ArticlePDF Available

Codebook for the Analysis of Political Claims in Conflicts on Intellectual Property Rights in Europe

Authors:

Abstract

Definition und Erläuterung der Variablen des IPGovernance-Projekts
Project:
Go ve rni ng I n te l le ctu a l
Pro p er t y C l a i ms
Confl ict s a b ou t E u rop e a n g ui d eli nes on
in t e ll e c tual pr o p erty r i ght s and so f tw a r e -
pa t ent s
Project acronym:
IPGov
Project website:
http://www.ipgovernance.eu/
Funded by :
Thyssen Foundation
Codebook
Co d eb oo k fo r the ana l ysis of political
claims i n c o nf l ic ts o n i n te l l e c tu al
pr o p e rt y r i gh ts in E ur op e
Author:
Sebastian Haunss/Lars Kohlmorgen
(based on the cod ebook by Ruud Koo pmans and Paul Statham)1
Date:
29 February 2008 (final)
1 The structure of the codebook, most examples and most of the cod es are directly copi ed from: Koopmans, R uud 2002.
“Codebook for the analysis of political mobi lisation and communication in European pu blic spheres.” Available at:
http://europub.wz-berlin.de /Data/Codebooks%20questionnaires/D2-1-claim s-codebook.pdf. Additional codes have been
added where applicable and in some instances codes have been ch anged as needed.
2
3
The structure of claims
An instance of claim-making (shorthand: a claim) is a unit of strategic action in the public
sphere. It consists of the expression of a political opinion by some form of physical or verbal
action, regardless of the form this expression takes (statement, violence, repression, decision,
demonstration, court ruling, etc. etc.) and regardless of the nature of the actor (governments,
social movements, NGO's, individuals, anonymous actors, etc. etc.). Note that decisions and
policy implementation are defined as special forms of claim-making, namely ones that have
direct effects on the objects of the claim.
Claims are broken down into seven elements, for each of which a number of variables have
been constructed:
1. Location of the claim in time and space (WHEN and WHERE is the claim made?)
Variables: year, month, day, country, region, city
2. Claimant: the actor making the claim (WHO makes the claim?)
Variables: (s)act, acttyp, actscop, actcoun, actpar
3. Form of the claim (HOW is the claim inserted in the public sphere?)
Variable: form
4. The addressee of the claim (AT WHOM is the claim directed?)
Variables: (s)adr, adreval, adrscop, adrcoun, adrpar
5. The substantive issue of the claim (WHAT is the claim about?)
Variables: field, (s)issue, isscop, posit
6. Object actor: who would be affected by the claim if it is realized (FOR/AGAINST
WHOM?)
Variables: (s)obj, objeval, objscop, objcoun, objpar
7. The justification for the claim (WHY should this action by undertaken?)
Variable: frame, posfra
The ideal-typical claim in the public sphere has all these elements, for instance
(leaving out the WHEN and WHERE, which are pretty self-evident):
WHO
(SUBJECT
ACTOR)
AT WHOM
(ADDRESSEE)
WHAT
(ISSUE)
FOR/AGAINST
WHOM? (OBJECT
ACTOR)
WHY
(FRAME)
A group of
asylum seek-
ers
demanding the gov-
ernment
not to deport
to their
country of
origin
themselves (the
group of asylum
seekers)
because this would
be in violation of
the Geneva Con-
vention
The Euro-
pean Parlia-
ment
criticizing the Turk-
ish government and
demanding
measures to
improve the
treatment of
political prisoners
arguing that re-
spect for human
rights is a core
value of the Euro-
pean Union
4
In grammatical terms, we may write such claims as a SUBJECT-ACTION-ADDRESSEE-
ACTION-OBJECT-JUSTIFICATION CLAUSE sequence: an actor, the subject, undertakes
some sort of action in the public sphere to get another actor, the addressee, to do or leave
something affecting the interests of a third actor, the object, and provides a justification for
why this should be done. Many claims are not as differentiated as this type. The only informa-
tion we always need for coding is information on the FORM (some sort of act in the public
sphere has to be identifiable) as well as information on ISSUE, OBJECT ACTOR, or
FRAME that allows us to determine whether the action relates to one of our topical fields.
Often several claim elements are missing, as indicated by the following examples.
WHO
(SUBJECT
ACTOR)
HOW
(FORM)
AT WHOM
(ADDRESSEE)
WHAT
(ISSUE)
FOR/AGAINST
WHOM? (OBJECT
ACTOR)
WHY
(FRAME)
The French
agricultural
minister
calls on
meat importers
to boycott the
import of meat
from other EU
countries in support
of French farmers
Joschka
Fischer
holds a
speech
calling for
the drawing up
of a European
Constitution
sets fire to
an asylum seeker
centre
The Bavarian
authorities
deport
a group of Kurdish
refugees
A group of
British
economists
publish a
report
stating
that
British non-
participation in the
common currency
will lead to lower
economic growth
The first row illustrate a very common forms of 'incompleteness' of claims. Very frequently,
no justification is given for a claim. The example in the second row illustrates that claims
often have no explicit addressees or object actors (or at least the newspaper does not mention
them).The third example illustrates a form of direct action, which contains no discursive ele-
ments, but where we can derive the issue at stake on the basis of the physical object of the
action. In addition, the example illustrates that sometimes actors are unknown or anonymous.
The fourth example is common for state actors, who do not have to make claims on others to
do something, but can directly make binding claims. As in the third example, the aim of the
action may not be specified in a discursive statement but can be derived from the action itself.
The final example is not untypical for statements by scientists who usually express no explicit
aims, but present frames referring to the consequences of certain policy actions.
Note that, while inspired by the idea of linguistic grammar, the way we code claims does not
usually literally coincide with the grammatical structure of the media text. In the case of
"John hits Peter" such coincidence is given: John is subject actor/nominative case, Peter is
object actor/accusative case. However, in: "John gives the book to Peter", the book is in accu-
sative case, but we would still code Peter as the object actor because he benefits from John's
action. In trying to identify who is subject actor, addressee and object actor, it is perhaps help-
ful to use the following sentence as a model, and try to translate your media text in a similar
5
form: "John asks Jim to give the book to Peter": John is subject actor, Jim is addressee, Peter
is object actor, 'to give the book' is the issue, and 'asks' is the form. Examples with similar
structures: "George Bush (John) demanded from (asks) the Taliban government (Jim) to ex-
tradite (to give the book to) Osama Bin Laden (Peter)"; "Schr!der (John) assured (asks) Bush
(Jim) of his full support for military action against (to give the book to) the Afghan regime
(Peter)"; "Chirac (John) criticized (asks) Blair (Jim) for blocking the decision-making process
(to give the book to) in the European Union (Peter)".
Units of analysis and their delineation
The unit of analysis are either articles or instances of claim-making. Continuations of an arti-
cle on another page are considered as part of the same article. Announcements in the form of
a table of contents or something similar on the front page should be disregarded, they count
neither as articles in their own right, nor as the beginning of the articles they refer to.
Above, we have defined an instance of claim-making (shorthand: a claim) as the expression
of a political opinion by physical or verbal action in the public sphere. This definition implies
two important delimitations: (1) instances of claim-making must be the result of purposive
strategic action of the claimant and (2) they must be political in nature.
Ad (1) To qualify as an instance of claim-making, the text must include a reference to an on-
going or concluded physical or verbal action in the public sphere, i.e. simple attributions of
attitudes or opinions to actors by the media or by other actors do not count as claim-making.
Examples: »The Greens, who want to extend recognition to people persecuted by non-state
organizations ….«, or »Mr. Blair’s pro-European course may have cost him votes in the last
elections«. Both do not qualify as claim-making by the Greens or Mr. Blair, respectively (nor
are they claims by the journalist). [Note that, by contrast, the sentences "The Greens, who said
they wanted to extend recognition to people persecuted by non-state organizations..." and
"Mr. Blair's pro-European speech a week before the election may have cost him votes" would
have qualified as instances of claim-making because they contain references to actual verbal
action by these actors].
Verbs indicating action include, e.g., said, stated, demanded, criticized, decided, demon-
strated, published, voted, wrote, arrested. Nouns directly referring to such action include, e.g.,
statement, letter, speech, report, blockade, deportation, decision. In short: anything that fits
into one of the categories in the FORM variable. The occurrence in the report of such verbs or
nouns is a precondition for the coding of a claim. Reports that only refer to ‘states of mind’ or
motivations should not be coded (e.g., references such as want, are in favour of, oppose, are
reluctant to, are divided over). However, if ‘state of mind’ references of the latter type are part
of the coverage of a claim according to the action criterion they may be taken into account in
coding the claim variables. Example: »The Greens said they wanted to extend recognition to
people persecuted by non-state organizations. They feel this follows from Germany’s obliga-
tions under the Geneva Convention«. Although ‘feel’ is a state of mind verb, the sentence
here clearly is a further specification of the first sentence which does contain an action verb.
Therefore the reference to the Geneva Convention can be coded as part of the claim.
The single exception to this rule are claims by journalists and guest commentators. In this
case, the publication of the article is regarded as the action in question and the presence of
action verbs or nouns is not required (obviously, a guest commentator is not going to begin
his article with »I say:…«).
6
Speculations about opinions or actions of others do not count as claim-making. I.e., an ana-
lyst’s statement that the European Central Bank will probably soon cut its interest rates is
neither a claim by the ECB (after all, it hasn’t done anything yet), nor by the analyst, because
statements about what other actors will do and why are NOT claims (statements about what
other actors SHOULD do, are, however).
Also not coded as claims are verbal statements by anonymous actors for which neither the
name, nor the institutional affiliation, nor the social group to which they belong is mentioned,
e.g. »reform-minded voices in Europe are calling for…«, or »critics of a federal Europe argue
that…«. In contrast »reform-minded voices within the European Commission…« or »social
scientists critical of a federal Europe …« would be coded. Easily formulated, the rule implies
that ACT1S may not be missing (999) in the case of verbal statements. The reason is that such
references reflect the journalist’s construction of the story more than they are a coverage of
actually made claims.
An example of lack of purposive action are presentations of survey results. The people inter-
viewed here are NOT considered as claimants, aggregate results such as »70% of the popula-
tion are against …« are not the result of purposive action. Surveys may be coded, however,
when the persons or institutions responsible for the survey or the interviews use the results to
formulate demands, to criticize other actors, etc., or when they explicitly state their
(dis)agreement with the survey results. In that case, however, the organizers of the survey or
the journalist are the claimant, not the respondents! Interviews with random people in the
streets by journalists are treated like surveys: statements, even if directly quoted, by random
citizens are not regarded as instances of strategic claim-making (e.g., the sentence ‘a Japanese
housewive said she did not trust the government and would not buy beef anymore’ would not
be coded as a claim by the housewive).
Ad (2) Claims must also be political, in the sense that they relate to collective social problems
and solutions to them, and not to purely individual strategies of coping with problems. I.e., if
a parent complains about her child’s treatment in school, this is not an instance of claim-
making on education politics, unless the case refers to a problem of wider collective social
relevance (e.g., if the complaint relates to the child being forbidden to wear the Islamic head-
scarf in class). Corruption or criminal evasion does not constitute claim-making, either. E.g.,
if a farmer tries to cover up BSE cases among his cattle, this does not constitute an act of
claim-making, and nor does an asylum seeker’s attempt to illegally enter the country (legal
action against such evasion may however constitute claim-making if the argument is couched
in terms that go beyond the individual case).
Statements or actions by different actors are considered to be part of one single instance of
claim-making if they take place at the same location in time (the same day) and place (the
same locality) and if the actors can be assumed to act 'in concert' (i.e. they can be considered
as strategic allies). Examples:
Two substantively identical statements by the same actor on two different days, or on one
day in two different localities are two separate claims.
Statements by different speakers during a parliamentary debate or a conference are consid-
ered part of one instance of claim-making as long as they are substantively and strategi-
cally compatible. Thus, different speakers may be taken together if they all express a simi-
lar point of view. However, if the speakers take positions that are substantially different
enough to reject the zero hypothesis that they are ‘acting in concert’, you should code the
statements as separate claims.
7
If an identifiable part of a peaceful demonstration (e.g., a 'black block') breaks away from a
march and turns violent, the assumption of acting in concert is no longer warranted and a
separate claim is coded.
If two negotiation partners present a compromise package at a press conference, the two's
statements are coded as one instance of claim-making, even if the two may emphasize dif-
ferent elements of the compromise.
Exceptions to this rule are cases where there is temporal or spatial continuity between actions.
An example of temporal continuity would be a hunger strike which may last several weeks.
However, as long as the actors and aims remain the same, this is counted as one instance of
claim-making, and not every day as a new claim. An example of spatial continuity would be a
listing of actions by exactly the same actors and aims on the same day in different localities,
where it is plausible that these actions were co-ordinated. E.g., »Greek border guards yester-
day arrested fifteen illegal immigrants who had landed on the Island of Samos. Another group
of refugees was taken into custody in the waters around the island of Kos«. The actions in the
different Greek islands are taken together as one instance of (geographically dispersed) claim-
making. As soon as, however, there would be additional information indicating differences in
the actors or timing of these actions, we would separate them into different instances of claim-
making. The article where the above example is drawn from also included references to the
Turkish border guards taking a group of refugees into custody in Turkey on the same day, and
to the Greeks already having captured illegal immigrants on Rhodes island a week ago. While
the Samos and Kos actions can be taken together, the Turkish (another actor) and Rhodes (an-
other time) actions should be coded as separate claims.
To sum up again, an instance of claim-making is a unit of strategic action in the public sphere.
Such a unit of strategic action may involve several actors acting in concert, it may extend over
several days or even longer, and it may involve co-ordinated action over a larger geographical
area simultaneously. An instance of claim-making is NOT identical with individual state-
ments. E.g., at a press conference a speaker may make several statements, perhaps even on
completely different topics. Nevertheless, this is one instance of claim-making because both
statements are made in the context of one strategic action in the public sphere.
For the treatment of the date of claims in case of missing or incomplete information, see fur-
ther the note under CDAY.
Missing values
Unless otherwise indicated, the zero code has a substantive meaning 'no' or 'none', or some-
times ‘neutral’ and should not be used for missing information. The codes 9, 99, 999, 9999,
etc. (depending on the number of reserved digits for the variable) are reserved for 'missing' or
'unknown' . They should only be used where we are sure or have a strong suspicion that the
correct coding is not 'no' or 'none' even though the newspaper article does not contain the in-
formation. For instance, if an asylum seeker centre is set on fire, we know that someone did it,
even though the perpetrators are not mentioned in the article; therefore the appropriate actor
code is 999.
Note on editorials and ‘analysis’ type articles:
Journalist claims in analysis type articles articles may be coded if they qualify as claims.
8
ONLY ONE JOURNALIST CLAIM per article may be coded. The publication of the article
in this case is regarded as the strategic unit of action in the public sphere constituting an in-
stance of claim-making. The journalist’s opinion must moreover be EXPLICIT, any implicit,
‘between the lines' commenting should be disregarded. The degree to which in ‘mixed’ arti-
cles the journalist’s own opinion, or the coverage of others’ actions and opinions stands in the
forefront can be indicated with the order in which the claims are coded (main claim or not, see
below).
In the case of claims by an editor or journalist of the newspaper itself, the subject actor code
is 130=media and journalists, the day of the claim is identical to the day of publication of the
newspaper issue and the location of the claim is the city where the newspaper is based. In the
case of a guest commentary, the affiliation/profession of the commentator is coded in the sub-
ject actor variable, the day and location are again the day and location of the newspaper, un-
less indicated otherwise in the article.
The identification process of claims and articles
The first step is to identify if the article contains any claims relating to our topics. This is best
done on a copy or printout of the article, where you can mark and number the claims. If the
article contains no claims, neither by third actors, nor by the journalist or guest commentator,
then you code only on the article level.
When coding, you choose whether you want to code an article or a claim within an article:
FILTER
'Type of information to be coded'
1 Article
2 Claim
Note: The FILTER is not a real variable to be coded; you choose between the two options by
clicking on the appropriate button in the 'navigation' field.
9
PART I:
ARTICLE-LEVEL VARIABLES
10
Variable AID (all variables are numeric except when otherwise indicated)
'article identification number'
Note: running count per year and per newspaper 1-9999; restart with 1 in a new year o r for
another newspaper. A unique identification number for each article will be composed after-
wards from PAPER, AYEAR, and AID. The number only serves identification purposes in the
data file and on paper or electronic copies of the article. It is therefore no problem if there
are gaps or 'jumps' in the count of article numbers. E.g., if you decide to delete a coded case,
you can do so without altering the numbers of other cases. Also, if two coders work simulta-
neously on the same newspaper in the same year, you can reserve numbers 1-999 for the first
coder, 1000-1999 for the second, and so forth. Note that continuations of an article on a dif-
ferent page are still considered as part of the same article.
Variable NAMECOD
'name of coder'
Categories, see data entry file.
Variable PAPER
'name of newspaper from which claim is coded'
Categories, see data entry file.
Variable AHEAD (string variable)
'headline of article'
Note: only the main (largest print) headline.
Variable ADAY
'day of newspaper issue'
(1-31)
Variable AMONTH
'month of newspaper issue'
(1-12)
Variable AYEAR
'year of newspaper issue'
(two digits, e.g. 85=1985; 99=1999; 0=2000, 1=2001)
Variable AFRPAGE
'is article reported on front page?'
0 no
1 yes
9 unknown
Note: the page is determined by where the article begins. E.g., if an article begins on page 1
and is continued on page 5, it is coded as a front page article. Mere announcements of arti-
cles on other pages do not count as the beginning of coverage, e.g., 'see also page 5' in an
article on page 1.
11
Variable AGENRE
'Journalistic genre of article'
1 News article (day-to-day coverage of events, e.g. news item, news report)
2 Background article (e.g. correspondents’ background report, analysis, feature,
documentation)
3 Interview (of the newspaper itself; references to interview statements drawn
from other sources are coded as 1 or 2)
4 Opinion/commentary by a guest author/columnist/other newspaper
Variable ASECTION
'section of newspaper where article appears'
1 Mixed international/national news section
2 Regional/local news section
3 Commentary pages
4 Business/Economy section
5 International news section
6 National news section
7 Culture section
8 No differentiation between sections
9 Section unknown
Note: Articles in the regional and local sections (i f present at all) of the newspaper will only
be included if a reference to them is made in the international/national news section of the
paper (e.g., »see further/also regional/local section«). This rule applies to all newspapers
except the regional newspaper, for which regional and local sections will be fully included.
Note further that mention of an article in a Table of Contents on page 1 does not count as a
reference to the regional or local section, the reason being that such tables will usually not be
included on CD-roms.
Variable ASOURCE
'main source of article'
1 Own coverage: foreign correspondent's report (incl. interviews)
2 Own coverage: article by a national office editor or journalist (incl. interviews)
3 National press agency
4 Other EU press agency (e.g., AFP outside France)
5 Non-EU press agency (e.g., AP)
6 Other national media source
7 Other EU media source (e.g., an article drawn from the Guardian in El Pais)
8 Non-EU media source
9 Other sources
Note : regional or local and topical(e.g., education correspondent) correspondents should be
coded as national office journalists
12
Variable AMAINTOP
‘Is one of our themes main topic of article?’
0 no
1 yes
If a reference to one of our five themes occurs in an article, the main topic of which is some-
thing else (e.g., a reference to troops deployment in an article that is mainly about clashes
between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, or a statement by a politician on European
integration in an article that mainly deals with non-European issues), then code 0=no.
Filter-variable ACLAIM
‘Does article contain claims?’
0 no
1 yes, but only already coded ones
2 yes, includes new claims
IF 2 > END OF ARTICLE LEVEL CODING: IF 0 or 1 > ON TO ATOPIC
Note: if an article contains claims, but those were already coded in another article, they are
not coded again. The article is then treated similarly to articles that do not contain claims at
all. For articles containing claims, information on main actor, topic, and scope of the article
can be derived from the main claim (the first coded claim in the article, defined as »the claim
around which the information (in as far as relevant to our seven fields) in the article is orga-
nized«, see further below under CID). This is not only economical and avoids double coding
of the same information, but also allows us to link the full detail of the claim coding to the
article level: e.g., information on addressees, frames, forms, etc.
Variable ATOPIC
'topic of article'
1 ‘Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions’
2 ‘Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive’
3 ‘Intellectual property rights’
4 ‘Patents/patent law’
5 ‘Crime’
6 'European integration'
Note: Coding of the main topic from among our six fields only on the basis of headline, lead,
(if present) photo byline, and first 150 words of main text. Coding rule: first-mentioned topic
(main headline is considered as the first line of the article, even if there is a secondary head-
line before it). Only the seven topics of our study are considered. I.e., even if an article is
mainly about unemployment, but also mentions monetary politics in the first 150 words, the
main topic for us is monetary politics. I.e., YOU SHOULD DISREGARD ANYTHING IN THE
ARTICLE THAT DOES NOT REFER TO OUR SIX TOPICS!
See for the delineation of these topics under the SISSUE variable below.
13
Variable ATOPSCOP
'scope of article topic'
1 'supranational: United Nations'
2 'other supranational'
3 ‘European Union’
4 ‘other European supranational’
5 ‘multilateral'
6 ‘bilateral’
7 'national’
8 ‘regional’
9 ‘local’
99 ‘unclassifiable’
Note: Coding of the topic scope only on the basis of headline, lead, (if present) photo byline,
and first 150 words of main text. See for further clarification ISSCOP below. The scope
should refer to the topic among our seven fields as coded in ATOPIC, not to the scope of
other topics discussed in the article, even if these are more prominently placed. AGAIN,
EVERYTHING NOT DEALING WITH OUR SEVEN TOPICS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
COMPLETELY.
Variable ACOUNTRY
Only coded if TOPSCOP=3-9, country of topic as defined by ATOPIC and ASCOPE (catego-
ries see variable COUNTRY below). In the case of bilateral and multilateral actors, code the
country of coding if it is implicated in the issue, otherwise code the most important (default:
first-mentioned) implicated country.
Variable AREFAID
‘AID of already coded claim to which article refers’
Variable AREFCID
‘CID of already coded claim to which article refers’
Note: both AREFAID and AREFCID should only be coded if ACLAIM = 1. Only claims that
were already coded for the same newspaper and which are not further than two weeks back in
time should be coded here. This includes, of course, claims that occur in the same newspaper
issue.
END OF ARTICLE LEVEL CODING
14
PART II:
CLAIM VARIABLES
15
IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
Variable AID
'number of the article where the claim is reported'
Note: if coverage of the claim extends over several articles, code here the number of the first
article where the claim is covered (lowest page number, or if on the same page, nearest to the
upper left corner of the page). Mere references to coverage further on in the paper (e.g., in
articles that consist of summary listings of events, or mere announcements, followed by see
page …) do not as such count as coverage.
Variable CID
'identification number of the claim'
Note: Count (1-99) within each article.
If there are several claims in one article, you should code the MAIN CLAIM of the article
first. The main claim is the claim around which the information (in as far as relevant to our
seven fields) in the article is organized, often indicated by the headline(s). E.g., in an article
‘Minister Schily presents new immigration law’ which apart from Schily’s law also reports
reactions to that law by several other actors, Schily’s law is the main claim and coded first. If
in doubt, the first reported claim is the main claim. The main claim is used to link claim and
article levels of analysis while avoiding double coding: the actor of the main claim is consid-
ered to be the main claim of the article, the main claim’s issue is considered to be the arti-
cle’s main issue.
The main claim of the article gets CID=1. Subsequent claims within the article get CID=2,3,
etc. Each claim is coded in only one article. If the main claim of an article has already been
coded in another article, but the article contains other claims that were not coded yet, the
second most important claim of the article is coded in the first position with CID=1.
Variable TITLE (string variable)
'description of claim'
Brief desciption of the claim containing at least the main actor, form, (if present) addressees,
object actor and aim of the claim. Example: 'Interior Minister Schily urges Bosnian authori-
ties to co-operate in repatriating refugees'. This description should be given in English so that
all project members can understand it.
Variable CDATE
'date of claim'
(yyyy-mm-dd)
Note on the coding of the date in the absence of explicit information in the article:
If the article does not mention the date of a claim, the default option is to code it on the day
before the newspaper issue (i.e., "yesterday"). The reasoning behind this is that newspapers
coverage by default refers to events on the preceding day, an obvious fact that is often not
explicitly mentioned. Undated events and statements are by default included, unless you know
for sure that they took place more than two weeks ago (e.g., because you have come across
the action already in a newspaper issue longer than two weeks ago, or because the context
16
information in the article indicates this). Imprecise indications of time, which, however, are
certainly neither yesterday, nor longer than two weeks ago are treated as follows: ‘a few days
ago’=date of newspaper minus 3; ‘last week’=date of newspaper minus 7; similar phrases
can be treated along similar lines.
Variable COUNTRY
'Country where the claim was made'
Note: See separate list with country-codes (numeric). The abbreviations in letters can be used
as shorthand in the title variable. E.g., instead of 'German foreign minister criticizes Dutch
BSE policies', you may write 'DE foreign minister criticizes NL BSE policies'. Add code 998
for 'several countries', 999 'country unknown' . In the case of locations where supranational
institutions reside, a distinction should be made between ‘Brussels as the capitol of Belgium’
and ‘Brussels as a seat of the European Union’, ‘New York as a city in the USA’ and ‘New
York as a seat of the UN’, ’Frankfurt as a city in Germany’ and ‘Frankfurt as the seat of the
ECB’. The first cases of the pairs receive country codes Belgium, USA, and Germany, the
second cases EU, UN, and EU, respectively.
Variable CITY (only if the city is among the twenty largest cities inclusive of the national
capital, plus Brussels, Luxemburg, and New York in the case of claims with an EU-
or UN-dimension)
'city in which claim was made'
Categories, see data entry file; the list includes for each of our seven countries the capital city
plus the nineteen largest other cities. Note that contrary to what we discussed in Geneva, you
should code cities in the list also if they are not in your own country! If the location is un-
known, code 999 (missing); if it is known, but not among the cities on the list, code 0 (not a
large city).
Note on the coding of the location in the absence of explicit information in the article:
As for the date, newspapers often omit explicit information on the location of a claim if it is
self-evident. For example, statements by Chirac or Jospin will not usually be explicitly la-
belled as "in Paris", and an article reporting a European Commission decision will not nec-
essarily say this decision was taken in Brussels. However, if Chirac or EU Commission
spokespersons make statements outside their normal habitus (say in London or Bonn), the
newspaper will almost always mention this information. Therefore here too, we use our com-
mon sense, and "fill in" information that is "quasi-missing" simply because the newspaper
regards the information to be too obvious to require mentioning. This implies that statements
by representatives of political institutions are by default coded at the location of that institu-
tion, e.g., Europarliamentarians as Strasbourg, German government ministers as Berlin, etc.
However, if there is context information, or the coder has knowledge from previously coded
articles that cast serious doubt on this default assumption, the coder may decide not to follow
this rule and code 'missing' instead.
If a location for the interview is explicitly mentioned, then code that. If not, then code the lo-
cation of the newspaper. After all, if Schroeder gives an interview to Le Monde, he does so
with an eye on th e French public sphere, he doesn't speak (at least not directly) to the Ger-
man public.
17
CLAIMANTS: SUBJECT ACTORS
Variable ACT1S (ACT2S, ACT3S)
‘summary first actor’.
0 'none' (only used for second and third actors
10 'whole polities'2
20 'politicians’ (if unspecified and unclear whether referring to government, par-
liament or parties)
30 'former states(wo)men'
40 ‘government/executive'3
50 ‘legislative'4
60 'judiciary'5
70 'police and internal security agencies'6
80 'military'7
90 'central banks'
100 'social security executive organizations' (incl. state pension funds)
110 'other state executive agencies'8
120 'political parties'9
130 'unions and employees'10
140 'employers organizations/business associations’
150 ‘big companies’
160 ’small and medium-sized enterprises’
170 'media and journalists'
180 educational professionals and organizations' (incl. schools, universities in their
educational capacity)
190 ‘economists and financial experts’
200 'other scientific and research professionals and institutions' (e.g., experts, re-
search institutes, universities in their research capacity)
210 'students, pupils, and their parents'
220 'other professional organizations and groups'11
2 Whole countries/politie s: e.g., ‘the EU’, ‘Britain’, if used not to refer to the government or any other specific institution,
but to the polity as a wh ole; note that ‘the Europeans’, ‘the Bri tish’, etc. are coded in 900: g eneral public.
3 Governments and government representatives (spokespersons, m inisters, royalty etc.) irrespe ctive of t erritorial scope.
The EU-Comm ission and C ouncil of Min isters, the UN General Sec retary and Secu rity Council are coded as govern-
ments. Other example s: mayor, Landesreg ierung, ministry of education.
4 Legislatives and parliaments (all chambers), includ ing individual members thereo f, including parliamentary frac tions of
political parties. Examples: Bundestag, House of Lords, local councils, parliam entary fraction of the SPD, Labor MPs.
Intergovernmental organizations which draw up international treaties o n the basis of un animous consent of the signato-
ries are coded among execut ive/government The European Parliament and the General Assembly o f the UN are, how-
ever, coded as legisl atives, because they have (limited, but still) the power to make bindin g decisions on the b asis of
majority decisions.
5 E.g., European Court of Justice, openbaar ministerie (public pro secutor), individual judges, juries.
6 E.g., po lice, marechaussee, Bundesgrenzschutz, s ecret service, Verfassungsschutz, Europ ol. Note: the Police Union is
coded as a union.
7 E.g., Bundeswehr, NATO .
8 E.g., ILO, WHO, Einwo hnermeldeamt, Schulaufsichtsbehörde.
9 This category should be used only for parties as parti es, e.g., party chairman, party con gress, »die SPD«, »a Labor party
spokesman«, as well as for sub-organization s of parties (e.g., Junge Sozialisten). No te that the same person may be
coded differently according to the way in which her or his position is desc ribed: e.g., Bundeskanzler Schröder is coded
as government, Mi tglied des Bundestages Schröder i s coded as legislative, SPD-Parteivorsitzend er Schröder is coded as
political party.
10 Includes the general categ ories »workers« and »employees«.
18
230 'consumer organizations and groups'
240 ‘lawyers’
250 'pro- and anti-European campaign organizations and groups'
260 civil rights organizations'12
270 'welfare organizations'13
280 'other civil society organizations and groups'14
290 ‘whole economies’
300 ‘lobbyists’15
900 'the general public' (e.g., 'citizens', 'the citizenry', 'die Öffentlichkeit', 'the elec-
torate', 'the Germans', 'the population', 'taxpayers'; only if explicitly men-
tioned!)
999 'unknown/unspecified actors'
Note: If a claim has more than one actor (e.g., a coalition), the following priority rules apply:
1) actors mentioned in the article as 'leaders', 'organizers', 'spokespersons', etc. have priority,
unless, of course, they do not make any claims; 2) organizations, institutions or representa-
tives thereof (e.g., 'National Organization of Peasants') have priority over unorganized col-
lectivities or individuals (e.g., 'peasants', 'farmer X'); 3) active actors or speakers have prior-
ity over passive audiences/rank-and-file participants (e.g., if a party representative addresses
a crowd at a peace rally, the party representative has priority). If there are several actors or
no actor at all who have priority according to these three criteria, the order in which they are
mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main headline as the start of the article). If
of one physical actor two functions are mentioned, the highest level capacity in terms of the
scope variable (see below) is coded. E.g., if the article says »Portuguese prime minister and
current Chair of the EU Presidency Guttierez« would be code as »EU presidency«even if
Portuguese prime minister would be mentioned first. However, the precondition would be that
the EU presidency function is really mentioned in the article - that you know that the Portu-
guese prime minister is present Chair of the Council is not decisive, it should be explicitly
mentioned. Similarly "Bavarian prime minister and CDU/CSU candidate for Chancellor
Stoiber" would be coded as 'national' not 'regional' in scope and as candidate chancellor (a
party function and therefore coded as 'political parties') and not as Bavarian prime minister.
Only if two capacities are at the same scope level the rule is that the first mentioned is coded.
All ACTS categories should be read as including organizations and institutions, as well as
unorganized collectives and even individual s. I.e., ‘pensioners’ or 'a pensioner’ would go in
‘organizations and groups of the elderly’, ‘asylum seekers’ goes into ‘migrant organizations
and groups’, ‘consumers’ in ‘consumer organizations and groups’, 'Muslims' in 'churches
and religious organizations and groups', etc. I.e., the ‘groups’ should be read as referring to
not formally or unorganized collectives as well as individuals speaking or acting for such
groups.
11 E.g., Deutsch er Ärtzteka mmer, Berufsverband Deut scher Psychologen, Deu tscher Sportbund, docto rs, football players,
writers, sol licitors, musicians. No te: unions ar e always coded as unions, non-union o rganizations of police and judges
are coded under their r espective institution.
12 This inc ludes only p rivate organizations such as Pro Asyl, Anti-Racist Alliance, Arbeiterwoh lfahrt, Amnesty Interna-
tional, Terre des Homm es, medecins sans frontières etc.
13 E.g. Red Cross, Arbeiterwo hlfahrt, not state welfare agencies (the se are coded as state executive agencies).
14 Including not already m entioned social categories such as 'yo uth', 'the unemployed', 'children', etc.
15 Coded only if no other category is applicable (esp. 140-160 and 210-280)
19
Variable ACTTYP1 (ACTTYP2, ACTTYPE3)
‘Type of first actor’.
1 unorganized collective or anonymous representatives thereof (e.g., 'farmers', 'a
farmer')
2 named representative(s) of an unorganized collective (e.g., 'farmer X')
3 organization or institution (e.g., the 'National Union of Farmers – NUF')
4 anonymous spokesperson(s) for organization/institution (e.g., 'critics within the
NUF leadership')
5 named spokesperson(s) for organization/institution (e.g., 'X, the President of
the NUF')
Variable ACTNAME1 (ACTNAME2, ACTNAME3) (string variable)
'name of organizational spokesperson or organization'
Note: full name of the spokesperson for an organization or institution. Format: Blair, Tony;
Schroeder, Gerhard; etc.
Variable ACTSCOP1 (ACTSCOP2, ACTSCOP3)
‘Scope of first actor’.
1 ‘supranational: United Nations'16
2 ‘other supranational'17
3 ‘European Union’18
4 ‘other European supranational’19
5 ‘multilateral'
6 'bilateral’20
7 'national’21
8 ‘regional’22
9 ‘local’23
99 ‘unclassifiable’
Note: The notion of »scope« refers to the organizational extension of the organization or in-
stitution. In the case of non-organized collective actors (e.g., 'farmers', 'protesters') it refers
16 E.g., Security Council ., UNHCR, UNESCO , ILO, WHO.
17 E.g., NATO, G-8, IMF, World Bank, World Council of Roma and Sinti, Amnesty International, G reenpeace, Interna-
tional Council of Voluntary A ssociations, medecins sans f rontiÆres, Attac. Only sup ranational o rganizations whose
scope extends beyond Europe.
18 E.g., Eu ropean Parliament, European Commi ssion, European Migrant Forum , European T rade Union Federation, Eu-
ropäischer Verband tÜrkischer Akademiker. If in d oubt whether the label 'European' refers to an EU scope or to Europ e
in a wider sense, co de here. Also includes organizations or institutions whose scope is a subs et of the EU, e.g. the Bene-
lux states, the Western E uropean Union, 'Euroland', etc.
19 European org anizations and inst itutions who se scop e reaches beyond the confines of the EU and encompasses Europe
in the wider Geographic sense. E.g., Hel sinki Watch, European Council, UEFA, OSCE. Also include s sub-European
organizations not belong ing to the EU, e.g., EFTA.
20 Co-operative organizations and institutions between the cou ntry of coding and another coun try. E.g., German-American
Trade Association, Germ an-French summit, Deutsch-Polnischer Freun dschaftsverein.
21 E.g., national political parties, Bu ndesverfassungsgericht, Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, national media (incl. local
papers in name with n ational scope such as NZZ, FAZ), Deutsch e Telekom, Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschl and.
22 E.g., Landesregierungen, Landesversorgungsamt, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Bund tÜrkischer E inwanderer in Berlin-
Brandenburg, FlÜchtlingsr at Niedersachsen, purely regional political parties (e.g. Frisian Nationa l P arty), regional
branches of national p arties (e.g., Hessian SPD).
23 E.g., local governm ents, local parties and party branches, Braunschweiger Zeitung, JÜd ische Gemeinde Berlin, FÜrther
Komitee gegen Rechtsr adikalismus.
20
to the scope of mobilization. I.e., if the report mentions 'farmers from different member
states', the scope is 'European Union'. See further the examples given in the footnotes. Here
and in the other scope variables, the category 'multilateral' refers to 'involving (actors from)
three or more countries' (on a strictly intergovernmental basis, not in the context of a supra-
national agency or organization), 'bilateral' refers to 'involving (actors from) two countries'.
Note on the scope of multinational companies:
Business firms are coded as they are qualified in the article. I.e., if the article says, "the
American automobile manufacturer Ford" it is coded as national, USA, if it says "the multi-
national company Ford" it is coded as multilateral. Same for McDonald's, either American or
multilateral depending on how it is labelled. In cases where the article speaks of "the British
branch of Ford", "McDonald's will open six new restaurants in Germany" there is implicit
reference to the multinational character of the firm (referring to a national branch means
referring to the fact that the firm operates internationally). Thus, this would also be coded as
multilateral. If the firm in question has its main seat in your own country and there is no ref-
erence in the article to it operating also elsewhere, you should code it as national, your coun-
try. E.g., an article in a German paper on Lufthansa cutting jobs is code national, Germany.
However, an article in a British paper saying Lufthansa will cut jobs in its England offices
will be code multilateral. In all other cases, or in cases where you have doubts what to code,
use "unclassifiable" as a default
Variable ACT1 (ACT2, ACT3)
'first actor' (three digits)
Note: More detailed subdivision of ACT1S only for European-level and other supranational
actors (ACTSCOP=1-4). If the actor is not already on that list, or if you use any of the ‘other’
categories, enter its full name on a sheet of paper preceeded by YEAR, PAPER, AID and CID.
We can then add the actor code later. Priority rules see ACT1S.
(00-60's reserved for EU, 70's for non-EU European, 80's for UN, 90's for other suprana-
tional)
(10) ‘governments'
100 'The European Union/Community'/'Europe', 'Brussels' when referring to EU
101 Eurozone countr ies
102 member countries
103 candidate memb er countries
110 European Commission
111 The European Commission (without further specification)
112 President of the Commission 1995 – 1999 (Jacques Santer)
113 President of the Commission 1999 – 2004 (Romano Prodi)
114 President of the Commission 2004 – 2009 (José Manuel Barroso)
120 Individual Commissioners
121 Commissioner for Internal Market, Taxation and Customs Union (Frits Bolk estein 1999-2004)
122 Commissioner for Internal Market & Services (Charlie McCreevy 2004-2009)
123 Commissioner for Economic & Financial Affairs (Joaquín A lmunia 2004-2009)
124 Commissioner for Justice & Home Affairs (Antonio Vitorino 1999-2004)
125 Commissioner for Enterprise & Information Society (Erkki Liikanen 1999-2004)
21
126 Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (Benita Ferrero-Waldner
2004-2009)
127 Commissioner for Health & Consumer Protection (David Byrne)
128 Commissioner for Research (Philippe Busquin),
129 Other Commissioners, including: Commissioner for Environment (Margot Wallst röm), Commis-
sioner for Regional Po licy (Michel Barn ier), Commissioner for Transport and Energy (Loyola de
Palacio) Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Dev. and Fisheries (Franz F ischler) Commissioner
for Administrative Reform (Neil Kinno ck) or Commissioner for Budget (Michaele Sch reyer) Com-
missioner for External Relations (Chris Patt en), or Commissioner for Development and Humanitar-
ian Aid (Poul Nielso n), or Commissioner for Enlargement (Günter Verheugen ), Commissioner for
Education & Culture (Viviane Reding), Commissioner for Employment & Social Affairs (Anna
Diamantopoulou)
140 Commission Directorates General (DG)
141 Secretariat General, DG Budget, DG Personnel and Administration
142 DG Internal Market
143 DG E conomic & Monetary Affairs
144 DG Research
145 DG Enterprise & Information Society
146 DG Justice & Home Affairs
147 DG Education & Cultur e, DG External Relations
148 DG Trade,
149 Other DGs, including: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Fisheries, Taxation and Cus-
toms Union, DG Reg ional Policy, DG Competition, DG Environment, DG Transport and Energy,
DG Employment & So cial Affairs, DG Development, DG Health & Consumer Protection, DG En-
largement, Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), EuropeAid Co-operation Office
160 Council
161 European Council (15 H eads of State or Gov. + Pres. of the Com.), »the Su mmit«
162 Presidency of the European Council
163 Council of the European Union / Council of Ministers (wi thout specification), »the Council«
164 General Affairs Council (Foreign Affairs Ministers)
165 Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN)
166 Compe titiveness Council
167 Interior and Justice Council
168 Other sp ecific Councils such as Agriculture Council, Transport and Telecommunications, Industry,
Environment, and Development Councils
169 Troika
170 Foreign Policy Intergovernmental bodies
171 High Representative for CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy), 1st H igh Rep.: Javier So lana
(also Secretary General of the Council of the EU)
172 Political and Security Committee
173 Military Committee
174 European Union Military Staff (EUMS)
175 WEU Council of Ministers (incl. Policy planning and ear ly warning unit)
176 Policy unit
179 Other sp ecific Foreign Policy Intergovernmental bodies
180 Other intergovernmental cooperation within EU
181 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)
189 Other sp ecific intergovernmental cooperation within EU
190 Other European (non-EU) institution/cooperation
191 Council of Europe
192 European Patent Office (EPO) and European Patent Convention (EPC)
193 BeNeLux
194 European Free Trade As sociation (EFTA)
199 Other sp ecific European (non-EU) institution/cooperation (e.g. Baltic Council, Nordic Council)
200 United Nations organisations/bodies
201 'The United Nations'
202 Secretary General
203 World Trade Organization (WTO)
204 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
209 Other sp ecific UN organisation
22
210 Other supranational or intergovernmental institution/cooperation
211 OECD
212 G7/G8
213 Regional free trade and economic cooperation, including
Central American Common Market ( MCCA/CACM), Latin-American Economic System (SELA),
Mercosur, Free trade zone for East and South Africa (PTA), West-African Economic Community
(CEAO), other African Economic cooperations, Arab Common Market (ACM), Asian-Pacific Eco-
nomic Cooperation (APEC), Caricom CCM, Organisation of Petrol Exporting Countries (OPEC),
etc.
219 Other sp ecific supranational or intergovernmental institution/cooperation
250 National governments, parliaments and institutions
251 National Governments
252 National Parliaments
253 National Politicians
260 National Patent Offices
(30) ‘legislatives / Parliament'
310 European Parliament
311 EP as a body (»the Parliament«)
312 EP Pr esident
313 EP Qua estors
314 EP individual member
315 EP group of members, issue related composition (from sev eral groups/ countries)
316 EP group of members, n ational composition, from the same party (ex: the Germ an Christian De-
mocrats)
317 EP group of members, n ational composition, cross parties ( ex: the Spanish MEPs)
318 EP group of members, cross national, from the same political group/party
319 Other sp ecific EP
320 European Parliament Committee
321 Petitions Committee
322 Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
323 Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market
324 Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy
325 Comm ittee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs
326 Committee on Employment and Social Aff airs
327 Committee on the Env ironment, Public H ealth and Consumer Policy
328 Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport
329 Committee on Budgets, Committee on Budgetary Control, Committee on Constitutional Affairs
330 Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Se curity and Defence Policy
331 Committee on Development and Cooperation
332 Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, and
339 Temporary committee, including those on :
on human genetics and other new technologies of modern medicine, the ECHELON, interception
system to monitor action taken on BS E recommendations of inquiry into BSE (bovine spongiform
encephalopathy) of inquiry into the Community transit regime
340 European Parliament Political Group
341 EPP-ED : Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
342 PSE: Group of the Party of European Socialists
343 ELDR: Group of the European Liberal, D emocrat and Reform Party
344 VERTS/ALE: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
345 GUE/NG L: Confederal Group of the European United Left/ Nordic Green Left
346 UEN: Union for Europe of the Nations Group
347 TDI: Technical Group of Independent Memb ers (mixed group)
348 EDD: Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities
349 NI: Non-attached Group
350 Advisory Committee
351 Committee of the Regions
342 Economic and Social Committee
359 Other advisory committee
360 Treaty revising body or Constitutional convent
361 Convent for elaborating Fundamental Rights Charta: »the Convent«
23
362 Convent for elaborating Fundamental Rights Charta: President Roman Herzog
363 Convent for elaborating Fundamental Rights Charta: Individual member
364 Convent for revising the Treaty (decided at Laeken): »the Convent«
365 Convent for revising the Treaty (decided at Laeken): President Valérie Gisc ard d’Estaing
366 Convent for revising the Treaty (decided at Laeken): Individual member
370 Other European (non-EU) parliament
371 Parliamentary Assembly (Council of Europe)
380 United Nations parliament
381 General Assembly (UN)
390 Other supranational parliament
(40) 'judiciary'
410 European Court of Justice (ECJ)
411 ECJ as a body
412 ECJ: individual Judge
413 ECJ: individual Advocate General
419 Other sp ecific ECJ
420 Court of First Instance
470 Other (non-EU) European judiciary
471 European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe)
472 European Commission for Human Rights (Council of Europe)
479 Other sp ecific European judiciary
480 United Nations judiciary
481 International Court of Justice (ICJ)
482 ICJ: International Crimin al Court
483 ICJ: International Crimin al Tribunal for the former Yugoslav ia (ICTY)
484 ICJ: International Crimin al Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
489 Other sp ecific UN judiciary
490 Other supranational
(50) 'police and security agencies'
510 EU police and security institutions/cooperation
511 Europol
512 Europol Drugs Unit (EDU)
513 Schengen Executive Com mittee
514 Schengen Information System (SIS)
515 Euratom Supply Agency (ESA)
519 Other sp ecific EU police and security agency
570 Other (non-EU) European police and security institutions/cooperation
580 United Nations police and security institutions/cooperation
590 Other supranational police and security institutions/cooperation
591 Interpol
599 Other sp ecific supranational police and security institutions /cooperation (e.g., World Customs Or-
ganisation (WCO), In ter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CI CAD-OAS))
(60) 'central banks'
610 EU monetary institutions
611 »the« European Central Bank (ECB)
612 ECB President (1st pres : Duisenberg)
613 ECB Executive Board
614 ECB Governing Council
615 European Monetary Institute (EMI)
616 Economic and Financial Committee (advisory body)
619 Other ECB
24
620 EU financial institutions
621 European Investment Bank (EIB)
622 European Investment Fund (EIF)
629 Other EU financial ins titution
670 Other (non-EU) European central bank
680 United Nations central bank
690 Other supranational monetary and financial institutions
691 International Monetary Fund (IMF)
692 Worldbank
693 Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Internationale Bank für Zahlungsausgleich
694 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
695 International Finance Corporation (IFC)
696 World Trade Organization (WTO)
699 Other sp ecific supranational monetary and financial institutions
(70) 'social security executive organizations'
710 European/supranational social security executive organizations (note name on separate
piece of paper)
(80) 'other state executive agencies'
810 Decentralised Community Agencies
811 European Centre for the Development of Vocational Train ing (Cedefop)
812 European Training Foundation (ETF)
813 European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
814 Eur. Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
815 Scientific Steering Com mittee (SSC), previously Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee ( MDSC),
including 6 different Scientific Committees: Food, Veterinary, Animal Nu trition, Cosmetology, Pes-
ticides and Toxicity and Ecotoxicology
819 Other d ecentralised CommunityAgency, in cluding: Office fo r Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(trade marks,designs) (OHIM), Community Plant Variety Office, European Agency for the Evalua-
tion of Medicinal Products (EMEA), European Technical Office for Medicinal Products ‘( Etomep),
European Drugs and Drug Addiction Monitoring Centre (EMCDDA), European Agency for Safety
and Health at Work, European Environment Agency (EEA)
820 EU internal control institutions
821 European Court of Auditors
822 European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
823 European Ombudsman
829 Other EU internal control institution
830 Joint Research Centre (part of the Commission, including:)
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (Geel) Institute for Transuranium Elements
(Karlsruhe) Institute for Energy (Petten) Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen
(Ispra) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Ispr a) Institute for Health and Consumer Pro-
tection (Ispra) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville)
870 Other (non-EU) European state executive agency
880 United Nations state executive agency
881 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
882 International Fund for agricultural development (IFAD)
883 UN World Health Organ isation (WHO)
884 International Organisation for Migration (IOM)
885 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNH CR)
886 International Labour Organisation (ILO)
887 UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
888 UN Education, Science and Culture Organ isation (UNESCO)
889 Other
890 Other supranational state executive agency
25
(900) 'political parties'
910 European political parties (code party under ACTPAR, ADRPAR, etc.)
Other supranational parties
911 IDU (International Democrat Union)
912 L.I. (Liberal International)
913 S.I. (So cialist International)
914 CDI ( Christian Democrat and People`s Parties International)
919 Other sp ecific supranational parties
920 Non state actors/interests groups
921 Civil society organisation
922 Business association
923 Big company
924 Small and medium-sized enterprises
925 Media and journalists
926 Lawyers
927 Scientists
929 Other
Note: because of the great variety of possible organizations, no pre-given categories have
been created for 1000 and up (unions, employers, churches, and so forth). Please note the
name of the organization (together with PAPER, YEAR, AID and CID) on a separate piece of
paper for any European or other supranational organizations in these actor categories you
come across. We may use these as a basis for later adding new fixed categories.
Variable ACTCOUN1 (ACTCOUN2, ACTCOUN3)
'Country of first actor'
Note: To be coded only if ACTSCOP1 is 2-9. The country of an actor is where the actor is
permanently resident, i.e., not necessarily corresponds to the actor's nationality. Diplomatic
personnel are considered permanently resident in their country of origin. Codes from same
separate list as for COUNTRY. In the case of bilateral and multilateral actors, code the coun-
try of coding if it is part of the coalition of actors, otherwise code the most important (default:
first-mentioned) of the actors. Make sure in such cases that you include information on the
other partners in the coalition in the TITLE variable. As for the party affiliation of actors, you
should code the country also if it is not explicitly mentioned and you may use your own
knowledge, but only if you are 100% sure. The information can later be completed on the ba-
sis of the ACTNAME variable.
Variable ACTPAR1 (ACTPAR2, ACTPAR3)
'Party affiliation of first actor'
Categories, see data entry file.
If the newspaper does not mention an actor's party affiliation, but you know it, you should
code it on the basis of your knowledge, but only if you are 100% sure. If the actor is a politi-
cian (ACTS 20-50 or 120) and you do not know the party affiliation, code 999=missing. The
missing information on party affiliations can later be completed on the basis of the
ACTNAME variable. If the actor belongs to any of the other ACTS categories and no party
affiliation is mentioned, code 0=no or irrelevant party affiliation.
26
ACTION FORMS
Variable FORM 'form of action'
Note: if there are several forms of action, the following priority rules apply: 1) political deci-
sions and executive action have priority; 2) the category verbal statement is only used if none
of the other categories applies; 3) among protest forms, the more radical (confrontational,
violent) ones have priority over moderate ones (demonstrative, petitioning). If these criteria
still not allow a decision, the order in which the forms are mentioned decides.
‘political decisions’24
08 green book (publication)
09 hearing
10 intergovernmental statement/motion
11 legislation (proposal)
12 parliamentary vote
13 parliamentary motion (non-legislative)
14 administrative decree/decision (e.g., decision to deport asylum seekers, to
lower interest rates)
15 resolution (political parties)
16 ruling (courts)
17 binding agreement (among several parties)
18 personnel decisions (resignation/dismissal from/appointment to office)
19 other
'executive action'
21 financial and other material support
22 deportation/expulsion
23 arrests/detention
24 other repression (e.g., bans, police raids, criminal investigations)
25 (preparation of) troops deployment/withdrawal (the actual action, not the deci-
sion to)
29 other
‘judicial action’25
31 criminal lawsuit
32 civil lawsuit
33 administrative lawsuit
34 constitutional lawsuit
39 other
24 By definition, executive actions and political decisions can only be coded for actor s who have actual binding decision-
making power, i.e. sta te and party actors (SACT 10-90). For all other actor s, use only the codes from 30 onwards .
25 Refers to appeals to the judiciary (e.g. filing lawsuits), not actions by the judiciary (the latter appear as exe cutive acts,
statements, o r decisions). Note that decisions by the judiciray itself are not coded here, but as 'court rulings' under po-
litical decisions.
27
‘verbal statements’
41 non-specified statement
42 press conference/release
43 interview
44 public speech
45 (public) letter
46 newspaper article
47 other publication (book, research report, leaflet, etc.)
48 graffitti
49 presentation of survey/poll result
50 publicity campaign (incl. advertizing)
51 website
59 other
'meetings’26
61 state-political meeting (e.g., summits, state visits)27
62 party convention/congress
63 parliamentary session/debate
64 election campaign meeting
69 other conferences/meetings/assemblies
‘direct-democratic action’
71 launching of referendum
72 collecting signatures for referendum
73 presentation of signatures for referendum
74 vote on referendum
75 launching of initiative (only CH)
76 collecting signatures for inititative (only CH)
77 presentation of signatures for initiative (only CH)
78 vote on initiative (only CH)
79 other
‘petitioning’
81 petition/signature collection
82 letter campaign
89 other
‘demonstrative protests’
91 public assembly
92 march, demonstration (legal and non-violent)
93 vigil/picket
94 cyber protest
99 other
26 This refers to conferenc es, meetings, congresses etc that take pla ce inside.
27 Only includes discontinuous poiltical meetin gs, i.e., n ot included are parliamentary sessions, etc. that take place con-
tinuously througho ut the year (use the categories parliamentary vote, motion, speech above).
28
‘confrontational protests’
101 illegal demonstration (if non-violent)
102 boycott
103 strike
104 self-mutilation (e.g., hunger strike, suicide)
105 blockade
106 occupation
107 disturbance of meetings
108 symbolic confrontation (e.g., farmers dumping animal dung in front of a gov-
ernment building)
109 other28
‘violent protests’
111 threats (e.g., bomb threat)
112 symbolic violence (e.g., burning puppets or flags, throwing eggs or paint)
113 limited destruction of property (e.g., breaking windows)
114 sabotage
115 violent demonstration (violence initiated by protestors)
116 arson and bomb attacks, and other severe destruction of property
117 arson and bomb attacks against people (incl. inhabited buildings)
118 physical violence against people (fights, brawls, etc.)
119 other
Additional variables only for claims with FORM1 > 70
Variable PART
'number of participants'
Note: up to 6 digits; 999998=999998 or more; 999999=missing.
Variable WOUNDED
'number of wounded'
Note: up to 3 digits; 998=998 or more; 999=missing.
Variable ARREST
'number of people arrested'
Note: up to 3 digits; 998=998 or more; 999=missing.
Note: for all of these three variables, if several numbers are mentioned in the text, take the
highest.
28 Forms of protest that ar e illegal but non-violent automatically count a s confrontational.
29
ADDRESSEES
( INDIRECT OBJECT ACTORS)
In contrast to earlier versions of the codebook, we explicitly distinguish three types of ad-
dressees/indirect object actors:
– the addressee of the claim in the narrow sense of the word, referring to the actor who is held
responsible for implementing the claim or at whom the claim is directly addressed in the form
of a call or appeal to do or leave something;
the opponent/criticized actor identified in the claim, referring to the actor who is seen as
standing in the way of the claim's realization or advocating a position contrary to that of the
claimant;
– the supported actor, referring to the actor who is seen as contributing to the claim's realiza-
tion or advocating a position congruent with that of the claimant.
