Discourse Analysis, Data and Research Techniques

  • Kennet LynggaardEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


This chapter offers concrete guidelines to types of data and research techniques useful for carrying out discourse analysis in the context of European Union politics. The chapter discusses the pros and cons of available data for the purpose of analysing discourses on EU politics including documents, surveys, interviews, ‘natural occurring talk’ and non-linguistic material. The chapter further addresses the advantages and challenges to research techniques capturing discourse, including content analysis, computer-assisted text analysis, and the analysis of problem perceptions. The chapter argues in favour of combining types of data and research techniques depending on the research purpose at hand.


  1. Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple Streams in EU Policy-Making: The Case of the 2005 Sugar Reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiello, G., & Thurlow, C. (2006). Symbolic Capitals: Visual Discourse and Intercultural Exchange in the European Capital of Culture Scheme. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(2), 148–162.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearsons.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, A. (2015). Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis with Computer Assisted Content Analysis. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 984–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkdahl, A. (2008). Norm Advocacy: A Small State Strategy to Influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, A. (2008). Documents as Sources of Data. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Social Research Methods (3rd ed., pp. 514–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cairney, P. (2009). The Role of Ideas in Policy Transfer: The Case of UK Smoking Bans Since Devolution. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3), 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-Depth Semistructured Interviews. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chira-Pascanut, C. (2014). Discreet Players: Jean Monnet, Transatlantic Networks and Policy Makers in International Co-operation. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(6), 1242–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copeland, P., & Scott, J. (2014). Policy Windows, Ambiguity and Commission Entrepreneurship: Explaining the Relaunch of the European Union’s Economic Reform Agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. della Porta, D., & Caiani, M. (2006). The Europeanization of Public Discourse in Italy a Top-Down Process? European Union Politics, 7(1), 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimitrova, A., & Kortenska, E. (2017). What Do Citizens Want? And Why Does It Matter? Discourses Among Citizens as Opportunities and Constraints for EU Enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(2), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrera, Y. M., & Braumoeller, B. F. (2004). Symposium: Discourse and Content Analysis. Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 15–39.Google Scholar
  14. Howarth, D. (2005). Applying Discourse Theory: The Method of Articulation. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance (pp. 316–349). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurka, S., & Nebel, K. (2013). Framing and Policy Change After Shooting Rampages: A Comparative Analysis of Discourse Networks. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joerges, C., & Neyer, J. (1997). Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem-Solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4), 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelstrup, J. D., & Lynggaard, K. (2016). Computer-baseret dokumentanalyse i tre trin. In C. J. Kristensen & M. A. Hussain (Eds.), Metoder in Samfundsvidenskaberne: Engrundbog for de samfundsvidenskabelige bacheloruddannelser (pp. 139–154). Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  19. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  20. Knudsen, A.-C. L. (2015). European Union History. In K. Lynggaard, I. Manners, & K. Löfgren (Eds.), Research Methods in European Union Studies (pp. 37–54). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kølvraa, C. (2016). European Fantasies: On the EU’s Political Myths and the Affective Potential of Utopian Imaginaries for European Identity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lord, C. (2008). Two Constitutionalisms? A Comparison of British and French Government Attempts to Justify the Constitutional Treaty. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 1001–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynggaard, K. (2006). The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional Perspective on Continuity and Change. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
  25. Lynggaard, K. (2015). Dokumentanalyse. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative Metoder: En Grundbog (pp. 153–167). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  26. Mehta, J. (2011). The Varied Roles of Ideas in Politics: From “Whether” to “How”. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 23–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mérand, F., Hofmann, S. C., & Irondelle, B. (2011). Governance and State Power: A Network Analysis of European Security. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(1), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, C. (2004). The Hard Side of Soft Policy Co-ordination in EMU: The Impact of Peer Pressure on Publicized Opinion in the Cases of Germany and Ireland. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(5), 814–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Official Website of the European Union.
  30. Politico: European Edition.
  31. Quaglia, L. (2010). Completing the Single Market in Financial Services: The Politics of Competing Advocacy Coalitions. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(7), 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ricoeur, P. (1999). Hvad er en tekst? – forklare og forstå. In J. Gulddal & M. Møller (Eds.), Hermeneutik: En antologi om forståelse (pp. 238–262). Copenhagen, Denmark: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  34. Roggeband, C., & Vligenthart, R. (2007). Divergent Framing: The Public Debate on Migration in the Dutch Parliament and Media, 1995–2004. West European Politics, 30(3), 524–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Rose, G. (2016). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Material. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. West European Politics, 27(2), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steensig, J. (2015). Konversationsanalyse. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative Metoder: En Grundbog (pp. 321–348). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  39. Triantafillou, P. (2016). Analyse af Dokumenter og Dokumentation. In C. J. Kristensen & M. A. Hussain (Eds.), Metoder I Samfundsvidenskaberne (pp. 125–137). Frederiksberg: Samfunds Litteratur.Google Scholar
  40. University of Pittsburgh Hosted Archive of European Integration.
  41. van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Semiotics and Iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), The Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 92–118). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wæver, O. (2005). European Integration and Security: Analysing French and German Discourses on State, Nation, and Europe. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics (pp. 33–67). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Wright, S. (2007). A Virtual European Public Sphere? The Futurum Discussion Forum. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1167–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wueest, B., & Fossati, F. (2015). Quantitative Discursive Institutionalism: A Comparison of Labour Market Policy Discourse Across Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 708–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeitlin, J. (2010). Towards a Stronger OMC: A New Governance Architecture for EU Policy Coordination. In E. Marlier, D. Natali, & R. Van Dam (Eds.), Europe 2020: Towards a More Social EU? (pp. 253–273). Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences and BusinessRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations