Dear all

I apologise, but I feel compelled to share my view.

Social policy academics should be interested in understanding those who voted for leave as much as they should be interested in capturing the whole picture (composed also of: those who voted for remain, those who are campaigning for a second referendum, those who did not vote, the almost 3 million EU migrants who could not vote and much more). Our work should not be guided by the feeling that what a (slight) majority voted for represents the ‘spirit of the time’ that we are supposedly missing.

Thank you Chris for sharing Lisa’s article. I think this is a good example of what we should not do. The ‘brexit as working class voice’ argument dismisses (and actually explicitly excludes) the widespread diffusion of xenophobia against EU (and non-EU) migrants before and after the referendum as a contributory explanation of its result. It is possible for a social phenomenon to be both explained by a social process (inequality) and to have expressions and requests (anti-migrants feelings) that do not address the core ‘malaise’ expressed by the society. I am not sure that being aligned with the view of any specific social group (assuming that they are homogenous, something which does not reflect my own research) will allow me to deal with this type of complexity – and academia is mostly about dealing with complexity. I do not want to personalise my contribution too much against a single scholar, but I suggest to listen to an interview on precarity on Thinking Allowed (2015) (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05y0p8z) which made me fall off my chair for the comparative generalisations made without evidences (e.g. the suggestions that EU migrants have more cultural capital than British working classes).

If there is a limit in our current academic analysis is (I think) our methodological nationalism in explaining this referendum *only* by using endogenous explanations (what the UK is, what happened in the UK, the British working class etc), instead of interpreting it as part of a wider European trend and in discussing how the result reflects British views vis-à-vis other European communities and Europe.

About the criticism of academics representing ‘middle classes’, this is a valid point to take on board if we then start talking about inequalities within UK Higher Education and how certain universities are more detached than others from ‘the working class’ (because of how HE expansion occurred in the UK). Those who work and teach in ‘new universities’ are in daily contact with working class students and local communities which are often the subject of their research (see the Teesside studies on precarity by MacDonald, Shildrick & al). Yet, the conclusions of their studies are quite different from what has been argued in this thread (there is, of course, also the fact that the precarisation of Higher Education is producing something different from the image of the detached rich academic I get from this thread).

Doyal and Gough talked about ‘critical autonomy’ as one of the two core human needs. I understand critical autonomy as the capacity of being critical of the place where you come from. If academia is central (as I think) to this we should strive to provide alternative perspectives/views from the reality we live in, rather than align our views with what seems to emerge as ‘the spirit of the time’ (I think that is also another way to call ‘sociological imagination’).

All best wishes

Lorenza


Senior Lecturer in Social Policy/Sociology
Research Associate at the European Social Observatory (OSE)
School of Social Sciences, Business & Law
Teesside University - Clarendon Building
Middlesbrough - Tees Valley
TS1 3AB
UK

T:  +44(0)1642 344432
E: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: @SocialLore


________________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Edwards R.S. [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 June 2016 13:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis

Thank you for articulating my concerns so well Robin.
Ros

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jun 2016, at 10:24, Rogers, Ruth ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Thank you Robin,
Beautifully put.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Ruth Rogers
Reader in Social Justice and Inclusion
Research Centre for Children, Families and Communities
Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU
Phone: 01227 782099
Profile: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/Staff/Profile.aspx?staff=fe4412cacf70be11

https://twitter.com/ResearchforCFC

From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Humphrey
Sent: 28 June 2016 10:20
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis

I agree with much of what you say below, Jan, but that doesn’t stop me being very fearful for the future. From my perspective, our economy will be harmed for many years to come, with consequences for us all but felt most sharply by those who have the least. Universities will be very badly hit – I have just added the value of European grants to the top ten universities in terms of EU grant success rate - £3.4billion over the last 5 years, and potential international students and academic staff will start at Dover after Brexit, which will harm recruitment of both after fees rise and immigration quotas are introduced.

But the most worrying scenario for me is the politics of it all. The 17.5 million who voted Leave did so for many different reasons. I know quite a few family and friends who argued for Leave for reasons I understand and respect. However, very many voted Leave for reasons which I think were misplaced, and they will be very angry indeed when they find that the promises they have received in good faith turn out to be undeliverable, again in my view.

Living in Durham City, surrounded by ex-mining villages and towns full of the disadvantaged, and arguably disenfranchised, white working class, who voted Leave in huge numbers, the fervent feeling is that they have ‘taken their country back’, and that after years of neglect they will finally be given the jobs, opportunities and attention that they feel they have been denied for far too long.

If my prediction of broken promises by a Conservative Brexit government is correct, then a likely political winner will be Farage and UKIP, and a rise in anger, unpleasantness and xenophobia.

I fear the rise of the far right nationalist parties here and in Europe, who will take advantage  of the social, political and economic chaos unleashed by many in the Brexit campaign, and echoed by many in other European countries. I shudder at the consequences.

I have lived a charmed life in many respects over the last 60 years, but I don’t think the younger generations of my family and friends will have it so lucky.

I sincerely hope I am wrong with many of my predictions, but my honest reflections are very gloomy and I find it very hard to see any silver lining whatsoever.

With best wishes

Robin


Dr Robin Humphrey, PFHEA,
National Teaching Fellow 2011

Reader, and Director of Postgraduate Research Training,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Newcastle University,
Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK
Tel: 0191 2086763
Fax: 0191 2087001
email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Writing across Boundaries website: http://www.dur.ac.uk/writingacrossboundaries



From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jan Macvarish
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis


I would encourage academics to move away from a more paternalistic response which either looks to curtail the mandate of the referendum or to curtail the flow of information into the public sphere. By all means add to the information in the public sphere and critique that which you think is inaccurate but let's not pretend that politics is all about the dissemination of expertise. People vote based on their lived experience and their understanding of the stratifications of interest in society. Academics are not immune from that - as can be seen in the expression of fears of cuts to HE funding in the event of Brexit (let's not pretend we are entirely altruistically motivated!).



Again, I would suggest the onus is on academics to engage with the 17.5 million, not objectify them as 'others' who are somehow more prone to misinformation than those on the side you agree with.



I would just like to add that I think that the fact that circumstances have thrown up the need to clarify the role of intellectuals and expertise in a democracy is really good. I know it has made me think about what are the legitimate claims to expertise that we as academics can make when we participate in public life but also to reflect on how our own social position shapes our view of the rest of society.



Friendly regards,



Jan






Dr Jan Macvarish
Associate Lecturer
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent, CT2 7NF
07909 993 007
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: 27 June 2016 17:54
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis

It seems to me rather condescending to say that you are 'very sad and disappointed' in Jan Macvarish's choice in voting Leave in the referendum. Are you also very sad and disappointed in all 17 million-odd who did so, or is it only because she, like you, is an academic and that you feel that she, above the hoi polloi, should know better?  It certainly sounds that way, and gives some credence to the view you have that "they feel/fear that it is still representing the voice of the elite and people currently in power".

Paul Ashton
Leaver
On 27/06/2016 17:13, Heejung Chung wrote:
I think in general, there should be stronger enforcement of fact checking media report - not only during the time of referendum but in general.
The Brexit results were not only a result of the campaign during the past few weeks - this is a result of many years of fear mongering of news media such as the Daily Mail and Sun concerning immigration and other issues.

About Joanna's piece, I am very sad and disappointed in her vote to leave - which no where in the piece does she explain
However, I agree with her on the point that academics need to really listen to people who have voted for Leave more carefully -especially given that this results is an ultimate sign that people no longer listen to "scientist" and trust their "evidence" - most likely because they feel/fear that it is still representing the voice of the elite and people currently in power.
But having said that, I don't think blaming academics and say that they " throw rhetorical rotten tomatoes at ordinary people who dare to think differently from them", is not the answer.


(I wrote this some hours ago and in the meanwhile it seems like John has sent something similar... but I thought I send it out anyway)
Best
Heejung


.....

Dr. Heejung Chung

Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy
Eastern ARC<http://easternarc.ac.uk/> lead for Quantitative Social Science at Kent
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research<http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/>
University of Kent<http://www.kent.ac.uk/>
personal website: http://www.heejungchung.com

Work Autonomy, Flexibility and work life balance project (ESRC funded)
webpage: http://www.wafproject.org // youtube introduction<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWTBCsLmsOg>

Special Issue: Subjective Insecurity and the Role of Institutions<http://esp.sagepub.com/content/24/4.toc>. Journal of European Social Policy, Chung, H. and Mau, S. (editors)
"New forms of dualization? Labour market segmentation patterns in the UK from the late 90s until the post-crisis in the late 2000s<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-015-1046-y>" Social Indicators Research. Yoon, Y. & Chung, H.



On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jan Macvarish <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

​



Who would appoint the committee of academic 'fact-checkers' - self-appointed I suspect.




Dr Jan Macvarish
Associate Lecturer
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent, CT2 7NF
07909 993 007<tel:07909%20993%20007>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




________________________________
From: John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: 27 June 2016 11:27
To: Jan Macvarish; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Referenda and statistical analysis

PS – quite so. And don’t confuse the 37% of those who voted leave with being ‘the populace’. The remainers were nearly as many and in Scotland and N Ireland the majority. It’s a common rhetorical error to treat the majority side as the entire population. Probably the entire population wants their country back. The question is, what’s the best way of achieving that end? Is it to leave the EU?

If this were a mere preference poll, it might have been rerun after ‘changing information’. If it had been run under ‘participatory polling’ principles, there’d be a rerun after ‘consider the facts’. Whatever the role of information before the referendum, the result might have been more credible if the academics had had a larger role in authenticating the information on both sides than in leaving that to the politicians. In view of Gove’s remark about experts,  your statement would be just as valid if you substituted ‘politicians’ for ‘doctorates’ and ‘academics’.

John VW.

------------------------------------------------------------
From Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
Tel: 0044[0]191-208 7498<tel:0044%5B0%5D191-208%207498>
email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson>/
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Jan Macvarish
Sent: 27 June 2016 10:51
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis


Beware the 'dictatorship of the doctorates'. Worth a read. Time for academics to reconnect with the populace, not seek to overthrow their will.





https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/brexit-phd-does-not-make-your-vote-or-your-opinion-worth-more






Dr Jan Macvarish
Associate Lecturer
School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent, CT2 7NF
07909 993 007<tel:07909%20993%20007>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: 27 June 2016 10:43
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis

Another course of action, one which depends not only on demonstrations and ideas but trying to affect the actual holders of power directly -- see Guardian today 27 June, Jon Henley page 6 about article 50. Apologies for list duplications.

It is not for some politicians to apply to Brussels on their own initiative but for Parliament to authorise such a step. If Parliament has not authorised the application by a majority vote, it can’t be valid – I hope the lawyers will confirm this but it seems likely. MPs faced with the enormity of the consequences and the political problems of any sort of rerun yet may well want to support procrastination. If this were positively promoted – do nothing about article 50 now – and if the Commons accepted procrastination as tactically the best to do right now when all is unclear [as they may well], the time for a rerun if at all would be when the brexiteers demand action. It wouldn’t surprise me if the politically responsible ones by that time aren’t so keen to keep the UK demonstrably wrecked, whatever the xenophobes say. And Cameron’s rejection of a rerun is now merely hot air.

Of course, if the leave dominos fall in the EU in the coming months, the arguments in favour of one course of action or another may change. We may want to change our first votes too. So why not try to persuade MPs positively to vote for procrastination on article 50, whichever side they are on? All the other questions about elections and reruns and leadership contests are distinct from this urgent action to decide to do nothing for the time being.

John VW.

------------------------------------------------------------
From Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
Tel: 0044[0]191-208 7498<tel:0044%5B0%5D191-208%207498>
email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson>/
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Bibby
Sent: 27 June 2016 10:11
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysis -the case of fluoride

Thanks Sue. I'm unclear which particular crisis Momentum are responding to!

In York they are sitting on their hands, so I am organising something myself - more than demos: an 'ideas' group. Other places could do something similar - see www.YLLyork1.eventbrite.co.uk<http://www.YLLyork1.eventbrite.co.uk>

Labour had a great opportunity with the Tories in such disarray.

As far as I can see, there were two main ways forward:

1. Say "We accept the will of the electorate" and go for a General Election NOW with a JC programme OUTSIDE the EU.

2. Demand a GE to overturn the referendum result.

I suspect JC himself might prefer (1). Either way, JC is either PM or a has-been.

JOHN

PS: I am for a JC programme, not particularly for JC as an individual. He looks VERY tired! Both of the above will make him tireder.

*****************************