The criterion for coding an actor as opponent is NOT that he takes a position that is the pre-
cise opposite of the claimant's position. It is sufficient that an actor is identified (by the
claimant and explicitly so) as an opponent concerning the issue of the claim or, in other
words, that the opponent's position is criticized in one way or another. The reverse holds for
supported actors. Here, too, it does not have to be that the supported actor has exactly the
same position as the claimant, it suffices that the supported actor is identified as an ally of the
claimant, his position is praised or support for his position is expressed. In cases where nega-
tively evaluated addressee and criticized actor are exactly the same, you should code only the
addressee (which is the more informative of the two, it includes both the evaluation and the
call to do or leave something) and leave criticized actor/opponent either open or code an-
other actor which is mentioned as opponent and whose inclusion would add more information
than just doubling the same actor.
Note that the addressee is the actor to which the actor refers in his claim, which is not neces-
sarily the same as the public for which he directly speaks. E.g., if a politician speaks to a con-
ference of his party and calls on the government to change its education policies, the ad-
dressee is the government, not the party delegates!
30
Note on the difference between object actors and indirect object actors
Passive objects of claims are not coded as addressees, opponents or supporters, but in the
object variables. E.g., in the claim 'The churches called on the government not to deport Bos-
nian refugees', the government is coded as addressee, the reference to Bosnian refugees is
irrelevant here (they are coded as object actors, see below). Similarly, for the claim 'Yester-
day, the government decided to send a military intervention force to Macedonia' no addressee
is coded, the reference to Macedonia is not relevant here (the Macedonian conflict parties are
coded as object actors, see below). However, in the claims 'The government called on Bos-
nian refugees to leave the country', or 'The government criticized the Macedonian govern-
ment for obstructing the aid operation' Bosnian refugees are coded as addressees and the
Macedonian government is coded as criticized actor.
Addressees, opponent and supported actors are defined by their DISCURSIVE relation to the
claimant: they are the objects of demands, criticism or support, or, in other words, they are
the actors to whom the claimant relates in the public discourse. Object actors are the actors
whose interests are MATERIALLY affected by the (implementation of) the claim.
This implies that actors can be discursively opposed/supported, without them being object
actors and vice versa: e.g., when Stoiber criticizes Schröder for not being severe enough with
asylum seekers (Schröder is opponent, but not object; asylum seekers are object, but not op-
ponent). Of course, it is also possible that the two coincide, e.g. when Stoiber calls on
Schröder to resign (Schröder is the actor to whom Stoiber discursively relates - as addressee
- but also the actor materially affected by Stoibers demand if it would be implemented.
31
Variable ADRS
‘summary addressee of claim’.
Same categories as ACT1S.
If a claim has several addressees, the priority rule is that organizations, institutions or repre-
sentatives thereof have priority over unorganized collectivities or individuals. If there are
several addressees or no addressee at all who have priority according to this criterion, the
order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main headline as the
start of the article).
Variable ADREVAL
'evaluation of addressee'
-1 'criticism'
0 'neutral/ambivalent'
1 'support'
Note: calls and appeals may be made in a neutral sense, or be combined with expressions of
criticism and support. E.g. "X called on Y to give up his blockade against ..." (Y is addressee,
but simultaneously negatively evaluated). 'In a letter to Y, X expressed support for Y's policy
to ..." (Y is addressee and positively evaluated).This can be accordingly coded here. There
are no equivalent variables for criticized and supported actors, because there the direction of
the evaluation is pre-determined.
Variable ADRSCOP
'scope of addressee'
Same values as ACTSCOP1
Variable ADR
'addressee'
Note: More detailed subdivision of ADRS for European-level and other supranational ad-
dressees; see list for ACT1.
Variable ADRCOUN (Only coded when ADRSCOP is 3-9)
'country of addressee'
Same values as ACTCOUN1
Variable ADRPAR
'party affiliation of addressee'
Note: to be coded only for addressees from one of our seven countries or the EU-level. Same
values as ACTPAR1.
Variable OPS
‘summary opponent actor of claim’.
Same categories as ACT1S.
32
If a claim has several opponent actors, the priority rule is that organizations, institutions or
representatives thereof have priority over unorganized collectivities or individuals. If there
are several opponent actors or no opponent actor at all who have priority according to this
criterion, the order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main
headline as the start of the article).
Variable OPSCOP
'scope of opponent actor'
Same values as ACTSCOP1
Variable OP
'opponent actor'
Note: More detailed subdivision of OPS for European-level and other supranational address-
ees; see list for ACT1.
Variable OPCOUN (Only coded when OPSCOP is 3-9)
'country of opponent actor'
Same values as ACTCOUN1
Variable OPPAR
'party affiliation of opponent actor'
Note: to be coded only for opponent actors from one of our seven countries or the EU-level.
Same values as ACTPAR1.
Variable SUPS
‘summary supported actor of claim’.
Same categories as ACT1S.
If a claim has several supported actors, the priority rule is that organizations, institutions or
representatives thereof have priority over unorganized collectivities or individuals. If there
are several supported actors or no supported actor at all who have priority according to this
criterion, the order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main
headline as the start of the article).
Variable SUPSCOP
'scope of supported actor'
Same values as ACTSCOP1
Variable SUP
'supported actor'
Note: More detailed subdivision of SUPS for European-level and other supranational ad-
dressees; see list for ACT1.
33
Variable SUPCOUN (Only coded when SUPSCOP is 3-9)
'country of supported actor'
Same values as ACTCOUN1
Variable SUPPAR
'party affiliation of supported actor'
Note: to be coded only for supported actors from one of our seven countries or the EU-level.
Same values as ACTPAR1.
34
AIMS
Variable ISFIELD1 (one-digit code) (ISFIELD2, ISFIELD3)
‘policy field’
1 ‘Directive on patentability of computer-implemented inventions’
2 ‘Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive’
3 ‘Intellectual property rights’
4 ‘Patents/patent law’
5 ‘Crime’
6 'European integration'
See ISSUE1 for priority rules.
Some notes on the delineation of the seven topics (for further detail, refer to the comments
and categories of the SISSUE variable below):
Variable ISSUE1S (two-digit codes) (ISSUE2S, ISSUE3S)
‘summary of ISSUE1’
Note: see ISSUE1 for priority rules.
Directive on Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions
10 General Unspecific
11 Decision-making process
(democratic procedures; participation; influence of d ifferent actors; effectiveness)
12 Research and development, innovation
(situation of R&D in Europe; costs of R&D; impact of IPRs/patents on R&D and innovation)
13 Economic development
(competitiveness of big companies; competitiveness of SMEs; competitiveness of European
economy; patents and monopolies; impact of globalisation process and g lobal integration; eco-
nomic growth; employment creation; openness/open source)
14 Civil rights
(consumer rights; d igital rights; openness; patents as exclusion; creativity; criminalisation)
Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive
20 General Unspecific
21 Decision-making process
(democratic procedures; participation; influence of d ifferent actors; effectiven ess)
22 Research and development, innovation
(situation of R&D in Europe; costs of R&D; impact of IPRs/patents on R&D and innovation)
23 Economic development
(competitiveness of big companies; competitiveness of SMEs; competitiveness of European
economy; patents and monopolies; impact of globalisation process and g lobal integration; eco-
nomic growth; employment creation; openness/open source)
24 Civil rights
(consumer rights; d igital rights; openness; patents as exclusion; creativity; criminalisation)
35
Intellectual property rights
30 Research and development, innovation
(situation of R&D in Europe; costs of R&D; impact of IPRs/patents on R&D and innovation)
31 Economic development
(copyrights; trademarks; trademark law; patents; competitiveness of big companies; competi-
tiveness of SMEs; competitiveness of European economy; patents and monopolies; impact of
globalisation process and global integration; economic growth; employm ent creation; open-
ness/open source)
32 Political implications
(civil rights; governan ce processes; political globalisation: impact of WTO and WIPO; general
political strategies; European approach to IPRs)
33 Cultural implications
(copyrights for artists and wirters; IPRs as protection for artists; IPRs as obstacle for cultural
development; European identity)
34 Philosophical implications
(openness; commons; public goods; access; creativity; European identity)
35 IPRs in different contexts
(music business; arts; science)
Patents/patent law
40 General unspecific
41 Research and development, innovation
(situation of R&D in Europe; costs of R&D; impact of IPRs/patents on R&D and innovation)
42 Economic development
(number of patents; competitiveness of big companies; competitiveness of SMEs; competitive-
ness of European economy; patents and monopolies; imp act of globalisation process and global
integration; econom ic growth; employment creation; openness/open source)
Crime
50 Product piracy
51 Plagiarism
52 Industrial espionage
53 Organised crime
54 Criminalisation
European integration
70 General European integration, not specific
71 National vs. European Identity, shared values
- strengthen European identity
- preserve national identity
- preserve regional identity
- preserve minority identity
- promote cultural diversity
- emphasize EU as a community of values
72 Role of a specific country or group of countries in the EU/in the process of
European integration; balance of power and coalitions among members states
e.g., Britain's role in the EU; French-German relations as central to the integration process; the
increased weight of Germany after reunification, smaller vs. larger states etc.
73 Relationship between EU and national/regional levels, and future constitution
concept of future constitution of EU (Verfaßtheit, Finalität)
- move towards central state
- move towards feder al state
- move towards supra-national system
- move towards Europe of nations (commonwealth, Staatenbund, etc)
- strengthening the regions (Europe of the regions)
36
allowing asymmetric integration
- allowing exceptions for individual Member States (eg . Europe ˆ la carte)
- allowing progress of a group of Member States (Kerneuropa, concentric circles)
developing the lega l framework for EU
- adopt a constitution (Verfassung)
- adopt a Basic treaty (Verfassungsvertrag)
- adopt a charta of competence
- adopt a Charta of fundamental rights
- modify procedure for Treaty revision
competences
- shift competence from EU to regional level
- shift competence from national to regional and EU level
- shift competence from national to E U level
- shift competence from regional to EU level
- subsidiarity
introduce or strength en co-ordination or co-operation
- introduce or streng then co-ordination
- introduce or streng then co-operation
74 Institutional structure and relationship between EU institutions
distribution of power between institutions
- strengthening the EP
- institutional reform
- division of power
75 Defining the EU’s core tasks/balance between different policy areas
e.g., Europe should b e less involved with agriculture and instead focus more on developing a
common foreign and defence policy; political or social vs. economic Europe, etc.
76 Relationship between EU institutions and public (citizens, organizations, media
etc)
- democratic deficit
- lack of transparency
- access to documents, information
- elections
- revision procedure (most discussed after Amsterdam and Nice)
- reproach of technocracy, Commiss ion is far away from reality in the MS
77 Enlargement
- disc. about geographical / political/ religious boundar ies
- criteria for becoming a member
- potential or measured impact of enlargement for the EU and for the new member
- more bureaucracy
- quantity of Memb er States should b e limited
78 Budget: Financing the EU and spending EU funds
- how is burden shar ed between Member States, net contributors
- how is each Memb er State’s contribution calculated (ex: VAT, etc)
- amount of EU budget in general (ex: should it be incr eased, decreased)
- distribution between policy areas (ex: agriculture vs structural funds)
- responsibility for spending EU funds, in particular ‘subsidiarity’
- corruption, waste of EU funds
79 other specific EU integration
80 Associational agreements and treaties between the EU and non-EU countries
81 Personnel issues within the EU/discussions about candidacies for EU positions
82 Non-EU forms of European integration
E.g., related to EFTA, Council of Europe, OSCE, European Court of Human Rights, etc.
