Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Jeremy Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour party has been contrary to the publicly-stated expectations of many pundits and political scientists. This punditry has underpinned coverage of Corbyn and his Labour party that continually plays out in print, broadcast, and social media. My claim is that the manner in which Corbyn and his supporters were discussed by prominent political scientists and pundits was reflective of a dismissive underlying attitude towards the political dynamics that his candidacy and subsequent leadership represent. In this paper, I do three things. First, I identify a group of intensely-politically involved individuals who collectively hold the power to shape shared political meanings and understandings and locate some British political scientists within it. Second, I outline five points of opposition that this group had to Corbyn, demonstrating that although these maintain an appearance of objectivity, they are nonetheless normative in nature and largely conform to a dominant ideological standpoint seemingly shared among the group. Third, I reflect on the role of British political science in this context, raising concerns that our inculcation into this group might be affecting our academic endeavours as well as how we present ourselves and our work to the wider public.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages19
JournalBritish Politics
Early online date2 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2 Apr 2019

Cite this

Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem. / Allen, Peter.

In: British Politics, 02.04.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{991d8b21b439457b9072dd6b572be341,
title = "Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem",
abstract = "Jeremy Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour party has been contrary to the publicly-stated expectations of many pundits and political scientists. This punditry has underpinned coverage of Corbyn and his Labour party that continually plays out in print, broadcast, and social media. My claim is that the manner in which Corbyn and his supporters were discussed by prominent political scientists and pundits was reflective of a dismissive underlying attitude towards the political dynamics that his candidacy and subsequent leadership represent. In this paper, I do three things. First, I identify a group of intensely-politically involved individuals who collectively hold the power to shape shared political meanings and understandings and locate some British political scientists within it. Second, I outline five points of opposition that this group had to Corbyn, demonstrating that although these maintain an appearance of objectivity, they are nonetheless normative in nature and largely conform to a dominant ideological standpoint seemingly shared among the group. Third, I reflect on the role of British political science in this context, raising concerns that our inculcation into this group might be affecting our academic endeavours as well as how we present ourselves and our work to the wider public.",
author = "Peter Allen",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1057/s41293-019-00115-6",
language = "English",
journal = "British Politics",
issn = "1746-918X",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

AU - Allen, Peter

PY - 2019/4/2

Y1 - 2019/4/2

N2 - Jeremy Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour party has been contrary to the publicly-stated expectations of many pundits and political scientists. This punditry has underpinned coverage of Corbyn and his Labour party that continually plays out in print, broadcast, and social media. My claim is that the manner in which Corbyn and his supporters were discussed by prominent political scientists and pundits was reflective of a dismissive underlying attitude towards the political dynamics that his candidacy and subsequent leadership represent. In this paper, I do three things. First, I identify a group of intensely-politically involved individuals who collectively hold the power to shape shared political meanings and understandings and locate some British political scientists within it. Second, I outline five points of opposition that this group had to Corbyn, demonstrating that although these maintain an appearance of objectivity, they are nonetheless normative in nature and largely conform to a dominant ideological standpoint seemingly shared among the group. Third, I reflect on the role of British political science in this context, raising concerns that our inculcation into this group might be affecting our academic endeavours as well as how we present ourselves and our work to the wider public.

AB - Jeremy Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour party has been contrary to the publicly-stated expectations of many pundits and political scientists. This punditry has underpinned coverage of Corbyn and his Labour party that continually plays out in print, broadcast, and social media. My claim is that the manner in which Corbyn and his supporters were discussed by prominent political scientists and pundits was reflective of a dismissive underlying attitude towards the political dynamics that his candidacy and subsequent leadership represent. In this paper, I do three things. First, I identify a group of intensely-politically involved individuals who collectively hold the power to shape shared political meanings and understandings and locate some British political scientists within it. Second, I outline five points of opposition that this group had to Corbyn, demonstrating that although these maintain an appearance of objectivity, they are nonetheless normative in nature and largely conform to a dominant ideological standpoint seemingly shared among the group. Third, I reflect on the role of British political science in this context, raising concerns that our inculcation into this group might be affecting our academic endeavours as well as how we present ourselves and our work to the wider public.

UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-019-00115-6

U2 - 10.1057/s41293-019-00115-6

DO - 10.1057/s41293-019-00115-6

M3 - Article

JO - British Politics

JF - British Politics

SN - 1746-918X

ER -