1  

Empirical Research Methods on Legitimacy: Repertory Grid as the Interface between Measuring and Evaluating Norma Osterberg-Kaufmann Leuphana University Lueneburg / Center for Research on Democracy

Paper to be presented at the ECPR General Conference Montreal 2015

Abstract: Standardized questionnaires are generally the empirical approach to measure legitimacy and civic culture. But frequent critics highlight their deficits for political culture research and raise the question, whether research on legitimacy should be understood as “measuring” or as “evaluating”. Patberg (2013) initiated this controversy by criticizing that standardized interviews only measure to what degree people believe in the legitimacy of the political order and don’t evaluate whether the rule is in accordance with the beliefs, values and expectations of the people. The present paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of different empirical research models. Based on the Repertory Grid-method, the author develops an alternative approach to compare the respondents’ perception and alignment between an observable phenomenon (structure of rule) and their own normative values (what is legitimate). Finally, Repertory Gridding, which combines the qualitative and the quantitative approach in a quasi experimental setting, is illustrated and tested in an exemplary survey. Keywords: European Union, Methods, Qualitative, Quantitative

1. Introduction

The key literature on theoretical research of EU-Legitimacy (f.e. Kielmannsegg 1996,

Blondel et al. 1998, Katz und Weßels 1999, Scharpf 1999, Thomassen und Schmidt

1999, Fuchs 2003) leads one to expect a profound de-legitimation of the European

Union. But how to empirically measure the perceptions of legitimacy is highly

controversial in the German literature (Zürn 2011a, 2011b, Schmidtke/ Schneider

2012, Patberg 2013, Zürn 2013).

Traditionally the standardized questionnaire is the methodological procedure in

empirical research on legitimacy as well as in research on political culture. Despite

that fact, there are frequent discussions around deficits of the standardized method in

political culture research (Pickel 2006, Lauth et al. 2009) and if research on

legitimacy should be understood as measuring or evaluation (Zürn 2011a, 2011b,

Patberg 2013, Zürn 2013). Beside the discussion on the appropriate database, these

debates on the design of empirical research of legitimacy will be developed further in

this paper.

This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the different models of

empirical research on legitimacy. Additionally the paper will develop an alternative

approach where the people’s perceptions of the similarities of an observable

  2  

phenomenon (governance structure) and the own normative values (what is

legitimate) are compared in the process of Repertory Grid Interviews. Repertory Grid

is predestinate for this kind of research because it combines qualitative and

quantitative methods. As the initial data is qualitative, it offers a potential solution for

the linguistic and cultural equivalence problems. The data analysis is qualitative as

well as quantitative. Individual data will thereby be transferable to the macro level,

which allows for comparability and transferability of the results from the sample to a

larger group. The paper discusses in how far Repertory Grid can facilitate the

bridging between empirical research on legitimacy as measurement or evaluation

(Patberg 2013), as it does not work with questionnaires drawn up beforehand nor

with prepared response scales, but with the respondent’s own words and response

scales, as presented in chapter 3.

An exemplary study introduces the methodological procedure briefly1. The study

focused on the people’s exception of EU-legitimacy. Opposite to the argument of the

democratic and legitimacy deficit of the EU (Kielmannsegg 1996, Blondel et al. 1998,

Katz und Weßels 1999, Scharpf 1999, Thomassen und Schmidt 1999), the results of

standardized questionnaires are in a sharp contrast. On the basis of standardized

questionnaires no de-legitimation of the EU can be empirically proven (Beichelt

2010). Inline with the theoretical literature, the data of the Repertory Grid Interviews

show such a legitimacy deficit. The relevance of the legitimacy deficit lies not only in

future legitimacy of EU-policy but also affects the quality of democracy in the

respective national state and people’s support for both political system, the national

state’s and the EU’s.

Therefore the paper compares empirical research on legitimacy as measuring and

evaluation firstly, to improve the model of empirical research on legitimacy

afterwards. Secondly the Repertory Grid method is introduced as an interface of the

different approaches. For this the paper will explain the theoretical background, data

collection and analysis of Repertory Grid. And finally an example study on student’s

perception of EU-legitimacy will illustrate the method practically. The conclusion will

place the results in the general context on the debate and will discuss future

perspectives of research.

                                                                                                               1 For a more comprehensive presentation on the perception of EU’s legitimacy please see Osterberg-Kaufmann (2014).

  3  

2. Empirical Research on Legitimacy

a. Interface between 'Measuring' and 'Evaluating'

The criticism on common research of legitimacy is the fuzziness of the term itself.

Originally the term was developed in the context of the national state (Easton 1965,

1975). The term did not even expand to the political structure beyond the nation

state. Research still focuses on measuring legitimacy and explaining different levels

of regime support, while there is barely any research on processes and practices of

legitimacy (Schmidtke/Schneider 2012: 225). In addition there is the problem of a

very normative approach in discussing legitimacy. Additionally there are the concepts

of legitimate decision making characterized strongly normative. Following this

normative perspective, this objective legitimacy (Fuchs 2011) is rooted in universal

valuations of theories of democracy and theories of justice. The claimed legitimacy

and evaluations by the political actors and the people themselves or effective

recognition of the existing policy as Schmidke and Schneider (2012) call this

subjective legitimacy (Fuchs 2011) will be neglected by this research. Survey

research such as Eurobarometer enables the researcher to measure only those

normative perspectives. The subjective legitimacy as Schmidtke and Schneider

(2012: 226) points out will not be considered. Survey research therefore measures

the expressed position of respondents within the scientific construction of reality, but

merely measures the real attitudes of the respondents in the reality itself (Osterberg-

Kaufmann 2014). The interest of research of empirical research on legitimacy instead

lies in scrutinizing the normative standards underlying the evaluation of regimes

legitimacy (Fuchs 2011: 31).

Closely connected to this issue is the question of the homogenous understanding of

the measured terms and the underlying normative principles. Furthermore, there is

the question of linguistically and culturally equivalence and the phenomenon of

paying lip-service and social desirability. But those problems are not only limited to

research on legitimacy. Generally, they affect political culture research, research on

attitudes, norms and values, particularly where attitudes towards conceptual abstract

terms like legitimacy or democracy are in the focus of research.

Before measuring the EU’s legitimacy on people’s perception, it will be necessary to

clarify their understanding of legitimacy and to clarify if the understanding really is as

  4  

universal as the normative approach by political science suggests. Maybe this is an

explanation for the discussed discrepancy of empirical results and theoretical

literature on EU’s legitimacy and an adaption of survey questions on a more

heterogeneous understanding of legitimacy would be necessary.

Those critics also reflect the general debate of comparative politics on the respective

advantages and disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative research as well as the

question for the methodological ideal solution (Jahn 2009, Lauth et al. 2009, Pickel

2009, Pickel und Pickel 2009, Pickel 2006). The most important conclusion2 of the

debate is a general call for strengthening mixed-method-designs (Pickel 2009,

Schmidtke und Schneider 2012, Zürn 2013, Liebermann 2005). Mixed-method

studies combining both approaches within the research process already are

discussed as a special approach. Such a research design will not exchange the

results of parallel-explored studies, but will combine them within the different stages

of investigation (research question, data collection, data analysis) (Pickel 2009: 309).

Standardized questionnaires are also caught in the crossfire of the academic debate

of empirical research of legitimacy (Zürn 2011a, 2001b, Patberg 2013, Zürn 2013).

Patberg (2013) criticizes that an acceptance report, based on standardized

questionnaires, could not be the analysis of empirical legitimacy of a political system.

Furthermore, standardized survey data is lacking a conceptualization of empirical

legitimacy, because it is not just a question of accepting a political system (Zürn

2013), but also a question if the access to power and the exercise of power are in

accordance to the shared convictions (Beetham und Lord 1999). In other words, it is

about the congruence between the perception of legitimacy and the attitudes towards

a political system on the side of the political actors and the people. Patberg (2013)

argues, according to Beetham (1991), that it would fall to short to measure merely, if

citizens believe in the legitimacy of their political system, but it is necessary to

evaluate if the exercise of power is in accordance to the citizens’ beliefs, values and

expectations (Patberg 2013: 158). Instead of the survey-based report of acceptance,

research should evaluate the congruence between the normative criteria and the

expectations on political rule, generally conceived independently from a given

political system (Patberg 2013: 159). According to Patberg (2013), the judging

subject is the main difference between research of legitimacy as measurement and                                                                                                                2 More comprehensively discussed in Osterberg-Kaufmann (2014).

  5  

evaluation. Following research of legitimacy as measurement the researcher will

become the judging subject. Research of legitimacy as evaluation focuses on the

(ruled) people as subject, which judges on the legitimacy of the political order,

wherefrom the researcher is reporting (Zürn 2013). Despite all critizism on research

of legitimacy as measuring or evaluating, both, Zürn (2013) and Patberg (2013) are

sharing the insight, that research must aim on legitimacy from the concerned

perspective and not on the normative judgment of a practice as good or bad by

external criteria defined by an observer (Zürn 2013: 175). Not the theoretically

constructed normative ideal should be the basis of research, but the empirically

investigated normative standard of the citizen, themselves (Patberg 2013: 159). But

at this point Patberg (2013: 160) is arguing, that this judgment (legitimate or not) will

depend on the researcher and not on the citizen any more. Following Patbergs

(2013: 160) argumentation, the researcher will firstly identify the citizen’s normative

standard, secondly will reconstruct the existing decision-making and will thirdly judge

on matching or not – if the given political system will be perceived as legitimate or

not. But if the research is about the subjective legitimacy and not the objective

legitimacy the citizen himself should judge on the accordance of his normative

standards and the given political system and not the researcher. The researcher will

be influenced by his external position and theoretically constructed ideals, beside all

conscientiousness. Therefore the author agrees with Zürns (2013: 176) argument,

that the object of research on legitimacy should be the citizens’ believe in the

legitimacy and not the reconstruction of circumstances, where the researcher’s sense

of justice probably is lying behind, as in Patbergs (2013) model. According to this

argumentation, Zürn (2013) derived a process-oriented model of research on

legitimacy, with the (ruling) authority and their exercise of power as well as the self-

justification on one side and the (ruled) people and their evaluations of those

justifications on the basis of their normative standards on the other side. The process

of legitimacy in the public arena is an additional dimension of Zürns (2013: 178)

model. It is the public arena where the self-justifications and the requirements are

interacting with each other. The data on the side of the (ruled) people would be

survey data, discourses and statements. On the side of the (ruling) authority it would

be discourse analysis and content analysis (Zürn 2013: 178ff). But comparing to

Patberg (2013) this model would neglect the evaluation of accordance or would at

  6  

least reduce it to the communication in the public arena.

Based on the theoretical literature on research of legitimacy, an advancement of

empirical research on legitimacy as measuring and evaluating, by the (ruled) people

would be worthwhile. Such an advanced model of empirical research on legitimacy

can be as followed: Initially the (ruled) people will interpret the decision-making as

they perceive it and conclude in order of this perception to the underlying polity. This

assumed polity would be compared to the own normative standards in the next step.

Is the assumed polity in agreement with the normative standards there will be

legitimacy. Consequently, there will be three steps of analysis. The first step will

analyze the normative standards of the citizen. The second step will measure the

accordance of the normative standards with the perceived decision-making. The third

step will weight the normative standards by analyzing, which normative standards will

finally lead to legitimacy. The definition of the normative standards and the judgment

of accordance of the polity will be on the respondent’s side, while the researcher is

merely analyzing.

Figure 1: Legitimacy building process

Source: Osterberg-Kaufmann 2014

This 3-step process makes it necessary to use a mixed-method approach that allows

polity' norma,ve'standards'

people'ruling'elites'

decision4making'

congruence'

legi,macy'

  7  

measuring the citizen’s own legitimacy building process.

3. Repertory Grid as an Alternative Method

Mixed-method-approaches are common in other disciplines since decades. In the

1960ies the psychologist Kelly (1955) developed the Repertory-Grid-Method to

measure subjective constructions of reality (Rosenberger/Freitag 2009: 477). The

special characteristic of this method is the qualitative nature of the collected data,

while the analysis is both, qualitative and quantitative.

But Repertory Grid is not only an interface between the qualitative and the

quantitative approach, but also on the interface between empirical research on

legitimacy as measurement and evaluation, as the following chapter illustrates.

a. Theoretical Background

The philosophical basic assumption of the Repertory-Grid-Method is, that people

(re)construct reality to be in contact with the world. People anticipate events by

individual connections of their own experiences. They evaluate the results of their

behavior with the available personal constructs to adapt their behavior according to

the environmental necessities (Jankowicz 2004).

The Repertory-Grid-Method works with the words of the respondents themselves to

measure the subjective constructs of individuals. In the preparation phase of a

project, the researcher sets up eight to twelve terms or examples (elements), which

are related to the designated topic such as European Parliament, ECB, European

Commission, etc. for the research on EU’s legitimacy. In the theory of Kelly (1955),

these elements are relevant things, situations or events to the respondent. The

selection of the right and most meaningful elements is part of the pre-set research

design. The definition of the used elements is the most sensible part of the method,

as it impacts the whole interview and the results. Therefore it is important to test the

elements carefully and to readjust before starting the field interviews.

With the help of personal constructs the respondent will compare the elements

characteristics and will put the elements in relation to each other. The elements and

constructs help people to structure the reality. According to Kelly (1955) constructs

can be understood as dichotomous dimensions such as good opposed to evil or

warm and sunny opposed to cold and windy to sort and evaluate the elements of an

  8  

interview into groups on the basis of their similarities. Each element will be rated on

each construct (Jankowicz 2004). By assessing similarities and dissimilarities the

respondents constructs will sort particular events to particular categories and thereby

will create reality to individuals (Elements and Constructs 2011). The Repertory Grid

interview will provide the researcher with “a kind of mental map” (Jankowicz 2004:

14) of how people think and see the world. Based on the limited (quantitative) set of

elements, respondents provide the researcher with the qualitative (actively

formulated) constructs and translate their subjective perception into a quantitative

grid.

There are several substantial questions the Repertory Grid method will enable to

answer: 1. How different realities (elements) relate to each other? 2. How people

describe (constructs) reality (elements)? 3. Understand, what people mean when

talking about specific subjects and 4. Understand the meaning of the respondent’s

words.

b. Data Collection

The first step of the Repertory-Grid interview is that the respondent decides, which

two out of three randomly selected elements are more similar to each other than the

third one. As an example, the following elements are given: European Parliament,

ECB, European Commission. The respondent decided, that ECB and the European

Commission are most similar and differ from European Parliament. The second step

is to define the similarity of these two elements (attribute 1) and the difference to the

third element (attribute 2) with his/her own words. In the example used below, the

similarity of ECB and the European Commission are in the respondents view

characterized by being appointed (attribute 1), while the European Parliament is

characterized as being elected (attribute 2). These two attributes form the first

individual evaluation construct of the respondent. In the third step the respondent

positions all the predefined elements of the interview in her/his own evaluation

(rating) construct (the scale between attribute 1 and 2). The rating takes place in a

tetralemma field, which means besides the options between attribute 1 and attribute

2 there is as well the options of both or non of the two (Elements and Constructs

2011).

  9  

Figure 1: Rating the elements in the tetralemma field

Source: Own Data

The steps are repeated with different, randomly selected sets of three elements to

collect various constructs of the interviewee and the respective distribution of the

elements on these constructs. To receive meaningful results there are at least five

interview cycles necessary.

c. Data Analysis

The data collected in the interviews allows various quantitative analysis. For the

manual analysis the data will be represented in an elements and constructs grid,

which are rating scales “arranged in rows and columns into a table or grid” (Jankovicz

2004: 8). Within a single grid there are the possibilities to analyze the simple

relationships between elements, the simple relationships between constructs, do

cluster analyzes and principal component analyzes to get inside the structure of the

data (Jankovicz 2004: 94 ff).

What is more interesting than a single grid, is analyzing a larger set of interviews. To

collect data of many respondents and to analyze more than one grid there are a

EP# EC# ECB#

Step 1

Which two elements are similar to each other and simultaneously differ from

the third, regarding legitimacy? EP# EC# ECB#

What do the two elements, you just selected, have in common

(attribute)?

="appointed"

Step 2

EP# EC# ECB#

What caracterizes the third element, compared to the first two elements?

="elected"

Step 3

BReg%

BVerfG%

appointed

elected both

none

ECB%

EC%

BT% Ideal%

BRat%

EP%

Step 4

  10  

number of software’s available3. Like in standardized surveys it is possible to transfer

the individual data to an aggregated level and allow for a comparison and

transfarability of the results. Reliability and validity of Repertory-Grid-data is much

discussed by Personal Constructs Psychology-Experts. Following Kelly (1955),

Bannister and Fransella (1971) answering the question for reliability as follows: „Kelly is reported as referreing to reliability as ´a measure of the extent to which a test is intensive to change´. This is no facetious comment but a logical deduction from his theory, which sees man as a form of motion. Our aim should be to understand the meaning of change, not to regard it as an irritating interference with the ´reliability´ of our tests by an irresponsible subject – to be looked on as ´error variance´“ (Bannister and Fransella 1971, p. 76).

A number of later studies (Bavelas et al. 1976, Gathercole et al. 1970,

LeCompte/Goetz 1982) showed reliability. Concerning the question of validity of

Repertory Grid there is a general agreement (Fransella/Bannister 1967, Hill 1976,

Leitner 1981, Munby 1982, LeComte and Goetz 1982). Because the results obtained

are independent from any interpretation, internal validity is sufficiently proven.

Concerning external validity there is a differentiation of generalizability, comparability

and transferability (LeCompte/Goetz 1982: 34). While literature (LeCompte/Goetz

1982) discusses limitations of the generalizability of the results, there are no doubts

concerning comparability and transferability of the results from the sample to a larger

group.