37
Variable ISSCOP1 (ISSCOP2, ISSCOP3)
‘scope of first issue’
1 'supranational: United Nations'
2 'other supranational'
3 ‘European Union’
4 ‘other European supranational’
5 ‘multilateral'
6 ‘bilateral’
7 'national’
8 ‘regional’
9 ‘local’
99 ‘unclassifiable’
Refers to the geographical and/or political scope of the substantive content of the claim. Issue
scope is in principle independent from the scope of the subject actor, addressee, and/or object
actor. E.g., if Amnesty International appeals to the European Court of Justice in protest
against the Berlin police's treatment of immigrant suspects, the actor is supranational, the
addressee European, but the scope of the issue ('The Berlin police's treatment of immigrant
suspects') remains local. However, if a local Berlin committee for asylum seekers criticizes
the Berlin Senate for its treatment of refugee children on the grounds that it constitutes a
breach of the UN Children's Convention, then the issue scope is supranational, in spite of the
local scope of actor and addressee.
If an issue is constructed in a comparative way, this can be coded in the issue scope variable.
E.g, a claim dealing with Germany’s poor performance in education compared to a range of
other countries would be coded as ‘multilateral’. If the comparison is made with one particu-
lar other country, the scope would be ‘bilateral’, if the comparison is (e.g., regarding
Eurobarometer survey results) with the EU member states as the frame of reference the scope
is ‘European’.
The scope of the issue is not the same as the scope of the debate. There can well be debates
about European issues that remain national debates, as in the case of the Euro debate in
Britain. Of course, there is also a national dimension to this issue, but the rule for issue scope
is that in case there are several scopes the highest level/lowest number is coded. So in this
case the British Euro debate has a national and a European dimension, so European is
coded. The scope of the debate is not measured by the issue scope (which refers to the sub-
stantive scope of the issue) but by the scopes of the actors involved. This rule implies that
cases coded in the issue field 7 = European integration, or in the Euro/EMU codes of SISSUE
in the field of monetary politics automatically have a European issue scope (unless they also
have a supranational dimension beyond the EU, which would then supersede the European
issue scope).
In case an issue has several scopes at the same time, the one with the lowest ISSCOP1 code
(=highest level of political authority) should be coded. Example: if an actor argues against
changing national asylum legislation because this would violate the Geneva convention (i.e.,
issue scopes national and other supranational), the coded issue scope is 2=other suprana-
tional.
38
Variable ISSUE1 (ISSUE2, ISSUE3) (string variable)
‘first issue’
Note: E.g., a claim that the French national government should recognize Breton-language
schools and sign the European Charter of Minority Languages should be coded (in words) in
the ISSUE variable. ISSUE is a string variable, i.e., describe the issue as precisely and suc-
cintly as possible in words. The description should be in English, but where appropriate you
may including original wording, e.g. in brackets.
If a claim has several aims, the following priority rules apply: 1) if the claim has more than
one actor, those aims that are mentioned by each actor have priority over aims that only one
actor mentions; 2) aims with an identifiable object actor have priority over claims where no
object actor can be discerned or where the object actor is vague ('everybody', 'the popula-
tion', or so); 3) for claims within the field of European integration, those with a clear political
direction (i.e. POSIT=1 or –1; see below) have priority over neutral, ambivalent or techno-
cratic aims (POSIT=0). If there are several aims or no aim at all which have priority accord-
ing to these criteria, the order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again,
the main headline as the start of the article).
Variable ISCOUN1 (ISCOUN2, ISCOUN3)
'country to which issue refers'
Only to be coded if isscop1=3-9. If the issue scope is bilateral or multilateral, code the coun-
try of coding if it is implicated in the issue, otherwise code the most important (default: first-
mentioned) implicated country. Make sure, in such cases that you include further information
about the countries implicated in the issue in the TITLE variable. In the case of a European
issue scope (isscop=3), that has beside the European dimension a special relevance for a
particular country, this country should be coded in ISCOUN. I.e., if the issue is a treaty be-
tween the EU and Switzerland, the ISCOP=3 (EU) and ISCOUN=756 (Switzerland).
Variable ISPOS1 (ISPOS2, ISPOS3)
‘Relation of issue position (aim) towards IPR Directives
-1 ‘negative’
0 ‘neutral/ambivalent’
1 ‘positive’
Note: -1 stands for claims against the Directive(s); +1 stands for claims in favour of the Di-
rective(s)
Even in cases where no clear position taken towards the Directives, you should code ispos.
You just code 0=neutral in those cases. Ispos should be coded directly related to issue, i.e. if
there are several issues in the claim there may also be different (and diverging) ispos codes.
39
CONSTELLATION OF ACTORS/NETWORKS
Variable NETACT1 (NETACT1 – NETACT20)
‘network actor’
Name of network actors
Variable NETTYPE1 (NETTYPE2, NETTYPE3)
‘type of network’
1 support/assistance (ideally)
2 support/assistance (material)
3 coalition
4 membership
5 participation in event
6 online discussion
7 other
40
FRAMES
(regarding intellectual property rights in Europe)
Variable FRAME1S (FRAME2S, FRAME3S)
'summary of first frame regarding European integration'
Variable FRAME1 (FRAME2, FRAME3) (string variable)
'verbal description of the frame'
Note: The list of frames consists of two types of frames: identity frames and instrumental
frames. The first type answers the question: what is the identity of the different actors? What
are the interests and world beliefs? The second type of frames relates to the main arguments
brought forward in the conflicts on IPRs and on the two Directives.
The FRAMES variable codes the value/aim to which IPRs and the Directives are linked, the
FRAPOS variable gives the direction of that link .Use the appropriate 'other’ categories
whenever you feel you cannot fit a frame in any of the existing categories.
Note that due to the addition of new categories, the ‘other’ categories do not anymore always
come at the end!
The description in the FRAME variable should be as close to the original text as possible and
should therefore also be in the original language.
Examples of frame codings:
- Signing the Maastricht treaty would mean giving up British sovereignty:
FRAMES=168, FRAPOS = -1;
- National sovereignty can only be retained within the context of the EU:
FRAMES=168, FRAPOS=+1;
- Further European integration depends on the creation of a common European pub-
lic sphere: FRAMES=173, FRAPOS=+2;
- More political integration is not possible because of the lack of a European public
sphere and the impossibility of common debates and identities because of lin-
guistic diversity: 2 frames, FRAMES=173, FRAPOS= -1, and FRAMES=153,
FRAPOS= -1 (i.e. Europe is seen as NOT (capable of) constituting a public
sphere and linguistic diversity as INCOMPATIBLE with further integration).
- European decision-making must be made more transparent: FRAMES=185,
FRAPOS=+2;
- The euro is a further step towards a unified Europe of bureaucrats and incompetent
politicians who have one thing in common: nobody has elected them: 3 frames
184 (+1), 181 (-1), 165 (-1) – Europe is bureaucratic, inefficient/incompetent
and undemocratic;
41
1 Identity frames: What does (or should) the actor or addressee (not) stand for?
General
111 national identity
112 community of values
113 civilization
114 cosmopolitanism
115 nationalism
116 racism/xenophobia/ethnocentrism
117 fascism/nazism
118 communism
119 capitalism
120 (neo-)liberalism
121 socialism/social democracy
125 western culture
126 European values
127 Americanization/US values
128 globalization
129 modernization/future-oriented
130 other
Principles, Norms, values
141 (social) justice
142 freedom, liberty
143 tolerance
144 responsibility
145 social equality
146 intercultural, international understanding/dialogue
147 individualism
148 collectivism
149 independence
150 self-determination
151 solidarity
152 peace
153 diversity (general)
154 unity
155 free trade
156 profits
157 alternative economy/development
158 openness
159 corporate responsibility
Constitutional, institutional
161 concentration
162 fragmentation
163 rule of law
42
164 human rights
165 democracy
166 dictatorship/totalitarianism
167 pluralism
168 sovereignty
169 centralization
170 subsidiarity
171 civil society, active citizenship
172 separation of power
173 public sphere/space
174 privatisation
175 federalism
176 other
Governance
181 efficiency, competence
182 over-regulation
183 deregulation
184 bureaucracy
185 transparency
186 accountability
187 corruption
188 credibility (in citizens perspective)
189 participation
190 legitimacy
191 democratic procedures
192 other
2 Instrumental frames: What are the main arguments in conflicts on intellectual prop-
erty rights?
general
211 opportunity space for citizens (working, studying, living abroad)
212 acceptance of the EU by citizens
213 European/a country''s relation with USA
214 national interest
215 other
political/cultural
231 security
232 political stability
233 influence/weight in international relations
234 control over transnational capital
235 nation state over-burdened (general)
236 cope with transnational social problems (general)
237 civil rights
238 freedom of speech/expression
43
239 democracy/democratic procedures
240 consumer rights
241 data protection
242 crime (theft/ piracy/plagiarism)
243 organized crime
244 creativity
245 open access
246 social and cultural development
247 legal and political harmonisation in EU
248 European identity
249 global integration
250 compliance with international treaties
251 other
economical
261 strength in global competition
262 economic growth
263 economic stability
264 economy of scale (internal market)
265 own (national) economy
266 national exports
267 competitiveness of big companies
268 competitiveness of SMEs
269 competitiveness of European economy
270 monopolies
271 costs
272 taxes
273 unemployment
274 inflation
275 prices
276 social standards/social security
277 public services/utilities
278 consumer protection
279 foreign investments
280 research and development
278 innovation and transfer of knowledge
279 openness/open source
280 other
44
Variable FRAPOS1 (FRAPOS2, FRAPOS3)
'relation IPRs/patents/the two directives to frame'
»Intellectual property rights/patents/the two directives.....«
-2 ‘should not be/should not stand for/should not lead to’
-1 'is not/does not stand for/does not lead to/are not necessary for'
0 'neutral/ambivalent'
1 'is/stands for/leads to/are necessary for'
2 ‘should be/should stand for/should lead to’
For example: if a claim is that joining the Euro would result in loss of sovereignty, this
should be interpreted as: more European integration= less sovereignty. Therefore frapos it is
-1. Or if the claim is that the Eu is undemocratic and that's why we oppose the Euro politi-
cally. So: more EU integration = less democracy. Therefore it is -1. A final example would be
bureaucracy. If a claim implies more European integration= more bureaucracy, then frapos
is +1. See further the examples under the variable FRAME, which also give examples of
FRAPOS codes. These are all examples of »factual« frames that should be coded as –1 or +1.
Examples of normative frames: the EU should provide more possibilities for citizen participa-
tion (frame = participation, FRAPOS=+2). We must avoid that the EU becomes a centralized
super-state: frame = centralization, FRAPOS = -2.
45
CROSS-REFERENCES BETWEEN CLAIMS
CREFAID
‘AID of coded claim to which claimant refers’
CREFCID
‘CID of coded claim to which claimant refers’
Note: Only claims that were already coded for the same newspaper and which are not further
than two weeks back in time should be coded here. This includes, of course, claims that occur
in the same newspaper issue. Only explicit and clearly identifiable references to other claims
should be coded here. I.e., not coded are vague references such as »Referring to recent
statements by Gerhard Schröder, Stoiber said…. ’. Coded are references such as »The gov-
ernment’s new immigration law was heavily criticized by the Christian Democrats«: the gov-
ernment’s immigration law being a coded claim, you would enter the AID and CID of that
claim in the CREFAID and CREFCID variables for the claim by the Christian Democrats.
