EU-funded HORIZON EUROPE research projects
IANUS: INspiring and ANchoring TrUst in Science (2022-2025)
Objective:
The IANUS project strengthens warranted trust in science by fostering participation in research as a co-creative and inclusive process, sensitive to societal values, concerns and needs. Trust must be inspired by transparency and trustworthiness of knowledge production, and anchored by actively involving and serving society, as part of the modus operandi of science. Our core objectives: (a) Enable citizens and stakeholders to distinguish valid from unfounded trust; (b) Enable them to deal with the uncertainties and epistemic pluralism inherent in scientific knowledge; (c) Enable researchers to foster trust through radical methodological change, making research inclusive, transparent and responsive to societal needs and concerns, lowering barriers between research and society; (d) Enable researchers to conduct relevant, engaged and value-driven research while foregoing partiality, ideological biases and conflicts of interests. The acronym IANUS refers to the deity Janus of gateways (ianus in Latin), looking both at the inside and at the outside of the knowledge production process. Trust in science is never a given. Robust trust is well-placed, reciprocal and informed. Building on insights and results from other projects funded under Framework Programmes, IANUS will (a) map the landscape of projects and discourses relevant for trust in science; (b) develop its conceptual framework; (c) conduct participatory research into conditions of trust in science; (d) initiate concrete actions for strengthening trust through co-creation and engagement; (e) provide policy recommendation to key stakeholders in science and society (e.g. funding bodies, universities, research teams, educators, media); (f) create platforms for interaction and engagement between scientists and societal stakeholders to foster trust. The complexity and urgency of societal challenges has rapidly intensified, and trust in science determined our ability to address these challenges effectively.
The IANUS project strengthens warranted trust in science by fostering participation in research as a co-creative and inclusive process, sensitive to societal values, concerns and needs. Trust must be inspired by transparency and trustworthiness of knowledge production, and anchored by actively involving and serving society, as part of the modus operandi of science. Our core objectives: (a) Enable citizens and stakeholders to distinguish valid from unfounded trust; (b) Enable them to deal with the uncertainties and epistemic pluralism inherent in scientific knowledge; (c) Enable researchers to foster trust through radical methodological change, making research inclusive, transparent and responsive to societal needs and concerns, lowering barriers between research and society; (d) Enable researchers to conduct relevant, engaged and value-driven research while foregoing partiality, ideological biases and conflicts of interests. The acronym IANUS refers to the deity Janus of gateways (ianus in Latin), looking both at the inside and at the outside of the knowledge production process. Trust in science is never a given. Robust trust is well-placed, reciprocal and informed. Building on insights and results from other projects funded under Framework Programmes, IANUS will (a) map the landscape of projects and discourses relevant for trust in science; (b) develop its conceptual framework; (c) conduct participatory research into conditions of trust in science; (d) initiate concrete actions for strengthening trust through co-creation and engagement; (e) provide policy recommendation to key stakeholders in science and society (e.g. funding bodies, universities, research teams, educators, media); (f) create platforms for interaction and engagement between scientists and societal stakeholders to foster trust. The complexity and urgency of societal challenges has rapidly intensified, and trust in science determined our ability to address these challenges effectively.
Consortium:
- Erasmus University Rotterdam
- Radboud University, Institute for Science in Society
- University of Tartu, Centre of Ethics
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
- Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
- Sapienza University of Rome, Dept. of Communication and Social Research
- London School of Economics
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
- Research Council of Lithuania
- Acumenist
- Erasmus University Rotterdam
- Radboud University, Institute for Science in Society
- University of Tartu, Centre of Ethics
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
- Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
- Sapienza University of Rome, Dept. of Communication and Social Research
- London School of Economics
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
- Research Council of Lithuania
- Acumenist
Objective:
In the last years, the world has experienced an unprecedented increase in the fraction of people that have lost their confidence in political institutions and have started supporting populist candidates. While a rapidly growing literature in social sciences has investigated this phenomenon, current research methodologies face important limitations. Existing studies have limited measures of political attitudes and provide little evidence on the mechanisms behind the increase in distrust. In this project, I propose a radically different approach to tackle this question. I plan to conduct extensive data collection through online surveys in multiple countries and periods. I will combine this novel data with extensive use of survey experiments and quasi-experimental approaches. This methodology has the potential to significantly expand the research frontier in the study of political discontent. First, I plan to collect the most detailed individual-level panel dataset on perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Second, the use of survey experiments provides a unique toolkit uncover the ?mental model? of individuals (i.e., their modes of reasoning that generate a link between a shock and ultimate political discontent). This novel methodology will be applied to answer two main questions: (1) What are the fundamental drivers of political discontent? I will examine the effects of a number of different economic and cultural shocks on discontent and distrust. In the uncovering of the mechanisms, I will pay special attention two key mediating factors: the policy response to shocks of traditional parties and the exposure to populist and nativist narratives. The second research question is: (2) How can trust in the political system be regained? Using a number of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, I will investigate whether exposure to safety-net policies can help individuals to regain trust in the political system.
In the last years, the world has experienced an unprecedented increase in the fraction of people that have lost their confidence in political institutions and have started supporting populist candidates. While a rapidly growing literature in social sciences has investigated this phenomenon, current research methodologies face important limitations. Existing studies have limited measures of political attitudes and provide little evidence on the mechanisms behind the increase in distrust. In this project, I propose a radically different approach to tackle this question. I plan to conduct extensive data collection through online surveys in multiple countries and periods. I will combine this novel data with extensive use of survey experiments and quasi-experimental approaches. This methodology has the potential to significantly expand the research frontier in the study of political discontent. First, I plan to collect the most detailed individual-level panel dataset on perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Second, the use of survey experiments provides a unique toolkit uncover the ?mental model? of individuals (i.e., their modes of reasoning that generate a link between a shock and ultimate political discontent). This novel methodology will be applied to answer two main questions: (1) What are the fundamental drivers of political discontent? I will examine the effects of a number of different economic and cultural shocks on discontent and distrust. In the uncovering of the mechanisms, I will pay special attention two key mediating factors: the policy response to shocks of traditional parties and the exposure to populist and nativist narratives. The second research question is: (2) How can trust in the political system be regained? Using a number of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, I will investigate whether exposure to safety-net policies can help individuals to regain trust in the political system.
Consortium:
- CEMFI
- CEMFI
Objective:
POIESIS examines research integrity and the integration of society in research as vehicles for responsible knowledge creation. It recognizes the intrinsic value of both research practices that align with ethical, legal, and professional standards, and the integration of relevant societal stakeholders in all phases of the research cycle. However, evidence of the impact of integrity and integration on societal (mis)trust in science, research, and innovation is lacking. POIESIS will carry out an extensive research programme to systematically examine the interrelatedness of integrity, integration, and trust, and the role of institutions in fostering a research climate that is conducive to societal trust in science.POIESIS will do this through (i) analysis of existing data streams on citizen trust, responsible and questionable research practices, and institutional policies to enhance responsible research; (ii) implementation of a portfolio of small scale studies, tailored to capture empirically the relatedness of integrity, integration, and trust, focusing on the chains of mediation that connect research practices with, ultimately, the interpretation and assessment of these practices by wider, non-academic publics; and (iii) conducting a set of participatory research actions in which stakeholders actively co-create knowledge, focusing on the role of institutions in nurturing responsible research cultures and practices that are conducive to trust in science.Through substantive engagement with stakeholders and an ambitious plan for dissemination and communication, POIESIS will create viable pathways to achieving its intended scientific, economic, and societal impacts. POIESIS will build a better knowledge base about the linkages of research practices and societal trust in science, providing targeted recommendations for designated user groups about tackling societal mistrust in science and strengthening the co-creation of research and innovation contents by society.
POIESIS examines research integrity and the integration of society in research as vehicles for responsible knowledge creation. It recognizes the intrinsic value of both research practices that align with ethical, legal, and professional standards, and the integration of relevant societal stakeholders in all phases of the research cycle. However, evidence of the impact of integrity and integration on societal (mis)trust in science, research, and innovation is lacking. POIESIS will carry out an extensive research programme to systematically examine the interrelatedness of integrity, integration, and trust, and the role of institutions in fostering a research climate that is conducive to societal trust in science.POIESIS will do this through (i) analysis of existing data streams on citizen trust, responsible and questionable research practices, and institutional policies to enhance responsible research; (ii) implementation of a portfolio of small scale studies, tailored to capture empirically the relatedness of integrity, integration, and trust, focusing on the chains of mediation that connect research practices with, ultimately, the interpretation and assessment of these practices by wider, non-academic publics; and (iii) conducting a set of participatory research actions in which stakeholders actively co-create knowledge, focusing on the role of institutions in nurturing responsible research cultures and practices that are conducive to trust in science.Through substantive engagement with stakeholders and an ambitious plan for dissemination and communication, POIESIS will create viable pathways to achieving its intended scientific, economic, and societal impacts. POIESIS will build a better knowledge base about the linkages of research practices and societal trust in science, providing targeted recommendations for designated user groups about tackling societal mistrust in science and strengthening the co-creation of research and innovation contents by society.
Consortium:
- Aarhus University
- London School of Economics and Political Science
- Wissenschaft im Dialog
- National Technical University of Athens
- Instituto Universitario de Lisboa
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
- Aarhus University
- London School of Economics and Political Science
- Wissenschaft im Dialog
- National Technical University of Athens
- Instituto Universitario de Lisboa
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
Objective:
Culminating more than a decade of crisis in Europe, the Covid-19 pandemic has opened an unprecedented window of opportunity for institutional and policy change, not only at the “reactive” level of emergency responses, but also to tackle more broadly the many socio-political challenges caused or exacerbated by Covid-19. Building on this premise, REGROUP (Rebuilding governance and resilience out of the pandemic) aims to: 1) provide the European Union with a body of actionable advice on how to rebuild post-pandemic governance and public policies in an effective and democratic way; anchored to 2) a map of the socio-political dynamics and consequences of Covid-19; and 3) an empirically-informed normative evaluation of the pandemic. REGROUP pursues this threefold objective via a multi-level (national, supranational, international) and multi-sphere (political, societal, ideational, digital) research approach, and guided by three overarching analytical themes: “reordering”; “risk”; “resilience”. We operate in nine collaborative work packages—grouped in three blocks: “diagnosis”, “evaluation”, and “prescription”—bringing together expertise and methods from a range of social sciences and humanities. Doing so, we advance the state of the art conceptually, theoretically, and methodologically. REGROUP is conducted by a consortium of 13 internationally renowned institutions, committed to scholarly excellence, inclusiveness, and open science. The project is designed to achieve a high degree of policy, societal, and scientific impact, which it will achieve via a multi-pronged dissemination and communication strategy. This includes links to some of the EU’s main debates and events, such as the Health Union, the Green Deal, the Digital Decade, the Economic Governance Review, the Conference on the Future of Europe, and the 2024 European Parliament elections.
