1. Introduction

By public-private interaction this book understands the interaction between governmental and EU structures (on the one hand) and entities in the business (broadly defined) and civil society sectors (on the other hand).

Shale gas is natural gas found in natural underground rock fissures and rocks need to be broken open (‘fractured’ or ‘fracked’) to release the gas through a process known scientifically as ‘hydraulic fracturing’ and referred to in the policy circles in Brussels by using the more colloquial term ‘fracking’.

In a few years’ time, it is debatable if interviewees would be able to provide equally accurate information, as they might forget whom they interacted with, the details of the cases, and so forth.

Buchan argues that energy security is not of equal concern in all energy sectors and that some might be more prone to energy insecurity. According to him, the gas sector which depends on foreign gas and is linked to fixed supply networks is more likely to raise energy security concerns, while the electricity sector is more concerned with network reliability and the consistency of renewable energy sources (Buchan 2010, p. 370).

To increase the transparency of EU decision-making, the European Parliament and the European Commission introduced a Transparency Register. One can perform lobbying and advocacy functions without being registered. However, there are incentives for joining the Register, including physical access to the premises of the institutions. Acceding to the Register is a condition that needs to be fulfilled before requesting accreditation to the European Parliament (EP).

Atkinson and Coleman (1992, pp. 157–159) provide a similar definition.

Policy networks can take different forms, depending on their characteristics. In addition to advocacy coalitions, they can take the shape of policy communities characterized by ‘high interdependence, stable relationships, restricted membership, insulated from other networks’ (Eikeland 2011, p. 246), or issue networks defined by ‘limited interdependence, open membership, less stable relationships, less insulated from other networks’ (Eikeland 2011, pp. 246–247). They can also be epistemic communities (Haas 1992a, b) if their main function is the transfer of expertise and knowledge. An epistemic community is defined as: ‘a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area’ (Haas 1992a, p. 3). Keck and Sikkink (1998) discuss the role that ‘transnational advocacy networks’ of activists play in international politics. All these types draw on a network-like form of social organization.

Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier (1994) show that two different coalitions work on US automotive control: an environmental coalition (environmental and public health groups, officials in federal and state air pollution agencies, legislators, researchers and journalists) and an economic efficiency coalition (automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, individuals in legislatures, research enterprises and media). Analysing the developments of the environmental policy concerning Lake Tahoe, Sabatier and Brasher (1993) showed that, over time, policy actors formed two major coalitions, that is an economic development/property rights coalition and an opposing environmental coalition.

Building on existing literature (Jenkins-Smith and St. Clair 1993; Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1994), he claims that: ‘the most fundamental (and probably least changing) beliefs of material groups are not very abstract. Instead, they tend to be quite concrete: material self-interest, operationalized as profit or market share’ (Sabatier 1998, p. 110).

A function scholarship associates to interest groups (Bouwen 2002, p. 369; Dür and Mateo 2012, p. 972) operating in the EU context.

Nowadays, the concept of ‘frame’ is used to provide explanations all across the social sciences (Benford and Snow 2000). It is present in cognitive psychology, linguistics, media studies, and political science (Rein and Schön 1993; Triandafyllidou and Fotiou 1998).

Snow et al. also advance the concept of frame transformation, but I do not find it very different from the concept of frame amplification. Frame transformation: ‘redefines activities, events, and biographies, that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework, in terms of another framework’ (Snow et al. 1986, p. 474 drawing on Goffman 1974, pp. 43–44).

This is not to say that there is not also literature claiming that specific identity categories, such as race and class, play an important role in determining successful frames (Ernst 2009). Considering race and class would not make any difference here as the actors involved in the cases studied are white policy elites.

In network studies, network members are referred to as ‘nodes’. In social network analysis software they can be referred to as ‘vertices’ and connections between them as ‘edges’. Connections between actors are also referred to as ‘links’ and ‘ties’ in this book.

Carpenter 2011 makes this argument in her study of the advocacy networks demanding the banning of land mines, blinding lasers, depleted uranium munitions, and autonomous weapons.

Several scholars have written on the power that brokers possess given their ability to bridge structural holes in networks and connect actors or network segments that would remain disconnected in their absence in transnational activist networks (Carpenter 2011), terrorist networks (Enders and Su 2007), or state networks (Hafner-Burton et al. 2009).

It is actually a common practice for researchers to: ‘seek to recruit participants who represent a variety of positions in relation to the research topic, of a kind that might be expected to throw light on meaningful differences in experience’ (King and Horrocks 2010, p. 29).

Rubin and Rubin claim that: ‘over the course of a long, in-depth interview, and better yet several, you can usually figure out where a person is exaggerating and what areas he or she is ignoring’ (Rubin and Rubin 2005, p. 71).

This research follows a methodology embraced by other studies of advocacy coalitions. Well-established studies of networked structures also draw on a set of mixed methods and interviews as the main data collection method. For example, Chilvers (2008) combined interview and documentary methods with social network analysis in his study of an environmental epistemic community, while Hollis (2010) draws in his study of trans-governmental networks on a combination of interviews with network members, website analysis, and analysis of the minutes of network meetings in order to trace network connections. In their study of a religious activist network, Kenney et al. (2012) use a combination of interviews, participant observation, and analysis of documents.

Forty-two interviewees are directly quoted in this book on this case study.

Forty-two interviewees are directly quoted in this book on this case study.

The snowball technique was successfully used to map networked structures and their dynamics also in other studies (Carroll and Ratner 1996).

Several network peripheral nodes were not interviewed as this process would have been very resource intensive and the probability of them generating additional information was low.

The main concern with technology-mediated interviews is that some people might not have access to it (Hewson 2007) and the sound and video quality might be poor. Otherwise, scholars express confidence in the method (Matthews and Cramer 2008; King and Horrocks 2010). Access to technology was not an issue for those interviewed for this research.

Mérand et al. 2011 use a similar strategy to increase the response rate by complementing face-to-face interviews with questionnaires that the interviewees filled in themselves.

The promise of anonymity also encourages sources to disclose more information than they would in its absence.

Previous cases using participant observation to study this particular field include the study on the logic of access of corporate lobbying in the European Union conducted by Bouwen 2002.

I would send my interview invitations on a Tuesday (as Monday is a busier day), mentioning to the interviewee that I would like to interview them the following week and suggesting two days of that week when I could meet. The email included brief information on me, my research, and the anticipated duration of the interview, and the informed consent form in attachment. If I received no reply to my initial email, I sent a second invitation (a reminder) a week later. In the case of no reply, I sent a third and final invitation the following week and tried also to reach the person’s assistant by phone and express how important the interview was for my research. Phoning is important because people I needed to interview, for instance EU officials, receive dozens of meeting/interview requests during the week via email and this showed them that I was really interested in meeting them, that I am more eager than other researchers, journalists, or lobbyists.

The status of visiting researcher with the European Parliament allowed me the access I needed for participant observation. However, by associating myself with the European Parliament, I ran the risk that some interviewees might not disclose their true view on the European Union institutions in the answers they provided me with during interviews. I reduced this tendency by making it clear that I am approaching them in my capacity as an independent researcher, conducting independent research funded by an academic institution, and that my affiliation with the EP was actually intended to support my research.

Other social network analysis software includes UCINET and ORA (used, for instance, by Kenney et al. 2012). NodeXL was chosen because it is very user-friendly and can be used not only for data analysis but also to generate sociograms of high graphic quality.