Advocacy intelligence and competition: Assessing lobbyists' sharing of tactical knowledge in focus group interviews

IF 2.6 3区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Wiebke Marie Junk, Joost Berkhout, Michele Crepaz, Marcel Hanegraaff
{"title":"Advocacy intelligence and competition: Assessing lobbyists' sharing of tactical knowledge in focus group interviews","authors":"Wiebke Marie Junk,&nbsp;Joost Berkhout,&nbsp;Michele Crepaz,&nbsp;Marcel Hanegraaff","doi":"10.1111/gove.12767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Advocacy intelligence is a critical organizational resource fostering long-term survival and policy success. Policy-active interest groups such as non-profits, business associations and labor unions, seek to maintain their competitive advantage among peers and therefore have incentives to remain secretive about the details of their lobbying strategies and membership mobilization. We empirically evaluate this argument based on knowledge sharing interactions in 12 focus group interviews with approximately 50 representatives of interest groups in the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark. Our research design manipulates the composition of the focus groups to vary the level of competition for political influence and membership among the participants. Strikingly, we find no evidence that either type of competition hampers knowledge sharing. Instead, our novel data point to three fruitful alternative explanations: the importance of socialization, mentorship and personalities of interest group leaders.</p>","PeriodicalId":48056,"journal":{"name":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","volume":"37 2","pages":"355-373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gove.12767","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.12767","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Advocacy intelligence is a critical organizational resource fostering long-term survival and policy success. Policy-active interest groups such as non-profits, business associations and labor unions, seek to maintain their competitive advantage among peers and therefore have incentives to remain secretive about the details of their lobbying strategies and membership mobilization. We empirically evaluate this argument based on knowledge sharing interactions in 12 focus group interviews with approximately 50 representatives of interest groups in the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark. Our research design manipulates the composition of the focus groups to vary the level of competition for political influence and membership among the participants. Strikingly, we find no evidence that either type of competition hampers knowledge sharing. Instead, our novel data point to three fruitful alternative explanations: the importance of socialization, mentorship and personalities of interest group leaders.

Abstract Image

宣传情报与竞争:在焦点小组访谈中评估游说者分享战术知识的情况
宣传情报是促进长期生存和政策成功的重要组织资源。非营利组织、商业协会和工会等积极参与政策制定的利益团体,都希望在同行中保持竞争优势,因此有动机对其游说策略和成员动员的细节保密。我们通过对荷兰、爱尔兰和丹麦约 50 名利益集团代表进行 12 次焦点小组访谈,根据知识共享互动对这一论点进行了实证评估。我们的研究设计操纵了焦点小组的组成,以改变参与者对政治影响力和成员资格的竞争程度。令人吃惊的是,我们没有发现任何证据表明这两种竞争会阻碍知识共享。相反,我们的新数据指出了三种富有成效的替代解释:社会化、导师制和利益集团领导者个性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
10.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Governance provides a forum for the theoretical and practical discussion of executive politics, public policy, administration, and the organization of the state. Published in association with International Political Science Association''s Research Committee on the Structure & Organization of Government (SOG), it emphasizes peer-reviewed articles that take an international or comparative approach to public policy and administration. All papers, regardless of empirical focus, should have wider theoretical, comparative, or practical significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信