The Babel of European Union Studies

Beyond the Trans-Atlantic Divide

Mads Dagnis Jensen, Peter Marcus Kristensen

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

This article examines four lines of scholarly difference in European Union (EU) studies – meta-theoretical, (sub)disciplinary, epistemological and methodological – and whether these are linked to the geographical and institutional affiliations of the authors operating in the field. The study uses a novel dataset based on a quantitative content analysis and human coding of 1597 articles in leading journals dealing with the EU published in the period 2003–2012. The article shows that USA-based scholars score on average – though in many cases, not significantly – higher when it comes to indicators of a comparative politics approach to the EU, use of a rational choice, positivist and statistical vocabulary, and articles coded as quantitative. However, on most of these indicators scholars in some European countries, and especially some institutions, score significantly higher, suggesting that we should disaggregate ‘Europe’ when discussing scholarly differences in the field.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean Political Science
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)437-465
ISSN1680-4333
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2018
Udgivet eksterntJa

Emneord

  • European Union studies
  • Meta-analysis
  • Scholarly styles
  • Sociology of science
  • Quantitative–qualitative divide

Citer dette

@article{dcc8b9d868414cf397de1be69cd0d364,
title = "The Babel of European Union Studies: Beyond the Trans-Atlantic Divide",
abstract = "This article examines four lines of scholarly difference in European Union (EU) studies – meta-theoretical, (sub)disciplinary, epistemological and methodological – and whether these are linked to the geographical and institutional affiliations of the authors operating in the field. The study uses a novel dataset based on a quantitative content analysis and human coding of 1597 articles in leading journals dealing with the EU published in the period 2003–2012. The article shows that USA-based scholars score on average – though in many cases, not significantly – higher when it comes to indicators of a comparative politics approach to the EU, use of a rational choice, positivist and statistical vocabulary, and articles coded as quantitative. However, on most of these indicators scholars in some European countries, and especially some institutions, score significantly higher, suggesting that we should disaggregate ‘Europe’ when discussing scholarly differences in the field.",
keywords = "European Union studies, Meta-analysis, Scholarly styles, Sociology of science, Quantitative–qualitative divide, European Union studies, Meta-analysis, Scholarly styles, Sociology of science, Quantitative–qualitative divide",
author = "Jensen, {Mads Dagnis} and Kristensen, {Peter Marcus}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1057/s41304-017-0125-8",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "437--465",
journal = "European Political Science",
issn = "1680-4333",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

The Babel of European Union Studies : Beyond the Trans-Atlantic Divide. / Jensen, Mads Dagnis; Kristensen, Peter Marcus.

I: European Political Science, Bind 17, Nr. 3, 2018, s. 437-465.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Babel of European Union Studies

T2 - Beyond the Trans-Atlantic Divide

AU - Jensen, Mads Dagnis

AU - Kristensen, Peter Marcus

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This article examines four lines of scholarly difference in European Union (EU) studies – meta-theoretical, (sub)disciplinary, epistemological and methodological – and whether these are linked to the geographical and institutional affiliations of the authors operating in the field. The study uses a novel dataset based on a quantitative content analysis and human coding of 1597 articles in leading journals dealing with the EU published in the period 2003–2012. The article shows that USA-based scholars score on average – though in many cases, not significantly – higher when it comes to indicators of a comparative politics approach to the EU, use of a rational choice, positivist and statistical vocabulary, and articles coded as quantitative. However, on most of these indicators scholars in some European countries, and especially some institutions, score significantly higher, suggesting that we should disaggregate ‘Europe’ when discussing scholarly differences in the field.

AB - This article examines four lines of scholarly difference in European Union (EU) studies – meta-theoretical, (sub)disciplinary, epistemological and methodological – and whether these are linked to the geographical and institutional affiliations of the authors operating in the field. The study uses a novel dataset based on a quantitative content analysis and human coding of 1597 articles in leading journals dealing with the EU published in the period 2003–2012. The article shows that USA-based scholars score on average – though in many cases, not significantly – higher when it comes to indicators of a comparative politics approach to the EU, use of a rational choice, positivist and statistical vocabulary, and articles coded as quantitative. However, on most of these indicators scholars in some European countries, and especially some institutions, score significantly higher, suggesting that we should disaggregate ‘Europe’ when discussing scholarly differences in the field.

KW - European Union studies

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Scholarly styles

KW - Sociology of science

KW - Quantitative–qualitative divide

KW - European Union studies

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Scholarly styles

KW - Sociology of science

KW - Quantitative–qualitative divide

UR - https://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=111077820655476

U2 - 10.1057/s41304-017-0125-8

DO - 10.1057/s41304-017-0125-8

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 437

EP - 465

JO - European Political Science

JF - European Political Science

SN - 1680-4333

IS - 3

ER -