by Kirill Filimonov (Charles University)
Discussions about the deficit – or, often portrayed more dramatically, crisis – of European democracy persist from various angles, from critique of populism to EU bureaucracy. These claims often rely on reductive definitions and assumptions that remain largely unexplored. Indeed, our understanding of democracy and media predominantly stems from a select few sources, many of which originate from academic research. But does it give us the full picture?
Our recent literature review on democracy and media in Europe with Vaia Doudaki offers insights into the research conducted over the past 25 years and identifies areas that have been overlooked.
Protestors in Lyon, France on November 29, 2020. Ev / ©Unsplash.com
It’s (not) all numbers
In research on democracy and media, what takes precedence? In short, the answer lies in numbers: the majority of studies lean towards quantifiable factors. How to assess the effectiveness of democratic institutions? What is the correlation between social class and voter turnout, or education level and political efficacy? Academics tend to favor positivist values of causality, prediction, and universality – research qualities that allow them to reach broader conclusions. However, behind its appearance of objectivity, quantitative methodology often carries normative assumptions. In the field of journalism studies, for example, there is an emphasis on the media’s watchdog function but its insufficiencies are rarely discussed.
Qualitative methods may restrict predictability, yet they afford a deeper thoroughness. Interestingly, research on democracy and media that employ this approach often focus on social movements outside of the political mainstream, such as the solidarity networks formed during anti-austerity protests in Southern Europe. It is in this research area that we find studies of alternative communicative practices and organizations such as community media. Here, the dominant values of objectivity and impartiality give way to other, less explored forms of doing journalism such as attachment to social justice claims.
Ultimately, much of this research culminates in policy recommendations. This is a welcome contribution that provides a tangible framework for improvements. However, it does not always consider the specific contexts in which these changes are to be implemented. Better examples, which we bring up in our review, include analyses of local political participation and media production practices through thick descriptions and in-depth interviews.
Strengthening institutions, muting activists
Another pattern underscored in the review is the prevalence of empirical research on representative democracy as opposed to direct engagement. These studies conceive citizens primarily in their capacity as voters. Research on democratic conditions, for example, keeps a predominantly electoral focus and addresses issues of trust and education mainly within the context of voter turnout and political preferences. David van Reybrouck’s wry characterization of political analysts as “electoral fundamentalists” retains its accuracy.
The focus on representation is certainly valuable for assessing the quality of democratic institutions. Yet, it also tends to sideline the voices of citizens, which are often assumed rather than analyzed within predetermined categories and normative models. As a result, the attention is diverted away from contestations of identities, cultures, and infrastructures – in short, anything that extends beyond institutional frameworks that provide us with ready tools to interpret the political reality. This shortcoming of research marks a watershed between academia and radical democratic activism, which still looks to make use of its transformative potential.
Whose knowledge?
Our review sheds light on the frames and language used for studying European democracy and media. As a motor of knowledge production, academic research offers numerous entry points into their conditions of possibility, struggles, and threats. However, the privileged position of science also introduces power imbalances, and their effects cut into our understanding of contemporary challenges.
The report reminds us about the limitations in the scope of research on democracy and media, with its many implicit assumptions. Especially in contentious subjects laden with passion and conflict, where equality is at stake, there is a dire need for more shared platforms between researchers and other agents of social knowledge like activists and journalists.
Read the full report here.