The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets
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 ar...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Interest groups & advocacy 2020-09, Vol.9 (3), p.272-289 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 289 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 272 |
container_title | Interest groups & advocacy |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Beyers, Jan Fink-Hafner, Danica Maloney, William A. Novak, Meta Heylen, Frederik |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2441913238</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2441913238</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-5e49449f9bbf98069be57300af9e4f849df91e729d516f44aef0638f64f602243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWGr_AU8Br41OPvYj3qRoLRS8VDyGdHdSt7S7a5It9L83WtGbpxmG33vzeIRcc7jlkBV3QXEJmoEABgClYHBGRgJUwQolxPnvztUlmYSwTRCHQuSFHJG31TvSWbfvrbexOSBdtBE9hkjnvht6FgZ_wCPtfbfFKt7TGkOzaafpYKvYVHZHdxhC14YptW1NaxstDRjDFblwdhdw8jPH5PXpcTV7ZsuX-WL2sGSVzGVkGSqtlHZ6vXa6hFyvMSskgHUalSuVrp3mWAhdZzx3Sll0kMvS5crlIISSY3Jz8k0JP4aU22y7wbfppRFKcc2lkGWixImqfBeCR2d63-ytPxoO5qtDc-rQpA7Nd4cGkkieRCHB7Qb9n_U_qk8wyHNe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2441913238</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Beyers, Jan ; Fink-Hafner, Danica ; Maloney, William A. ; Novak, Meta ; Heylen, Frederik</creator><creatorcontrib>Beyers, Jan ; Fink-Hafner, Danica ; Maloney, William A. ; Novak, Meta ; Heylen, Frederik</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-7414</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-7422</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Palgrave Macmillan UK</publisher><subject>Datasets ; Interest groups ; Original Article ; Political Communication ; Political Science ; Political Science and International Relations ; Political Science and International Studies ; Polls & surveys ; Public Policy ; Sociology</subject><ispartof>Interest groups & advocacy, 2020-09, Vol.9 (3), p.272-289</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-5e49449f9bbf98069be57300af9e4f849df91e729d516f44aef0638f64f602243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-5e49449f9bbf98069be57300af9e4f849df91e729d516f44aef0638f64f602243</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8287-1162</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Beyers, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fink-Hafner, Danica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maloney, William A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novak, Meta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heylen, Frederik</creatorcontrib><title>The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets</title><title>Interest groups & advocacy</title><addtitle>Int Groups Adv</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Political Communication</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><subject>Political Science and International Relations</subject><subject>Political Science and International Studies</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><issn>2047-7414</issn><issn>2047-7422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWGr_AU8Br41OPvYj3qRoLRS8VDyGdHdSt7S7a5It9L83WtGbpxmG33vzeIRcc7jlkBV3QXEJmoEABgClYHBGRgJUwQolxPnvztUlmYSwTRCHQuSFHJG31TvSWbfvrbexOSBdtBE9hkjnvht6FgZ_wCPtfbfFKt7TGkOzaafpYKvYVHZHdxhC14YptW1NaxstDRjDFblwdhdw8jPH5PXpcTV7ZsuX-WL2sGSVzGVkGSqtlHZ6vXa6hFyvMSskgHUalSuVrp3mWAhdZzx3Sll0kMvS5crlIISSY3Jz8k0JP4aU22y7wbfppRFKcc2lkGWixImqfBeCR2d63-ytPxoO5qtDc-rQpA7Nd4cGkkieRCHB7Qb9n_U_qk8wyHNe</recordid><startdate>20200901</startdate><enddate>20200901</enddate><creator>Beyers, Jan</creator><creator>Fink-Hafner, Danica</creator><creator>Maloney, William A.</creator><creator>Novak, Meta</creator><creator>Heylen, Frederik</creator><general>Palgrave Macmillan UK</general><general>Palgrave Macmillan</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8287-1162</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200901</creationdate><title>The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets</title><author>Beyers, Jan ; Fink-Hafner, Danica ; Maloney, William A. ; Novak, Meta ; Heylen, Frederik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-5e49449f9bbf98069be57300af9e4f849df91e729d516f44aef0638f64f602243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Political Communication</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Political Science and International Relations</topic><topic>Political Science and International Studies</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Beyers, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fink-Hafner, Danica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maloney, William A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novak, Meta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heylen, Frederik</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Interest groups & advocacy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Beyers, Jan</au><au>Fink-Hafner, Danica</au><au>Maloney, William A.</au><au>Novak, Meta</au><au>Heylen, Frederik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets</atitle><jtitle>Interest groups & advocacy</jtitle><stitle>Int Groups Adv</stitle><date>2020-09-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>272</spage><epage>289</epage><pages>272-289</pages><issn>2047-7414</issn><eissn>2047-7422</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Palgrave Macmillan UK</pub><doi>10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8287-1162</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2047-7414 |
ispartof | Interest groups & advocacy, 2020-09, Vol.9 (3), p.272-289 |
issn | 2047-7414 2047-7422 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2441913238 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Datasets Interest groups Original Article Political Communication Political Science Political Science and International Relations Political Science and International Studies Polls & surveys Public Policy Sociology |
title | The Comparative Interest Group-survey project: design, practical lessons, and data sets |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T17%3A27%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Comparative%20Interest%20Group-survey%20project:%20design,%20practical%20lessons,%20and%20data%20sets&rft.jtitle=Interest%20groups%20&%20advocacy&rft.au=Beyers,%20Jan&rft.date=2020-09-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=272&rft.epage=289&rft.pages=272-289&rft.issn=2047-7414&rft.eissn=2047-7422&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057/s41309-020-00082-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2441913238%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2441913238&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |