Britain’s EU referendum: How did political science rise to the challenge? An assessment of online contributions during the campaign
- 80 Downloads
The Brexit referendum was an unprecedented event in the context of British politics, but it was also a defining moment for the discipline of political science. Never before had political scientists in the UK faced such demand for public engagement against the backdrop of a highly polarised electoral campaign. This article assesses how scholars met this challenge by analysing online contributions to established academic websites in the 6 months prior to the vote. It highlights that high-profile political campaigns pose a distinct dilemma for political scientists: on the one hand, the reach of their contributions is far greater when they take a positional stance on an issue, yet the value of political science rests on its credibility, which can come under threat if the public perceives the discipline, and academics more generally, to represent partisan viewpoints.
KeywordsEU referendum Impact Internet Media Public engagement
- Becker, S. O., Fetzer, T., and Novy, D. 2016. Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis (No. 305). Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).Google Scholar
- Begg, I., and K. Featherstone. 2016. Commission on the future of Britain in Europe. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
- Brown, S.A., S. Dhingra, T. Oliver, and T. Prelec. 2016. The Brexit scenarios: Towards a new UK-EU relationship. Barcelona: Barcelona Centre for International Affairs.Google Scholar
- Brumley, C., C. Gilson, A. Mollett, and S. Williams. 2017. Communicating your research with social media: A practical guide to using blogs, podcasts, data visualisations and video. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- EBU. 2016. Trust in Media 2016. https://www.ebu.ch/publications/trust-in-media-2016. Accessed 1 September 2017.
- Hix, S. 2015. Brits know less about the EU than anyone else. European Politics and Policy (EUROPP). Google Scholar
- Jackson, D., Thorsen, E., and Wring, D. 2016. EU Referendum analysis 2016: Media, Voters and the Campaign, joint publication by the Political Studies Association. Loughborough University, and Bournemouth University.Google Scholar
- Lakkaraju, H., J.J. McAuley, and J. Leskovec. 2013. What’s in a name? Understanding the interplay between titles, content, and communities in social media. ICWSM 1 (2): 311–320.Google Scholar
- Levy, D.A.L., Aslan, B., and Bironzo, D. 2016. UK Press Coverage of the EU Referendum. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journaliam, http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/uk-press-coverage-eu-referendum. Accessed 1 September 2017.
- McFadden, P., and A. Tarrant. 2015. What would ‘out’ look like? Testing Eurosceptic alternatives to EU membership. London: Policy Network.Google Scholar
- Menon, A., and J. Portes. 2016. You’re wrong Michael Gove—Experts are trusted far more than you. London: The Guardian.Google Scholar
- Piris, J. 2016. If the UK votes to leave: The seven alternatives to EU membership if the UK votes to leave. London: Centre for European Reform.Google Scholar
- Pearce, S. 2016. Young people and the referendum: 5 key lessons from polling day. WISERD: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
- Roelofs, P., and Gallien, M. 2017. Clickbait and impact: How academia has been hacked. Impact of Social Sciences Blog.Google Scholar
- Sen, Ananya, and Catherine E. Tucker. 2017. Information shocks and Internet Silos: Evidence from creationist friendly curriculum. Social Science Research Network (SSRN).Google Scholar
- Terras, M. 2012. The verdict: Is blogging or tweeting about research papers worth it?. Impact of Social Sciences Blog.Google Scholar