Interview with Dr. Emmy Ruiter

Why did you choose the part-time Ph.D. programme in European Studies at Maastricht University? 

I was familiar with Maastricht University Campus in Brussels. As I lived and worked in Brussels at the time, the attraction to the programme was a combination of location, part-time set-up, and last but not least, the expertise within UM on the topic of my interest, i.e., European administration.

How did you choose the topic of your Ph.D. research? Was it directly linked to your job/professional activity at the time?

My inspiration for the topic was drawn directly from my previous professional experience. My years living in Brussels and working in EU public affairs are what inspired me to investigate the role of advisors in decision-making processes of the European Parliament. As a lobbyist, I often encountered the different types of EP supporting staff and became intrigued with the special position of political group advisors.

Did the Ph.D. sessions at UM Campus Brussels contribute to your thesis progress?

Definitely, I found them really useful and inspiring. Working on a Ph.D. project is a very autonomous activity. I felt that the sessions keep you motivated, on track, and provide you with the opportunity to share experiences (and frustrations) with fellow Ph.D. students. In fact, I would recommend having more sessions, also after the first year.

What was the main finding of your Ph.D. research?

One of the objectives was to show how advice works in practice, connecting theoretical discussions on the functioning of the European Parliament to insights into how advisors deal with delegated responsibilities. My research provided two key contributions in this sense. First, a link was made between the theoretical and practical perspectives by providing an analytical tool to enable the separate assessment of the political and technical dimensions. Second, the large-scale empirical study of EP group advisors shed light on how advisors generally operate in EP compromise building.

My research has demonstrated that political advisors participate extensively in the intra-EP compromise-building process preceding trilogues. Without specific instructions from MEPs, they contribute to building the broad agreement that is needed in Parliament. In that way, they can shape the processes through which the EP’s trilogue mandate is constructed and pro-actively contribute to the direction of a compromise. By exploring the conditions under which such pro-active involvement is tolerated or restricted by MEPs, my research revealed two patterns that explain the discretionary power of political group advisors (PGAs). First, PGAs base their actions on what they deem to be in line with the group’s agenda. This means that they have considerable room for interpretation since there generally are multiple interests to consider within a group, depending on the number and diversity of (national) delegations. It also means that the role, and room for manoeuvre, differs per group. Second, PGAs’ opportunity for pro-active involvement is highest during the early stages of co-ordination, ahead of group and shadows meetings. However, their ability to exert a pro-active role depends on trust. In fact, trust is identified as an indispensable condition since only those PGAs considered trustworthy will be allocated work by (shadow) rapporteurs. Furthermore, PGAs’ autonomy is conditioned by their political sensitivity and informal networks, which enable them to accurately represent political positions and formulate strategies acceptable to MEPs.

How would you explain the relevance of your Ph.D. to the person on the street, who is not familiar with EU politics/policy-making?

My research is about gaining a better understanding of how political decisions are prepared. We know that elected representatives cannot do everything themselves. However, informal preparations, taking place behind the scenes by staff members, remain obscure. To fully grasp EU negotiations, we need to understand how EU institutions internally prepare for these negotiations and what the involvement of staff actors is in this process. The findings of my Ph.D. project shed light on these informal processes and contribute to explaining the discretion of political advisors in building compromises.

How did the part-time Ph.D. programme fit alongside your job/professional activity?

At the start of the programme, I lived and worked in Brussels, which made it easy to attend sessions. During my Ph.D., I moved to Amsterdam which slightly complicated things. Although, it will surely be hard and complicated combining work and research regardless of where you live or work. Personally, I found it particularly hard to find the time, quiet and concentration to write. The interview and survey work could relatively easily be combined with my day-to-day job. I would schedule interviews somewhere in between, or at the end of a workday. The analysis, writing, and especially tying everything together was really challenging. In the end, I decided to take a six-month sabbatical in order to finish writing my thesis.

Did the Ph.D. degree open new opportunities for you in your professional life?

Not yet. Although I work within a university administration and when working with and for researchers, it is appreciated that you have completed a Ph.D.

Would you recommend the part-time Ph.D. programme in European Studies at Campus Brussels, Maastricht University?

Yes! On the condition that you are intrinsically motivated, doing it out of intellectual curiosity and drive. I believe that that is truly the only way that you can get through the tough times and carry on.

What would be your one advice to the potential part-time Ph.D. candidates? (something you have discovered during your PhD studies)

Create some time (1-2 months) off from work, both in the first year and towards the end, to really dive into the work with as little distractions as possible.