Research Stream „Civil society Groups“

Principle Investigators:
Prof. Dr. Swen Hutter, Prof. Dr. Barbara Pfetsch, Prof. Dr. Simon Koschut

Associate researchers:
Dr. Clara van den Berg, Dr. Rico Neuman

How affective polarization, including its consequences, is reflected in our communication, language and social networks, and which strategies groups and organizations in civil society employ to cope with it is the main focus of our research stream.

Research Questions and Objectives

  • Discourses in Civil Society: What discursive networks emerge from interactions within civil society and with non-civil society actors in polarized information environments?
  • Communicative Contours of Affective Polarization: In what ways does affective polarization manifest in language and communication?
  • Communication Strategies: Which communicative strategies do civil society groups use to cope with the negative consequences of affective polarization?

Finding answers to these questions, our research agenda consists of three main work packages leveraging and combining various conceptual and methodological approaches:

In this work package, we adopt a bird’s eye perspective to better understand how civil society groups navigate polarized information environments. Combining quantitative content analysis and network analysis, we examine the extent and varying ways in which affective polarization is expressed through language and communication, and mirrored in discourse networks of civil society groups. For example, one discourse characteristic of affectively charged and potentially polarizing conflicts is the use of incivility rhetoric and expressions of intolerance, such as hate speech. Groups in civil society can be both drivers and targets of such language.
How these communication dynamics are reflected in discourse networks of civil society groups and how the links are used to build alliances, attack others, and cope with attacks from others are key research questions to be answered in this work package.

In this work package, we take a deep dive into internal organizational structures and decision-making processes of key actors in civil society. Using forms of digital ethnography and qualitative in-depth interviews with activists and strategists in select civil society groups, we seek to identify strategies these groups use to cope with affective polarization and its negative consequences. For example, they may opt for disengagement strategies like avoidance or denial – or they may pursue engagement strategies like sensitization or bridge-building. On the one hand, this can depend on organizational goals, self-views, resources or action repertoires;
on the other hand, external events, topics and involved actors, among others, can shape decisions to adopt a particular strategy. One of our goals is to identify the conditions under which decisionmakers in civil society adopt a particular coping strategy to navigate polarized environments, with implications for polarizing – or depolarizing – public debates.

In this work package, we seek to integrate insights from this research stream with trends in public opinion documented by the Polarization Monitor.
For example, affective polarization may motivate political participation such as voting, but can also exacerbate divides between politically active and inactive individuals. Similarly, civic engagement may help depolarize debates, but can also increase fragmentation. Using the Monitor’s panel data, we illuminate this complex relationship by examining the degree and ways in which forms of civic engagement (via associational involvement in civil society groups and political action) relate to affective polarization. In another endeavor, we analyze the interplay of media use and social identity as drivers of affective polarization, with emphasis on exposure to civil society groups in digital spaces. For example, are strong partisans with a more selective and imbalanced media diet more susceptible to affective polarization than their less ideological counterparts? Can a more balanced media diet safeguard against the negative effects of affective polarization?

Research Streams