Culminating more than a decade of crisis in Europe, the Covid-19 pandemic has opened an unprecedented window of opportunity for institutional and policy change, not only at the “reactive” level of emergency responses, but also to tackle more broadly the many socio-political challenges caused or exacerbated by Covid-19. Building on this premise, REGROUP (Rebuilding governance and resilience out of the pandemic) aims to: 1) provide the European Union with a body of actionable advice on how to rebuild post-pandemic governance and public policies in an effective and democratic way; anchored to 2) a map of the socio-political dynamics and consequences of Covid-19; and 3) an empirically-informed normative evaluation of the pandemic. REGROUP pursues this threefold objective via a multi-level (national, supranational, international) and multi-sphere (political, societal, ideational, digital) research approach, and guided by three overarching analytical themes: “reordering”; “risk”; “resilience”. We operate in nine collaborative work packages—grouped in three blocks: “diagnosis”, “evaluation”, and “prescription”—bringing together expertise and methods from a range of social sciences and humanities. Doing so, we advance the state of the art conceptually, theoretically, and methodologically. REGROUP is conducted by a consortium of 13 internationally renowned institutions, committed to scholarly excellence, inclusiveness, and open science. The project is designed to achieve a high degree of policy, societal, and scientific impact, which it will achieve via a multi-pronged dissemination and communication strategy. This includes links to some of the EU’s main debates and events, such as the Health Union, the Green Deal, the Digital Decade, the Economic Governance Review, the Conference on the Future of Europe, and the 2024 European Parliament elections.
Consortium:
- University of Groningen
- European University Institute
- LUISS
- Notre Europe - Institut Jacques Delors
- Barcelona Centre for International Affairs
- Brexit Institute
- European Policy Centre
- University of Cyprus
- Jagiellonian University
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Universität Innsbruck
- Europa Kolleg Hamburg
- University of Oslo
- University of Passau
- University of Groningen
- European University Institute
- LUISS
- Notre Europe - Institut Jacques Delors
- Barcelona Centre for International Affairs
- Brexit Institute
- European Policy Centre
- University of Cyprus
- Jagiellonian University
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Universität Innsbruck
- Europa Kolleg Hamburg
- University of Oslo
- University of Passau
Objective:
The research ethics process is facing increasing challenges at a global level: new and emerging technologies present challenges to ethics reviewers who may be unskilled in the relevant fields; increased internationalisation of research has led to fears of ethics dumping; and there is a lack of standardisation across Europe and the world. A key objective of national and EU research policy is to ensure compliance with the highest standards of research ethics. Given the impact of research on society, in terms of potential to generate innovative solutions to problems, and yet with the associated risk of harm, rigorous ethical research conduct is essential to ensure public trust in the scientific endeavour. irecs will address these problems in four ways. First, it will scan and map existing needs raised by new and emerging technologies in European and global research ethics communities. Second, it will produce and implement training materials for European and global audiences in research ethics communities. Third, it will conduct and permanently establish training programmes. Fourth, it will propose adaptations to the research ethics process in Europe. Through a unique blend of expertise, global partners and the involvement of European research ethics networks as partners or members of the Stakeholder Advisory Board, irecs will develop a fresh awareness of research ethics and sustainable, multi-purpose, multi-language interactive training programmes for different users. The project thus extends ENERI and the Embassy of Good Science into a horizontal community of research ethics practitioners, policy makers and other key stakeholders.
The research ethics process is facing increasing challenges at a global level: new and emerging technologies present challenges to ethics reviewers who may be unskilled in the relevant fields; increased internationalisation of research has led to fears of ethics dumping; and there is a lack of standardisation across Europe and the world. A key objective of national and EU research policy is to ensure compliance with the highest standards of research ethics. Given the impact of research on society, in terms of potential to generate innovative solutions to problems, and yet with the associated risk of harm, rigorous ethical research conduct is essential to ensure public trust in the scientific endeavour. irecs will address these problems in four ways. First, it will scan and map existing needs raised by new and emerging technologies in European and global research ethics communities. Second, it will produce and implement training materials for European and global audiences in research ethics communities. Third, it will conduct and permanently establish training programmes. Fourth, it will propose adaptations to the research ethics process in Europe. Through a unique blend of expertise, global partners and the involvement of European research ethics networks as partners or members of the Stakeholder Advisory Board, irecs will develop a fresh awareness of research ethics and sustainable, multi-purpose, multi-language interactive training programmes for different users. The project thus extends ENERI and the Embassy of Good Science into a horizontal community of research ethics practitioners, policy makers and other key stakeholders.
Consortium:
- University of Bonn
- VU University Medical Center
- University of Split School of Medicine
- European Network of Research Ethics Committees
- University of Vilnius
- Maastricht University
- National Technical University of Athens
- French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
- European University Association
- European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
- Radboud University
- Trilateral Research
- University of Central Lancashire
- University of Nottingham
- Ethixpert
- Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
- Fudan University
- University of Bonn
- VU University Medical Center
- University of Split School of Medicine
- European Network of Research Ethics Committees
- University of Vilnius
- Maastricht University
- National Technical University of Athens
- French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
- European University Association
- European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
- Radboud University
- Trilateral Research
- University of Central Lancashire
- University of Nottingham
- Ethixpert
- Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
- Fudan University
RECLAIM: Reclaiming Liberal Democracy in Europe (2022-2025)
Objective:
In recent years, it has become clear that what is frequently described as post-truth politics will be one of the central challenges facing liberal democracy in the 21st century. This project addresses the implications of this challenge. Drawing on a multi-disciplinary approach, the project will generate a conceptual definition as well as an operationalization and empirical indicators for the analysis of post-truth politics; spell out the ways in which post-truth politics constitutes an existential threat to liberal democracy; analyze the state of play as regards various dimensions of post-truth politics in Europe; and use its own empirical findings regarding the state of play to develop policy recommendations, methods and toolkits as to how best to respond to various expressions of the phenomenon. The project is structured along a temporal and a thematic axis. On the temporal axis, the project will proceed in three consecutive phases, i.e. a methodological-conceptual, an empirical-analytical and a critical-advisory phase. On the thematic axis, the project is divided into nine academic work packages that address central components of post-truth politics from the perspective of preconditions (how such phenomena have come about), expressions (how they manifest themselves in political processes), and potential responses (how their effects can and ought to be mitigated). The project’s academic work packages address post-truth politics from the vantage points of populism, public sphere dynamics and impacts on political culture; the role of technological aspects in fostering the rise of post-truth politics; the twin roles of lack of trust, but at the same time also increased demands for quality journalism; strategic disinformation as an external challenge to liberal democracy; the impacts of regulatory responses to disinformation; and importantly also the role that citizenship education and media literacy can play in mitigating the challenge of post-truth politics.
In recent years, it has become clear that what is frequently described as post-truth politics will be one of the central challenges facing liberal democracy in the 21st century. This project addresses the implications of this challenge. Drawing on a multi-disciplinary approach, the project will generate a conceptual definition as well as an operationalization and empirical indicators for the analysis of post-truth politics; spell out the ways in which post-truth politics constitutes an existential threat to liberal democracy; analyze the state of play as regards various dimensions of post-truth politics in Europe; and use its own empirical findings regarding the state of play to develop policy recommendations, methods and toolkits as to how best to respond to various expressions of the phenomenon. The project is structured along a temporal and a thematic axis. On the temporal axis, the project will proceed in three consecutive phases, i.e. a methodological-conceptual, an empirical-analytical and a critical-advisory phase. On the thematic axis, the project is divided into nine academic work packages that address central components of post-truth politics from the perspective of preconditions (how such phenomena have come about), expressions (how they manifest themselves in political processes), and potential responses (how their effects can and ought to be mitigated). The project’s academic work packages address post-truth politics from the vantage points of populism, public sphere dynamics and impacts on political culture; the role of technological aspects in fostering the rise of post-truth politics; the twin roles of lack of trust, but at the same time also increased demands for quality journalism; strategic disinformation as an external challenge to liberal democracy; the impacts of regulatory responses to disinformation; and importantly also the role that citizenship education and media literacy can play in mitigating the challenge of post-truth politics.
Consortium:
- University of Iceland
- University of Oslo, ARENA Centre for European Studies
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Goldsmiths University of London
- Institute of International Relations Prague
- Institute for Development and International Relations, Croatia
- Jagiellonian University
- Lichtenstein Institute
- New Bulgarian University
- Scuola Normale Superiore
- Trans-European Policy Studies Association
- Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
- University of Ljubljana
- University of Iceland
- University of Oslo, ARENA Centre for European Studies
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Goldsmiths University of London
- Institute of International Relations Prague
- Institute for Development and International Relations, Croatia
- Jagiellonian University
- Lichtenstein Institute
- New Bulgarian University
- Scuola Normale Superiore
- Trans-European Policy Studies Association
- Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
- University of Ljubljana
Objective:
The objective of this project is to re-kindle trust in democracy and to re-invigorate engagement with democratic institutions and values in Europe. We plan to achieve this by co-creating solutions to the crisis of democracy, by designing and implementing strategies, which counter opposition to equality and democracy and by supporting citizens and activists working in this field. CCINDLE works directly with feminist grassroots activists and institutional actors, feminist and pro-democratic media, young Europeans, philanthropic organizations thinktanks, and gender professionals. We co-create knowledge on i) anti-gender campaigns and how they challenge democracy, particularly through political violence and alternative knowledge production; ii) futures of society envisioned in feminist theories and how they relate to democracy in Europe with respect to intersectional justice, inclusion, and participation; iii) feminist movement and institutional responses to anti-gender and other anti-democratic forces. We focus on seven European countries with different social and political backgrounds, and the EU level. This knowledge allows us to better understand everyday practices of democracy and how the current backlash resonates with broader exclusionary tendencies and fundamental problems of the Western democracy model. We assume that the problem is not anti-gender movements alone but also the roots they have in the exclusionary features of contemporary European democracies, the way in which they are normatively designed and function. CCINDLE provides for concrete approaches and tools to more effectively fight anti-gender and other anti-democratic forces, support the quality of democracy, and make democracy across Europe more resilient and inclusive. We put these approaches and tools into practice through co-creating actions including student juries, a network of intersectional feminist media across Europe, gender café’s, blogs, and other networking/dissemination activities.
The objective of this project is to re-kindle trust in democracy and to re-invigorate engagement with democratic institutions and values in Europe. We plan to achieve this by co-creating solutions to the crisis of democracy, by designing and implementing strategies, which counter opposition to equality and democracy and by supporting citizens and activists working in this field. CCINDLE works directly with feminist grassroots activists and institutional actors, feminist and pro-democratic media, young Europeans, philanthropic organizations thinktanks, and gender professionals. We co-create knowledge on i) anti-gender campaigns and how they challenge democracy, particularly through political violence and alternative knowledge production; ii) futures of society envisioned in feminist theories and how they relate to democracy in Europe with respect to intersectional justice, inclusion, and participation; iii) feminist movement and institutional responses to anti-gender and other anti-democratic forces. We focus on seven European countries with different social and political backgrounds, and the EU level. This knowledge allows us to better understand everyday practices of democracy and how the current backlash resonates with broader exclusionary tendencies and fundamental problems of the Western democracy model. We assume that the problem is not anti-gender movements alone but also the roots they have in the exclusionary features of contemporary European democracies, the way in which they are normatively designed and function. CCINDLE provides for concrete approaches and tools to more effectively fight anti-gender and other anti-democratic forces, support the quality of democracy, and make democracy across Europe more resilient and inclusive. We put these approaches and tools into practice through co-creating actions including student juries, a network of intersectional feminist media across Europe, gender café’s, blogs, and other networking/dissemination activities.
Consortium:
- Radboud University
- University of Helsinki
- Central European University
- Complutense University of Madrid
- University of Antwerp
- University of Trento
- University of Warsaw
- Sodertorn University
- Trialteral Research
- University of Sheffield
- University of Amsterdan
- Radboud University
- University of Helsinki
- Central European University
- Complutense University of Madrid
- University of Antwerp
- University of Trento
- University of Warsaw
- Sodertorn University
- Trialteral Research
- University of Sheffield
- University of Amsterdan
Objective:
LEGITIMULT assesses the impact of the measures taken by various international, national and subnational governments on multilevel institutions and intergovernmental relations in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The project analyzes the effect of these measures on democratic governance, highlighting to what extent multilevel governance influences their impact on democracy, favoring a model of legitimate crisis management. It assesses all measures taken by 31 European countries in relation to their impact on multilevel governance through the creation of a new dataset highlighting how these procedures link to multiple orders of governance – WHO and EU above the states, and regional and local governments below the national level. The impact of these measures is analyzed through the lens of a variety of dimensions that characterize functional democratic governance (Rule of Law and Democratic Participation; Human and Minority Rights; Trust; Economic Sustainability). LEGITIMULT qualifies the different trade-offs required within and across these dimensions in order to effectively and quickly deal with a crisis such as Covid-19, while at the same time maintaining a level of democratic governance and ensuring that any limitations to democratic standards are limited. These final trade-offs within and between the different dimensions of democratic governance in crisis management are gathered in a set of policy recommendations, tailored to different recipients, and developed through extensive consultation with stakeholder groups throughout the project. Citizens, policy makers and practitioners are involved in the experimental phase of the project, where interactive learning and practical tools are tested but also co-designed and co-refined with relevant stakeholders in a participatory way. Policy recommendations and practical tools merge into a toolkit for legitimate crisis management, ready for use in possible future crises.
LEGITIMULT assesses the impact of the measures taken by various international, national and subnational governments on multilevel institutions and intergovernmental relations in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The project analyzes the effect of these measures on democratic governance, highlighting to what extent multilevel governance influences their impact on democracy, favoring a model of legitimate crisis management. It assesses all measures taken by 31 European countries in relation to their impact on multilevel governance through the creation of a new dataset highlighting how these procedures link to multiple orders of governance – WHO and EU above the states, and regional and local governments below the national level. The impact of these measures is analyzed through the lens of a variety of dimensions that characterize functional democratic governance (Rule of Law and Democratic Participation; Human and Minority Rights; Trust; Economic Sustainability). LEGITIMULT qualifies the different trade-offs required within and across these dimensions in order to effectively and quickly deal with a crisis such as Covid-19, while at the same time maintaining a level of democratic governance and ensuring that any limitations to democratic standards are limited. These final trade-offs within and between the different dimensions of democratic governance in crisis management are gathered in a set of policy recommendations, tailored to different recipients, and developed through extensive consultation with stakeholder groups throughout the project. Citizens, policy makers and practitioners are involved in the experimental phase of the project, where interactive learning and practical tools are tested but also co-designed and co-refined with relevant stakeholders in a participatory way. Policy recommendations and practical tools merge into a toolkit for legitimate crisis management, ready for use in possible future crises.
Consortium:
- EURAC Research
- University of Bergen
- Leiden University
- Institute for Ethnic Studies, Slovenia
- University of Antwerp
- Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia
- Freie Universität Berlin
- University of Zagreb
- International IDEA
- University of Fribourg
- The Forum of Federations, Canada
- EURAC Research
- University of Bergen
- Leiden University
- Institute for Ethnic Studies, Slovenia
- University of Antwerp
- Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia
- Freie Universität Berlin
- University of Zagreb
- International IDEA
- University of Fribourg
- The Forum of Federations, Canada
Objective:
Partisan prejudice exists when citizens hold negative attitudes towards party supporters. Such prejudice is widespread: many people have stereotypical views of and dislike the supporters of certain parties, sometimes amounting to outright partisan hostility.Partisan prejudice is a challenge for liberal democracy. It deepens societal rifts, lowers social trust, weakens the acceptance of elite compromise and leads to discrimination and social ostracism. This challenge is urgent at a time of political division and democratic backsliding. Yet, partisan prejudice is barely studied, particularly in Europe.PARTISAN will provide a novel theoretical framework and rigorous empirical evidence for understanding partisan prejudice, with the ambition of fundamentally altering how voters and parties are studied in multiparty systems. The theoretical framework posits that objective characteristics of party supporters form the basis of partisan stereotypes, but that these linkages are filtered through individual perceptions and moderated by party- and country-level characteristics.Based on this framework, this project will provide ground-breaking evidence on the prevalence and origins of partisan prejudice and assess its political and societal consequences, including for political participation, discrimination and social cohesion. PARTISAN will also provide political and societal actors with evidence on three ways to reduce partisan prejudice: interparty contact, recategorization and social norms.PARTISAN will implement new measurement tools in a new twelve-country survey and in experiments conducted in population-based surveys and in the field. Innovative experimental designs will be used to rigorously assess the origins and consequences of partisan prejudice, as well as potential remedies.Studying a little-studied phenomenon using diverse methods, PARTISAN will significantly extend our knowledge of partisan prejudice, what effects it has and how its impact can be minimized.
Partisan prejudice exists when citizens hold negative attitudes towards party supporters. Such prejudice is widespread: many people have stereotypical views of and dislike the supporters of certain parties, sometimes amounting to outright partisan hostility.Partisan prejudice is a challenge for liberal democracy. It deepens societal rifts, lowers social trust, weakens the acceptance of elite compromise and leads to discrimination and social ostracism. This challenge is urgent at a time of political division and democratic backsliding. Yet, partisan prejudice is barely studied, particularly in Europe.PARTISAN will provide a novel theoretical framework and rigorous empirical evidence for understanding partisan prejudice, with the ambition of fundamentally altering how voters and parties are studied in multiparty systems. The theoretical framework posits that objective characteristics of party supporters form the basis of partisan stereotypes, but that these linkages are filtered through individual perceptions and moderated by party- and country-level characteristics.Based on this framework, this project will provide ground-breaking evidence on the prevalence and origins of partisan prejudice and assess its political and societal consequences, including for political participation, discrimination and social cohesion. PARTISAN will also provide political and societal actors with evidence on three ways to reduce partisan prejudice: interparty contact, recategorization and social norms.PARTISAN will implement new measurement tools in a new twelve-country survey and in experiments conducted in population-based surveys and in the field. Innovative experimental designs will be used to rigorously assess the origins and consequences of partisan prejudice, as well as potential remedies.Studying a little-studied phenomenon using diverse methods, PARTISAN will significantly extend our knowledge of partisan prejudice, what effects it has and how its impact can be minimized.
Consortium:
- Universität Wien
- Universität Wien
Objective:
The distinct advantages of enhancing the public’s voluntary compliance (VC) with regulations has made it an advantageous form of governance. However, its use is limited by the extent to which governments and regulators can trust the public without jeopardizing regulatory purposes and harming other social values. Identifying and analysing the antecedents of VC across doctrines and countries can enhance our theoretical understanding of the underlying nature of the interaction between countries and their residents, as well as evaluate the relative efficacy of behaviourally based regulatory tools. This project proposes, examines, and develops a new conceptual model and a methodology that will facilitate a systematic comparison of the relative efficacy across different doctrines and nations. This model will take into account national, organizational, situational, and individual factors and will draw on and combine material from the fields of organizational, situational, and individual factors and will draw on and combine material from the fields of Compliance, Regulation, Behavioural Public Policy, Behavioural Ethics, Trust & Social Norms on how to advance public VC. We will empirically explore if and to what extent VC and greater trustworthiness by the public can be achieved across countries (high vs. low trust) using regulatory tools such as nudges, pledges, incentives, sanctions, and morality in the context of the situations of tax, environment, COVID-19 and ethics. The comprehensive picture of VC that will emerge from this project will include not just effect sizes, but also factors such as the proportion of those who comply, the sustainability of compliance, the impact on social norms, and the likelihood of positive externalities (e.g., trust enhancement) following the enactment of a specific regulatory tool. Better insights into VC can help elucidate the descriptive and normative understanding of the nature of the interaction between countries and their residents.
The distinct advantages of enhancing the public’s voluntary compliance (VC) with regulations has made it an advantageous form of governance. However, its use is limited by the extent to which governments and regulators can trust the public without jeopardizing regulatory purposes and harming other social values. Identifying and analysing the antecedents of VC across doctrines and countries can enhance our theoretical understanding of the underlying nature of the interaction between countries and their residents, as well as evaluate the relative efficacy of behaviourally based regulatory tools. This project proposes, examines, and develops a new conceptual model and a methodology that will facilitate a systematic comparison of the relative efficacy across different doctrines and nations. This model will take into account national, organizational, situational, and individual factors and will draw on and combine material from the fields of organizational, situational, and individual factors and will draw on and combine material from the fields of Compliance, Regulation, Behavioural Public Policy, Behavioural Ethics, Trust & Social Norms on how to advance public VC. We will empirically explore if and to what extent VC and greater trustworthiness by the public can be achieved across countries (high vs. low trust) using regulatory tools such as nudges, pledges, incentives, sanctions, and morality in the context of the situations of tax, environment, COVID-19 and ethics. The comprehensive picture of VC that will emerge from this project will include not just effect sizes, but also factors such as the proportion of those who comply, the sustainability of compliance, the impact on social norms, and the likelihood of positive externalities (e.g., trust enhancement) following the enactment of a specific regulatory tool. Better insights into VC can help elucidate the descriptive and normative understanding of the nature of the interaction between countries and their residents.
Consortium:
- Bar Ilan University
- Bar Ilan University
TRUEDEM: Trust in European Democracies (2023-2025)
Objective:
Political trust has long been regarded as an important element of regime support and factor of regime stability; it is widely associated with a number of positive outcomes in representative democracies. Political trust drives citizens’ interest and engagement in politics, increases voting turnout and makes law-abiding behavior more common. Political trust is frequently equated to diffuse regime support and thus linked to the effective functioning and stability of the political system. The proposed research effort will monitor the structural (long-term) drivers of political trust but also emphasize the strategies which can be employed by diverse actors and agencies to strengthen accurate and informed judgments of agency trustworthiness. The objective of this ambitious project is twofold. First, we aim to design and implement a complex research effort to collect comprehensive evidence on the judgments of trustworthiness in a range of European states. Second, the project will develop a comprehensive and transparent toolbox of short-term and long-term policy interventions including recommendations, and methodologies for enhancing trust in political institutions, boosting transparency, and inclusiveness of representative systems in Europe. While there is a growing concern about the crisis of democracy and democratic backsliding, this research effort will provide an innovative theoretical perspective on the sources of regime support and strategies for trust building in the public domain. The project looks at the different drivers of 'positive high trust in democracy' and 'negative high trust in autocracy'. The project will facilitate development of a new paradigm of political trust and trust-building and will inspire emergence of new insights on the multi-facet origins of political trust and multi-factor nature of trustworthiness. The project has partners in Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Ukraine.
Political trust has long been regarded as an important element of regime support and factor of regime stability; it is widely associated with a number of positive outcomes in representative democracies. Political trust drives citizens’ interest and engagement in politics, increases voting turnout and makes law-abiding behavior more common. Political trust is frequently equated to diffuse regime support and thus linked to the effective functioning and stability of the political system. The proposed research effort will monitor the structural (long-term) drivers of political trust but also emphasize the strategies which can be employed by diverse actors and agencies to strengthen accurate and informed judgments of agency trustworthiness. The objective of this ambitious project is twofold. First, we aim to design and implement a complex research effort to collect comprehensive evidence on the judgments of trustworthiness in a range of European states. Second, the project will develop a comprehensive and transparent toolbox of short-term and long-term policy interventions including recommendations, and methodologies for enhancing trust in political institutions, boosting transparency, and inclusiveness of representative systems in Europe. While there is a growing concern about the crisis of democracy and democratic backsliding, this research effort will provide an innovative theoretical perspective on the sources of regime support and strategies for trust building in the public domain. The project looks at the different drivers of 'positive high trust in democracy' and 'negative high trust in autocracy'. The project will facilitate development of a new paradigm of political trust and trust-building and will inspire emergence of new insights on the multi-facet origins of political trust and multi-factor nature of trustworthiness. The project has partners in Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Ukraine.
Consortium:
- Institute for Comparative Survey Research, Austria
- Metropolitan University Prague
- Leuphana University
- Sciences Po Grenoble
- University of Peloponnese
- University of Silesia
- University of Bucharest
- Comenius University in Bratislava
- University of Salerno
- University of Ljubljana
- Bikupan Values Research Institute, Sweden
- V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
- Institute for Comparative Survey Research, Austria
- Metropolitan University Prague
- Leuphana University
- Sciences Po Grenoble
- University of Peloponnese
- University of Silesia
- University of Bucharest
- Comenius University in Bratislava
- University of Salerno
- University of Ljubljana
- Bikupan Values Research Institute, Sweden
- V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
Objective:
INVOLVE For trustful, participatory and inclusive public policies Across Europe there is evidence of the existing distrust in political institutions and the increased stratification of political involvement across Europe, with more vulnerable citizens having less access and influence in the decision-making process. The COVID 19 pandemic has exposed and reinforced these trends. These shifts pose a great challenge to the democratic welfare state. INVOLVE’s main objective is to help design scalable and generalizable strategies to reduce social, economic, and political inequalities. The project builds on systematic quantitative research into the trends, causes and complex relationships between democracy and inequalities. The project also focuses on how public and social services engage with vulnerable groups of citizens, especially in the age of digitalization. It will involve vulnerable groups in 8 European countries as co-researchers to complement and refine the results. In a series of concrete pilots of action-research, their aspirational capacity and their power of voice are strengthened to bring about concrete change in public services and social policies. INVOLVE will not only involve vulnerable citizens facing multiple inequalities, but also political and public decision-makers, NGOs representing vulnerable groups and experts to develop viable political strategies in order to achieve more trust-based governance in public services, to contribute to the development of a more participatory and socially responsible society. The final stage of INVOLVE aims to contribute to democratic participation in social policies at local, national, transnational and European level through campaigns with viable policy recommendations. INVOLVE also aims to enrich future research with an encompassing and innovative perspective on inequality and democracy, based on an ‘alliance of knowledge’.
INVOLVE For trustful, participatory and inclusive public policies Across Europe there is evidence of the existing distrust in political institutions and the increased stratification of political involvement across Europe, with more vulnerable citizens having less access and influence in the decision-making process. The COVID 19 pandemic has exposed and reinforced these trends. These shifts pose a great challenge to the democratic welfare state. INVOLVE’s main objective is to help design scalable and generalizable strategies to reduce social, economic, and political inequalities. The project builds on systematic quantitative research into the trends, causes and complex relationships between democracy and inequalities. The project also focuses on how public and social services engage with vulnerable groups of citizens, especially in the age of digitalization. It will involve vulnerable groups in 8 European countries as co-researchers to complement and refine the results. In a series of concrete pilots of action-research, their aspirational capacity and their power of voice are strengthened to bring about concrete change in public services and social policies. INVOLVE will not only involve vulnerable citizens facing multiple inequalities, but also political and public decision-makers, NGOs representing vulnerable groups and experts to develop viable political strategies in order to achieve more trust-based governance in public services, to contribute to the development of a more participatory and socially responsible society. The final stage of INVOLVE aims to contribute to democratic participation in social policies at local, national, transnational and European level through campaigns with viable policy recommendations. INVOLVE also aims to enrich future research with an encompassing and innovative perspective on inequality and democracy, based on an ‘alliance of knowledge’.
Consortium:
- Beweging.net, Belgium
- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
- Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
- Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut Goettingen
- National University of Ireland Maynooth
- Rede Dlbc Lisboa
- Focus Ireland
- Groupe de Recherche et de Realisations pour le Developmmement Rural
- Coordinamento Nazionale Comunita di Accoglienza Associazione
- Centrum Organizowania Zwiazkow Zawodowych
- Universite de Geneve
- Beweging.net, Belgium
- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
- Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
- Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut Goettingen
- National University of Ireland Maynooth
- Rede Dlbc Lisboa
- Focus Ireland
- Groupe de Recherche et de Realisations pour le Developmmement Rural
- Coordinamento Nazionale Comunita di Accoglienza Associazione
- Centrum Organizowania Zwiazkow Zawodowych
- Universite de Geneve
FAIRVILLE: Facing Inequalities and democratic challenges through Co-production in Cities (2023-2026)
Objective:
"If the link between inequalities and declining levels of trust in the political institutions of democracy in Europe has already been shown, the various ways in which both citizens and institutions are trying to face these inequalities and (re)build a sustainable common future remain somewhat under-documented. Indeed, this lacuna becomes even more pronounced when one considers those attempts that go beyond conventional forms of state-led participation. Responding to this gap, the aim of Fairville is to both document and propose pilot models of urban intervention that engage local academics, -authorities, -community-based organisations, -residents and -users in the collective improvement of deprived urban neighbourhoods via a deepening of resident and user participation in new and existing democratic processes. The idea that urban policies should not be made ""for"" populations but rather “with"" them is a potentially profound engine of social transformation and empowerment. However, the realisation of such co-production processes is often marked by epistemic inequalities and unequal power relations. Cognisant of this issue, the Fairville pilot cases all place an emphasis on exploring the ways in which academic researchers, local communities and local authority representatives can work together to reduce the power and information asymmetries that exist between them. Clustered around three major themes - environmental inequalities, inequalities related to housing and urban planning and inequalities related to climate risks – and ranging from co-diagnosis to co-planning and intervention, the pilots will be carried out as action research and include the implementation of observation, capitalisation and co-evaluation mechanisms. The results of these pilot cases will be widely disseminated to the institutions and citizens concerned and we will work collectively to encourage policy transfer and outreach. "
"If the link between inequalities and declining levels of trust in the political institutions of democracy in Europe has already been shown, the various ways in which both citizens and institutions are trying to face these inequalities and (re)build a sustainable common future remain somewhat under-documented. Indeed, this lacuna becomes even more pronounced when one considers those attempts that go beyond conventional forms of state-led participation. Responding to this gap, the aim of Fairville is to both document and propose pilot models of urban intervention that engage local academics, -authorities, -community-based organisations, -residents and -users in the collective improvement of deprived urban neighbourhoods via a deepening of resident and user participation in new and existing democratic processes. The idea that urban policies should not be made ""for"" populations but rather “with"" them is a potentially profound engine of social transformation and empowerment. However, the realisation of such co-production processes is often marked by epistemic inequalities and unequal power relations. Cognisant of this issue, the Fairville pilot cases all place an emphasis on exploring the ways in which academic researchers, local communities and local authority representatives can work together to reduce the power and information asymmetries that exist between them. Clustered around three major themes - environmental inequalities, inequalities related to housing and urban planning and inequalities related to climate risks – and ranging from co-diagnosis to co-planning and intervention, the pilots will be carried out as action research and include the implementation of observation, capitalisation and co-evaluation mechanisms. The results of these pilot cases will be widely disseminated to the institutions and citizens concerned and we will work collectively to encourage policy transfer and outreach. "
Consortium:
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS
- Universite Paris 8 Vincennes Saint-Denis
- Universitat Regensburg
- Universite Libre de Bruxelles
- Universite d'Aix Marseille
- APPUII, Alternatives pour des Projets Urbains Ici et a l'International
- Synetairismos Ergazomenon Commonspace
- Etats Generau de l'Eau a Bruxelles
- Asociația Frontal
- Conoscenza e Innovazione
- North-South Consultants Exchange
- URBA Senegal
- ICLEI European Secretariat
- Commune d'Ixelles
- Un Centre Ville Pour Tous
- Perifereia Attikis
- University College London
- Just Space
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS
- Universite Paris 8 Vincennes Saint-Denis
- Universitat Regensburg
- Universite Libre de Bruxelles
- Universite d'Aix Marseille
- APPUII, Alternatives pour des Projets Urbains Ici et a l'International
- Synetairismos Ergazomenon Commonspace
- Etats Generau de l'Eau a Bruxelles
- Asociația Frontal
- Conoscenza e Innovazione
- North-South Consultants Exchange
- URBA Senegal
- ICLEI European Secretariat
- Commune d'Ixelles
- Un Centre Ville Pour Tous
- Perifereia Attikis
- University College London
- Just Space
KT4D: Knowledge Technologies for Democracy (2023-2026)
Objective:
AI and big data are fundamentally interwoven into our societies, culture and indeed into our expectations and conceptions of democratic governance and exchange. They can also, however, contribute to an environment for citizens that is distinctly anti-democratic. KT4D will harness the benefits of an understanding of these as knowledge technologies to foster more inclusive civic participation in democracy. To achieve this, we will develop and validate tools, guidelines and a Digital Democracy Lab demonstrators platform. These results will be validated across three user needs scenarios: 1) building capacity for citizens and citizen-facing Civil Society Organisations (CSOs); 2) creating regulatory tools and services for Policy and CSOs; and 3) improving awareness of how to design ethically and mindfully for democracy principles in academic and industrial software development. Our work is underpinned by the understanding that to fully address the social and fundamental rights costs of AI and big data, we need more than just technological fixes, we need more than just technological fixes, we need to address the underlying cultural influences and barriers. Most importantly, we understand the threats to democracy of AI and big data not only through the nature of what they do, but via the cultural disruptions they create with power dynamics they shift, their tendency toward opacity, and the speed at which they change. KT4D’s ambitious and disruptive results will drive transformation in how democracy and civic participation are facilitated in the face of rapidly changing knowledge technologies, enabling actors across society to capitalise on the many benefits these technologies can bring in terms of community empowerment, social integration, individual agency, and trust in both institutions and technological instruments, while confidently mitigating potential ethical, legal and cultural risks.
AI and big data are fundamentally interwoven into our societies, culture and indeed into our expectations and conceptions of democratic governance and exchange. They can also, however, contribute to an environment for citizens that is distinctly anti-democratic. KT4D will harness the benefits of an understanding of these as knowledge technologies to foster more inclusive civic participation in democracy. To achieve this, we will develop and validate tools, guidelines and a Digital Democracy Lab demonstrators platform. These results will be validated across three user needs scenarios: 1) building capacity for citizens and citizen-facing Civil Society Organisations (CSOs); 2) creating regulatory tools and services for Policy and CSOs; and 3) improving awareness of how to design ethically and mindfully for democracy principles in academic and industrial software development. Our work is underpinned by the understanding that to fully address the social and fundamental rights costs of AI and big data, we need more than just technological fixes, we need more than just technological fixes, we need to address the underlying cultural influences and barriers. Most importantly, we understand the threats to democracy of AI and big data not only through the nature of what they do, but via the cultural disruptions they create with power dynamics they shift, their tendency toward opacity, and the speed at which they change. KT4D’s ambitious and disruptive results will drive transformation in how democracy and civic participation are facilitated in the face of rapidly changing knowledge technologies, enabling actors across society to capitalise on the many benefits these technologies can bring in terms of community empowerment, social integration, individual agency, and trust in both institutions and technological instruments, while confidently mitigating potential ethical, legal and cultural risks.
Consortium:
- Trinity College Dublin
- University of Warwick
- Democratic Society
- ICT Legal Consulting
- Hybrid Core
- Beyond the Horizon
- Strane Innovation
- Ciber Voluntarios
- Institute of Urban and Regional Development
- Communication Platforms and Online Solutions
- Trist-iT Services
- Demos Helsinki
- Trinity College Dublin
- University of Warwick
- Democratic Society
- ICT Legal Consulting
- Hybrid Core
- Beyond the Horizon
- Strane Innovation
- Ciber Voluntarios
- Institute of Urban and Regional Development
- Communication Platforms and Online Solutions
- Trist-iT Services
- Demos Helsinki
Objective:
ORBIS addresses the disconnects between ambitious ideas and collective actions at a large socio-technical scale. It responds to the profound lack of dialogue between citizenship and policy making institutions by providing a theoretically sound and highly pragmatic socio-technical solution to enable the transition to a more inclusive, transparent and trustful Deliberative Democracy in Europe. The project shapes and supports new democratic models that are developed through deliberative democracy processes; it follows a socio-constructive approach in which deliberative democracy is not a theory which prescribes new democratic practices and models, but rather the process through which we can collectively imagine and realize them.ORBIS provides new ways to understand and facilitate the emergence of new participatory democracy models, together with the mechanisms to scale them up and consolidate them at institutional level. It delivers: (i) a sound methodology for deliberative participation and co-creation at scale; (ii) novel AI-enhanced tools for deliberative participation across diverse settings; (iii) a novel socio-technical approach that augments the articulation between deliberative processes and representative institutions in liberal democracies; (iv) new evidence-based democratic models that emerge from the application of citizen deliberation processes; (v) demonstrated measurable impact of such innovations in real-world settings.The project builds on cutting-edge AI tools and technologies to develop a sustainable digital solution, and bridges theories and technological solutions from the fields of political and social science, social innovation, Artificial Intelligence, argumentation and digital democracy. The achievement of the project’s goal is validated through six use cases addressing contemporary issues at different scales and settings, experimenting with different civic participation and deliberation models, and involving diverse types of stakeholders.
ORBIS addresses the disconnects between ambitious ideas and collective actions at a large socio-technical scale. It responds to the profound lack of dialogue between citizenship and policy making institutions by providing a theoretically sound and highly pragmatic socio-technical solution to enable the transition to a more inclusive, transparent and trustful Deliberative Democracy in Europe. The project shapes and supports new democratic models that are developed through deliberative democracy processes; it follows a socio-constructive approach in which deliberative democracy is not a theory which prescribes new democratic practices and models, but rather the process through which we can collectively imagine and realize them.ORBIS provides new ways to understand and facilitate the emergence of new participatory democracy models, together with the mechanisms to scale them up and consolidate them at institutional level. It delivers: (i) a sound methodology for deliberative participation and co-creation at scale; (ii) novel AI-enhanced tools for deliberative participation across diverse settings; (iii) a novel socio-technical approach that augments the articulation between deliberative processes and representative institutions in liberal democracies; (iv) new evidence-based democratic models that emerge from the application of citizen deliberation processes; (v) demonstrated measurable impact of such innovations in real-world settings.The project builds on cutting-edge AI tools and technologies to develop a sustainable digital solution, and bridges theories and technological solutions from the fields of political and social science, social innovation, Artificial Intelligence, argumentation and digital democracy. The achievement of the project’s goal is validated through six use cases addressing contemporary issues at different scales and settings, experimenting with different civic participation and deliberation models, and involving diverse types of stakeholders.
Consortium:
- Politecnico di Milano
- Centre for European Policy Studies
- Reimagine Europa
- Center for Social Innovation
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- Universite Cote d'Azur
- The Democracy and Culture Foundation
- Novelcore Research & Innovation
- Perifereia Dytiki Ellada
- Rob de Mat
- Unisystems Luxembourg
- Universita della Svizzera Italiana
- The Open University
- Politecnico di Milano
- Centre for European Policy Studies
- Reimagine Europa
- Center for Social Innovation
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- Universite Cote d'Azur
- The Democracy and Culture Foundation
- Novelcore Research & Innovation
- Perifereia Dytiki Ellada
- Rob de Mat
- Unisystems Luxembourg
- Universita della Svizzera Italiana
- The Open University
Objective:
How can we conceptualize and empirically measure political trust and legitimacy beyond the usual survey question “How much trust do you have in the parliament?”? Does the multi-level nature of European representative democracies require an identical level of citizen support at the regional, national and EU levels? How does social polarization on key policy issues of our times –immigration, climate change, and gender inequality– challenge the political trust in, and legitimacy of, democratic political systems? And what can policymakers and civil society do to master these challenges? ActEU aims at finding answers to these questions pursuing two overarching goals: In phase 1, we map and investigate persistent problems of declining trust, legitimacy and representation in Europe with a particular attention to the polarization of societies and the EU’s multi-level structures. Providing an innovative conceptual framework on political attitudes, behavior and representation across Europe, we establish an original empirical infrastructure based on an innovative combination of methods and newly collected quantitative and qualitative empirical data (focus groups, experimental surveys, web scraping). In phase 2, these results will flow directly into the creation of a toolbox of remedial actions to enhance political trust in and legitimacy of European representative democracies. In cooperation with a newly created Civil Society Network, Youth Democracy Labs across 13 European cities and in exchange with political cartoonists “Cartooning for democracy”, we will develop context-sensitive solutions for all polity levels and some of the most polarizing policy areas, and craft tailor-made toolkits for both policymakers and civil society and the educational sector. Finally, we deploy a differentiated dissemination strategy to maximize ActEU’s scientific, policy and societal impact in activating European citizens’ trust and working towards a new era of representative democracy.
