The impact agenda and the study of British politics

Hayton, Richard

doi:10.1057/s41293-018-0083-y

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Added to this are the threats of abuse and harassment that women often experience when engaging in public-facing impact work or when cultivating an online research presence – particularly women of colour (Savigny, 2019). We run the risk that impact incentive structures continue in some ways to encourage, in the words of Les Back(2015: 1; see also Hayton, 2018) ‘an arrogant, self-crediting, boastful and narrow’ form of academic work that positions ‘big research stars’ as ‘impact super heroes’, most of whom are senior White men within the Westminster bubble.…”

Section: Mapping Formal and Informal Obstacles To Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Politics and International Relations: A Gendered Discipline

Thomson

Kenny

2020

Political Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Mapping Formal and Informal Obstacles To Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Politics and International Relations: A Gendered Discipline

Thomson

Kenny

2020

Political Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Peter Allen (2019) has pointed out, academic knowledge can, when disseminated into the public domain, afford epistemic status and value to particular media claims, in part because of the sheen of impartiality and objectivity that is assumed to accompany scholarly research. For our part, academics are increasingly being incentivised to cultivate closer links with those -journalists, politicians, policy makers -who might disseminate as well as implement our knowledge (Hayton 2018).…”

Section: On Reflexivity and Politicised Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Lovely people but utterly deluded’?

Maiguashca

Dean

2019

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that political scientists in Britain have, for the most part, failed to adequately understand Corbynism (i.e. the movement surrounding Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn) as a distinctive iteration of left politics. To substantiate this claim, we begin by mapping a consensus in British politics scholarship about the central features of Corbynism, namely that it is a misguided politics characterised by poor leadership, a "hard left" ideological orientation, and a populist flavour. In the second part of the paper, we suggest that this unfavourable characterisation of Corbynism relies on problematic analytic assumptions about leadership, the left, and populism. Furthermore, we argue that such narratives do not withstand empirical scrutiny, largely because they fail to do justice to the heterogeneous strands that constitute the politics of Corbynism. In the final part of the paper, we offer an explanation for political scientists' trouble with Corbyn, highlighting the continued dominance of the Westminster Model, widespread confusion surrounding the descriptive/normative relation, and considerable convergence between academic and media depictions of Corbynism. Overall, we suggest that political scientists' failure to take seriously the full complexity of the Corbyn movement requires rectification.

show abstract

“…The third problem is to do with a certain squeamishness towards the affective and emotional dynamics of politics. This is mostly manifest as an absence, that is, a discussion of politics in terms of public opinion, party policy programmes and so on without consideration of the feelings and affects that underpin them (see Hayton, 2018). As Foster et al (2013: 568) found in a widely cited analysis of politics and international relations (IR) undergraduate degree programmes in the UK, ‘there is considerable bias towards institutionalised forms of power located within and through institutions, government and governance’, which comes at the expense of a consideration of the role of the private sphere and the affective dynamics of political life.…”

Section: Political Science and The Problem Of Social Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Sorted for Memes and Gifs: Visual Media and Everyday Digital Politics

Dean

2018

Political Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article identifies an unease, or even squeamishness, in the way in which political science addresses social media and digital politics, and argues that we urgently need to avoid such squeamishness if we are to adequately grasp the texture and character of contemporary digitally mediated politics. The first section highlights some of the methodological assumptions that underpin this squeamishness. Section ‘Visual Culture and the “Memeification” of Politics’, drawing on a recent research project on the changing shape of the British left, highlights a number of key trends in digital politics which deserve more attention from political scientists. In particular, I stress the ways in which politics is enacted in and through visual media such as gifs, memes and other forms of shareable visual content. Section ‘Re-Orienting the Study of Digital Politics’ then mines recent literature in media and communication studies to highlight a range of conceptual and methodological approaches that might be better able to capture the contours of these emergent forms of digitally mediated politics. In the section ‘The Pleasures and Passions of Socially Mediated Politics: Towards a Research Agenda’, I articulate a possible research agenda. Overall, I encourage political scientists to see the production and exchange of digital visual media not as some frivolous activity on the margins of politics, but as increasingly central to the everyday practices of politically engaged citizens.

show abstract

The impact agenda and the study of British politics

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Politics and International Relations: A Gendered Discipline

Politics and International Relations: A Gendered Discipline

‘Lovely people but utterly deluded’?

Sorted for Memes and Gifs: Visual Media and Everyday Digital Politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About