In order to get meaningful results, the number of interviews should be three times the

number of elements4. As an (non-representative) example and in order to illustrate

the process of data collection and analyzes, the following chapter will demonstrate

the Repertory-Grid-Method5 by the example of the perceptions on the legitimacy of

the EU.

4. Empirical Study on the Perceptions on the Legitimacy of the EU

The collected data is represented in an elements-and-constructs-matrix (the grid). Via

statistical methods coherencies and dependencies of the elements and the

constructs are calculated. Finally, the data of all respondents is made comparable in

an aggregated collective grid. This collective grid allows the analysis how people

                                                                                                               3 Gridcore, GridSuite, RepGrid, Idiogrid, sci:vesco for example. 4 Usually a Grid consists of about eight to twelve elements. To reach representativity it is required to run 30-45 interviews per identified subgroup of a sample. Subgroups can be categories like male/ female, age >30/ age <30, urban/ countryside, academics/ non-academics, main religions, etc. 5 The author used the Repertory-Grid-Software by sci:vesco.  

  11  

define the various elements and the common concept behind the elements – all with

the interviewees’ own words and attributes.

With the help of the principle component analyzes, the numerous dimensions formed

by the individual ratings, are reduced to a three-dimensional room, in which all the

elements and constructs, and their relations to each other, are represented. To

visualize and to understand the relations between elements and constructs and

between constructs themselves, principle components analyzes will identify the three

most significant components, translate them into a three-dimensional matrix and

transfer the numbers of the matrix into coordinates for each element and each

construct. This instrument also allows building groups of elements, which are strongly

related to each other.

The Euclidian distances can visualize the proximities and distances of the elements

to one another in the respondents’ perception. The closer elements are situated

together, the smaller are the Euclidian distances between the elements and the

bigger are the element’s similarities in the respondent’s view. The data of the

example inquiry6 illustrates these steps. There are three groups of elements in the

three-dimensional room, built on the basis of the respondents associations.

Looking at the sample date, it appears that the idea of the most legitimate decision-

maker matches neither the National elements nor the European elements or the

expert panels. None of them corresponds to the ideal of legitimacy the respondents

had in mind. With the biggest distance from the “ideal of legitimacy” respondents

located the European Central Bank, followed by the Expert panels and the European

Commission, as representatives of a technocratic understanding of legitimacy. Next

is the group formed by the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament and

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. Still a long way from the ideal of legitimacy,

but closer than all the other elements, respondents perceived the national institutions

German Government, Bundesrat and Bundestag. These findings are illustrated in the

following figures in the three-dimensional-room and as calculation of the Euclidian

distances of the elements.

                                                                                                               6  The example inquiry is based on four Repertory Grid Interviews, the author collected as an illustration to describe the method. The data is not representative and therefor cannot provide valid information about what the Germans think about democracy.  

  12  

Figure 2: The data in the three-dimensional room

Source: Own survey, represented with sci:vesco Comment: In light gray all constructs are represented to illustrate the method.

Table 1: Euclidian Distances

Euclidian Distance Measure Elements

Experts IDEAL BReg BR BT EC EP ECB BVERFG ECC

Experts 1.327,2 1.013,1 988,3 1.121,5 887,8 1.055,9 791,7 987,0 911,2 IDEAL 1.327,2 966,4 961,9 860,6 1.230,5 1036,5 1.416,9 1.008,5 1.112,7 BReg 1.013,1 966,4 547,0 510,9 746,0 678,2 949,9 769,7 827,7 BR 988,3 961,9 547,0 495,2 733,0 632,9 962,1 748,2 792,2 BT 1.121,5 860,6 510,9 495,2 857,3 588,4 1.118,1 855,5 915,8 EC 887,8 1.230,5 746,0 733,0 857,3 652,2 718,4 881,9 727,4 EP 1.055,9 1.036,5 678,2 632,9 588,4 652,2 939,7 887,7 801,0 ECB 791,7 1.416,9 949,9 962,1 1.118,1 718,4 939,7 941,0 807,5 BVERFG 987,0 1.008,5 769,7 748,2 855,5 881,9 887,7 941,0 490,7 ECC 911,2 1.112,7 827,7 792,2 915,8 727,4 801,1 807,5 490,7

Dissimilarity Matrix Source: Own survey

Most%legi*mate%decision0maker%(ideal)%

Bundestag%

German%Government%Bundesrat%

European%Parliament%

Germany‘s%Federal%Cons*tu*onal%Court%European%Court%of%Jus*ce%

European%Commission%

European%Central%Bank%

Experts%

  13  

Elements can be grouped as a result of factor analysis. In the present data set, there

is one group representing the national elements German Government, Bundesrat,

Bundestag, German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Parliament, as

the lonely European element. This group can be characterized as the group of

democratically legitimized, as the respondents also related the element Most

legitimate decision-maker with this group. The second group of elements is built by

the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank, the German Federal

Constitutional Court, the European Commission and Expert Panels, while this group

does not include the Most legitimated decision-maker. This group can be described

as technocratically legitimized. The third group reflects the special role literature

(Zürn 2011) attributes to the citizen’s attitudes toward courts. Following the European

Social Survey 2008, trust in the legal structure was the highest among all political

institutions. Thereby both, European Court of Justice and the German Federal

Constitutional Court, load on this factor together with the Most legitimated decision-

maker. The cross-loading of European Court of Justice, the German Federal

Constitutional Court and the Most legitimated decision-maker refer to this special role

of constitutional courts Zürn (2011) emphasized on. Both courts are perceived as

legitimate, not democratically, but following Rosanvallon (2010: 169), in a reflexive

way.

  14  

Table 2: Factor analysis for Group-building of the elements Extraction method: principal component analysis 3 components extracted

component Democratic Legitimacy

Technocratic Legitimacy Reflexive Legitimacy

Bundestag ,866 European Central Bank ,787 European Court of Justice ,772 Bundesrat ,764 German Government ,717 European Commission ,666 German Federal Constitutional Court ,568 ,599 European Parliament ,590 Most legitimated decision-maker (ideal) ,536 ,518

Source: Osterberg-Kaufmann 2014

The data shows, that the democratic model of legitimacy is most likely to meet the

respondent’s ideal of legitimacy, reflecting their normative standards, which can be

described by the qualitative analysis of the respondent’s constructs7.

5. Conclusion

This paper positioned Repertory Grid as an interface between empirical research on

legitimacy as measuring or evaluating (Patberg 2013, Zürn 2013), as it combines

both approaches due to its mixed-method nature. Therefor it builds on the

advantages of qualitative methods during the interview and quantitative methods

during the analysis, while reducing the respective disadvantages.

First of all, a Repertory Grid approach weakens the phenomena of social desirability

and paying lip-service, as the interview itself is based on the individuals’ value

context and is completely open during the interview without allowing fuzzy answers. It

provides an insight into the complexity of the respondents’ entire evaluation system.

Secondly, the subjective evaluation based on the respondents’ own

evaluation/ranking constructs eliminates the effects of linguistic and cultural

equivalence within the interview and even allows to understand the different cultural

and linguistic meaning of words during the analysis.

Thirdly, the qualitative data of the Repertory Grid interview being standardized and

aggregated on a macro level, the method allows for comparisons on a country/group

level as well as transferability.

                                                                                                               7  More detailed analysis: Osterberg-Kaufmann 2014  

  15  

Finally, the Repertory Grid Method is able to mediate between empirical research on

legitimacy as measuring and as evaluating. If empirical research on legitimacy is not

about measuring the acceptance of a political system, but about figuring out if the

exercise of rule is in line with the societies’ normative standards8, measuring and

evaluating have to be interconnected within one and the same survey method. By

characterizing (constructs) the most legitimate decision-maker, Repertory Grid is

measuring the normative standards of the respondent. By mapping the institutions

(elements) on the basis of these normative standards, respondents can express their

agreement or disagreement with the exercise of power (by mapping the element

most legitimate decision-maker).

Nevertheless there are limits to a large-scale implementation, as interviews take time

and related expenses are relatively high compared to standardized surveys.

Alternatives would be the analysis of a low number of special cases, like the

comparison of typical cases and outliers of a Large-N analysis or special groups like

political elites or a selection of cases following the logic of nested-analysis

approaches (Liebermann 2005). Based on the interesting results of the pilot project

(Osterberg-Kaufmann 2014) the next step should be a case selection for a

comparative study on the understanding of legitimacy in the EU between different

European countries. Following the nested-analysis approach (Liebermann 2005),

data of large-N analysis like Eurobarometer can be the basis of the case selection for

the small-N Repertory Grid analysis and on the basis of this foundation a new

evaluation and interpretation of the existing survey data would be possible, allowing

also for a meaningful reformulation of established survey questions concerning

citizen’s attitudes towards the EU.

References

Barnickel, Christiane, Timm Beichelt und Fabian Wiencke. 2012. Legitimitätspolitik im Kontext von Europäisierung: Theoretische Kritik und politische Rhetorik. Leviathan 40 (Sonderband 27): 208-224.