How can we conceptualize and empirically measure political trust and legitimacy beyond the usual survey question “How much trust do you have in the parliament?”? Does the multi-level nature of European representative democracies require an identical level of citizen support at the regional, national and EU levels? How does social polarization on key policy issues of our times –immigration, climate change, and gender inequality– challenge the political trust in, and legitimacy of, democratic political systems? And what can policymakers and civil society do to master these challenges? ActEU aims at finding answers to these questions pursuing two overarching goals: In phase 1, we map and investigate persistent problems of declining trust, legitimacy and representation in Europe with a particular attention to the polarization of societies and the EU’s multi-level structures. Providing an innovative conceptual framework on political attitudes, behavior and representation across Europe, we establish an original empirical infrastructure based on an innovative combination of methods and newly collected quantitative and qualitative empirical data (focus groups, experimental surveys, web scraping). In phase 2, these results will flow directly into the creation of a toolbox of remedial actions to enhance political trust in and legitimacy of European representative democracies. In cooperation with a newly created Civil Society Network, Youth Democracy Labs across 13 European cities and in exchange with political cartoonists “Cartooning for democracy”, we will develop context-sensitive solutions for all polity levels and some of the most polarizing policy areas, and craft tailor-made toolkits for both policymakers and civil society and the educational sector. Finally, we deploy a differentiated dissemination strategy to maximize ActEU’s scientific, policy and societal impact in activating European citizens’ trust and working towards a new era of representative democracy.
Consortium:
- Universitat Duisburg Essen
- Universitat des Saarlandes
- Paris London Universitat Salzburg
- Trans-European Policy Studies Association
- Institute of International Relations Prague
- Abo Akademi University
- Universite Catholique de Lille
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
- Universita di Trento
- SWPS University
- Universidad de Oviedo
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
- Universitat Duisburg Essen
- Universitat des Saarlandes
- Paris London Universitat Salzburg
- Trans-European Policy Studies Association
- Institute of International Relations Prague
- Abo Akademi University
- Universite Catholique de Lille
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
- Universita di Trento
- SWPS University
- Universidad de Oviedo
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
Objective:
Social media for democracy – understanding the causal mechanisms of digital citizenship (SoMe4Dem)Current diagnoses that democracy is in crisis at the beginning of the 21st century share a common argumentative reference point: the (implicit) reference to the dysfunctional constitution of the political public sphere which is currently undergoing structural change. The rise of social media platforms is considered as one of its main constituents. While social media make the public arena more open and thus more responsive, these platforms also lead to new mechanisms of fragmentation and exclusion, an erosion of norms in public debate and a loss of trust in traditional institutions.The project will reconsider the diagnoses of this crisis by (1) providing better empirical evidence for the impact of social media on society with respect to political debates, (2) understanding the main causal mechanisms of this impact and (3) developing tools that improve the capacity of social media to contribute to the functioning of the public arena in a liberal democracy, i.e., deliberation, legitimation and the self-perception of the democratic subject.
Social media for democracy – understanding the causal mechanisms of digital citizenship (SoMe4Dem)Current diagnoses that democracy is in crisis at the beginning of the 21st century share a common argumentative reference point: the (implicit) reference to the dysfunctional constitution of the political public sphere which is currently undergoing structural change. The rise of social media platforms is considered as one of its main constituents. While social media make the public arena more open and thus more responsive, these platforms also lead to new mechanisms of fragmentation and exclusion, an erosion of norms in public debate and a loss of trust in traditional institutions.The project will reconsider the diagnoses of this crisis by (1) providing better empirical evidence for the impact of social media on society with respect to political debates, (2) understanding the main causal mechanisms of this impact and (3) developing tools that improve the capacity of social media to contribute to the functioning of the public arena in a liberal democracy, i.e., deliberation, legitimation and the self-perception of the democratic subject.
Consortium:
- Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development
- Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia
- Leipzig University
- Universiteit van Amsterdam
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel
- Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
- Sciences Po
- University Potsdam
- University of Bristol
- IRRIS Institute
- Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development
- Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia
- Leipzig University
- Universiteit van Amsterdam
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel
- Karlsruhe Institute for Technology
- Sciences Po
- University Potsdam
- University of Bristol
- IRRIS Institute
Objective:
INCITE-DEM's experienced Consortium aims to enhance inclusive participation and civic engagement while expanding democratic innovation and dynamic feedback mechanisms between citizens and institutional actors in representative democracies. Currently, “wicked problems” relating to ecological crises but also media developments and digital divides create unprecedented pressures on democracies. Next to related socio-economic challenges, we’re witnessing a decline in political trust and the formation of new societal cleavages. INCITE-DEM will offer a unique contribution to the future of democracy in Europe by harnessing historical and quantitative and qualitative social science research, agent-based modelling, design thinking, and advanced analytical methods for the purpose of expanding inclusive participation and engagement and fuelling democratic innovation. Furthermore, we will implement Democracy Labs (DLabs) in six countries, where citizens, representatives of democratic innovation initiatives, policymakers, and other stakeholders come together to co-create imaginaries of inclusive democratic innovations. The new solutions and democratic futures envisioned are the objects of design fiction products. All innovations co-created in the DLabs are then validated through a choice experiment survey with citizens and interactive fora with policymakers, to check their feasibility and the potential for implementation. Lastly, a set of policy roadmaps for a sustainable, inclusive, and innovative democracy in a world facing deep societal, technological and ecological transformations are produced and presented to a broad range of stakeholders at multiple levels of governance in Europe.
INCITE-DEM's experienced Consortium aims to enhance inclusive participation and civic engagement while expanding democratic innovation and dynamic feedback mechanisms between citizens and institutional actors in representative democracies. Currently, “wicked problems” relating to ecological crises but also media developments and digital divides create unprecedented pressures on democracies. Next to related socio-economic challenges, we’re witnessing a decline in political trust and the formation of new societal cleavages. INCITE-DEM will offer a unique contribution to the future of democracy in Europe by harnessing historical and quantitative and qualitative social science research, agent-based modelling, design thinking, and advanced analytical methods for the purpose of expanding inclusive participation and engagement and fuelling democratic innovation. Furthermore, we will implement Democracy Labs (DLabs) in six countries, where citizens, representatives of democratic innovation initiatives, policymakers, and other stakeholders come together to co-create imaginaries of inclusive democratic innovations. The new solutions and democratic futures envisioned are the objects of design fiction products. All innovations co-created in the DLabs are then validated through a choice experiment survey with citizens and interactive fora with policymakers, to check their feasibility and the potential for implementation. Lastly, a set of policy roadmaps for a sustainable, inclusive, and innovative democracy in a world facing deep societal, technological and ecological transformations are produced and presented to a broad range of stakeholders at multiple levels of governance in Europe.
Consortium:
- FCiencias.ID
- University of Munster
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology
- University of Groningen
- University of Helsinki
- Tallinn University
- Instituto de Ciencias Sociais
- Asociacion Eco-Union
- Focus
- Kyoto Club
- FCiencias.ID
- University of Munster
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology
- University of Groningen
- University of Helsinki
- Tallinn University
- Instituto de Ciencias Sociais
- Asociacion Eco-Union
- Focus
- Kyoto Club
Objective:
OppAttune tracks the evolution of oppositional extreme ideologies and protectionist decision-making, develops an innovative attunement model and tests a series of interventions at the national and transnational levels which limit the spread of extremism. OppAttune revitalises trust in key democratic institutions. Its actions involve an on-line I-Attune self-test interactive to build democratic capacity across diverse publics. OppAttune will create an OppAttune Summer Academy for students and researchers (2025) and an OppAttune Winter Academy for practitioners and policymakers (2026). OppAttune provides micro, meso and macro level evidence-based recommendations and strategies designed to counter the potential of extreme narratives to disrupt democratic growth. It delivers this via a multi-disciplinary consortium of 17 countries across the EU and its periphery.Democracies and the European project are under threat by extremism and lack of political and social dialogue. Existential insecurities arising out of economic and refugee-related crises have been exacerbated by Covid-19 to create re-bordering e.g., xenophobic-nationalism and re-shoring e.g., the localisation of production. Oppositional worldviews, narratives and dissensus within public debate are all vital to a functioning democracy. However destructive polarisation of oppositional us/them logic is at the core of the rise of extremist narratives. Disruptive actors polarise oppositional logic using disinformation, emotions, hot cognitions, conspiracy theories and mistrust to create new forms of direct action. This direct action is understood to many as direct democracy. This direct action cultivates unlikely coalitions creating attractive alternative on-line/off-line worlds which spread extreme narratives into the mainstream via deep rooted sociological and historical pathways. OppAttune will track, attune and limit extreme narratives to foreground EU transnational freedoms and multilateralism.
OppAttune tracks the evolution of oppositional extreme ideologies and protectionist decision-making, develops an innovative attunement model and tests a series of interventions at the national and transnational levels which limit the spread of extremism. OppAttune revitalises trust in key democratic institutions. Its actions involve an on-line I-Attune self-test interactive to build democratic capacity across diverse publics. OppAttune will create an OppAttune Summer Academy for students and researchers (2025) and an OppAttune Winter Academy for practitioners and policymakers (2026). OppAttune provides micro, meso and macro level evidence-based recommendations and strategies designed to counter the potential of extreme narratives to disrupt democratic growth. It delivers this via a multi-disciplinary consortium of 17 countries across the EU and its periphery.Democracies and the European project are under threat by extremism and lack of political and social dialogue. Existential insecurities arising out of economic and refugee-related crises have been exacerbated by Covid-19 to create re-bordering e.g., xenophobic-nationalism and re-shoring e.g., the localisation of production. Oppositional worldviews, narratives and dissensus within public debate are all vital to a functioning democracy. However destructive polarisation of oppositional us/them logic is at the core of the rise of extremist narratives. Disruptive actors polarise oppositional logic using disinformation, emotions, hot cognitions, conspiracy theories and mistrust to create new forms of direct action. This direct action is understood to many as direct democracy. This direct action cultivates unlikely coalitions creating attractive alternative on-line/off-line worlds which spread extreme narratives into the mainstream via deep rooted sociological and historical pathways. OppAttune will track, attune and limit extreme narratives to foreground EU transnational freedoms and multilateralism.
Consortium:
- Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences
- The American University of Paris
- Malmo Universitet
- Cultures Interactive E.V.
- Austrian Academy of Sciences
- University of Malta
- Ozyegin University
- Istanbul Bilgi University
- University of Cyprus
- Institut Jozef Stefan
- University of Coimbra
- The International and Security Affairs Centre
- Kosovar Centre for Security Studies
- Hammurabi Human Rights Organization
- PRONI Centar
- The Glasgow Caledonian University
- The Open University
- Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences
- The American University of Paris
- Malmo Universitet
- Cultures Interactive E.V.
