Because no comprehensive dataset specifically on MEPs’ constituency orientations exists, an original dataset was compiled. The data set included data on both the offline as well as online dimensions of MEP constituency orientations and outreach. To construct the dataset, four different data sources were used:
i) a self-administered MEP online survey (2009) by the author ii) EP’s official website (MEPs’ profiles) and respondent
iii) website analysis of MEP respondents’ personal websites/ blogs
iv) qualitative data from 32 structured MEP interviews (please see bibliography for details) supplemented the quantitative analysis with additional insights.
Self-administration and distribution of 2009 MEP Survey
The online survey targeted responses from members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serving in the Parliament’s sixth session (2006-2009). At the time the total number of MEPs in the European Parliament amounted to 785. The exact distribution of MEPs by country is listed in Table 1 – Appendix below.
Survey Questions. A full original copy of the survey is provided in Appendix 2. The survey contained four modules, each containing four questions, thus the entire survey had sixteen questions in total. The typology of questions was mixed – majority were multiple choice, two included fields for open-ended answers while others (namely the attitudinal ones) were based on a 5-point Likert scale. The first module of questions related to MEPs’ perceptions about what they think about their constituencies and their role orientations while the second and third focused on the importance that MEPs attach to constituency work an on their comparative constituency outreach. The last module specifically examined MEPs’ perceptions about their constituency outreach online and how it impacts their work. While several of the questions build on and were taken from EPRG’s survey questions, majority were newly constructed.
Distribution of Survey. The online survey was created (on) and distributed via an online survey provider Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com) between 10 February – 20 May 2009. This means that the survey was made available to MEPs 24/7 for the time period listed. Because the
intention was to map out both MEP’s offline as well as online constituency outreach, before the survey’s distribution, individualized IP addresses and links were created for each MEP. This enabled the easy tracking of each MEP respondents’ identity which would be later required for the coding of respondents’ personal websites and for determining their online constituency outreach. The individualized IP addresses also allowed for an easy identification of non-respondents to whom three waves of reminders (February – May 2009) were sent with approximately monthly intervals in between. Individualized l i v e links to the survey were then created and inserted into body of an e-mailed survey invitation that was sent out to all MEPs with traceable and active e-mails listed on the official EP website45. The individual email invitations to participate in the survey, with the exception of the Lithuania and Latvia, were translated into all official EU languages. The survey itself was translated into seven languages which in effect covered official languages in eleven EU member states. Links to the English version were provided to the rest unless otherwise requested (there were such cases).
Response rate. Over 167 MEPs accessed the online survey. 159 responded to 1-3 opening questions but only 147 surveys were retained for empirical analysis, while 138 fully answered the survey. Hence these figures suggest a 13 per cent drop off rate from the survey46 and over all yielding a 19 per cent response rate and a 19 percent sample of the entire MEP population.
Because the online survey provider allowed oversight of when MEPs started and ended each individual survey, on average, the online the survey took MEPs between 7-9 minutes to complete.
From the batch of 39 ‘hand delivered’ surveys only two surveys were completed by MEPs and sent back to the author. Ten MEPs expressed an interest in receiving the survey results.
45Though in principle, all MEPs should have an official EP e-mail which is normally composed of their first and last name and the affix « @europarl.europa.eu », not all MEPs were found to list their e-mail address on the EP website; the common inclusion of middle names, or hyphenated surnames (in the body of the mail) thus made the construction of e-mails (where not available otherwise) impossible, There were approximately 5% of such cases.
46Observing the patterns in completed and non-completed surveys, it is likely that a significant portion of the drop-off rates were attempts to complete the survey by MEPs’ staff who wanted to take the initiative to answer the survey for their ‘boss’
but realized that the questions increasingly required personal perceptions that they were perhaps not equipped to answer.
Alternatively, the drop-off rate could have been also caused by MEPs being interrupted by a phone call or their assistant while completing the survey and never returning back to filling it out. The survey set up saved MEPs’ last answer and allowed them to return back to the last question they answered at any later point. Interestingly, some MEPs did indeed start and return to the survey at a later point hence potentially suggesting that they took answering the survey seriously.
Representativeness of results. The full breakdown of the survey’s representativeness in terms of – gender, country, and online status is listed the Appendix Table 1 below. Overall, the respondents were representative in terms of gender and age, where 30% of the respondents were females. Country representativeness was also solid with the exception of Greek, Irish, Spanish, Swedish MEPs who were under-represented.
Sources of response bias Before conducting the survey three potential areas of response bias were identified and a series of steps were taken to mitigate them: (i) self-selection bias favoring
‘survey-friendly’ MEPs with predisposition to respond to surveys (Scholl 1986: 319) or who were comfortable with or interested in the survey’s topic; (ii) computer and ICT literacy bias in targeting those with e-mail addresses who are potentially more ICT literate; and lastly iii) given MEPs’ diverse linguistic backgrounds language bias may have skewed the response rate toward those more at ease speaking the seven languages that the survey was translated into.
To offset the ICT literacy bias, MEPs without a listed e-mail address on the official EP website or whose email bounced back, a hard copy of the survey was hand delivered directly into MEPs’
mailboxes at the European Parliament47.
Data for MEPs’ online constituency orientations were derived from the coding of individual MEPs’ websites. MEPs’ online status (having a e-mail. website, or blog) was derived from the official EP website. During coding, however, it was discovered that though generally reliable, the official EP website was not accurate in approximately 5% cases. When MEPs without website or blog listed on the EP official website, were randomly googled, in at least 5% cases, they actually had a blog or a website. This could be attributed to an administrative error or MEPs may also target and send out links to a limited constituency.
Interviews. As part of this thesis’ triangulation approach, to supplement the survey and coding, 32 qualitative semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of MEPs were conducted.
U s i n g a s no wb a l l s a m p l i n g m e t h o d , s e l e c t i o n o f MEPs for the interviews was dependent on their availability and willingness – hence self-selection bias at play; pinning down
47I spent three months (February to April 2010) on a « Research Stay » at the European Parliament in Brussels working at the Petitions Committee and simultaneously interviewing MEPs in Brussels and Strasbourg. This provided me easy access to MEPs. In addition, I spend 2 weeks in 2009 at the EP conducting lined up interviews (via email) prior to my arrival.
‘busy’ elites is not easy.
Three interviews were conducted in the MEPs’ actual constituency office, and the rest in MEPs’
Brussels or Strasbourg based offices. A disproportional number of those interviewed were males with a slight pro-incumbency bias but well spread out across country and party groups. In spite the threat of a self-selection bias, the interviews were informative and enabled the capturing of MEPs’ more in-depth attitudinal perspectives as to how they perceive their constituency work and Internet usage. This level of insights were not possible to capture in the survey.
APPENDIX 1 (Table 1) - Representativeness of Survey Response rate: Country, gender,