In text analysis studies coders have to make qualitative decisions. These decisions are based on interpretations of the texts under study. In such situations it is very helpful to have coding rules. These do not only help as an aid to the coder, but are also useful for readers of the research report that will follow. The rules make visible in considerable extent how the coding task has been performed, they take care of transparency.This contribution focuses on motions that have been treated in the Dutch House of Representatives. Motions usually contain information on why they are needed, the proposing member usually also tells about it. There is a discussion with the secretary, who is supposed to put the motion into effect if it is accepted. The secretary even has to give an advice. It is assumed that under these discussion(s) a cognitive map containing some game theoretic representation can be found. Rules are discussed that are used to code the types of maps that might be found.
Cite this paper
Popping, R. (2013) Coding Issues in Cognitive Mapping of Games. Open Journal of Political Science, 3, 16-23. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2013.31003.
 Anthony, D. L., Heckathorn, D. D., & Maser, S. M. (1994). Rational rhetoric in politics—The debate over ratifying the US constitution. Rationality and Society, 6, 489-518.
 Axelrod, R. (1976). The analysis of cognitive maps. In R. Axelrod (Ed.), Structure of decision. The cognitive maps of political elites (pp. 5573). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 Bara, J., Weale, A., & Bicquelet, A. (2007). Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Political Science Review, 13, 577-605. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00090.x
 Carley, K. M. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1993 (pp. 75-126). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
 Harris, K. L. (1996). Content analysis in negotiation research: A review and guide. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 458-467. doi:10.3758/BF03200525
 Holsti, O. (1976). Foreign policy formation viewed cognitively. In R. Axelrod (Ed.), Structure of decision. The cognitive maps of political elites (pp. 18-54). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
 Laver, M., & Garry, J. (2000). Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Sciences, 44, 619-634.
 McLean, C., & Patterson, A. (2006). A precautionary approach to foreign policy? A preliminary analysis of Tony Blair’s speeches on Iraq. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 8, 351-367.
 Popping, R. (2010). Ag09. A computer program for interrater agreement for judgments. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 391-396.
 Popping, R., & Roberts, C. W. (2009). Coding issues in semantic text analysis. Field Methods, 21, 244-264.
 Roberts, C. W. (1989). Other than counting words: A linguistic approach to content analysis. Social Forces, 68, 147-177.
 Roberts, C. W., Popping, R., & Pan, Y. (2009). Modalities of democratic transformation: Forms of public discourse within Hungary’s largest newspaper, 1990-1997. International Sociology, 24, 498-525.
 Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.
 Shapiro, G., & Markoff, J. (1998). Revolutionary demands: A content analysis of the Cahiers de Doléances of 1789. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
 Slapin, J. B., & Proksch, S. O. (2008). A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 705-722. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00338.x
 Wijnja, M. (2010). Beleidsmakers of hypeparlement? Groningen: Department of Sociology.