IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v27y2022i3p707-723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Brexit on Facebook: Developing Close-up, Qualitative Methodologies for Social Media Research

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie-Anne Hall

Abstract

Facebook has frequently been implicated in the 2016 ‘Brexit’ referendum result, and support for Leave has been linked to wider nativist and populist mobilisations online. However, close-up, qualitative sociological research has not been conducted into the relationship between Brexit and social media use. This is, in part, due to the computational turn in online research, which has led to a disproportionate focus on quantitative big data analysis. This article argues for the value of close-up, qualitative enquiry to facilitate situated understandings of the reality of social media use and what it means to individuals. It outlines one such methodology developed to investigate pro-Leave Facebook users, to demonstrate how challenges posed by such research can be overcome, and the opportunities such enquiry affords for studying the role of social media in contentious politics. Invaluable insights gained include the way Facebook provides an empowering tool for making claims to political knowledge in the context of growing transnational nativist and populist grievances.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie-Anne Hall, 2022. "Understanding Brexit on Facebook: Developing Close-up, Qualitative Methodologies for Social Media Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(3), pages 707-723, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:3:p:707-723
    DOI: 10.1177/13607804211037356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13607804211037356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/13607804211037356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2021. "Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Inglehart, Ronald F. & Norris, Pippa, 2016. "Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash," Working Paper Series 16-026, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. David Beer, 2012. "Using Social Media Data Aggregators to Do Social Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(3), pages 91-102, August.
    4. Thiemo Fetzer, 2019. "Did Austerity Cause Brexit?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(11), pages 3849-3886, November.
    5. repec:swn:wpaper:2018-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Kath Hennell & Mark Limmer & Maria Piacentini, 2020. "Ethical Dilemmas Using Social Media in Qualitative Social Research: A Case Study of Online Participant Observation," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(3), pages 473-489, September.
    7. Huw C Davies, 2018. "Redefining Filter Bubbles as (Escapable) Socio-Technical Recursion," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 23(3), pages 637-654, September.
    8. Peter Tammes, 2017. "Investigating Differences in Brexit-vote Among Local Authorities in the UK: An Ecological Study on Migration- and Economy-related Issues," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(3), pages 143-164, September.
    9. Steve Kirkwood & Viviene Cree & Daniel Winterstein & Alex Nuttgens & Jenni Sneddon, 2018. "Encountering #Feminism on Twitter: Reflections on a Research Collaboration between Social Scientists and Computer Scientists," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 23(4), pages 763-779, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Annie Tubadji & Thomas Colwill & Don Webber, 2021. "Voting with your feet or voting for Brexit: The tale of those stuck behind," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 247-277, April.
    2. Simon Rudkin & Lucy Barros & Paweł Dłotko & Wanling Qiu, 2024. "An economic topology of the Brexit vote," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 601-618, March.
    3. Barone, Guglielmo & Kreuter, Helena, 2021. "Low-wage import competition and populist backlash: The case of Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Laura Barros & Manuel Santos Silva, 2019. "#EleNão: Economic crisis, the political gender gap, and the election of Bolsonaro," Ibero America Institute for Econ. Research (IAI) Discussion Papers 242, Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
    5. O’Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj, 2019. "Economic History and Contemporary Challenges to Globalization," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 356-382, June.
    6. Kevin Hjortshøj O'Rourke, 2018. "Economic history and contemporary challenges to globalization," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _167, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Carlo Altomonte & Gloria Gennaro & Francesco Passarelli, 2019. "Collective Emotions and Protest Vote," CESifo Working Paper Series 7463, CESifo.
    8. Lustenhouwer, Joep & Makarewicz, Tomasz & Peña, Juan Carlos & Proaño Acosta, Christian, 2021. "Are some people more equal than others? Experimental evidence on group identity and income inequality," BERG Working Paper Series 168, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    9. Eugenio Levi & Fabrizio Patriarca, 2020. "An exploratory study of populism: the municipality-level predictors of electoral outcomes in Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(3), pages 833-875, October.
    10. Manuel Hensmans & van Bommel, 2019. "Brexit, the NHS and the double-edged sword of populism: Contributor to agonistic democracy or vehicle of ressentiment?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/291153, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Luise Koeppen & Dimitris Ballas & Arjen Edzes & Sierdjan Koster, 2021. "Places that don't matter or people that don't matter? A multilevel modelling approach to the analysis of the geographies of discontent," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 221-245, April.
    12. Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, 2019. "Deglobalization 2.0," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 18560.
    13. Győző Gyöngyösi & Emil Verner, 2022. "Financial Crisis, Creditor‐Debtor Conflict, and Populism," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(4), pages 2471-2523, August.
    14. Eleonora Alabrese & Thiemo René Fetzer & Thiemo Fetzer, 2018. "Who is NOT Voting for Brexit Anymore?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7389, CESifo.
    15. Fidrmuc, Jan & Hulényi, Martin & Tunalı, Çiğdem Börke, 2019. "Can money buy EU love?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Albanese, Giuseppe & Barone, Guglielmo & de Blasio, Guido, 2022. "Populist voting and losers’ discontent: Does redistribution matter?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Emilio Ocampo, 2019. "The Economic Analysis of Populism. A Selective Review of the Literature," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 694, Universidad del CEMA.
    18. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    19. Indra de Soysa & Synøve Almås, 2019. "Does Ethnolinguistic Diversity Preclude Good Governance? A Comparative Study with Alternative Data, 1990‐2015," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 604-636, November.
    20. Vigvári, Gábor, 2022. "Transzformáció és a populizmus a visegrádi országokban [Transformation and populism in the V4 countries]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 339-366.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:3:p:707-723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.