{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023936170212765957, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.451428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Behavioural Consequences of Restrictions on Plenary Access: Parliamentary Questions in the Norwegian Storting

Questioning is an important activity in the Norwegian Storting. This research suggests that, in explaining and drawing inferences from patterns of questioning, attention must be given to the rules of the game. Specifically, distinguishing between open access or restricted access to questioning is crucial. In the Norwegian Storting, access to written questions is relatively open. Parties exert no (or only mild) control; formulation of questions are left to individual discretion. The same can be said about ordinary (oral) questions in Question Time. Question Hour, on the other hand, is limited to exactly one hour, and access is constrained. Restricted access leads to centralisation of agenda power to the party leadership. The consequences of access rules are shown by comparing behavioural patterns in Question Time (relatively open access) and Question Hour (restricted access). The results suggest that access rules must be accounted and controlled for in any research exploring behaviour through questions.