Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:41:17.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Appendix II - Comparison of expert judgements with each other and with information from Council documentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Robert Thomson
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Dublin
Robert Thomson
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Frans N. Stokman
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Christopher H. Achen
Affiliation:
Princeton University, New Jersey
Thomas König
Affiliation:
German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer, Germany
Get access

Summary

Obtaining information from policy area experts was essential in this research project given that decision-making in the European Union, and particularly in the Council, is often a secretive and specialised affair. Documentation on Council decision-making on politically sensitive dossiers has, until very recently, not been available. Many experts we interviewed spoke of an unwritten rule, according to which information on other member states' positions in the Council should not be divulged. Still, many were willing to provide this information, given the scientific nature of our inquiry, and under the condition that they would be thanked not by name, but by institutional affiliation. We obtained Council documents on the discussions on some of the Commission proposals included in our selection, and these provided fascinating information that supplements, rather than substitutes the information provided by experts. Policy discussions in the Council, particularly at working group level, are often of a technical nature. This makes it difficult and often impossible to distinguish between peripheral technical matters and political issues that form the most important elements of the debate. Consultations with experts are essential to making such distinctions, and to drawing our attention to the links between apparently separate points that are in fact parts of the same issue. Furthermore, content analysis of documentation does not offer acceptable operationalisations of some of the concepts contained in our models: for instance, the level of importance actors attach to the issues being discussed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×