Methodology selected and alternatives not selected 68

For the description of the interrelation between the EU institutions and the pro-migrant groups and for the assessment of the influence of the latter, appropriate methods that help producing and analysing the required data are presented (Blaikie 2010: 204; Neuman 2000: 122). Generally, the literature divides the methods available into qualitative and quantitative ones. What this distinction refers to is illustrated in the following passages. Furthermore, this section highlights why some methods are more suited for this research than others.

4.5.1 Difference between qualitative and quantitative methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods differ in both their ontology and epistemology. As far as ontology is concerned, quantitative researchers can only study social phenomena, which are observable – directly and indirectly – and their findings intend to represent the truth.

Qualitative research findings, however, are regarded as interpretations of reality. As such, quantitative studies intend to produce general laws that help predict the future, while qualitative researchers analyse certain cases whose findings cannot always be inferred to a broader universe (Burns 2000: 3-4 and 11; Hammersley 1992: 169). The oppositional ontological conceptions also affect the epistemological perception of both schools. Quantitative research seeks to count and measure phenomena, whereas qualitative research offers discursive descriptions to explain phenomena (Blaikie 2010: 204; Neuman 2000: 122). While the course of quantitative research is planned in advanced, standardised and somehow predictable, qualitative research offers flexibility to move back and sideways in order to reflect on a phenomenon as authentically as possible (Neuman 2000: 122).

One has to keep in mind, that the influence of pro-migrant groups is not directly observable because policy-making processes in the EU are very comprehensive and non-transparent. Therefore, an operationalisation that helps to make influence visible is elaborated in another section of this chapter. For the remainder of this section, it is illustrated how knowledge about the influence of pro-migrant groups is going to be gathered.

4.5.2 Methodology selected

For the study of the influence of pro-migrant groups, the researcher attaches great importance to viewpoints of the actors involved in the policy-making process. Therefore, conducting elite interviews with representatives of pro-migrant groups and officials working in the EU institutions is fundamental to the research project. In more specific terms, a semi-structured interview technique has been applied. According to Gillham (Gillham 2005: 24 and 70) and Mason (Mason 2000: 62-63), semi-structured interviews are both structured and flexible at the same time. On the one hand, the interviews conducted for this PhD thesis were based on a fixed list of questions that helped to guide the discussion and to keep the topic focused. Moreover, all interviewees were asked the same questions and for all interviews an approximately equivalent time was allowed. This rather strict structure enabled the researcher to compare the answers from the different interviews. On the other hand, the questions posed were rather open and gave each interviewee the opportunity to tell her story. In case the interviewee showed particular interest in one topic, it was possible to spontaneously pose a supplementary question. On the contrary, whenever an interviewee had to leave early, the questions could be adapted to the given time constraints. As such, the semi-structured

interviews were flexible enough to allow the researcher to enter the world of each participant and gather contextual knowledge about the different views and perceptions.

However, one must bear in mind, that statements collected in interviews cannot be treated as facts. First of all, the interviewed interest representatives and EU officials are usually trained in giving interviews and can decide what exactly they want to uncover in the interview. The answers a researcher gets in interviews therefore depend on ‘who we are – in their lives’ (J. Miller and Glassner 1998: 127). That means that the course of the interview and the answers an interviewee gives vary among interviews depending on how important the interview is to the interviewee and how comfortable the interviewed person feels. What can be said about the interviews that have been conducted for this research project is that all interest representatives and most EU officials were very open and willing to share their experience. Some more conservative or high-level bureaucrats were more reluctant to answer questions about the consultation of pro-migrant groups and the influence that they had on their positioning. With the knowledge gained from other interviews, however, it was often possible to encourage them to reveal more than they were initially willing to do because they understood that some of their colleagues had already addressed similar issues. To build up the trust of the interviewees, they were also offered to cross-check references to their interview before publication.

Nevertheless, to avoid too much bias and a one-sided usage of information sources, it was endeavoured to triangulate research methods and data sources. Therefore, additionally to semi-structured interviews, a document analysis based on documents produced by the EU institutions and the pro-migrant groups was employed. This, amongst others, includes sources such as legislative drafts, adopted acts, position papers, reports, agendas, press releases, annual reports, and budgets. Analysing primary sources added to the quality of the research as they helped to uncover different aspects of the social reality, because unlike the conducted interviews primary sources are produced by the actors involved in the policy-making process during or immediately after an event. Thus, they allow assessing a social event contextually and situationally. They have revealed variables, such as the structure and operation of pro- migrant groups, their claims and the responses of the EU institutions, which facilitated the exploration of the actual influence of the interest groups. All these sources were treated carefully to limit the risk of including manipulated figures or statements in the analysis that might distort the findings about the actual influence of pro-migrant groups. Therefore, the

authors of the document, the context, and the purpose for which the document was produced were taken into consideration for the analysis. In addition, the validity of questionable documents was cross-checked in the interviews.

