the babel of European Union studies: beyond the trans-Atlantic divide
- 44 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEuropean Union studies meta-analysis scholarly styles sociology of science quantitative–qualitative divide
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.
- Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (2013) Statistical Methods For the Social Sciences, San Francisco, CA: Dellen.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
- Egan, M., Nugent, N. and Paterson, W. (eds.) (2010) Research Agendas in EU Studies, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Favell, A. and Guiraudon, V. (eds.) (2011) Sociology of the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Hart, R.P. and Carroll, C. (2011) DICTION: The Text-Analysis Program, Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
- Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American social science: International relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60Google Scholar
- http://www.statistics.com/resources/glossary/, retrieved 1 May 2014.
- International Association of Universities (2017) World higher education database. http://whed.net/home.php, retrieved 8 May 2017.
- Moravcsik, A. (2001a) ‘Bringing constructivist integration theory out of the clouds: Has it landed yet?’, European Union Politics 2(2): 226–240.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.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
- UNESCO (2016) World Social Science Report 2016, Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World, Paris: UNESCO Publishing.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
- Woolgar, S. (1988) Science: The Very Idea, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar