IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v16y2015i3p456-466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The promises of quantitative text analysis in interest group research: A reply to Bunea and Ibenskas

Author

Listed:
  • Heike Klüver

Abstract

Quantitative text analysis constitutes a promising new method that allows for measuring the policy positions and the lobbying success of interest groups by analyzing their submissions to legislative consultations ( Klüver, 2009 ). The use of quantitative text analysis allowed me to present a novel and unique research design which was the largest in scope at the time and resulted in important new insights regarding the determinants of lobbying success ( Klüver, 2009 , 2011 , 2013 ). In their recent article, Bunea and Ibenskas (2015) however question the usefulness of quantitative text analysis for studying interest groups and discuss several issues which in their view constitute important disadvantages of the technique. In this article I carefully discuss each of their arguments and show that none of their objections actually prevents scholars from successfully using quantitative text analysis to study interest groups in the European Union and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Heike Klüver, 2015. "The promises of quantitative text analysis in interest group research: A reply to Bunea and Ibenskas," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 456-466, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:3:p:456-466
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116515581669
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116515581669
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116515581669?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin, 2010. "A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Mikhaylov, Slava & Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth R., 2012. "Coder Reliability and Misclassification in the Human Coding of Party Manifestos," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 78-91, January.
    3. Däubler, Thomas & Benoit, Kenneth & Mikhaylov, Slava & Laver, Michael, 2012. "Natural Sentences as Valid Units for Coded Political Texts," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 937-951, October.
    4. Proksch, Sven-Oliver & Slapin, Jonathan B., 2010. "Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 587-611, July.
    5. Klüver, Heike & Mahoney, Christine, 2015. "Measuring interest group framing strategies in public policy debates," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 223-244, August.
    6. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    7. Abdul Ghafar Noury & Simon Hix & Gérard Roland, 2005. "Power to parties: cohesion and competition in the European Parliament 1979-2001," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7752, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth & Garry, John, 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 311-331, May.
    9. Hix, Simon & Noury, Abdul & Roland, Gã‰Rard, 2005. "Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 209-234, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merz, Nicolas & Regel, Sven & Lewandowski, Jirka, 2016. "The Manifesto Corpus: A new resource for research on political parties and quantitative text analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(2 (April-), pages 1-8.
    2. Diaf, Sami & Döpke, Jörg & Fritsche, Ulrich & Rockenbach, Ida, 2022. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions based on text mining techniques," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Greene, Zac & Ceron, Andrea & Schumacher, Gijs & Fazekas, Zoltan, 2016. "The Nuts and Bolts of Automated Text Analysis. Comparing Different Document Pre-Processing Techniques in Four Countries," OSF Preprints ghxj8, Center for Open Science.
    4. Sanders James & Lisi Giulio & Schonhardt-Bailey Cheryl, 2017. "Themes and Topics in Parliamentary Oversight Hearings: A New Direction in Textual Data Analysis," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 153-194, December.
    5. Nyhuis Dominic & König Pascal, 2018. "Estimating the Conflict Dimensionality in the German Länder from Vote Advice Applications, 2014–2017," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 57-86, June.
    6. Anna A. Dekalchuk & Aleksandra Khokhlova & Dmitriy Skougarevskiy, 2016. "National or European Politicians? Gauging MEPs Polarity When Russia is Concerned," HSE Working papers WP BRP 35/PS/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2022. "Does a district mandate matter for the behavior of politicians? An analysis of roll-call votes and parliamentary speeches," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    8. Gavin Abercrombie & Riza Batista-Navarro, 2020. "Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 245-270, April.
    9. Sanders, James & Lisi, Giulio & Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl, 2018. "Themes and topics in parliamentary oversight hearings: a new direction in textual data analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87624, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Edoardo Bressanelli & Christel Koop & Christine Reh, 2016. "The impact of informalisation: Early agreements and voting cohesion in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 91-113, March.
    11. Fraccaroli, Nicolò & Giovannini, Alessandro & Jamet, Jean-François & Persson, Eric, 2022. "Ideology and monetary policy. The role of political parties’ stances in the European Central Bank’s parliamentary hearings," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Heike Klüver & Iñaki Sagarzazu, 2013. "Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 388-407, September.
    13. Rybinski, Krzysztof, 2020. "The forecasting power of the multi-language narrative of sell-side research: A machine learning evaluation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    14. David Bholat & Stephen Hans & Pedro Santos & Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, 2015. "Text mining for central banks," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 33, April.
    15. Wagner, Wolfgang & Herranz-Surrallés, Anna & Kaarbo, Juliet & Ostermann, Falk, 2017. "Politicization, party politics and military missions deployment votes in France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2017-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    16. Natasha Kossovsky & Kathleen M. Carley, 2020. "The collapse of the second Yatsenyuk government: roll call vote and dynamic network analysis," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 123-143, March.
    17. Darko Cherepnalkoski & Andreas Karpf & Igor Mozetič & Miha Grčar, 2016. "Cohesion and Coalition Formation in the European Parliament: Roll-Call Votes and Twitter Activities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-27, November.
    18. Weiss, Max & Zoorob, Michael, 2021. "Political frames of public health crises: Discussing the opioid epidemic in the US Congress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    19. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    20. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:3:p:456-466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.