The open REFI-QDA standard allows for the exchange of entire projects from one QDA software to another, on condition that software vendors have built the standard into their software. To reveal the new opportunities emerging from overcoming QDA software lock-in, we describe an experiment with the standard in four separate research projects done by several researchers during a week at the Lorentz Centre (The Netherlands) in August 2019. Each researcher exchanged some processed research data between two qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) packages. We start by envisaging the development of the REFI-QDA standard, followed by the context of each research project, the type(s) of data in it, the reasons for wanting to do the transfer to another program and the lessons learnt in doing so. We conclude with the benefits of the REFI-QDA standard and the issues to be taken into account when considering a transfer between QDAS.
There is an established connection between neoliberal British austerity welfare reforms that began in 2010 and British citizens' dissatisfaction with the EU leading up to Brexit. However, scholars have yet to analyze how British citizens delegitimated the EU in the context of Brexit or if these delegitimations were linked to neoliberal EU integration policy. Using abduction, we responded to these two gaps through a longitudinal qualitative investigation of Euroscepticism in the UK from 2005 until the months following Brexit in 2016. We discovered the existence of a moral economy of Euroscepticism that was a hybrid of neoliberal and nationalist ideology. Our study provides evidence that British citizens' delegitimations of the EU—both pre-and post-Brexit—stemmed from this hybrid moral economy. Furthermore, building on the "normative policy feedback" literature, we found that the illegitimacy of the EU–and the legitimacy of Brexit–among British citizens stemmed partially from neoliberal policy reforms.
There is an established connection between neoliberal British austerity welfare reforms that began in 2010 and British citizens' dissatisfaction with the EU leading up to Brexit. However, scholars have yet to analyze how British citizens delegitimated the EU in the context of Brexit or if these delegitimations were linked to neoliberal EU integration policy. Using abduction, we responded to these two gaps through a longitudinal qualitative investigation of Euroscepticism in the UK from 2005 until the months following Brexit in 2016. We discovered the existence of a moral economy of Euroscepticism that was a hybrid of neoliberal and nationalist ideology. Our study provides evidence that British citizens' delegitimations of the EU—both pre-and post-Brexit—stemmed from this hybrid moral economy. Furthermore, building on the "normative policy feedback" literature, we found that the illegitimacy of the EU–and the legitimacy of Brexit–among British citizens stemmed partially from neoliberal policy reforms.
Recently, literature on democratic backsliding – state-led attacks on democratic institutions – in Western democracies came to the fore. Simultaneously, fewer citizens than ever engage with democratic politics and anti-system populists shake the foundations of many European democracies. Hence, our question: 'are citizens satisfied with democracy?' And, if not, 'what accounts for dissatisfaction developing over time?' Current research on citizens' democratic (dis)satisfaction has little to offer beyond the dully-predictable finding that economic well-being and support for winning parties increase satisfaction with democracy. Indeed, 'democracy's backsliding' is not borne out in survey data. The debates on the survey question on democratic satisfaction and the implications of aggregate variation across countries suggest existing research designs' inadequacy. While great strides were made in measuring democracy across countries, less is known about temporal, social, and national variation in how citizens themselves define democracy. Given democracy's multiple –sometimes incommensurable– possible meanings, what it means to citizens is subjective and context dependent. Hence, there is a gap in the literature concerning popular beliefs in democracy and their discursive embeddedness. We analyse democratic backsliding from citizens' perspective by hypothesizing 'democracy' as an empty signifier. Implying that citizens' definition of democracy determines their satisfaction with it. Empirically, this study re-analysed qualitative data (interviews and focus groups) from Belgium, France, and the UK over a period of 20-years – in a diachronic comparative perspective. By providing a detailed understanding of citizens' beliefs in democracy and their evolution in qualitative terms, we seek methodological renewal for the study of citizens' disengagement.
