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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |