Europeanizing or Securitizing the 'outsiders'? Assessing the EU's partnership-building approach with Eastern Europe

Korosteleva-Polglase, Elena (2017). Europeanizing or Securitizing the 'outsiders'? Assessing the EU's partnership-building approach with Eastern Europe. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: Economic and Social Research Council. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-850613

Data description (abstract)

This project investigates the ENP’s effectiveness in Eastern Europe (EE), in the light of a growing tension between Europeanisation and Securitisation. Although Europeanisation is seen as better suited for building a sustainable partnership with EE, being linked to the wider process of modernisation, its validity has been progressively challenged by Securitisation, which prioritises the EU’s immediate security concerns over the long-term promotion of democracy in EE. The existing conceptual tension may not only affect the ENP’s successful implementation, but also hinder the development of a constructive dialogue with the ‘outsiders’ – Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova in particular.
The project will seek to establish the following:

How are Europeanisation and Securitisation defined in the key ENP documents?
Is there a growing tension between the aims and the means of these discourses?
To what extent do these discourses correspond to those adopted by EE?
What implications may the tension have on achieving stability, security and well being in the wider Europe?
The project methodology will include content-analysis of official documents across the border; elite interviews; published data in the EU and national surveys in EE; ‘school essays on Europe’ and focus-groups in EE to allow individual-level analysis of public responses.

Data creators:

Creator Name	Affiliation	ORCID (as URL)
Korosteleva-Polglase Elena	Aberystwyth University

Sponsors:

Economic and Social Research Council

Grant reference:

RES-061-25-0001

Topic classification:

Politics

Date published:

02 Jul 2012 13:55

Last modified:

11 Jul 2017 13:25

Coverage and Methodology

Collection period:

Date from:	Date to:
1 January 2008	30 June 2011

Country:

Europe

Data collection method:

1) nation-wide representative surveys were conducted in October-November 2008; sampling was multi-staged, stratified, and random. The sample was representative of the population aged 18+ (urban and rural) by nationality, sex, region, age and education. The interview lasted on average 40-50 minutes using local languages for interlocution. The sample representation error was no more than + 3%. The survey included 10% random quality control on completion. Sampling breakdown per country was as follows: Russia (1540); Belarus (1000); Ukraine (1200) and Moldova (1000, excluding Bender & TMR regions).
The questionnaire included three thematic blocks addressing (i) foreign policy priorities (EU vis-à-vis Russia); (ii) relations with the EU (knowledge, perceptions, type of relations); and (iii) the ENP/EaP’s effectiveness (knowledge, perceptions, problems and future). The findings are broken down by country.
2) focus-groups were conducted in May-June 2009, comprising of 8 participants each who were sampled using a snowballing method and a screening questionnaire. On average individual groups included (i) students; (ii) female higher education; (iii) male higher education; (iv) think-tanks with some knowledge of the ENP/EaP; and (v) control group of mixed origin. Interviews lasted up to 2 hours; and were audio- and video-recorded, using local languages for interlocution. Geographic & numerical breakdown per country was as follows: Belarus (6 focus-groups; Minsk, Grodno, Gomel); Ukraine (10 focus-groups; Kyiv, L’vov, Donetsk); Moldova (5 focus-groups; Chisinau, Beltsi and Cahul); and Russia (10 focus-groups; Moscow, St Petersburg, Penza, Yekaterinburg). The focus-group scenario included three thematic blocks addressing (i) foreign policy priorities (EU vis-à-vis Russia); (ii) relations with the EU (knowledge, perceptions, type of relations); and (iii) the ENP/EaP’s effectiveness (knowledge, perceptions, problems and future). The findings are broken down by country.
3) interview fieldwork took place in January-February 2009. In Eastern Europe, interviews comprised of members of Parliament, senior officials of Ministries of Foreign Affairs, relevant Committees and Presidential Administrations, civil servants, mass media and think-tanks representatives, businessmen and members of political parties; as well as in-country senior officials of the EU delegations and Member States’ representations. Interviews were semi-structured, in-depth, audio-recorded when permitted, anonymised when requested, and lasted on average 40-50 minutes. Interviews were conducted in English or local language.
The questionnaire included three thematic blocks addressing foreign policy priorities (EU vis-à-vis Russia); (ii) relations with the EU (knowledge, perceptions, type of relations); and (iii) the ENP/EaP’s effectiveness (knowledge, perceptions, problems and future). The findings are broken down by country.
4) school essays were conducted in March-April 2009. Sampling involved random selection of secondary schools in urban areas, in which school leavers were requested, without prior warning, to write a maximum of two-page essay on pre-set questions. The survey lasted on average 30-45 minutes. Essays were anonymised and computerised. Numerical and geographical breakdown of survey per country was as follows: Belarus (50 essays, 4 schools in Minsk and Mozyr), Ukraine (80 essays, 3 schools in Kyiv); Moldova (50 essays, 3 schools in Chisinau) and Russia (100 essays, 4 schools in Moscow).
The essay included three main themes addressing (i) knowledge/perceptions of the EU; (ii) similarities/differences with the EU; and (iii) future relations with the EU. The findings are broken down by country.

Observation unit:

Individual

Kind of data:

Numeric

Type of data:

Qualitative and mixed methods data

Resource language:

English, Russian

Access and Administration