Search

When writing qualitative case study research, most of us find that the very stuff of analysis—that is, the qualitative data—is lengthy and nuanced. Additionally, qualitative methods are often used in situations where “theories are underdeveloped and concepts are vague” (Ragin, Berg-Schlosser, and de Meur 1998, 750). To be robust and compelling, the data we use may require lengthy explanation, precisely because we wish to capture complexity. Overall, qualitative research relies on words—often lots of them—to get our point across.

Supplemental material, CPS_Appendix_A_20-07-14 for What Drives the Immigration-Welfare Policy Link? Comparing Germany, France and the United Kingdom by Mike Slaven, Sara Casella Colombeau and Elisabeth Badenhoop in Comparative Political Studies

It has frequently been observed that irregular migration is a common object of symbolic policy-making: the use of cosmetic adjustments to signal action, rather than substantive measures that achieve stated goals. Yet there is little research analysing the considerations driving policy actors to adopt such approaches. Drawing on existing literature, we distinguish three theoretical accounts of symbolic policy-making: manipulation, compensation, and adaptation. We explore these accounts through examining the emergence of symbolic policies in UK immigration control in the 1960s. Through detailed archival research, we reconstruct the deliberations leading to a series of Home Office decisions to crack down on irregular entry – decisions which officials felt were not operationally sensible, but which were based on popular political narratives of the problem. We conclude that the UK’s adoption of symbolic policy was a clear case of adaptation: a series of concessions to simplistic notions of control that did not chime with official views of what would work, and which were reluctantly embraced for reasons of political expediency. In conclusion, we suggest the need for more fine-grained analysis of the deliberations underpinning decision-making in bureaucracies, in order to produce more nuanced accounts of political rationalities in the area of immigration policy.