- Austrian Academy of Sciences
- University of Malta
- Ozyegin University
- Istanbul Bilgi University
- University of Cyprus
- Institut Jozef Stefan
- University of Coimbra
- The International and Security Affairs Centre
- Kosovar Centre for Security Studies
- Hammurabi Human Rights Organization
- PRONI Centar
- The Glasgow Caledonian University
- The Open University
WISEREADER: Boosting trust in online media by instantly informing users about conflicts of interest (2023-2024)
Objective:
Trust in mainstream media has been declining steadily across the world. The trend is fuelled by the perception that news companies are not truly independent but serve the interests of owners, advertisers or creditors. Many media outlets insulate editorial decisions from external pressures, but ordinary citizens have no means to know. Hence, distrust in a few “bad apples” risks extending to the entire industry. The WiseReader project aims to tackle this problem. Based on research carried out under the Starting Grant project MIRAGE, it proposes to create a web browser extension that allows online users to learn about the potential conflicts of interest faced by the news outlets. The extension will identify companies and individuals featured in a news article as well as relevant connections between them and the news outlet. It would then display the results using an intuitive system of coloured flags and offer comprehensive information about these connections on a dedicated website. The project aims to empower ordinary citizens allowing them to discern what news sources and stories ought to be trusted. It may also allow quality news outlets to distinguish themselves from others and improve their reputation and traffic.
Trust in mainstream media has been declining steadily across the world. The trend is fuelled by the perception that news companies are not truly independent but serve the interests of owners, advertisers or creditors. Many media outlets insulate editorial decisions from external pressures, but ordinary citizens have no means to know. Hence, distrust in a few “bad apples” risks extending to the entire industry. The WiseReader project aims to tackle this problem. Based on research carried out under the Starting Grant project MIRAGE, it proposes to create a web browser extension that allows online users to learn about the potential conflicts of interest faced by the news outlets. The extension will identify companies and individuals featured in a news article as well as relevant connections between them and the news outlet. It would then display the results using an intuitive system of coloured flags and offer comprehensive information about these connections on a dedicated website. The project aims to empower ordinary citizens allowing them to discern what news sources and stories ought to be trusted. It may also allow quality news outlets to distinguish themselves from others and improve their reputation and traffic.
Consortium:
- Fundacio Privada Barcelona Graduate School of Economics
- Universidad Pompeu Fabra
- Fundacio Privada Barcelona Graduate School of Economics
- Universidad Pompeu Fabra
Objective:
Paradoxically, representative democracy requires not only citizens’ trust in the institutions of democracy, but also a healthy dose of political scepticism towards these institutions. Scholars have warned against the detrimental effects of blind trust and blind distrust. The former would make citizens susceptible to manipulation, the latter to alienation. By contrast, (dis)trust that is not blind but evaluative stimulates vigilant civic engagement. While blind (dis)trust would lead to an anomic democracy, evaluative (dis)trust would stimulate democratic reinvigoration and accountability. We should therefore not merely distinguish between political trust and distrust, but also between dispositional/blind and evaluative (dis)trust. However, empirical studies of political trust focus almost exclusively on the level of trust. The standard political trust survey items cannot distinguish blind (dis)trust from evaluative (dis)trust. This vast lacuna at the heart of political trust research left the major questions in the field unanswered: on the trends, causes, and consequences of political trust. CRITICALTRUST addresses this fundamental problem. It first develops a novel, two-dimensional model of political (dis)trust, and creates new measures that distinguish blind from evaluative (dis)trust. This model and these measures will be the foundation for primary data collection (large-N survey + experiments). The survey is designed as a three-wave, cross-national panel survey in 8 European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Both the survey’s panel element and the experiments allow us to systematically test causal effects that have long been proposed in the literature. CRITICALTRUST thereby answers questions that plagued political trust research for decades. It will offer diagnoses of the risks of low and declining trust, and advice to democratic actors whether and how to stimulate political trust.
Paradoxically, representative democracy requires not only citizens’ trust in the institutions of democracy, but also a healthy dose of political scepticism towards these institutions. Scholars have warned against the detrimental effects of blind trust and blind distrust. The former would make citizens susceptible to manipulation, the latter to alienation. By contrast, (dis)trust that is not blind but evaluative stimulates vigilant civic engagement. While blind (dis)trust would lead to an anomic democracy, evaluative (dis)trust would stimulate democratic reinvigoration and accountability. We should therefore not merely distinguish between political trust and distrust, but also between dispositional/blind and evaluative (dis)trust. However, empirical studies of political trust focus almost exclusively on the level of trust. The standard political trust survey items cannot distinguish blind (dis)trust from evaluative (dis)trust. This vast lacuna at the heart of political trust research left the major questions in the field unanswered: on the trends, causes, and consequences of political trust. CRITICALTRUST addresses this fundamental problem. It first develops a novel, two-dimensional model of political (dis)trust, and creates new measures that distinguish blind from evaluative (dis)trust. This model and these measures will be the foundation for primary data collection (large-N survey + experiments). The survey is designed as a three-wave, cross-national panel survey in 8 European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Both the survey’s panel element and the experiments allow us to systematically test causal effects that have long been proposed in the literature. CRITICALTRUST thereby answers questions that plagued political trust research for decades. It will offer diagnoses of the risks of low and declining trust, and advice to democratic actors whether and how to stimulate political trust.
Consortium:
- University of Amsterdam
- University of Amsterdam
REGTRUST: Intermediation and Trust in the Regulatory State: More Regulation, Less Trust? (2023-2028)
Objective:
Regulation is sometimes a manifestation of distrust, but on other times it is a manifestation of trust. When do trust and regulation compete, substitute for and mutually-support each other? How can we maximize the benefits of both? Is the proliferation of rules around us a manifestation of growing distrust or trust? Is the regulatory state necessarily a low-trust state? To answer these questions, RegTrust introduces intermediation as a governance mechanism and intermediaries as third parties in trust and regulatory interactions. Intermediaries certify products, report compliance, rank organizations, label products, monitor performance, screen behavior, whistle-blow misbehavior, and audit organizations. The regulation literature treats them as regulatory actors; the trust literature, as trustees. Yet intermediaries are both trustees and regulatees, both subjects and objects of trust and regulation. Most importantly, they may determine successes and failures, winners and losers, of trust and regulation. At their best, intermediaries reinforce regulation and trust, and promote polycentric (pluralist) structures of governance. At their worst, they undermine trust in regulation, leading to vicious cycles of failure and re/centralization (monocentric governance). RegTrust examines under which conditions, why, how, and to what effects trust and regulation compete, substitute for, or mutually-support each other. We problematize the role of intermediaries, develop a three-actor (triadic) model of governance, and assess its institutional macro-political consequences. Going beyond the state of the art, this project sheds light on the multiple interactions of trust and regulation in policy and politics. It advances the theory of intermediation; advances the interaction of trust and regulation as a central element of the governance literature; And explores the conditions that may make a regulatory state into a high-trust state.
Regulation is sometimes a manifestation of distrust, but on other times it is a manifestation of trust. When do trust and regulation compete, substitute for and mutually-support each other? How can we maximize the benefits of both? Is the proliferation of rules around us a manifestation of growing distrust or trust? Is the regulatory state necessarily a low-trust state? To answer these questions, RegTrust introduces intermediation as a governance mechanism and intermediaries as third parties in trust and regulatory interactions. Intermediaries certify products, report compliance, rank organizations, label products, monitor performance, screen behavior, whistle-blow misbehavior, and audit organizations. The regulation literature treats them as regulatory actors; the trust literature, as trustees. Yet intermediaries are both trustees and regulatees, both subjects and objects of trust and regulation. Most importantly, they may determine successes and failures, winners and losers, of trust and regulation. At their best, intermediaries reinforce regulation and trust, and promote polycentric (pluralist) structures of governance. At their worst, they undermine trust in regulation, leading to vicious cycles of failure and re/centralization (monocentric governance). RegTrust examines under which conditions, why, how, and to what effects trust and regulation compete, substitute for, or mutually-support each other. We problematize the role of intermediaries, develop a three-actor (triadic) model of governance, and assess its institutional macro-political consequences. Going beyond the state of the art, this project sheds light on the multiple interactions of trust and regulation in policy and politics. It advances the theory of intermediation; advances the interaction of trust and regulation as a central element of the governance literature; And explores the conditions that may make a regulatory state into a high-trust state.
Consortium:
- The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Universite de Lausanne
- Institut Barcelona D Estudis Internacionals
- The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Universite de Lausanne
- Institut Barcelona D Estudis Internacionals
Objective:
Interacting socio-political, economic, and environmental crises are destabilizing efforts to attain the global vision entailed in UN Agenda 2030. The need for adaptive and inclusive development cooperation governance has never been stronger. As complex needs accelerate due to the coronavirus pandemic, rapidly changing climates, and increasing levels of conflict and human insecurity, trust and legitimacy in traditional institutions and actors is weak and declining. In efforts to achieve greater development effectiveness, the international development cooperation sector is shifting towards new ways of working, including increased localization, decolonization, greater coherence across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, and adapting development practice to support deeper engagement with civil society actors. However, how these changes affect governance structures and processes within non-profit non-governmental and civil society organizations (CSOs) is not well understood. With an estimated 37,000 autonomous entities, understanding how, why, and in what ways CSOs assemble governance structures and interact to ensure effective and appropriate governance of development programs is critically important to trust and legitimacy in this sector. To date, no research has systematically examined the relational and spatial dynamics of CSO governance chains. Nor have comprehensive evaluation frameworks for such assemblages yet been developed. Using core geographical concepts of place, space, and scale, drawing upon ground-breaking methodologies of assemblage thinking and critical realist evaluation, combined with innovations in organizational theory through issue framing, GEOFORMATIONS will provide radical new insights into the governance geographies of place-based development cooperation practices which can be used to radically redesign international development cooperation governance theory, policy, and practice.
Interacting socio-political, economic, and environmental crises are destabilizing efforts to attain the global vision entailed in UN Agenda 2030. The need for adaptive and inclusive development cooperation governance has never been stronger. As complex needs accelerate due to the coronavirus pandemic, rapidly changing climates, and increasing levels of conflict and human insecurity, trust and legitimacy in traditional institutions and actors is weak and declining. In efforts to achieve greater development effectiveness, the international development cooperation sector is shifting towards new ways of working, including increased localization, decolonization, greater coherence across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, and adapting development practice to support deeper engagement with civil society actors. However, how these changes affect governance structures and processes within non-profit non-governmental and civil society organizations (CSOs) is not well understood. With an estimated 37,000 autonomous entities, understanding how, why, and in what ways CSOs assemble governance structures and interact to ensure effective and appropriate governance of development programs is critically important to trust and legitimacy in this sector. To date, no research has systematically examined the relational and spatial dynamics of CSO governance chains. Nor have comprehensive evaluation frameworks for such assemblages yet been developed. Using core geographical concepts of place, space, and scale, drawing upon ground-breaking methodologies of assemblage thinking and critical realist evaluation, combined with innovations in organizational theory through issue framing, GEOFORMATIONS will provide radical new insights into the governance geographies of place-based development cooperation practices which can be used to radically redesign international development cooperation governance theory, policy, and practice.