Elite interviews and the analysis of primary sources, additionally, were complemented by secondary literature. This includes all resources produced by independent observers such as books, academic journal articles, or surveys. The advantage of this kind of resources is that they are produced by experts and academics whose work is peer reviewed. Through those kinds of sources, empirical data can be put into perspective.

To summarise, if only one of these methods had been applied, the research would have run the risk of only uncovering one aspect of the social reality or of producing biased conclusions. As the present study explores the influence of pro-migrant groups from different angles and intends to avoid bias and inaccuracy, elite interviews were triangulated with the analysis of primary and secondary resources.

4.5.3 Methodology not selected

Although the research intends to guarantee a high degree of accuracy and reliability by applying as many methods as possible, some methods do not appear to be appropriate or practicable. In this subsection, first of all, the impracticability of certain qualitative methods is discussed followed by a discussion of the inappropriateness of employing quantitative methods to the research project.

Above it has been illustrated that the inclusion of individual opinions and perceptions into the description of the influence of pro-migrant groups is vital to this research. Therefore, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews. The same sort of information, however, could also have been gathered by inviting practitioners and EU officials to participate in focus groups. Like semi-structured interviews, focus groups are planned and structured beforehand. Unlike in interviews, however, the researcher poses questions to a group of participants to encourage a thorough discussion (Blaikie 2010: 207). This method might contribute to more reflective answers because the participants need to justify their viewpoints to the other participants. Yet, this method was not practical for the present research, as it is unlikely that different EU officials would participate in one focus group. Contacts with interest representatives and the cooperation with external information providers are delicate issues and are treated confidentially. Moreover, focus groups consisting of different interest

representatives and EU officials are just as difficult to organise because of their busy schedules. Thus, semi-structured interviewing was considered a more appropriate method because here the interviewees are not confronted with opposing views, which might result in rather secretive answers.

Participant observation is another qualitative method that allows immersion in the lives of the people being studied. This method enables the researcher to observe and experience daily routines, manners of behaviour, and unconscious codes of conduct (Blaikie 2010: 206; Mason 2000: 55 and 85; Neuman 2000: 36). For the investigation of the influence of pro-migrant groups this would mean the uncovering of deep and rounded information. Unfortunately, participant observation is time-consuming but the time frame of the research was limited. Consequently, the application of participant observation would require a reduction of the number of research subjects. As the researcher attaches importance to representative research, she preferred to consult more interest representatives and EU officials by means of interviews.

In addition to those qualitative methods that do not appear to be suited for this research project, quantitative methods do not seem to be appropriate either. The following quantitative methods are discussed in the remainder of this subsection: surveys, structured interviews, and experiments.

Unlike semi-structured interviews, surveys and structured interviews are standardised and do not leave space for the individual needs of the participant. Both methods feature closed questions where the participant can either choose her answer from a given range of answers, has to assess herself on a numerical scale, or can answer freely but as briefly as possible (Blaikie 2010: 205). The answers are then used to generate conclusions from a sample to a greater population (Neuman 2000: 34). Through both methods an atmosphere is created that keeps the interviewer at a distance and does not allow her to immerse in the reality of the participants. Thus, neither surveys nor structured interviews are regarded appropriate methods that satisfy the research purpose of uncovering the context in which a phenomenon is embedded.

Conducting experiments is the structured form of observing participants. Thereby, some participants (control group) are given detailed information about the phenomenon the researcher is interested in, whereby others are kept uninformed. This approach enables the scientist to control certain variables and to analyse whether a phenomenon is dependent on

these varying conditions (Blaikie 2010: 205; Hammersley 1992: 163; Neuman 2000: 33-34). Rather than aiming at an artificial setting, the purpose of the present research project was to capture the reality of the participants. In addition, as the research subjects are high-level officials, it would have been impossible to ask them to participate without being informed about the research project.

Recapitulating, as this research examines the influence of pro-migrant groups from different angles, including the different views of the interest representatives and EU officials, quantitative methods that do not picture individual perceptions were not applied. Instead, the researcher employed qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews and qualitative document analysis. This triangulation of methods allowed her to map the different opinions on influence and, at the same time, limited the risk of bias, subjectivity, and unreliability.