The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets

被引:36
作者
Beyers, Jan [1 ]
Fink-Hafner, Danica [2 ]
Maloney, William A. [3 ]
Novak, Meta [2 ]
Heylen, Frederik [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Antwerp, Dept Polit Sci, Sint Jacobstr 2, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
[2] Univ Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
[3] Newcastle Univ, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, England
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Surveying interest groups; Sampling interest groups; CIG-survey project; Comparative research; SURVEY RESPONSE RATES; ORGANIZATIONS; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
This article discusses the methodology and practice behind planning and executing the Comparative Interest Group-survey project (CIG-survey). The CIG-survey includes surveys among national populations of organized interests in 9 European countries and at the European Union level. Although surveys are a useful and reliable way to collect data on a variety of topics, there are also numerous pitfalls and challenges in surveying interest groups, especially across multiple countries. Despite the prominent use of surveys in interest group research, systematic reflections on this method are scarce and data sets are not always properly archived or openly accessible. This article elaborates upon the practical implications and reflects on the lessons learnt during from the implementation of the CIG-survey. Moreover, we highlight how the fuzzy boundaries of interest communities obfuscate sampling and that surveying interest organizations requires researchers to navigate through a specific organizational context to reach and motivate respondents. We also demonstrate how a careful survey plan can positively affect response rates and enable the creation of robust comparative data sets.
引用
收藏
页码:272 / 289
页数:18
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   Connecting Society and Policymakers? Conceptualizing and Measuring the Capacity of Civil Society Organizations to Act as Transmission Belts [J].
Albareda, Adria .
VOLUNTAS, 2018, 29 (06) :1216-1232
[2]   Advocacy organizations in the US political process [J].
Andrews, KT ;
Edwards, B .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, 2004, 30 :479-506
[3]  
Baumgartner F. R., 2009, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why
[4]  
BERKHOUT J, 2019, PARTY POLITICS
[5]   Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems [J].
Berkhout, Joost ;
Beyers, Jan ;
Braun, Caelesta ;
Hanegraaff, Marcel ;
Lowery, David .
POLITICAL STUDIES, 2018, 66 (01) :43-62
[6]  
Beyers J., 2016, Comparative Interest Group Survey Questionnaire'
[7]   Researching Interest Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know? [J].
Beyers, Jan ;
Eising, Rainer ;
Maloney, William .
WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, 2008, 31 (06) :1103-1128
[8]   Let's talk! On the practice and method of interviewing policy experts [J].
Beyers, Jan ;
Braun, Caelesta ;
Marshall, David ;
De Bruycker, Iskander .
INTEREST GROUPS & ADVOCACY, 2014, 3 (02) :174-187
[9]   Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament, and the Media [J].
Binderkrantz, Anne Skorkjaer ;
Christiansen, Peter Munk ;
Pedersen, Helene Helboe .
GOVERNANCE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION AND INSTITUTIONS, 2015, 28 (01) :95-112
[10]   A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or internet-based surveys [J].
Cook, C ;
Heath, F ;
Thompson, RL .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2000, 60 (06) :821-836