Studying Polarisation, But Recommending Strategies for Depolarisation?

Up next in the session at ECREA 2024 is Christel van Eck, whose focus is on how we understand the concept of depolarisation. Her project conducted a systematic literature review of the (de)polarisation literature, eventually identifying some 89 relevant articles from a much larger list of work that somehow mentions the concept. It coded these for a number of features, including conceptual, analytical, and methodological factors and the evidence base provided.

The majority of these articles came from communication, political science, and psychology; the vast majority addressed polarisation rather than depolarisation; they focussed on ideological more than affective polarisation; examined processes in general politics; and preferred quantitative methods. Factors for polarisation were more commonly supported through empirical analysis than factors for depolarisation; there was only one empirically supported recommendation for depolarisation.

Factors related to knowledge, critical thinking, and education; communication that resonates with cultural worldviews, ideologies, and emotions; avoiding exposure to dissonant views; and social media designs that facilitate cross-cutting communication were all identified as factors of depolarisation with empirical support. Most such papers adopted normative ideals related to deliberative democracy, and valorised exposure to dissonant perspectives.

Many articles therefore study polarisation, but then make non-evidence-based recommendations on approaches to depolarisation; this suggests that more research should address depolarisation directly through empirical studies.