DOI: 10.60629/fssp-bp88
title: 3SI-ED: Three Seas Initiative Expert Discourse Dataset (2014–2025)

description: <p>The <strong>Three Seas Initiative Expert Discourse Dataset (2014–2025)</strong> is a structured dataset comprising 860 expert recommendations extracted from 54 analytical reports published between 2014 and 2025 by leading research institutes and think tanks focusing on Central Europe and the Three Seas Initiative (3SI). The dataset covers expert recommendations related to infrastructure development, security, resilience, and regional cooperation, with particular emphasis on digital and institutional dimensions.</p><p>The material was coded using an original categorization scheme consisting of nine thematic areas (including institutionalisation, infrastructure, security, digital resilience, finance, and societal and normative dimensions). Each recommendation was assigned to one or multiple categories, enabling the analysis of thematic co-occurrence as well as diachronic changes in expert discourse, including comparisons between the pre-2022 and post-2022 periods.</p><p>The dataset was designed as an empirical foundation for research on the discursive construction of infrastructure resilience and security within expert debates on the Three Seas Initiative. It is suitable for reuse in studies in European studies, international relations, security studies, public policy analysis, and research on the role of expert knowledge and think tanks in policy-making processes.</p>
description: <p><strong>Procedural framework</strong></p><p><br /></p><p>The Three Seas Initiative Expert Discourse Dataset (2014–2025) was compiled using thematic content analysis, combined with AI-supported comparative synthesis. This methodological approach enables the systematic identification, categorisation, and comparison of expert recommendations formulated in think-tank reports and policy analyses concerning the Three Seas Initiative (3SI).</p><p><br /></p><p>The primary objective of the procedure was to deconstruct layers of expert recommendations and to capture dominant as well as competing ways of conceptualising development, security, and resilience within the 3SI framework.</p><p><strong>Step 1: Identification of meaning units</strong></p><p><br /></p><p>The basic unit of analysis was a meaning unit (MU), defined as the smallest fragment of text containing a self-contained and unambiguous recommendation, policy proposal, or evaluative statement related to the Three Seas Initiative.</p><p><br /></p><p>Criteria for identifying meaning units:</p><p><br /></p><p>A meaning unit had to:</p><p>include a call for action, a proposed solution, or a normative assessment of policy direction,</p><p>refer directly to the Three Seas Initiative or to its functioning within the broader Central European context,</p><p>be assignable to at least one analytical category defined in the codebook,</p><p>retain semantic coherence allowing independent analysis outside its original paragraph.</p><p><br /></p><p>Meaning units were identified manually by the author based on full-text analysis of the selected reports and policy papers.</p><p><br /></p><p><strong>Step 2: Coding of meaning units</strong></p><p><br /></p><p>Each identified meaning unit was assigned to one primary analytical category and, where applicable, to one or more secondary categories, following the definitions provided in the Codebook.</p><p><br /></p><p>The coding scheme consists of nine thematic categories reflecting key dimensions of expert discourse on the Three Seas Initiative, including institutionalisation, infrastructure, security, digital resilience, finance, external relations, and societal-normative aspects.</p><p><br /></p><p>Coding followed an iterative process. Artificial intelligence tools were used at the initial stage to support text segmentation and preliminary ordering of the material; however, all final coding decisions were made by the author through manual verification.</p><p><br /></p><p><strong>Step 3: Comparative synthesis</strong></p><p><br /></p><p>The final stage involved a comparative synthesis of the coded meaning units using both quantitative and qualitative techniques.</p><p><br /></p><p>The procedure included:</p><p>aggregation of recommendations by analytical category,</p><p>identification of patterns of category co-occurrence,</p><p>comparative analysis across countries and analytical centres,</p><p>identification of recurring (convergent) recommendations,</p><p>identification of divergent recommendations,</p><p>extraction of recommendations unique or specific to particular countries, institutions, or time periods.</p><p><br /></p><p>This procedure enables diachronic analysis of discursive shifts, including comparisons between the pre-2022 and post-2022 periods, and provides a foundation for further quantitative analyses and constructivist interpretations.</p>