Bavelas Janet B., Adrienne S. Chan und Janice A. Guthrie. 1976. Reliability and Validity of Traits Measured by Kelly´s Repertory Grid. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 8 (1): 23-38.

Beetham, David. 1991. The Legitimation of Power. Basingstoke: Macmillan.                                                                                                                8 Especially if this accordance is not judged by an external researcher.

  16  

Beetham, David und Christopher Lord. 1998. Legitimacy and the EU. London: Longman.

Beetham, David und Christopher Lord. 1999. Legitimacy and the European Union. In Political Theory and the European Union: Legitimacy, Constitutional Choice and Citizenship. Hrsg. Michael Nentwich und Albert Weale, 15-33. London: Routledge.

Beichelt, Timm. 2012. Deutschland und Europa. Die Europäisierung des politischen Systems. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Beichelt, Timm. 2010. EU-Skepsis als Aneignung europäischer Politik. Berliner Debatte Initial 21 (2): 3-16.

Blondel, Jean, Richard Sinnot und Palle Svensson. 1998. People and Parliament in the European Union: Participation, Democracy, and Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coppedge, Michael. 1999: Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics. Comparative Politics 31 (4): 465-476.

Crouch, Colin. 2008. Postdemokratie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Dalton, Russell J., Douh C. Shin und Willy Jou . 2008. How People Understand Democracy. In How People View Democracy, Hrsg. Larry Diamond und Marc F. Plattner, 1-15. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Europäisches Parlament. o.J. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/de/000cdcd9d4/Wahlbeteiligung-(1979-bis-2009).html. Gesehen 24.9.2013.

Easton, David. 1975. A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science 5: 435-457.

Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.

Elements and Constructs. 2013. sci:vesco. Handbuch zur Version 3.0. http://www.permitto.ch/144.html. Gesehen 25.9.2013.

Fransella, Fay und Donald Bannister. 1967. A Validation of Repertory Grid Technique as a Measure of Political Constructing. Acta Psychologica 26: 97-106.

Fuchs, Dieter. 2003. Das Demokratiedefizit der Europäischen Union und die politische Integration Europas: Eine Analyse der Einstellungen der Bürger in Westeuropa. In Europäische Integration in der öffentlichen Meinung, Hrsg. Frank Brettschneider, Jan van Deth und Edeltraud Roller, 29-56. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

Fuchs, Dieter. 2011. Cultural diversity, European identity and legitimacy of the EU: A theoretical framework. In Cultural diversity, European identity and the legitimacy of the EU. Hrsg. Dieter Fuchs und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 27-57. Cheltenham und Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  17  

Gathercole, C., E. Bumble und J. Ashcroft. 1970. The Reliability of Repertory Grids´. Journal of Clinical Psychology 26 (4): 513-516.

Geißel, Brigitte. 2004. Responsivität und Responsivitätswahrnehmung – Thesen zu einem undurchsichtigen Verhältnis. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 14 (4): 1239-1259.

Glaser, Karin. 2013. Über legitime Herrschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Hill, Austin Breadford. 1976. Validity and Clinical Utility of Grid Test of Thought Disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 128: 251-254.

Hix, Simon. 2008. What´s wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hooghe, Lisbet. 2003. „Europe Divided?“ Elites vs. Public Opinion on European Integration. European Union Politics 4 (3): 281-304.

Ipsen, Hans P. 1972. Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Jahn, Detlef. 2009. Die Aggregatdatenanalyse in der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Hrsg. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth und Detlef Jahn, 173-196. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Jankovicz, Devi. 2004. The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids. Chichester: Wiley.

Katz, Richard und Bernhard Weßels, Hrsg. 1999. The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelly Georg A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. London, New York: Routledge.

Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf von. 1996. Integration und Demokratie. In Europäische Integration, Hrsg. Markus Jachtenfuchs und Beate Koch-Kohler, 47-71. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

King, Gary und Jonathan Wand. 2007. Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes. Political Analysis 15: 46-66.

King, Gary, Christopher .J.L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon und Ajay Tandon. 2004. Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 191–207.

Kohler-Koch, Beate, Conzelmann, Thomas und Michèle Knodt. 2004. Europäische Integration – Europäisches Regieren. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Lauth, Hans-Joachim, Gert Pickel und Susanne Pickel. 2009. Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  18  

LeCompte, Margaret D. und J.P. Goetz. 1982. Ethnographic data collection and analysis in evaluation research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Fall: 387-400.

Leitner, L. 1981. Construct Validity of a Repertory Grid Measure of Personality Styles. Journal of Personality Assessment 45 (5): 539-544.

