Almost all of what has, to me, been the most alert and illuminating discussion of both the Vote itself and the reaction to it has come from non-academics. I think it's great that my colleagues Jo Williams and Jan have asked some questions. We could do with some more of that.
I listened to this last night. It seems 'the talking dude' can make a very good fist of 'deconstructing media discourse' and 'assessing the impact of celebrity culture' without being a very clever professor or having the privileges of a University job. There's a load of people out there making sense of what's happening in their own lives and in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msbMOX-Jr8o&ab_channel=aTalkingDude
Ellie
Dr Ellie Lee, Reader in Social PolicySSPSSR, Cornwallis NE, University of Kent, Canterbury UK, CT2 7NFDirector, Centre for Parenting Culture StudiesCo-author Parenting Culture Studies (Palgrave, 2014)Member, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Reproduction (CISoR)
http://www.kent.ac.uk/cisort: 01227 827526
From: Jan Macvarish
Sent: 27 June 2016 19:15
To: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists; Paul Ashton
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysisI 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 LecturerSchool of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 27 June 2016 17:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Referenda and statistical analysisIt 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 explainHowever, 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)BestHeejung
.....
Dr. Heejung ChungSenior Lecturer in Sociology and Social PolicyEastern ARC lead for Quantitative Social Science at Kent
Work Autonomy, Flexibility and work life balance project (ESRC funded)
Special Issue: Subjective Insecurity and the Role of Institutions. 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" Social Indicators Research. Yoon, Y. & Chung, H.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jan Macvarish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Who would appoint the committee of academic 'fact-checkers' - self-appointed I suspect.
Dr Jan Macvarish
Associate LecturerSchool of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
From: John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 27 June 2016 11:27
To: Jan Macvarish; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Referenda and statistical analysisPS – 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
email [log in to unmask]
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]] On Behalf Of Jan Macvarish
Sent: 27 June 2016 10:51
To: [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 LecturerSchool of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent, CT2 7NF
07909 993 007
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 27 June 2016 10:43
To: [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
email [log in to unmask]
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]
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
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.
*****************************
