIFIED, Montreal, Canada. (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  3. Champy, F. (2012). La sociologie des professions. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On Compliance. International Organization, 47(2), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Genna, G., & De Lombaerde, P. (2010). The Small N Methodological Challenges of Analyzing Regional Integration. Journal of European Integration, 32(6), 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Georgakakis, D. (Ed.). (2013). Le champ de l’Eurocratie. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  8. Georgakakis, D., & de Lassalle, M. (2007). Genèse et structure d’un capital institutionnel européen: les très hauts fonctionnaires de la Commission européenne. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 166–167(1), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haftel, Y., & Thompson, A. (2006). The Independence of International Organizations: Concept and Applications. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hameiri, S. (2013). Theorising Regions Through Changes in Statehood: Rethinking the Theory and Method of Comparative Regionalism. Review of International Studies, 39(2), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hooghe, et al. (2016). Measuring International Authority. A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance (Vol. III). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobson, H., & Brown Weiss, E. (1998). Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accord. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lemercier, C., & Picard, E. (2011). Quelle approche prosopographique ? In L. Rollet & P. Nabonnaud (Eds.), Les uns et les autres. Biographies et prosopographies en histoire des sciences (pp. 605–630). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, Editions Universitaires de Lorraine.Google Scholar
  14. Lindemann, T. (2016). Chapitre 2 – La construction de l’objet et la comparaison dans l’étude des relations internationals. In Méthodes de recherche en relations internationales (pp. 39–56). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.).Google Scholar
  15. Maertens, L. (2016). Ouvrir la boîte noire. Terrains/Théories [En ligne], 5 | 2016.Google Scholar
  16. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining Institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agency and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. North, D. (1999). In Anticipation of the Marriage of Political and Economic Theory. In J. E. Alt, M. Levi, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Competition and Cooperation: Conversations with Nobelists About Economics and Political Science (pp. 314–317). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. Parthenay, K. (2013). L’intégration régionale en Amérique centrale. Une sociologie politique du changement (1991–2012). PhD Dissertation, Sciences Po, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Pouliot, V. (2016). International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pouliot, V. (2017). L’ordre hiérarchique international. Les luttes de rang dans la diplomatie multilatérale. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  21. Pouliot, V. (2018). La logique du praticable: une théorie de la pratique des communautés de sécurité. Études internationales, 48(2), 153–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saurugger, S., & Mérand, F. (2010). Does European Integration Theory Need Sociology. Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schemeil, Y. (2007, novembre 7–9). S’adapter ou mourir: le changement managérial rampant dans les organisations internationales. Congrès de l’Association française de science politique. Grenoble.Google Scholar
  24. Schemeil, Y. (2010). Introduction à la science politique. Paris: Dalloz-Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  25. Simmons, B. (1998). Compliance with International Agreements. The Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tallberg, J. (2002). Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management, and the European Union. International Organization, 56(3), 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Underdal, A. (1998). Explaining Compliance and Defection: Three Models. European Journal of International Relations, 4(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Warleigh-Lack, A. (2006). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Regionalisation: Bridging ‘New Regionalism’ and ‘Integration Theory’. Review of International Political Economy, 13(5), 750–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, O. (1979). Compliance and Public Authority: A Theory with International Applications. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Parthenay
    • 1
  1. 1.Sciences PoParisFrance

Personalised recommendations