Researching and Operationalizing Prototypical and Unconventional Norm Entrepreneurship

  • Carmen WunderlichEmail author
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)


The chapter presents the research design guiding the empirical analysis that lies at the heart of “Rogue states as norm entrepreneurs.” Addressing analytical limitations of liberal norm studies and building on a thorough literature review, Wunderlich offers a useful set of criteria to identify and assess norm entrepreneurship. Recourse to this analytical framework will not only help scholars to properly apply the concept in future research but also allow for analytically and sound comparisons of different types of norm advocates. The chapter also discusses theory-based alternative explanations for the behavior of “rogue states” and norms that either depict them as norm breakers or as advocates of subsidiary norms. Furthermore, Wunderlich provides detailed coding schemes and process-tracing procedures for conducting empirical analyses.


  1. Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albin, C. (2001). Justice and fairness in international negotiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, J. (1996). Iran, a case study: Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute. Alexandria, VA: Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, U., Müller, H., & Wisotzki, S. (2008). Democracy and nuclear arms control—Destiny or ambiguity? Security Studies, 17(4), 810–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  6. Björkdahl, A. (2013). Ideas and norms in Swedish Peace Policy. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(3), 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blatter, J., Janning, F., & Wagemann, C. (2007). Qualitative Politikanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Bob, C. (2012). The global right wing and the clash of world politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkel, J. (2012). Norm entrepreneurship—Theoretical and methodological challenges. Memo prepared for a Workshop on “The Evolution of International Norms and ‘Norm Entrepreneurship”: The Council of Europe in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Wolfson College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  10. Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gamson, W. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In A. Morris & C. Mc Clurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 3–76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gerring, J. (2007a). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gerring, J. (2007b). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2009). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  18. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldblat, J. (2002). Arms control: The new guide to negotiations and agreements. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Hoyt, P. D. (2000). The ‘Rogue State’ image in american foreign policy. Global Society, 14(2), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnstone, I. (2007). The Secretary-General as Norm Entrepreneur. In S. Chesterman (Ed.), Secretary or general? The UN Secretary-General in world politics (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, P. (1998). Iran’s threat perceptions and arms control policies. The Nonproliferation Review, 6(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Kohlenbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1). Resource document. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  26. Kurki, M. (2006). Causes of a divided discipline: Rethinking the concept of cause in international relations theory. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment after the cold war. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mahoney, J. (2010). After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research. World Politics, 62(1), 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz UTB.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, H. (2010a). Between power and justice. Current problems and perspectives of the NPT regime. Strategic Analysis, 34(2), 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Müller, H. (2010b). Process-tracing. Unpublished Manuscript. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  33. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.). (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  34. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2018). Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(3), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller, H., Below, A., & Wisotzki, S. (2013). Beyond the state: Nongovernmental Organizations, the European Union, and the United Nations. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 296–336). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nadelmann, E. (1990). Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in International Society. International Organization, 44(4), 479–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Reilly, K. P. (2007). Perceiving rogue states: The use of the “Rogue State” concept by U.S. foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(4), 295–315.Google Scholar
  38. Payne, R. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations, 7(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pirseyedi, B. (2013). Arms control and Iranian Foreign Policy: Diplomacy of discontent. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rublee, M. (2008). Taking stock of the nuclear nonproliferation regime: Using social psychology to understand regime effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10(3), 420–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schörnig, N., Geis, A., & Müller, H. (2013). The empirical study of “Democratic Wars”: Methodology and methods. In A. Geis, H. Müller, & N. Schörnig (Eds.), The militant face of democracy: Liberal forces for good (pp. 34–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tannenwald, N. (2013). Justice and fairness in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Ethics & International Affairs, 27(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wagner, W. (2006). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Die soziale Konstruktion sicherheitspolitischer Interessen in Deutschland und Großbritannien. In Siedschlag, A. (Ed.), Methoden der sicherheitspolitischen Analyse. Eine Einführung (pp. 169–188). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Wunderlich, C. (2017). Delegitimisation à la Carte: The “Rogue State” label as a means of stabilising order in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In S. Gertheiss, S. Herr, K. Wolf, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence (pp. 143–189). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations