Skills Seminar Brussels

Authors
Affiliation

Jamal Shahin

Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam

Gertjan Hoetjes

Published

8th August, 2024

1 Course details

Course information
  • Course title: Skills Seminar Brussels
  • Course code: 142410236Y
  • Course session: Block 3, 2024-2025
  • Course convenors: Gertjan Hoetjes, Jamal Shahin
  • Studiegids link
  • Canvas link

Contact details Gertjan Hoetjes

Contact details Jamal Shahin

Read and re-read this course manual very carefully. To avoid email overload, it should be noted that many questions can be more efficiently dealt with in person (or by re-reading this course manual!).

2 Study material

There are no core texts for this course. We strongly suggest that you take all resources mentioned in the final section of this course manual into consideration. However, the following sources provide excellent inspiration for your work in this course:

Core resources for the course

This Excel spreadsheet provides us with a repository for all Brussels-related information, including travel arrangements and interviewing schedules. You need to be logged into your UvA account to access the sheet. Please do keep this updated.

Please fill in the Preparation Survey by 6 January 2025 @23:59 CET: https://bit.ly/ssb24presurvey.

3 Data management practices

This course requires you handle personal data of your interviewees. The University of Amsterdam has strict requirements for this type of research. The course convenors have completed an ethical review for the course, and if you wish to carry out interviews after the completion of the course, you will need to seek similar permission (with the support of your thesis supervisor). You are required to treat your respondents’ information with great care. We shall discuss this in class in more detail.

Data management

You are required to follow the University’s guidelines on data management and protection.

Please store all data (correspondence, interview recordings, names and other data of interviewees) on your UvA account in OneDrive. If you need to store the information on your personal device for any reason, please follow the guidelines in the PDF document entitled Security Advice, found on canvas.

You must also prepare an informed consent form, which should (in most cases) be signed by your respondents. You should append this to your interview protocol.

4 Content and educational objectives

4.1 Content

Study trip

A trip to Brussels is foreseen between Wednesday 29 January and Saturday 1 February 2025. Please abide by international travel guidelines in order to participate in the study trip. Please take note of Faculty rules (see Canvas) for international travel. The hotel we are using is the Meininger Hotel Brussels City Centre. A reservation has been made for the entire trip. You can add extra nights if you wish to stay more, but you will have to pay in advance for those yourself. Please coordinate amongst yourselves, and then contact Jamal with a group request, which he shall communicate to the hotel.

This course is designed for students of the MA European Studies, European Policy track. It will help you improve your research skills for your MA thesis and post-study activities.

We start by inviting you to consider your ‘burning question’ —or what you really want to address— in your MA thesis. We then devote the second and third week to identifying the research puzzle underlying your future research. We will also focus on the methods and theoretical approaches that will help you address this question in your thesis, with a specific focus on the relationship between policy fields and research approaches. You will work in small groups to stimulate discussion, yet all deliverables will be submitted individually.

The tasks described above are designed to help you come to terms with starting out on carrying out your MA thesis. The following issues are to be covered in depth:

  • formulating a detailed research proposal
  • gathering preliminary data concerning your research project, and using this to (re)formulate your research proposal
  • identifying, contacting and executing ‘expert’ or ‘elite’ interviews with people engaged in EU policymaking circles
  • presenting your initial reflections concerning your research in written form.

4.1.1 Study load, time required and attendance

It is estimated you will need to allocate 100% of your working time as a minimum (approximately 40 hours per week) for this course. This consists of preparation for and participation in the meetings and completing the deliverables. The amount of effort may vary from session to session, but the workload is inevitably focused towards the period around delivery due dates.

In addition to the required readings and the preparatory tasks for each class, you should read a pertinent selection of literature from the suggested readings at the end of this course manual. You should choose texts that are relevant to your research objectives. You should also keep informed through regular reading of current news sources related to your chosen topic (see the Cultures of Governance course manual for a sample of sources). The list of deliverables provides details on the work to be submitted during the course. From week one onwards, you should be thinking about all your deliverables.

4.2 Educational objectives

This course has a particular focus on the governing of Europe, and more specifically, making policy in the European Union. It is designed to focus on extracting policy-relevant issues from various sources that will influence your research and thesis work, whether it relates to contemporary policymaking, theoretical questions, governance or a historical contextualisation of EU policy. The aims of the course are to:

  • encourage you to frame your research objectives in a sound and valid academic framework
  • critically integrate primary data into an MA thesis through clear use of method(s)
  • expose you to the practicalities of EU policymaking in your chosen policy field
  • engage in collaborative and participative peer learning.

5 Method of instruction

This course takes place over a four week period, and yet is designed to help you work on your thesis, which is a year-long project. The focus is on delivery of work that will help you develop your thesis. We convene in a mixture of plenary and group sessions at the allotted times mentioned in the course schedule summary section of this course manual. Ad hoc meetings may be organised as and where both students and the course coordinator deem it necessary.

5.1 Lectures and seminars

Each session will consist of group and plenary elements. Sessions will last between three and four hours. They will consist of interactive lectures, group work, and feedback sessions.

Peer reviewing

Peer engagement is an integral element of the course structure and is integrated into the design of the course. You should organise with smaller ‘peer groups’ before class to discuss your draft deliverables for the week.

Each session has a mixture of interactive lecture, discussion around required reading and required tasks. We may discuss drafts of deliverables during class, but do expect you to convene in groups outside of class to discuss your work.

During some of these sessions we will use the ‘jigsaw method’ for a discussion of the literature.

Jigsaw method
  1. in preparation for the session, each of you will analyse one of the texts for the discussion session, and submit a 3,2,1 on this text
  2. in the first part of the exercise, ‘expert groups’ will be formed by people who have all read the same text. You will use the expert group to exchange ideas about your text based on your 3,2,1s, complement each other’s thoughts, and formulate a final joint understanding of your text
  3. in the second part of the exercise, different pieces of the puzzle in the literature are put together in ‘jigsaw groups’, which consist of a number of people, each having read a different chapter
  4. on the basis of this exchange, a discussion will be launched in which critical questions are posed about the different approaches presented to research methods in European Studies. What are the main differences? What is the value of the different perspectives taken? Could you think of critiques (e.g. gaps, outdated knowledge, …)? What do these approaches teach us about research in European studies and specifically, your own thesis research?

Contrary to our exercises in the Cultures of European Governance course, you are not required to submit full written summaries to canvas, but are required to submit your 3,2,1s on the text you have read.

5.2 Participation and learning

Class attendance and participation are vitally important because of the organisation of the course. We will take attendance and note your degree of preparation and participation. Absence, or failing to read the material requested may influence your grade negatively. In class, we make no attempt to cover all the material in the reading list. We use the limited time available in a flexible way to try to ensure that your objectives and tasks are clear. Contact time will also focus on engaging in discussion and development of your own ideas. Students are strongly encouraged to come to the classroom with their own ideas for discussion, based on the dscussions held in your peer group meetings the day prior to our class.

Given the nature of the course, participation is required in all the meetings mentioned in the course schedule. Non-participation (by means of not submitting draft documents or non-engagement in peer discussions) will impact your final grade in borderline cases.

6 Course evaluation

Evaluation of academic education starts at the beginning of a course and is a continuous dialogue between students and lecturers. So, for example, at the beginning of a course, you can think about your expectations and your part in reaching that goal that you share with lecturers and students: the best education possible.

Since last year, the examiners have changed the assessment weighting and number of deliverables, based on feedback from last year. We have also included a new type of assignment (poster), designed to give you the opportunity to reflect on one particular aspect of your thesis journey (theories and methods) in a creative manner.

Students are requested by email to anonymously evaluate their courses during the final week of teaching. Lecturers are requested to reserve time for this during class. Please complete the course evaluation, as, among others, lecturers and the programme committees use the results to improve the education in your programme!

Be critical during your course evaluation, but also be to the point, polite, and constructive. Finally, ask yourself: could I use this feedback?

In the final session of the course, we shall also take a moment to discuss the course, whether you feel you have achieved the educational objectives stated above, and how you found the course in both specific, and overall terms.

However, you should not feel as though you have to wait until the end of the course in order to voice any issues that you may have. The course instructors invite you to engage either prior or immediately after a class, or via email to discuss any concerns.

7 Assessment

7.1 Forms of assessment

7.1.1 Prep survey

Please fill in this preparatory survey. You need to do this by the deadline date. You should include a rationale for your proposed thesis area, that emphasises the topic, skills and methodology that inspires you.

7.1.2 3,2,1s

Prior to every seminar, you are required to submit a short note based on the required reading for the week. This should include: three things you learnt, two things you found interesting, and one question you still have: this will not be graded, but is a required submission. We shall use these to stimulate discussion.

7.1.3 (Draft) email requests

You are to draft up an email (which you can submit to canvas if you feel it is necessary to have an instructor check), where you request an interview with a respondent. See guidelines for some pointers. You should also prepare a list of potential interviewees and their contact details. Use the study skills online spreadsheet to ensure you keep track of all the invitations you send and the responses you receive, which should be documented in the tab “2024 interviews”. Timely introduction of your contacts into this spreadsheet is necessary due to the fact that we do not wish to bombard particular individuals with multiple requests.

Guidelines for introductory email
  1. Make your email brief but informative and polite. If you know the person you are writing to speaks your native tongue, please take advantage of this fact.
  2. Explain why and when you are coming to Brussels.
  3. Explain why you would like to meet with them (in particular).
  4. Explain the two or three main questions/topics you would like to cover in a conversation.
  5. Ask for a brief amount of time: these people cannot plan to meet with you for an hour (but they may well use one hour if they have it). Propose a time/date and suggest you are flexible.
  6. Always give them a ‘way out’: ask if they are not the right person, who the most appropriate contact would be.

You must make sure to follow up with your respondents prior to the interview, sending them the interview protocol and the informed consent form.

7.1.4 Interview protocol

Your interview protocol will be used as the basis for some of the work you will carry out in Brussels. It should be submitted to canvas and sent to your interviewees before your visit to Brussels. This will form the basis of your discussions with your respondents, so should be professionally drafted and enable a good discussion to take place. See below for a proposed structure.

Template for interview protocol
Interviewer: ____________________ Date and location: ____________________
Interviewee: ____________________

Introduce the interviewer: brief description of self and role in project.

Outline the main aims of the project:

  1. project aim
  2. reason for research
  3. research question

Ask if OK to record interview, but only for use in writing up notes: any direct text citations will be checked and only attributed if permission given. Require informed consent: refer to the template below.

Questions

Insert your brief list of questions that:

  1. Stimulate conversation with your respondent
  2. Reveal you have done some background research
  3. Are related to your research question
  4. Don’t have Yes or No answers.

Wrap up: always try to sum up what the respondent says, to check understanding and meaning.

Thank the interviewee and explain that a final report will be available in the early summer. Note that you shall be in touch to verify any quotations used in the report prior to submission. Save time for questions from their side.

Template for informed consent

(The following needs to be turned into a form that the individuals can sign, for ethical and data protection purposes. If there is a refusal to sign the form, then enquire whether the interview can continue on an informal basis.)

Include description of the research project in five/six lines.

  1. Undersigned agree to be recorded for the purposes of the interview. Solely for the purpose of note taking, and for the abovementioned research project
  2. Participant will be informed when the recording starts and finishes, and has the right to ask for the interview to be immediately deleted from the recording device if this is deemed necessary.
  3. Will be able to access a copy of the recording if requested.
  4. Data gathered during the interview will not be used explicitly (i.e. direct quotation, attribution of an individual) without specific permission from the interviewee.
  5. Quotes will be anonymised, unless interviewee expresses a desire to waive anonymity.
  6. Data will be stored in a secure environment, and deleted when the student graduates from university. This will be stored in compliance with European data protection regulations.

This will need to be signed by both interviewee and interviewer, and dated as well.

7.1.5 Annotated bibliography

Your annotated bibliography should contain descriptions of at least nine (and no more than eleven) academic sources pertinent to your research topic. For each source you should provide a full reference (in your preferred referencing style although we advise Chicago Manual Style) followed by a short description of the main arguments outlined in the specific academic text. This shall be useful to ensure that your research question contributes to ongoing debates and has not been answered before. It may also provide you with insights into how to address your chosen topic. Alongside summing up the main arguments of your sources, you should also provide at the end of your annotated bibliography between half a page and one page summarising the literature you have examined, highlighting any gaps in the literature and outlining how your thesis might fill in these gaps.

At the end of your annotated bibliography, we request that you take the ‘politics of citation’ into account. This was brought to the table by our friends and colleagues from the critical infrastructure lab at the UvA, who were inspired by colleagues from Brazil (REDE). You should count the number of female and male authors cited in your annotated bibliography, and write a small reflection on the politics of your citations. When an article is written by multiple authors, please count the gender of the first author. The reflection can be intersectional, engaging with the gender, class, race, and geographic diversity of your citations.

Assessment criteria annotated bibliography
  1. consistency in referencing
  2. quality of the summaries of each text
  3. quality of final summary of literature and the identification of gaps (if relevant)
  4. the number and diversity of references used (in your politics of citation paragraph)

You may wish to use the excel sheet provided in canvas as a starting point for your work. See also the online version.

7.1.6 Background paper

This deliverable should consist of a rather detailed description of the key policy issues relevant to your thesis, with a particular focus on how they relate to EU policymaking. It should cover policy/primary literature, please make sure not to include any academic sources in the background document. At this stage, we are looking to practice data-gathering skills and improve your capacity to organise policy statements and identify paradoxes, puzzles or policy problems. This will be useful for you in providing you with some policy insights into your chosen topic area.

Assessment criteria background paper
  1. quality of the description
  2. relevance of your source selection to your research topic
  3. identification of the puzzle
  4. style, referencing, etc.

7.1.7 Theories and methods poster

This deliverable should present your reflections on potential theories and methods you will use in your thesis. This does not need to be a definitive piece of work, and should present your internal ‘conversation’ on how you aim to proceed with your thesis research. The ‘poster’ is simply an illustration or a representation of your thinking process at this stage. It can be in the form of a piece of text, or a mindmap, or other representation: feel free to explore different ways of representing your work. You will present your work at a session we organise in the hotel (a ‘theories and methods fair’) during our stay in Brussels. This will allow you to discuss your reflections with your peers and the course convenors. The poster does not need to be uploaded to canvas, as we shall grade the presentation and physical ‘poster’ (can be on one or more sheets of A4 paper, or a laptop/tablet screen).

Assessment criteria theories and methods poster
  1. quality of the reflection
  2. evidence of incorporation of inspiration and feedback (from your reading during the course, and discussions during our seminars)
  3. identification of key relevant theories and methods

7.1.8 Thesis proposal

You should draft up an annotated table of contents that summarises the core aspects of your thesis research. It will cover (not necessarily in this order):

  1. introduction and problem statement: The key question(s) you wish to address in your research (which is informed by your ‘burning question’)
  2. context and policy puzzle: A basic overview of the policy environment relating to your research topic (which is informed by your policy background document and insights from your fieldwork in Brussels)
  3. literature and theory: An overview of the academic debate on your topic (derived from your annotated bibliography)
  4. method and approach: A (short) section that shows how you build on the state of the art in the academic debate and how you think you will do this (which data, how you will collect and analyse the data)
  5. a proposed structure of your thesis, with a brief outline describing each chapter
  6. a list of literature consulted.

This annotated table of contents will be reviewed briefly by the course instructors, and graded as a pass or fail only: your (potential) thesis supervisor may comment on this deliverable as well, as it is expected that you will share this with them, but they are not expected to comment on this prior to delivery for the course. After discussion with your supervisor, a shortened version of this should be submitted as Thesis Application Form (see Canvas page for MA thesis European Studies).

7.2 Exam material

All course material will be posted on Canvas, or links will be provided to material from there.

7.3 Assignment deadlines, length, and weight

Please stick to the maximum page lengths mentioned below! Remember, draft documents are simply draft documents. We ask for them to help you formulate your thoughts and share ideas with others. We do not expect you to deliver complete documents at the draft stage.

Assignment weight deadline length (max)
prep survey P/F 6/1/25 -
3,2,1s P/F weekly before seminar -
Draft annotated bibliography P/F 13/1/25 11am -
email interview requests P/F 17/1/25 5pm -
Draft background paper P/F 20/1/25 11am -
Interview protocol P/F 27/1/25 11am -
Methods and theories poster 20% in Brussels presentation
Annotated bibliography 40% 7/2/25 5pm 5pp
Background paper 40% 7/2/25 5pm 3pp
Thesis proposal P/F 7/2/25 5pm 6pp
Table 1: Assignment deadlines

P/F indicates submission is required (pass/fail), and the work will be read by instructors, but not graded.

Submissions that go beyond the limits will be rejected and given a zero grade. The word count mentioned includes your bibliography. For each day of late submission of a deliverable, 0,5 points will be deducted from your final assignment grade. Permission for late submission may be granted if you contact the study adviser before the assignment deadline. Resits submitted after the resit deadline will not be marked, unless an exception is granted by the study adviser.

7.4 General guidelines for submitting written work

Draft means draft

In this course, we ask you to submit your graded deliverables in an early draft form as well as in a final form at the end of the course. This is to help you in developing your ideas and reflecting upon them with your peers and in class. It will also help you when going to Brussels.

To pass the course, you need to submit different pieces of work. The weighted average of all graded elements of the course needs to be above the passing grade (5,5 or higher). This means that the grade for one assignment can be compensated by the grade of another. All assignments, both graded and “P/F”, must be correctly submitted in canvas in order to pass the course. Please note the following requirements for the annotated bibliography and the background paper:

  • pdf format, A4, fully justified paragraphs, with single line spacing and page numbers identified.

  • the following information should be clearly marked on the front page of the submission:

    • student number(s)
    • course title and academic year
    • assignment name
    • date of actual submission (regardless of the deadline)
    • word count

  • the above requirements to not apply to other deliverables in the course

  • do not put your name on the front cover as we grade anonymously

  • cover pages are not included in the page counts above, all other text is (including the reference list/bibliography)

  • all assignments are submitted via Canvas: documents submitted through email will be deleted

  • your documents should also be proofread. Work will be downgraded for language, spelling, and grammatical errors

  • use correct referencing, according to academic standards. Make consistent use of one reference style (e.g. Chicago)

  • use author-date referencing instead of using footnotes

  • inconsistent referencing may result in downgrading: for more information: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html

  • all written work should be produced by the author. Suspicion of fraud or plagiarism will be reported the Board of Examiners and may result in expulsion from the course

  • for this course, students are not permitted to use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for any of the assessments

Test results lapse after the end of the semester in which the final mark was awarded. If a student does not complete a course that is a compulsory part of their degree programme in one semester, they will have to retake the entire course at a later opportunity.

8 Results

The results on the final documents will be posted on Canvas no more than 15 working days after the submission.

8.1 Feedback and inspection

Opportunities for feedback and inspection will be provided for all assignments after submission. As all assignments will be graded on Canvas, you will be able to see the grading and comments on the assignments there. You have the right to receive timely feedback on your submissions, which is provided to you as soon as possible. Should you require further feedback, please do not hesitate to reach out to the course convenors.

8.2 Resit

The assignments can be retaken when their grade is lower than 5,5. The deadline for retakes will be announced but will never be allowed to extend beyond the last working day in February. The department will not offer a new deadline to students who miss a deadline due to illness or other impediment unless requested by a study adviser. Resits are designed to provide for such circumstances. Resits are therefore not intended to always allow students two opportunities to sit an exam.

If you fail the course, and are required to carry out a resit, we ask you to submit a theory and methods paper, of length five pages, and is weighted at 40% of the total grade for the course. Your paper should consider different theoretical and methodological frameworks and include discussion of qualitative and quantitative methods (if relevant). You should refer to different disciplinary approaches (International Relations, Sociology, Political Science, Political Economy, Law etc.) in this paper. Finally, you are required to elaborate on the theories and methods that will serve to help you address the research question you have identified in class. This will help you plan the remaining stages of your research.