Liebermann, Evan S. 2005. Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Methods Strategy for Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435-452.

Lindberg, Leon und Stuart A. Steingold. 1970. Europe´s Would be Polity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lubbers, Marcel und Peer Scheepers. 2010. Divergent Trends of Euroscepticism in Countries and Regions oft he European Union. European Journal of Political Research 49 (6): 787-817.

Majone, Giandomenico. 1996. In Europäische Integration, Hrsg. Markus Jachtenfuchs und Beate Koch-Kohler, 225-247. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. Untitled. In Democracy and Constitutionalism in the European Union, ECSA Review 13 (2): 2-7.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 2002. In Defense oft he „Democratic Deficit“: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (4): 603-624.

Munby, H. 1982. The Place of Teachers Beliefs in Research on Teacher Thinking and Decision Making, and an Alternative Methodology. Instructional Science 11: 201-225.

Osterberg-Kaufmann, Norma. 2014. Die Wahrnehmung zur Legitimität in der EU: Kongruenz oder Inkongruenz der politischen Kultur von Eliten und Bürgern? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8/ 2 Supplement: 143-176.

Patberg, Markus. 2013. Zwei Modelle empirischer Legitimitätsforschung: Eine Replik auf Michael Zürns Gastbeitrag in der PVS 4/2011. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 54: 155-172.

Pickel, Gert. 2009. Der Einbezug des Individuums in die Länderanalyse – Umfrageforschung und vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen. Hrsg. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth und Detlef Jahn, 297-315. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pickel, Gert. 2006. Die Einschätzung der Demokratie im internationalen Vergleich. In Demokratisierung im internationalen Vergleich. Neue Erkenntnisse und Perspektiven. Hrsg. Gert Pickel und Susanne Pickel, 267-300. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pickel, Gert und Susanne Pickel. 2009. Qualitative Interviews als Verfahren des

  19  

Ländervergleichs. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen. Hrsg. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth und Detlef Jahn, 441-464. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Pickel, Susanne, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim und Detlef Jahn. 2009. Differenzierung und Vielfalt der vergleichenden Methode in den Sozialwissenschaften. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen. Hrsg. Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth und Detlef Jahn, 9-26. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2010. Demokratische Legitimität. Unparteilichkeit, Reflexivität, Nähe. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.

Rosenberger, Matthias und Matthias Freitag. 2009. Repertory Grid. In Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Hrsg. Stefan Kühl, Petra Strodtholz und Andreas Taffertshofer, 477-496. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Ruchet, Olivier. 2011. Cultural diversity, European identity and legitimacy of the EU: A review of the debate. In Cultural diversity, European identity and the legitimacy of the EU. Hrsg. Dieter Fuchs und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 3-26. Cheltenham und Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1999. Regieren in Europa. Effektiv und demokratisch? Frankfurt, New York: Campus.

Scheer, Jörn W., 2008: Constructing in the Political Realm – Reflections on the Power of a Theory, in: Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 76-85.

Schmidtke, Henning und Lars Schneider. 2012. Methoden der empirischen Legitimationsforschung: Legitimität als mehrdimensionales Konzept. Leviathan 40 (Sonderband 27): 225-242.

Schmitt, Hermann und van der Eijk, Cees. 2003: Die politische Bedeutung niedriger Beteiligungsraten bei Europawahlen, in Brettschneider, Frank (Hrsg.), Europäische Integration in der öffentlichen Meinung, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 279-302.

Stegmüller, Daniel. 2011. Apples and Oranges? The Problem of Equivalence in Comparative Research. Political Analysis 19: 471-487.

Thomassen, Jacque und Hermann Schmitt. 1999. Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wand, Jonathan. 2012 Credible Comparisons Using Interpersonally Incomparable Data: Non-parametric scales with anchoring vignettes. American Journal of Politics, Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue) 25 Jun 2012.

Weber, Max. 1992. Soziologie. Weltgeschichtliche Analysen. Politik. 6. Aufl. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.

Weßels, Bernhard. 2007. Discontent and European Identity: Three Types of

  20  

Euroscepticism. Acta Politica 42 (2-3): 287-306.

Zürn, Michael. 2011a. Die Rückkehr der Demokratiefrage. Perspektiven demokratischen Regierens und die Rolle der Politikwissenschaft. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 6: 63-74.

Zürn, Michael. 2011b. Perspektiven des demokratischen Regierens und die Rolle der Politikwissenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 52: 603-635.

Zürn, Michael. 2013. „Critical Citizens“ oder „Critical Decisions“ – Eine Erwiderung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 54 (1): 173-185.