‘The more populism types you know, the better political scientist you are?’ Machine-learning based meta-analysis of populism types in the political science literature

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F49777513%3A23330%2F24%3A43968434" target="_blank" >RIV/49777513:23330/24:43968434 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2023.2244911?fbclid=IwAR3Z0r9Q4-Ief-_Hya6_SJ26ENmIMKFHmI7-i38aryZTbW_Z9mqsWKnPcb4" target="_blank" >https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2023.2244911?fbclid=IwAR3Z0r9Q4-Ief-_Hya6_SJ26ENmIMKFHmI7-i38aryZTbW_Z9mqsWKnPcb4</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2244911" target="_blank" >10.1080/14782804.2023.2244911</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

‘The more populism types you know, the better political scientist you are?’ Machine-learning based meta-analysis of populism types in the political science literature

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This text builds on existing debates on types of populism in contemporary political science literature. Our premise is that with new types of populism emerging in the debate, and with the significantly increasing number of texts dealing with populism, the types are being hollowed out. Using a dataset consisting of a total of 539 texts published between 2011 and 2020 containing the keyword populism and using a machine-learning based classification model of concordance data, we show that (1.) ambiguities and confusions among the different types of populism become more prominent over the study period, categories become emptier and their usefulness for classification decreases, and (2.) the only stable and consensually defined type in the long run is right-wing populism. We conclude by recommending to depart from creating classifications of types of populism based on specific ideological or non-ideological features and to keep these levels (populism and other features) – within analysis – separate.

Název v anglickém jazyce

‘The more populism types you know, the better political scientist you are?’ Machine-learning based meta-analysis of populism types in the political science literature

Popis výsledku anglicky

This text builds on existing debates on types of populism in contemporary political science literature. Our premise is that with new types of populism emerging in the debate, and with the significantly increasing number of texts dealing with populism, the types are being hollowed out. Using a dataset consisting of a total of 539 texts published between 2011 and 2020 containing the keyword populism and using a machine-learning based classification model of concordance data, we show that (1.) ambiguities and confusions among the different types of populism become more prominent over the study period, categories become emptier and their usefulness for classification decreases, and (2.) the only stable and consensually defined type in the long run is right-wing populism. We conclude by recommending to depart from creating classifications of types of populism based on specific ideological or non-ideological features and to keep these levels (populism and other features) – within analysis – separate.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50601 - Political science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Contemporary European Studies

ISSN

1478-2804

e-ISSN

1478-2790

Svazek periodika

32

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

1057-1074

Kód UT WoS článku

001044259600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85167397817