An Interpretivist Research Agenda for EU Studies

At the turn of the millennium, a number of major figures called for “analytical ecumenism” in the study of the European Union (Moravcsik 1999; Jupille, Caporaso, and Checkel 2003; Checkel and Moravcsik 2001; Pollack 2005). In the views of these authors, metatheoretical battles had been fought to a standstill and to allow philosophical unknowables discipline actual research would, in their view, arbitrarily cut researchers off from making important empirical and theoretical insights. It was argued at the time that EU scholars could attain maximum analytical leverage by comparing – perhaps even combining – various approaches in their research. EU studies is at present characterized by a large number of theories and approaches: liberal intergovernmentalism, constructivism, the new institutionalism, governance theory and Europeanization theory. The current analytical ecumenism, however, has not been without its exclusions, namely interpretivism. The interpretive approach focuses on the beliefs of actors, the meanings of their actions, and explains their beliefs by locating them in historical traditions and in response to particular dilemmas. Scholars have already established the fruitfulness of interpretivist theory in the study of governance and domestic policy (Bevir and Phillips, forthcoming; Bevir and Rhodes, 2003, 2006; Edwards 2011; Wood et. al. 2008; Booth 2010), foreign policy (Bevir, Daddow, and Hall 2013) as well as role theory in International Relations (Wehner and Thies 2014). However, the interpretive approach has not had much impact on the study of the EU. This article addresses this omission by assessing the contribution that an interpretivist approach could make to the study of the EU. The Paper has five aims. First, it defines interpretivist theory, explains its philosophical foundations and details the analytical concepts that it uses: tradition, dilemma and narrative. Second, it outlines the fundamental differences between interpretivist theory and other approaches to the study of the EU. Special attention is given to distinguishing the interpretivist approach from its close cousin constructivism, a theory it is easily and often confused with because of their shared focus on ideas. Third, it illustrates the usefulness of interpretivism by drawing on my research on the EU and the constitutionalization of democracy. Fourth, the paper responds to a number of common criticisms that have impeded the advancement of the interpretivist approach: (a) that it is a species of postmodernism, (b) its critique of structural explanations leads to a naïve voluntarism, (c) the focus on the meanings of actions enables understanding but not explanation, (d) interpretivism rejects the possibility of generalization, and (e) endorsing interpretivist theory means a whole sale rejection non-interpretivist research. Fifth, I outline the general pay-offs that adopting an interpretivist approach would have for EU studies and suggest the research agenda that might then arise. The interpretivist approach has largely been neglected by EU studies. That neglect is partly due to a misunderstanding of what it is, the criticisms that it is susceptible to, and how it can be successfully employed. In addressing these issues, this article underscores the contribution an interpretivist research agenda could make to the study of the EU.