Recently, literature on democratic backsliding – state-led attacks on democratic institutions – in Western democracies came to the fore. Simultaneously, fewer citizens than ever engage with democratic politics and anti-system populists shake the foundations of many European democracies. Hence, our question: 'are citizens satisfied with democracy?' And, if not, 'what accounts for dissatisfaction developing over time?' Current research on citizens' democratic (dis)satisfaction has little to offer beyond the dully-predictable finding that economic well-being and support for winning parties increase satisfaction with democracy. Indeed, 'democracy's backsliding' is not borne out in survey data. The debates on the survey question on democratic satisfaction and the implications of aggregate variation across countries suggest existing research designs' inadequacy. While great strides were made in measuring democracy across countries, less is known about temporal, social, and national variation in how citizens themselves define democracy. Given democracy's multiple –sometimes incommensurable– possible meanings, what it means to citizens is subjective and context dependent. Hence, there is a gap in the literature concerning popular beliefs in democracy and their discursive embeddedness. We analyse democratic backsliding from citizens' perspective by hypothesizing 'democracy' as an empty signifier. Implying that citizens' definition of democracy determines their satisfaction with it. Empirically, this study re-analysed qualitative data (interviews and focus groups) from Belgium, France, and the UK over a period of 20-years – in a diachronic comparative perspective. By providing a detailed understanding of citizens' beliefs in democracy and their evolution in qualitative terms, we seek methodological renewal for the study of citizens' disengagement.
The logic behind a recent strain of Euroscepticism advocated by Brexiteers presents an empirical puzzle: how can voters from different economic positions publicly demand compliance with rules for fair market competition (Schmidt & Thatcher, 2014)—a key principle of neoliberal ideology—yet use nationalism to socially delegitimate the EU—whose market competition policy became increasingly neoliberal (Buch-Hansen & Wigger, 2010)? This puzzle is especially relevant given the power of nationalist and neoliberal rhetoric to mobilize popular opposition to the EU leading up Brexit (Andreouli & Nicholson, 2018). We dub this form of Euroscepticism 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' (NNLE) and investigate it empirically. Research on Brexit builds on the Euroscepticism literature that traditionally measures opposition to the EU as an attitude at the individual level (for a summary see Hobolt and de Vries 2016; also Hobolt and Wratil 2015; de Vries 2018). For instance, Hobolt found that support for Brexit "was particularly common among less-educated, poorer and older voters, and those who expressed concerns about immigration and multi-culturalism (2016, p. 1259), while others found that ethnic, economic, and regional differences structured attitudinal support for the EU (e.g. Bonikowski 2017; Flemmen and Savage 2017; Gidron and Hall 2017; Laurence et al. 2019)(Carreras, Carreras, and Bowler 2019). However, both the Euroscepticism literature and these recent works investigate Euroscepticism from the perspective of individual citizens' privately held attitudes or voting behavior rather than by empirically analyzing the socially acceptable forms of Euroscepticism citizens encounter, use, and respond to in everyday life. In this article, we investigate socially acceptable—and thus normative—Euroscepticism. Responding to the aforementioned empirical puzzle, we analyze normative 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' (NNLE). To do so, we must shift our focus from individual British citizens' surveyed pre-Brexit attitudes to social norms that are shared across economic divisions. In our analysis, we investigate this Euroscepticism as it manifests in a 'moral economy'— or popular consensus about moral principles of economic exchange that forms a normative basis of economic action, attitudes, and legitimacy (Thompson 1971; Mau 2003; Svallfors 2006; Sachweh 2012; Koos and Sachweh 2017; Taylor-Gooby et al. 2018). To conduct this analysis, we respond to an important gap in the contemporary literature concerning moral economy in terms of the evolution of normatively based popular outrage against market action. This type of analysis was central to foundational work on moral economy—which stressed the temporal element of moral economies as normative (see, Scott, 1977; Thompson, 1971). Returning to this diachronic comparative approach to moral economy, we study 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' longitudinally as a form of normative market outrage as it developed over time. Our investigation into whether the Euroscepticism of UK citizens can be explained because of the EU's infringement of the nationalist and neoliberal norms at the basis of British citizens' moral economy proceeds in three steps. First, using semi-structured interview data collected right after Brexit (2016 Qualitative Election Study of Britain) we identify popular outrage against the EU as nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism by analyzing how Brexit supporters and opponents socially legitimated their vote. Second, relying on focus group data that predates Brexit by a decade (2005-6 CITAE) we show how the deligitimation of the EU in 2016 can be traced back to shared 3 popular norms regarding EU market action that constitute a moral economy of nationalist neoliberal Euroscepticism. Third, based on our analysis of Celine Belot's semi-structured interview data (1995-6) collected just after the Maastricht Treaty, we identify the beginning stages of this normative anti-EU popular outrage. This final step does not find evidence of a nationalist neo-liberal moral economy, but instead finds what appears to be building blocks of such a moral economy. This three-step analysis then sets the stage for an investigation into this nationalist neo-liberal moral economy as 'normative policy feedback' (Rothstein 1998; Svallfors 2006; Koos and Sachweh 2017)—a perspective that sees moral economy as structured by institutionalized norms of economic exchange. Future work can then investigate this moral economy as a form of policy feedback in order to supplement work on Euroscepticism as structured by socio-economic or ethnic divisions. This paper falls into six sections dealing with the theoretical framework on moral economies, nationalism and neo-liberalism, methodology and data, the three-step analysis and discussion and conclusions.