Assessment criteria theories and methods paper
  1. the quality (and diversity) of the survey of method|ological approaches to your topic, including references to a range of literature that implements these different method(ologie)s
  2. clarity of the outline of the method|ological perspective(s) that is (are) pertinent to your proposed (draft) research question
  3. the quality (and diversity) of the survey of theoretical approaches to your topic, including references to a range of literature that implements these different theories
  4. clarity of the outline of the theoretical perspective(s) that is (are) pertinent to your proposed (draft) research question
  5. style, referencing, etc.

9 Fraud and plagiarism rules

The University of Amsterdam Fraud and Plagiarism regulations apply to the assessment of this course. These regulations can be consulted at the Plagiarism and Fraud page on the student website. Also take a look at the Academic integrity guide (pdf). See also the guidelines for generative artificial intelligence in education (pdf) for more information about tools such as ChatGPT.

10 Social safety

If you experience an unsafe situation or undesirable behaviour in this course or study programme, you can turn to the UvA Social Safety Support Guide for students.

11 Course overview by week

You will be split into eight groups in the first plenary session. Table 2 provides a summary of classes and activities.

You will be informed by the MA coordinators about additional research methods activities, including a workshop on interviews.

Class Date Time Groups Time Groups Time Groups
#1 08/01 11.00 - 12.00 plenary 12.00 - 13.30 1-4 13.30 - 15.00 5-8
#2 15/01 11.00 - 12.00 5-8 12.00 - 13.00 1-4 13.00 - 15.00 plenary
#3 22/01 11.00 - 12.00 1-4 12.00 - 13.00 5-8 13.00 - 15.00 plenary
BXL 29/01-1/02
Table 2: Summary of classes and activities

This schedule may help you plan out your time.

Please check https://rooster.uva.nl for the location of our meetings.

11.1 Week 0

During the Christmas break, you are invited to:

  • think about your ‘burning question’, or the topic that makes you want to carry out research
  • identify a ‘search strategy’ for literature related to your topic, and will start to collect academic and policy literature in your chosen field. You should use a bibliographic reference manager to organise and share literature (optionally with your peers as ‘collections’ in the European Policy Zotero Group.
  • investigate which potential supervisors may be most interested in your theme
  • fill in the Prep Survey

The ambition of this exercise is to start you thinking about your research topic. And to give us a reasonable idea of how advanced you are in your thinking.

Required activities:

  • fill in the Prep Survey. This will include a request to write one paragraph on your thesis topic, highlighting the substance and method|ology/approach that inspires you. We shall use this to launch discussions in our first meeting
  • please also (re-)watch the Zotero video (linked in the respective canvas module), which might help with getting to grips with reference management

Required reading:

  • Gerard Guthrie “Research Methodology,” in Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research (SAGE Publications, 2010), 38–50.
  • Gerard Guthrie “Research Proposal and Literature Review,” in Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research (SAGE Publications, 2010), 25–37.
  • Gerard Guthrie “Approaches to Research,” in Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research (SAGE Publications, 2010), 3–14.
  • Philippe Schmitter “The Design of Social and Political Research,” in Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 263–95, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.015.

11.2 Week 1

At the first plenary meeting, we introduce the course, and take some time to discuss general principles of thesis design. We cover different methods involved in thesis design and execution. This will outline ‘types’ of research (empirical and/or theoretical contributions; different approaches to research; different methods and methodologies), which should be a useful recap of work carried out in the ‘Cultures of Governance’ and ‘Enlargement and External Relations of the EU’ courses. We also focus on our expectations for the annotated bibliography, and on how to build up contacts in Brussels to prepare for the Brussels trip.

Based on your input into the Prep Survey and discussions during class, we shall create smaller groups, based on thesis topic, method, etc. It is imperative that you are all present for this exercise. We shall then continue in these smaller groups for the rest of the session, where we shall discuss techniques and tools to identify and structure our understanding of academic debates, and discuss your 3,2,1s for the week.

Required activities:

  • prepare 3,2,1s for this week’s session from Ben Rosamond “Methodology in European Union Studies,” in Research Methods in European Union Studies, ed. Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015), 18–36, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_2.
  • identify a thesis topic, skills and methods that you wish to investigate further
  • look into existing literature and start writing up summaries of the key texts (optionally) making use of the excel sheet you can download from canvas. Start planning all your deliverables
  • start working on your draft annotated bibliography. A first draft needs to be submitted at the beginning of week 2)
  • prepare draft emails to send to your potential informants. You can submit these to canvas latest middle of week 2 for brief feedback if you wish.

11.3 Week 2

We shall start with group sessions, where we will discuss your draft annotated bibliographies of recent and ‘classic’ scientific publications in your field of research. This will be carried out in groups. We will comment on the following criteria:

  • diversity of literature
  • balance between classic texts and more recently-published work
  • relevance of the literature to your preliminary research question
  • theoretical ‘narrative’ present in the collection of literature
  • clarity and usefulness of your annotations for your own research

The ambition of this session is to enable you to review and reflect on how previous academic work contributes to your own research.

In the second half of the session (plenary), we shall talk about understanding policy context and background. We shall share thoughts on how to find and interpret information on policy processes, and what gaps appear in our reading of these public sources. We shall also cover how to engage with policymakers and other actors to help uncover these gaps and dig deeper into our research areas. We shall break into groups to discuss the chapters from Part II of Lynggaard, Löfgren, and Manners “Crossroads in European Union Studies.” in a jigsaw format.

Required activities:

  • prepare 3,2,1 on a chapter from Part II of Lynggaard, Löfgren, and Manners (groups 1,2: chapter 4; groups 3,4: chapter 5; groups 5,6: chapter 6; groups 7,8: chapter 7)
  • prior to class: review the submitted draft versions of your group’s annotated bibliographies
  • after class: start working on your background paper and submit a draft version at the beginning of week 3

Supplemental required reading:

11.4 Week 3

In the group discussions, we will emphasise how a thesis will need you to be able to analyse and summarise new developments in a given policy field, building upon your prior knowledge and understanding of policy dynamics. We shall ask you to reflect on the draft versions of your background papers, which cover your understanding of the policy context and the tensions/problems in policy.

During the plenary session, we shall talk about the relevance of building a theoretical/conceptual framework for thesis research and also finalise arrangements for Brussels. We shall familiarise ourselves with the University’s Data Management and Data Protection plans, which you are required to observe, and outline our expectations for the poster that you have to present in Brussels. We shall then break into groups to discuss chapters from Part III and IV of Lynggaard, Löfgren, and Manners “Crossroads in European Union Studies.” in a jigsaw format, and discuss how to employ the theories and research designs discussed in your thesis on the basis of your 3,2,1s.

Required activities:

  • prepare 3,2,1 on a different chapter in Part III or IV of Lynggaard, Löfgren, and Manners (choose the most relevant chapter for your research)
  • prior to class: review the submitted draft versions of your group’s background papers
  • after class: start preparing your interview protocol and the informed consent form for the Brussels trip

11.5 Week 4

Apart from the ‘Methods and theories fair’ which we shall organise in Brussels on Wednesday 29 January from 5-7pm, there will be no formal sessions this week. We shall organise several informal events during our time in Brussels. These are not compulsory, but you are recommended to participate if you are not busy interviewing at the time. Events we have organised in past years include:

  • a walking tour of the Brussels Quarter, focused on interest groups in different sectors of European policymaking;
  • a session with an MEP in the European Parliament;
  • meeting with alumni (in the evening);
  • group dinner (partially covered by the university budget).

More information about such events will be posted directly to canvas.

Brussels trip: key information
  • we recommend you create two WhatsApp groups, one with the course convenors, and the other without us
  • things to bring with you:
    • your passport or other form of FORMAL identification;
    • toothbrush
  • we will upload the full set of documents (rules etc.) concerning the hotel to canvas once the booking is confirmed
  • we abide by the rules on field trips developed by the faculty: a copy of this document will be uploaded on canvas
  • do NOT cancel your travel plans or your room booking: you will be required to reimburse the full fee for all costs incurred
  • you will be provided with a MOBIB Basic card on arrival in Brussels. This card gives you access to all “STIB/MIVB” public transport in the Brussels Region. The card will be preloaded with a ten journey card. The cards are valid for five years and are transferable (i.e. you can give it to someone else.). You can load additional journeys on the card, should you need them, but this will be at your own cost
  • we estimate that there will be approximately 90-100 € costs that you will have to cover during your stay: you are responsible for feeding yourselves for lunches and dinners. Breakfast is provided at the Hotel
  • you will be required to organise the transport yourselves to the Dutch/Belgian border (station “Noorderkempen”) using your NS discount cards and the so-called ‘meereiskorting’: the university will reimburse reasonable costs (up to a maximum of 40€ for NS train tickets for the entire trip) via the link: https://expenseclaims.uva.nl/. We shall talk about organisational issues prior to the course starting (i.e. during the second half of block two)
  • Gertjan will be available during the entire trip, he is staying in the hotel. Jamal lives around 55 minutes away from the hotel (so cannot provide immediate rescue), but can be contacted at any time during your stay

Required activities:

  • Prepare the final versions of your own deliverables.

Required reading:

  • There is no specific required reading this week. You should choose your own.

11.6 Week 4+1

Classes have formally finished, but we give you some extra time to wrap up the deliverables for the course. Please plan your time effectively, so as not to disrupt the start of the second semester.

12 Suggested readings

12.1 General research principles

  • Martyn Denscombe Ground Rules for Social Research: Guidelines for Good Practice, 2. ed, Open Up Study Skills (Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press, McGraw-Hill, 2010).
  • Lynggaard, Löfgren, and Manners “Crossroads in European Union Studies.”
  • Luigi Curini and Robert Franzese The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, 2 vols. (London: SAGE Publications, 2020), https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387.
  • Guthrie “Research Proposal and Literature Review.”
  • Angela Thody Writing and Presenting Research (London: SAGE, 2006).
  • Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams The Craft of Research, Third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
  • Kaifeng Yang “Qualitative Analysis,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, ed. Mark Bovens, Robert E Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199641253-e-040.

12.2 Interviewing

12.3 Case studies and process tracing

12.4 Multimethod and multilevel research

12.5 Critical research approaches

  • Colin Hay and Ben Rosamond “Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives” Journal of European Public Policy, 9, no. 2 (January 1, 2002): 147–67, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120192.
  • Russell Hardin “Normative Methodology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E Brady, and David Collier (Oxford, 2008), http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-2.
  • Dan Durning “Hajer, Maarten a. And Wagenaar, Hendrik (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, 307 Pp.: Morçöl, Göktuğ, a New Mind for Policy Analysis: Toward a Post-Newtonian and Postpositivist Epistemology and Methodology. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2002, 275 Pp.” Policy Sciences, 37, no. 3–4 (December 2004): 357–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-1765-z.
  • Lawrence Wood, Phyllis Bernt, and Carol Ting “Implementing Public Utility Commission Web Sites: Targeting Audiences, Missing Opportunities” Public Administration Review, 69, no. 4 (2009): 753–63, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02022.x.
  • Nicola Woods Describing Discourse: A Practical Guide to Discourse Analysis (London: Hodder Arnold, 2006).
  • Anthony Burke “Postmodernism,” in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-21.
  • Silvia Dominguez and Betina Hollstein, eds. Mixed Methods Social Networks Research, Design and Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139227193.
  • Andreas Wald “Triangulation and Validity of Network Data,” in Mixed Methods Social Networks Research, ed. Silvia Dominguez and Betina Hollstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 65–89, http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139227193A014.
  • Norman Fairclough Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Language in Social Life Series (London ; New York: Longman, 1995).
  • Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 3rd edition. (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016).
  • Thomas Jacobs “The Dislocated Universe of Laclau and Mouffe: An Introduction to Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory” Critical Review, 30, no. 3–4 (2018): 294–315.

For more specific methods, methodologies, and approaches, see the following:

References

Bailer, Stefanie. “Interviews and Surveys in Legislative Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, edited by Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld, and Kaare W Strøm. Oxford University Press, 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199653010.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199653010-e-011.
Bates, Robert H. “From Case Studies to Social Science: A Strategy for Political Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan C Stokes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566020-e-7.
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods” Annual Review of Political Science, 9, no. 1 (June 1, 2006): 455–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918.
Bennett, Sue, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin. “The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical Review of the Evidence” British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, no. 5 (September 2008): 775–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.
Bevir, Mark. Governance Stories. London: Routledge, 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969090.
———. “Meta-Methodology: Clearing the Underbrush.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-3.
Bogner, Alexander, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz. “Generating Qualitative Data with Experts and Elites.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, 652–65. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.
———, eds. Interviewing Experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research. Third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Bruter, Michael, and Martin Lodge. The Palgrave Macmillan Political Science Research Methods in Action. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10753305.
Burke, Anthony. “Postmodernism.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-21.
Carta, Caterina. EU Foreign Policy Through the Lens of Discourse Analysis: Making Sense of Diversity. 1st ed. Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315580692.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. “Constructivist Approaches to European Integration.” Working Paper. 6. Oslo: Arena Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, February 2006.
———. “Process Tracing.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, edited by Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, 114–27. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584129_8.
———. “Social Constructivisms in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay” Review of International Studies, 30, no. 2 (April 2004): 229–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210504006023.
Chynoweth, Paul. “Legal Research.” In Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, edited by Andrew Knight and Les Ruddock, 28–38. Chichester: Blackwell, 2012.
Collier, David. “Understanding Process Tracing” PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, no. 04 (October 2011): 823–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.
Collier, David, and Colin Elman. “Qualitative and Multimethod Research: Organizations, Publication, and Reflections on Integration.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-34.
Curini, Luigi, and Robert Franzese. The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations. 2 vols. London: SAGE Publications, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486387.
Della Porta, Donatella, and Michael Keating, eds. “Contents.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, vii–viii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/approaches-and-methodologies-in-the-social-sciences/contents/2A25113FF8039E314EFBEFDA5625C883.
Denscombe, Martyn. Ground Rules for Social Research: Guidelines for Good Practice. 2. ed. Open Up Study Skills. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press, McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Dijk, Teun A. van. Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, 1997.
———. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage, 2012.
Dominguez, Silvia, and Betina Hollstein, eds. Mixed Methods Social Networks Research. Design and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139227193.
Dorussen, Han, Hartmut Lenz, and Spyros Blavoukos. “Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Expert Interviews” European Union Politics, 6, no. 3 (September 2005): 315–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054835.
Durning, Dan. “Hajer, Maarten a. And Wagenaar, Hendrik (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, 307 Pp.: Morçöl, Göktuğ, a New Mind for Policy Analysis: Toward a Post-Newtonian and Postpositivist Epistemology and Methodology. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2002, 275 Pp.” Policy Sciences, 37, no. 3–4 (December 2004): 357–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-1765-z.
Fairclough, Norman. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Language in Social Life Series. London ; New York: Longman, 1995.
Franzese, Robert J. “Multicausality, Context-Conditionality, and Endogeneity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan C Stokes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566020-e-2.
Freedman, David A. On Types of Scientific Enquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning. Edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0012.
Gee, James Paul. How to Do Discourse Analysis. A Toolkit. London: Routledge, 2011.
Gerring, John. “The Case Study: What It Is and What It Does.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, 91–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0004.
Guthrie, Gerard. “Approaches to Research.” In Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research, 3–14. SAGE Publications, 2010.
———. “Research Methodology.” In Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research, 38–50. SAGE Publications, 2010.
———. “Research Proposal and Literature Review.” In Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research, 25–37. SAGE Publications, 2010.
Haas, Peter M. “Ideas, Experts and Governance.” In The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes, edited by Monika Ambrus, Karin Arts, Ellen Hey, and Helena Raulus, 1st ed., 19–43. Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139871365.003.
Hardin, Russell. “Normative Methodology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E Brady, and David Collier. Oxford, 2008. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-2.
Hay, Colin, and Ben Rosamond. “Globalization, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives” Journal of European Public Policy, 9, no. 2 (January 1, 2002): 147–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120192.
Heinrich, Carolyn J, and Carolyn J Hill. “Multilevel Methods in the Study of Bureaucracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, edited by Robert F Durant. Oxford University Press, 2011. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238958.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199238958-e-21.
Hermann, Margarett. “Content Analysis.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations : A Pluralist Guide, 151–67. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Hyland, Ken, and Brian Paltridge. Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. Continuum Companions. London ; Continuum International Pub. Group, 2011.
Jacobs, Thomas. “The Dislocated Universe of Laclau and Mouffe: An Introduction to Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory” Critical Review, 30, no. 3–4 (2018): 294–315.
Jones, Bradford S. “Multilevel Models.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199286546-e-26.
Kaiser, Wolfram, and Jan-Henrik Meyer. “Beyond Governments and Supranational Institutions: Societal Actors in European Integration.” In Societal Actors in European Integration, edited by Wolfram Kaiser and Jan-Henrik Meyer, 1–14. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137017659.
———, eds. Societal Actors in European Integration. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137017659.
Klotz, Audie, and Deepa Prakash, eds. Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584129.
Kronsell, Annica, and Ian Manners. “Single Policy Study: Three Variations in Design.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 86–101. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_6.
Kydd, Andrew H. “Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-25.
Luhtakallio, Eeva, and Nina Eliasoph. “Ethnography of Politics and Political Communication.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, edited by Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Oxford University Press, 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199793471-e-28.
Lynggaard, Kennet, Karl Löfgren, and Ian Manners. “Crossroads in European Union Studies.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 3–17. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_1.
Malena, Carmen, and Volkhart Finn Heinrich. “Can We Measure Civil Society? A Proposed Methodology for International Comparative Research” Development in Practice, 17, no. 3 (June 2007): 338–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701336766.
Oliver, Paul. “The Literature Review.” In Writing Your Thesis, Third Edition., 124–40. London: SAGE Publications, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294994.
Peck, Jamie, and Nik Theodore. “Follow the Policy: A Distended Case Approach” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44179.
Pouliot, Vincent. “Practice Tracing.” In Process Tracing, edited by Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel, 237–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472.013.
Princen, Sebastiaan. “Studying Agenda Setting.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 123–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_8.
Quirk, Joel. “Historical Methods.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-30.
Rosamond, Ben. “Methodology in European Union Studies.” In Research Methods in European Union Studies, edited by Kennet Lynggaard, Ian Manners, and Karl Löfgren, 18–36. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137316967_2.
Schmitter, Philippe. “The Design of Social and Political Research.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, 263–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.015.
Thody, Angela. Writing and Presenting Research. London: SAGE, 2006.
Vennesson, Pascal. “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, 223–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.013.
Vibert, Frank. “The Need for a Systemic Approach.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited by Mark Bovens, Robert E Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199641253-e-001.
Wald, Andreas. “Triangulation and Validity of Network Data.” In Mixed Methods Social Networks Research, edited by Silvia Dominguez and Betina Hollstein, 65–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139227193A014.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michał Krzyżanowski. Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke [etc: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016.
Wood, Lawrence, Phyllis Bernt, and Carol Ting. “Implementing Public Utility Commission Web Sites: Targeting Audiences, Missing Opportunities” Public Administration Review, 69, no. 4 (2009): 753–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02022.x.
Woods, Nicola. Describing Discourse: A Practical Guide to Discourse Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold, 2006.
Yang, Kaifeng. “Qualitative Analysis.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited by Mark Bovens, Robert E Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199641253-e-040.

Citation

BibTeX citation:
@online{shahin2024,
  author = {Shahin, Jamal and Hoetjes, Gertjan},
  title = {Skills {Seminar} {Brussels}},
  date = {2024-08-08},
  langid = {en}
}
For attribution, please cite this work as:
Shahin, Jamal, and Gertjan Hoetjes. “Skills Seminar Brussels,” August 8, 2024.