Conceptualising Europeanisation
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/095207670201700202 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Conceptualising
Europeanisation
Jim
Buller
University
of
York
Andrew
Gamble
University
of
Sheffield
Abstract
This
article
subjects
the
existing
literature
on
the
concept
of
Europeanisation
to
critical
scrutiny.
It
begins
by
providing a
general
discussion
of
the
methodology
of
concept
formation.
It
then
goes
on
to
assess
five
current
usages
of
the
tern
Europeanisation,
before
providing
an
alternative
definition.
The
main
argument
pursued
here
is
that
academics
have
been
too
quick
to
conceptualise
Europeanisation
as
a
process
which
is
capable
of
producing
certain
effects.
Consequently,
not
enough
time
has
been
spent
on
the
subject
of
what
Europeanisation
actually
is
(and,
indeed,
whether
it
exists).
Unless
scholars
refocus
their
efforts
towards
the
subject
of
Europeanisation,
there
is
a
danger
of
misrepresenting
or
reifying
its
supposed
effects.
Let
it
be
stressed
therefore,
that
long
before
having
data,
which
can
speak
for
themselves,
the
fundamental
articulation
of
language
and
of
thinking
is
obtained
logically
-
by
cumulative
conceptual
refinement
and
chains
of
coordinated
definitions
-
not
by
measurement.
Measurement
of
what?
We
cannot
measure
unless
we
first
know
what
it
is
that
we
are
measuring
(Sartori,
1970,
p.1038).
Introduction
The
language
that
academics
use
is
important
to
theoretical
progress
in
any
field
or
discipline.
Whatever
we
know
is
mediated
by
language,
yet
no
language
is
neutral.
In
many
instances,
the
words
we
employ
are
culture-
bound
and
they
can
lose
their
meaning
outside
a
particular
group,
organisation
or
territorial
space.
What
makes
things
more
complicated
for
social
scientists
is
that
the
behaviour
we
observe
is
partly
influenced
and
constituted
by
social
conventions.
In
many
cases,
we
are
studying
subjects
who
are,
in
turn,
capable
of
reflecting
on
the
world
in
which
they
live
and
developing
their
own
narratives
to
make
sense
of
this
existence.
Indeed,
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
17
No.
2
Summer
2002
4
some
go
further
and
argue
that
no
reality
exists
outside
of
the
linguistic
patterns
or
discourses
we
construct.
Whether
we
choose
to
accept
this
position
or
not,
it
remains
the
case
that
we
all
consciously
or
(more
likely)
unconsciously
making
semantic
decisions
which
affect
the
direction
of
our
research.
One
of
the
central
tenets
of
this
article
is
that
we
should
be
careful
and,
if
possible,
explicit
about
the
reasons
behind
the
choices
we
make.
These
opening
remarks
are
especially
pertinent
to
the
issue
of
concept
formation.
As
Sartori
(1970)
reminds
us,
to
observe
is
not
just
to
register.
We
need
to
create
and
apply
concepts
if
we
are
to
make
sense
of
the
things
that
we
see.
In
undertaking
such
a
task,
we
normally
begin
by
providing
an
initial
definition
aimed
at
summing
up
the
main
elements
of
the
concept.
Faced
with
the
problem
of
empirical
work,
an
attempt
will
then
be
made
to
operationalise
this
term
by
constructing
a
set
of
indicators
for
research
in
the
field.
These
will
help
to
'test'
a
theory
and
make
a
connection
between
abstract
working
hypotheses
and
concrete
empirical
results.
Of
course,
there
is
always
an
element
of
intuition
and
judgement
involved
in
concept
formation
and
we
should
not
expect
to
establish
a
settled
or
final
meaning
for
any
given
term.
That
said,
the
'facts'
don't
speak
for
themselves.
They
will
always
need
to
be
interpreted
and
concept
formation
is
an
important
aspect
of
constructing
interpretations.
To
make
these
initial
observations
is
one
thing;
to
act
upon
them
is
quite
another.
Indeed,
it
is
sometimes
said
that
concepts
employed
in
the
social
sciences
lack
the
clarity
and
precision
of
the
terminology
in
the
natural
sciences
(see
for
example,
Nagel,
1961,
pp.505-8).
This
problem
may
stem
from
a
number
of
sources.
It
has
been
argued
that
social
scientists
can
make
the
mistake
of
'concept
stretching'.
This
refers
to
a
practice
where
a
strategy
of
least
resistance
is
selected
by
adapting
existing
terms
to
new
situations
for
which
they
were
not
designed
or
suited.
Conversely,
academics
can
go
to
the
other
extreme
and
become
hyper-active
inventors
of
unnecessary
concepts.
Whatever
the
exact
reasons,
a
lack
of
thought
concerning
why
we
need
new
terms
and
a
lack
of
precision
concerning
the
language
we
employ,
can
lead
to
more
of
our
concepts
becoming
'essentially
contested'
than
is
necessary
(Connolly,
1974).
Academics
working
on
the
same
subject
may
talk
past
each
other
as
they
employ
different
words
to
study
the
same
phenomena.
As
a
result,
theoretical
knowledge
in
this
area
will
fail
to
accumulate
(Gerring,
1999,
pp.360-61).
As
we
shall
see,
this
charge
is
one
which
can
be
levelled
at
the
existing
work
on
Europeanisation.
This
article
makes
two
claims.
First,
it
suggests
that
current
scholarship
on
Europeanisation
has
suffered
in
part
because,
with
one
or
two
notable
exceptions,
the
majority
of
this
work
has
not
been
reflexive
about
the
concepts
it
is
employing.
Second,
after
reflecting
on
some
of
the
issues
involved
in
concept
formation,
this
article
proffers
a
definition
which
is
somewhat
different
from
its
current
usage.
More
particularly,
the
understanding
of
Europeanisation
as
a
process
whereby
domestic
politics
is
increasingly
being
affected
by
European
Union
(EU)
membership
is
rejected.
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
17
No.
2
Summer
2002
5
To continue reading
Request your trial