Another example would be: »Jospin praised Joschka Fischer’s recent speech at the Humboldt
University…«: if the Fischer speech is not more than two weeks ago, you code the AID and
CID of that speech in the CREFAID and CREFCID variables of the Jospin claim. Note that in
direct verbal confrontations such as parliamentary debates, claims may refer to each other
mutually. E.g., when the discursive structure is such that the government proposes a law, the
opposition criticizes it in parliament and the government reacts to the oppositions criticism.
Both would then be coded as each other’s referred-to claim.
In case a claim refers to several claims, you should choose the most important one. If they
seem equally important, take the most recent one. If they are equally recent, take the first
mentioned one.
CREFPOS
‘position of claimant with regard to referred-to claim’
-1 negative
0 neutral/ambivalent
1 positive
Note: evaluation of the referred-to claim by the claimant. E.g., in the above examples the ref-
erence to the new immigration law would get CREFPOS = -1 and the reference to Fischer’s
speech would get CREFPOS = 1.The coding of these claim evaluations does of course not
replace the coding of opponent and supported actors. I.e., in the given examples you should
also code the government as opponent and Fischer as supported actor.
... The EU is a complex multi-level system of governance characterised by a multiplication of negotiation arenas (Haunss and Kohlmorgen 2009 policy, which explains why it is the most significant target of lobbying (Greenwood 2007). One of its central challenge is therefore to sort out the important quantity of information it receives and adopt its approach in function of this assessment. ...
... Every source was coded inductively by using a frame-analytical framework, with diagnostic and prognostic statements referring to the positions of the actors on issues manually annotated . In an effort to increase the reliability of the coding and the 5 coherence of this thesis with previous similar research, those statements were grouped by frames according to the methodology of the Codebook for the analysis of political claims in conflicts on intellectual property rights in Europe (Haunss & Kohlmorgen 2008). Additionally, the DNA software was used to correct contradictions resulting from coding errors and statements were continuously updated in the face of inconsistencies. ...
... Questions related to the access, production, acquisition and control of knowledge are increasingly attracting political attention, with numerous scholars exploring the transformations associated with the emergence of the information age and their consequences on the copyright regime. These works are addressing the inconsistency between the evolving patterns of consumption and production and the everincreasing protection of intellectual property rights stemming from the reconfiguration of the legal and policy structures, where the copyright maximalist approach embedded in international organisations and agreements has lead to a mode of regulation of intellectual property claims that expands the protection of intellectual property in scope and depth(Kohlmorgen 2008) ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The European Parliament approved the most recent Copyright Directive in March 2019, ending a 3-year legislative process punctuated by a fierce debate between its proponents and critics. This research combines Hajer’s argumentative discourse analysis framework with the methodological approach of discourse network analysis to comprehensibly map the discourse coalitions engaged in this debate, scrutinise their characteristics, and appraise their influence over the policy process and outcome. It does so through the dynamic examination of the relations between both actors and their arguments over time by using open letters and statements as text sources annotated and coded using the Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) software. The resulting network data is subsequently exported for further analysis and visualisation. The mapping reveals that this debate featured, on the one side, two coalitions who argued against the directive on the basis of its threats to civil rights and to the EU’s economy and research environment, and on the other side, proponents of the reform assembled in one coalition who stressed the importance of protecting the creative sector and reducing the market power of online platforms. It demonstrates that no discourse coalition achieved discursive hegemony over the debate, with the discourse of both opponents and proponents being partially institutionalised in the policy outcome, albeit to a different extent. Despite being characterised by a higher internal cohesion, a more densely clustered structure and a more important network influence than the pro-directive coalition, opponents of the directive wielded a limited influence on the policy outcome, particular regarding the most contentious provisions, Article 11 and Article 13. The pro-directive coalition displayed less discursive congruence but experienced the most important relative increase in terms of size and network influence throughout the debate, and its discourse was reflected to a greater degree in the adopted law. The commodification of knowledge being a persistent policy issue, this discursive contestation is expected to continue in future intellectual property rights conflicts.
... Because of the more limited geographical scope of the software patents conflict, it was possible to base the analysis on the content coding of 124 newspaper articles published in quality newspapers in Germany, Great Britain, France and Poland between 1997 and 2005. 1 As a first step, all articles mentioning the software patents conflict in Europe or the issue of software patents in general were selected. In these articles every instance of claims-making was coded according to a coding scheme (Haunss & Kohlmorgen 2008) that is a further development of Koopmans' political claims analysis codebook (Koopmans 2002). A claim in this context means any demand, proposal, criticism, decision, etc. made by actors active in the respective field of conflict in the form of statements or collective mobilizations. ...
Article
Full-text available
In a widely cited article Boyle suggests that a movement against the growing propertization of knowledge should develop a mobilization frame centered around the idea of the public domain. Based on an analysis of the framing strategies in the two most important protest mobilizations against extensive intellectual property rights I discuss whether and to which degree these movements did actually put the concept of the public domain at the center of their argumentation. The article uses political claims analysis and discourse analysis to show that the actual framing strategies relied on other frames. It closes with a discussion, explaining why the idea of the public domain is essentially a defensive concept with a limited potential for movements that primarily address the production of knowledge.
... The article selection was designed to capture all claims that have been reported in quality newspapers in the four countries that were most important in this conflict. The claims were manually coded using predefined codes from a codebook (Haunss & Kohlmorgen 2008) based on the coding scheme developed in the Europub project (Koopmans 2002). The coding scheme was adapted and expanded after initial coding of a subset of the articles. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2005, the European Parliament rejected the directive ‘on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions’, which had been drafted and supported by the European Commission, the Council and well-organised industrial interests, with an overwhelming majority. In this unusual case, a coalition of opponents of software patents prevailed over a strong industry-led coalition. In this article, an explanation is developed based on political discourse showing that two stable and distinct discourse coalitions can be identified and measured over time. The apparently weak coalition of software patent opponents shows typical properties of a hegemonic discourse coalition. It presents itself as being more coherent, employs a better-integrated set of frames and dominates key economic arguments, while the proponents of software patents are not as well-organised. This configuration of the discourse gave leeway for an alternative course of political action by the European Parliament. The notion of discourse coalitions and related structural features of the discourse are operationalised by drawing on social network analysis. More specifically, discourse network analysis is introduced as a new methodology for the study of policy debates. The approach is capable of measuring empirical discourses both statically and in a longitudinal way, and is compatible with the policy network approach.
... More specific we were interested in the networks of cooperation between the actors actively involved in the conflicts. For more information on the coding and a detailed list of the codes used see (Haunss and Kohlmorgen 2008a) ysis of documents published on the web, and via a questionnaire sent to the so far identified actors. limited to all actors mentioned in the press, the interviews and the questionnaires, the immediate members of the business and civil society associations, NGOs, and ad-hoc coalitions, and those members of the large mobilization networks that showed significant commitment beyond their signature. ...
Article
Full-text available
Decision-making processes in Europe involve complex networks of actors who are trying to influence them at the various levels of the European multi-level governance system. Interest group research often assumes that the ability of an actor to exert influence depends mainly on its financial and personal resourcefulness, on its ability to provide expert knowledge and on its economic and/or political power. Recent conflicts in which ‘weak’ actors were able to persist have challenged this assumption. We claim that a careful analysis of the actor net- works is able to complement the traditional actor-resource-centred perspective, and that paying attention to the structure of collective action networks is necessary to fully grasp the dynamics of decision-making processes in Europe in which the power of networks sometimes outweighs the power of resources.
... The actors we included in the networks, therefore, included only those mentioned in the press, those from whom we received completed questionnaires (including those we interviewed), and members of the 1 Overall a total number of 170 articles (G: 75, UK: 37, F: 45, PL: 31) were coded. For more information on the coding and a detailed list of the codes used see(Haunss and Kohlmorgen 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
The outcomes of two recent policy conflicts about two EU directives on intellectual property rights question the assumptions of interest groups research: Why were "weak" actors able to successfully mobilize against one directive but failed in the other case? We argue that, to explain policy influence, the existing literature focuses only on actor characteristics but neglects actor relations and is therefore not able to explain the success of weak actors in certain conflicts. We employ social network analysis to analyze the actor networks of both conflicts and conclude that a broad mobilization in combination with a dense network and the construction of a convincing master frame are conditions for successful campaigning and influence of weak actors. In more abstract terms we can see that in order to be successful weak actors have to built situational coalitions that fulfill the conditions of a collective actor with a recognizable collective identity.
Article
Full-text available
How does the European Union export its rules and regulations to its partners during free trade negotiations? While the research fields on EU foreign policy promotion abroad and external perceptions seem to have settled on the notion that the success of EU rule export increases with the internalization of the negotiation partner’s wants, this article challenges this academic consensus. Scrutinizing the EU-India free trade negotiations (2007–2013) where the perception of EU norms turned from positive to inherently negative, the article shows that the Commission successfully constructed the notion of congruence between European and Indian standards on multiple (international, bilateral, regional) fronts during an initial “honeymoon phase” (2007–2011). Yet, once the negotiations’ focus shifted to hard bargaining over core interests, the notion of congruence gave way to tensions and discrepancies, so that perceptions turned negative over the “cooldown” (2011–2013). Analysing claims made by EU and Indian policy officials in four Indian English-speaking quality newspapers—Times of India, Hindustan Times, Hindu Business Line and the Business Standard—the article suggests that the discursive construction of congruence with the local context, however successful, cannot prevail against battles over core interests. Hence, this article provides starting points for new academic junctures in that it introduces a more nuanced understanding of the EU’s approach to rule promotion abroad.
Article
Full-text available
Intellectual property is not a substantial category. Wich knowledge may become under which circumstances intellectual property is in every case the result of concrete juridical and political processes. Current conflicts about the governance of knowledge and information are therefore not simply conflicts about the merits or shortcomings of specific regulations, but they are also conflicts about what kind of knowledge should be conceptualized as intellectual property. In the article I analyze actor constellations and framing strategies in two conflicts about EU directives, which both wanted to expand intellectual property rights: The EU directive on the patentability of computer implemented inventions (software patents) and the EU directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED). The aim of my analysis is to explain why in the first case a group of actors that traditional interest group research would qualify as weak in almost every aspect, was successful, while a similar coalition was without any chance in the second case. My argument is based on an analysis of the conflict participants' framing strategies.
Institute for Transuranium Elements (Karlsruhe) Institute for Energy (Petten) Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen (Ispra) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Ispra) Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Ispra) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
  • Reference Institute
  • Materials
  • Measurements
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (Geel) Institute for Transuranium Elements (Karlsruhe) Institute for Energy (Petten) Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen (Ispra) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Ispra) Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Ispra) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville)
ECJ) 411 ECJ as a body 412 ECJ: individual Judge 413 ECJ: individual Advocate General 419 Other specific ECJ
  • European Court
  • Justice
European Court of Justice (ECJ) 411 ECJ as a body 412 ECJ: individual Judge 413 ECJ: individual Advocate General 419 Other specific ECJ
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 815 Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), previously Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee (MDSC), including 6 different Scientific Committees: Food, Veterinary
  • Eur
Eur. Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 815 Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), previously Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee (MDSC), including 6 different Scientific Committees: Food, Veterinary, Animal Nutrition, Cosmetology, Pesticides and Toxicity and Ecotoxicology