IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2010_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison between Political Claims Analysis and Discourse Network Analysis: The Case of Software Patents in the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Leifeld

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

  • Sebastian Haunss

    (Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz)

Abstract

The study of policy discourse comprises actor-centered and content-oriented approaches. We attempt to close the gap between the two kinds of approaches by introducing a new methodology for the analysis of political discourse called Discourse Network Analysis. It is based on social network analysis and qualitative content analysis and takes an entirely relational perspective. Political discourse can be analyzed in a dynamic way, and the approach makes previously unobservable cleavage lines and alignments measurable at the actor level, at the level of the contents of a discourse, and a combined layer. We compare discourse network analysis with political claims analysis, a competing method, and apply both methods to the European-level discourse on software patents. Our results demonstrate how an anti-softwarepatent coalition was mobilized and how it gained control over important frames, while the well-organized pro-software-patent discourse coalition was not able to gain sovereignty over the discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Leifeld & Sebastian Haunss, 2010. "A Comparison between Political Claims Analysis and Discourse Network Analysis: The Case of Software Patents in the European Union," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_21, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2010_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2010_21online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kohler-Koch, Beate, 1997. "Organized Interests in the EC and the European Parliament," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 1, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chadwick (Chengwei) Wang & Luhao Wang, 2017. "Unfolding policies for innovation intermediaries in China: A discourse network analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 354-368.
    2. Caroline Bhattacharya, 2020. "Gatekeeping the Plenary Floor: Discourse Network Analysis as a Novel Approach to Party Control," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 229-242.
    3. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    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. Takahiro Oki, 2021. "European fuel economy policy for new passenger cars: a historical comparative analysis of discourses and change factors," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 165-181, June.
    2. Anna Zabkowicz, 2014. "Organized Economic Interests And European Integration: The Question Of (Neo)Corporatism," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 9(1), pages 7-20, March.
    3. Anna Zabkowicz, 2015. "Governing economic interests by the European Commission," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 14(1), pages 95-111, March.
    4. Christophe Crombez, 2002. "Information, Lobbying and the Legislative Process in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 7-32, March.
    5. Igor B. Orlov & Vera E. Abelinskaite, 2018. "Transnational Recreation Industry and the Modern State," Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law, Center for Crisis Society Studies, vol. 11(1).
    6. Stijn Smismans, 2002. "Civil Society in European institutional discourses," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 4, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    7. Rainer Eising, 2007. "Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 329-362, September.
    8. Jan Beyers, 2004. "Voice and Access," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(2), pages 211-240, June.
    9. Bouwen, Pieter, 2002. "A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    10. Herweg, Sarah, 2013. "Politische Diskursnetzwerke und der Konflikt um das Anti-Piraterie-Abkommen ACTA," PIPE - Papers on International Political Economy 15/2013, Free University Berlin, Center for International Political Economy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Software Patents; Intellectual Property Rights; Discourse Network Analysis; Social Network Analysis; Political Discourse; Policy Networks; Public Policy Analysis; Social Movements; Political Claims Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mpg:wpaper:2010_21. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.html .

    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.