The logic behind a recent strain of Euroscepticism advocated by Brexiteers presents an empirical puzzle: how can voters from different economic positions publicly demand compliance with rules for fair market competition (Schmidt & Thatcher, 2014)—a key principle of neoliberal ideology—yet use nationalism to socially delegitimate the EU—whose market competition policy became increasingly neoliberal (Buch-Hansen & Wigger, 2010)? This puzzle is especially relevant given the power of nationalist and neoliberal rhetoric to mobilize popular opposition to the EU leading up Brexit (Andreouli & Nicholson, 2018). We dub this form of Euroscepticism 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' (NNLE) and investigate it empirically. Research on Brexit builds on the Euroscepticism literature that traditionally measures opposition to the EU as an attitude at the individual level (for a summary see Hobolt and de Vries 2016; also Hobolt and Wratil 2015; de Vries 2018). For instance, Hobolt found that support for Brexit "was particularly common among less-educated, poorer and older voters, and those who expressed concerns about immigration and multi-culturalism (2016, p. 1259), while others found that ethnic, economic, and regional differences structured attitudinal support for the EU (e.g. Bonikowski 2017; Flemmen and Savage 2017; Gidron and Hall 2017; Laurence et al. 2019)(Carreras, Carreras, and Bowler 2019). However, both the Euroscepticism literature and these recent works investigate Euroscepticism from the perspective of individual citizens' privately held attitudes or voting behavior rather than by empirically analyzing the socially acceptable forms of Euroscepticism citizens encounter, use, and respond to in everyday life. In this article, we investigate socially acceptable—and thus normative—Euroscepticism. Responding to the aforementioned empirical puzzle, we analyze normative 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' (NNLE). To do so, we must shift our focus from individual British citizens' surveyed pre-Brexit attitudes to social norms that are shared across economic divisions. In our analysis, we investigate this Euroscepticism as it manifests in a 'moral economy'— or popular consensus about moral principles of economic exchange that forms a normative basis of economic action, attitudes, and legitimacy (Thompson 1971; Mau 2003; Svallfors 2006; Sachweh 2012; Koos and Sachweh 2017; Taylor-Gooby et al. 2018). To conduct this analysis, we respond to an important gap in the contemporary literature concerning moral economy in terms of the evolution of normatively based popular outrage against market action. This type of analysis was central to foundational work on moral economy—which stressed the temporal element of moral economies as normative (see, Scott, 1977; Thompson, 1971). Returning to this diachronic comparative approach to moral economy, we study 'nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism' longitudinally as a form of normative market outrage as it developed over time. Our investigation into whether the Euroscepticism of UK citizens can be explained because of the EU's infringement of the nationalist and neoliberal norms at the basis of British citizens' moral economy proceeds in three steps. First, using semi-structured interview data collected right after Brexit (2016 Qualitative Election Study of Britain) we identify popular outrage against the EU as nationalist neo-liberal Euroscepticism by analyzing how Brexit supporters and opponents socially legitimated their vote. Second, relying on focus group data that predates Brexit by a decade (2005-6 CITAE) we show how the deligitimation of the EU in 2016 can be traced back to shared 3 popular norms regarding EU market action that constitute a moral economy of nationalist neoliberal Euroscepticism. Third, based on our analysis of Celine Belot's semi-structured interview data (1995-6) collected just after the Maastricht Treaty, we identify the beginning stages of this normative anti-EU popular outrage. This final step does not find evidence of a nationalist neo-liberal moral economy, but instead finds what appears to be building blocks of such a moral economy. This three-step analysis then sets the stage for an investigation into this nationalist neo-liberal moral economy as 'normative policy feedback' (Rothstein 1998; Svallfors 2006; Koos and Sachweh 2017)—a perspective that sees moral economy as structured by institutionalized norms of economic exchange. Future work can then investigate this moral economy as a form of policy feedback in order to supplement work on Euroscepticism as structured by socio-economic or ethnic divisions. This paper falls into six sections dealing with the theoretical framework on moral economies, nationalism and neo-liberalism, methodology and data, the three-step analysis and discussion and conclusions.
