Cargando…

Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems

Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group commu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berkhout, Joost, Beyers, Jan, Braun, Caelesta, Hanegraaff, Marcel, Lowery, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717702400
_version_ 1783362959255273472
author Berkhout, Joost
Beyers, Jan
Braun, Caelesta
Hanegraaff, Marcel
Lowery, David
author_facet Berkhout, Joost
Beyers, Jan
Braun, Caelesta
Hanegraaff, Marcel
Lowery, David
author_sort Berkhout, Joost
collection PubMed
description Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6187063
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61870632018-10-24 Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems Berkhout, Joost Beyers, Jan Braun, Caelesta Hanegraaff, Marcel Lowery, David Polit Stud (Oxf) Articles Scholars of mobilisation and policy influence employ two quite different approaches to mapping interest group systems. Those interested in research questions on mobilisation typically rely on a bottom-up mapping strategy in order to characterise the total size and composition of interest group communities. Researchers with an interest in policy influence usually rely on a top-down strategy in which the mapping of politically active organisations depends on samples of specific policies. But some scholars also use top-down data gathered for other research questions on mobilisation (and vice versa). However, it is currently unclear how valid such large-N data for different types of research questions are. We illustrate our argument by addressing these questions using unique data sets drawn from the INTEREURO project on lobbying in the European Union and the European Union’s Transparency Register. Our findings suggest that top-down and bottom-up mapping strategies lead to profoundly different maps of interest group communities. SAGE Publications 2017-09-19 2018-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6187063/ /pubmed/30369638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717702400 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Articles
Berkhout, Joost
Beyers, Jan
Braun, Caelesta
Hanegraaff, Marcel
Lowery, David
Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title_full Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title_fullStr Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title_full_unstemmed Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title_short Making Inference across Mobilisation and Influence Research: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Mapping of Interest Systems
title_sort making inference across mobilisation and influence research: comparing top-down and bottom-up mapping of interest systems
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717702400
work_keys_str_mv AT berkhoutjoost makinginferenceacrossmobilisationandinfluenceresearchcomparingtopdownandbottomupmappingofinterestsystems
AT beyersjan makinginferenceacrossmobilisationandinfluenceresearchcomparingtopdownandbottomupmappingofinterestsystems
AT brauncaelesta makinginferenceacrossmobilisationandinfluenceresearchcomparingtopdownandbottomupmappingofinterestsystems
AT hanegraaffmarcel makinginferenceacrossmobilisationandinfluenceresearchcomparingtopdownandbottomupmappingofinterestsystems
AT lowerydavid makinginferenceacrossmobilisationandinfluenceresearchcomparingtopdownandbottomupmappingofinterestsystems