Consortium:
- Trinity College Dublin
- Trinity College Dublin
CURIAFIDES: The relevance of judicial (dis-)trust for the legal integration of the European Union (2024-2028)
Objective:
The functioning of the European Union (EU) legal system is ensured through an intricate interdependent and non-hierarchical judicialsystem, where judges at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and national courts must rely on the willing cooperation with each otherto enforce decisions on EU law matters. Scholars have pointed to the relevance of legal, historical, sociological and political factors inexplaining why courts cooperate within the EU judicial system. However, recent scholarly and policy debates underline the relevanceof trust-enhancing solutions in addressing some of the current challenges facing the EU legal system: specifically that of judicialdefiance of national courts to the authority of the CJEU. These concerns have been aggravated in the context of democratic and ruleof law backsliding in Hungary and Poland, which have raised serious doubts about the correct application of EU law within a networkof thousands of national courts. Despite this incipient interest, we still lack adequate theorising about the truly sociological andrelational nature of this phenomenon, which is crucial for the development of a more fine-grained account of inter-judicial relationsand for answering: what is trust between judges? Which factors make judges trust other judges? What are the implications of judicialtrust for cooperation in multi-level systems? The CURIAFIDES project is an interdisciplinary and ground-breaking research project,aiming at investigating the relevance of trust between judges for the cooperation and, subsequently, the legal integration of the EU.The project will articulate a novel socio-legal theory of judicial trust within the EU, which will be based on strong empirical evidencecollected from experiments, surveys, and interviews with CJEU and national judges. The purpose of which being is to define andexplain judicial trust and its impact on judicial cooperation, which ties into a broader aim of offering new policy and legal solutions.
The functioning of the European Union (EU) legal system is ensured through an intricate interdependent and non-hierarchical judicialsystem, where judges at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and national courts must rely on the willing cooperation with each otherto enforce decisions on EU law matters. Scholars have pointed to the relevance of legal, historical, sociological and political factors inexplaining why courts cooperate within the EU judicial system. However, recent scholarly and policy debates underline the relevanceof trust-enhancing solutions in addressing some of the current challenges facing the EU legal system: specifically that of judicialdefiance of national courts to the authority of the CJEU. These concerns have been aggravated in the context of democratic and ruleof law backsliding in Hungary and Poland, which have raised serious doubts about the correct application of EU law within a networkof thousands of national courts. Despite this incipient interest, we still lack adequate theorising about the truly sociological andrelational nature of this phenomenon, which is crucial for the development of a more fine-grained account of inter-judicial relationsand for answering: what is trust between judges? Which factors make judges trust other judges? What are the implications of judicialtrust for cooperation in multi-level systems? The CURIAFIDES project is an interdisciplinary and ground-breaking research project,aiming at investigating the relevance of trust between judges for the cooperation and, subsequently, the legal integration of the EU.The project will articulate a novel socio-legal theory of judicial trust within the EU, which will be based on strong empirical evidencecollected from experiments, surveys, and interviews with CJEU and national judges. The purpose of which being is to define andexplain judicial trust and its impact on judicial cooperation, which ties into a broader aim of offering new policy and legal solutions.
Consortium:
- Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
- Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Objective:
Liberal democracy is struggling with the challenge of citizens’ indifference and detachment from politics, while anti-system politicians are overemotionalising policy issues which furthers polarisation in society. The normative stance of MORES is that both under- and overemotionalisation of politics should be avoided. The former leads to the affective disconnect of citizens from politics, while the latter spurs tribal politics and hampers deliberation – both extremes threaten democracy.MORES argues that moral emotions and moralised political identities – a conceptual innovation of the project – have a practical value in dealing with the challenges of affective politics. Moral emotions are linked to the interests or welfare of society or at least of persons other than the subject itself. They can unite people towards common causes or split them along moralised political identities. MORES applies a horizontally wide research logic to build a normative-analytical framework to inform democratic decision-making on how moral emotions should interact with values, policies and political practices. MORES will create state-of-the-art methods and generate new empirical data on (1) the type of moral emotions triggered by political actions and phenomena such as campaigns, leadership styles and illiberal politics; (2) the role of moral emotions in forging moralised political identities; (3) the effect of moral emotions on political behaviour such as policy support and civic activism; and (4) the contextual social phenomena, including digital universes, of the moral emotions-politics nexus.Through research engagement with key stakeholders, MORES will create several innovative tools including a method for policymakers to measure the emotional valence of policies, games to strengthen citizens’ political-emotional resilience both in real-life and metaverses, and policy ideas to embed citizens’ moral-emotional needs in policymaking towards bolstering trust in democratic governance.
Liberal democracy is struggling with the challenge of citizens’ indifference and detachment from politics, while anti-system politicians are overemotionalising policy issues which furthers polarisation in society. The normative stance of MORES is that both under- and overemotionalisation of politics should be avoided. The former leads to the affective disconnect of citizens from politics, while the latter spurs tribal politics and hampers deliberation – both extremes threaten democracy.MORES argues that moral emotions and moralised political identities – a conceptual innovation of the project – have a practical value in dealing with the challenges of affective politics. Moral emotions are linked to the interests or welfare of society or at least of persons other than the subject itself. They can unite people towards common causes or split them along moralised political identities. MORES applies a horizontally wide research logic to build a normative-analytical framework to inform democratic decision-making on how moral emotions should interact with values, policies and political practices. MORES will create state-of-the-art methods and generate new empirical data on (1) the type of moral emotions triggered by political actions and phenomena such as campaigns, leadership styles and illiberal politics; (2) the role of moral emotions in forging moralised political identities; (3) the effect of moral emotions on political behaviour such as policy support and civic activism; and (4) the contextual social phenomena, including digital universes, of the moral emotions-politics nexus.Through research engagement with key stakeholders, MORES will create several innovative tools including a method for policymakers to measure the emotional valence of policies, games to strengthen citizens’ political-emotional resilience both in real-life and metaverses, and policy ideas to embed citizens’ moral-emotional needs in policymaking towards bolstering trust in democratic governance.
Consortium:
- Centre for Social Sciences, Hungary
- Adam Mickiewicz University
- Eotvos Lorand University
- European University Institute
- European University Viadrina
- Game in Society
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- University of Lorraine
- Centre for Social Sciences, Hungary
- Adam Mickiewicz University
- Eotvos Lorand University
- European University Institute
- European University Viadrina
- Game in Society
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- University of Lorraine
Objective:
Large firms such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have been making worldwide headlines for abusing their market power and violating antitrust rules. Within the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC) has been a regulatory powerhouse in competition policy with the capacity to counterbalance unfair dominance of large firms. Such antitrust cases tend to gain news coverage and lead to discussions in the public sphere. In other words, they become subject to ‘politicisation’. But does politicisation affect citizens’ trust in public authorities and large companies, and if so, how? PROTRUST (Public Trust in Contemporary Europe: Trusting the Antitrust) investigates the effect of politicisation of EU antitrust cases on citizens’ trust in the European Commission and in the firms involved. It does so through an innovative combination of (1) a claims-making analysis of media coverage of antitrust cases in selected countries and (2) survey experiments based on the identified media frames from the claims-making analysis. PROTRUST is hosted by ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, where it benefits from the expertise of Prof. Tobias Bach and other academics in the areas of trust, public administration, and EU studies. It also relies on the support of two secondment institutions, GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, and Lund University, adding key expertise in the areas of political economy, transparency and technology. PROTRUST builds a bridge between politicisation and trust research, advances knowledge on politicisation in the field of competition policy, and provides a novel analysis of the impact of media frames in relation to competition and antitrust. Considering the dominance of large firms and the emerging challenges of democratic governance in the digital age, analysing the link between politicisation and citizens’ trust is a timely and pressing topic.
Large firms such as Amazon, Google and Facebook have been making worldwide headlines for abusing their market power and violating antitrust rules. Within the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC) has been a regulatory powerhouse in competition policy with the capacity to counterbalance unfair dominance of large firms. Such antitrust cases tend to gain news coverage and lead to discussions in the public sphere. In other words, they become subject to ‘politicisation’. But does politicisation affect citizens’ trust in public authorities and large companies, and if so, how? PROTRUST (Public Trust in Contemporary Europe: Trusting the Antitrust) investigates the effect of politicisation of EU antitrust cases on citizens’ trust in the European Commission and in the firms involved. It does so through an innovative combination of (1) a claims-making analysis of media coverage of antitrust cases in selected countries and (2) survey experiments based on the identified media frames from the claims-making analysis. PROTRUST is hosted by ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, where it benefits from the expertise of Prof. Tobias Bach and other academics in the areas of trust, public administration, and EU studies. It also relies on the support of two secondment institutions, GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, and Lund University, adding key expertise in the areas of political economy, transparency and technology. PROTRUST builds a bridge between politicisation and trust research, advances knowledge on politicisation in the field of competition policy, and provides a novel analysis of the impact of media frames in relation to competition and antitrust. Considering the dominance of large firms and the emerging challenges of democratic governance in the digital age, analysing the link between politicisation and citizens’ trust is a timely and pressing topic.
Consortium:
- ARENA Centre for European Studies
- Lunds Universiteit
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- ARENA Centre for European Studies
- Lunds Universiteit
- Universiteit Antwerpen
Objective:
Despite emotions being a driver of political choices, building democratically meaningful emotional narratives in politics remains an uncharted territory. Hence the main venture of ENCODE is to decode the meanings of emotions and encode them to policy-making strategies aiming for a positive emotional turn, breaking the cycle of depolarisation. To meet this ambitious goal, ENCODE builds its conceptual frameworks arising from a novel concept of affective pluralisation, as opposed to affective polarisation. This term serves to frame empirical research carried out in 6 geographically diverse European countries, representing both EU member states and candidates. This study will span desk research, sentiment analysis, biometric research, in-depth interviews, experiments and panel survey. Such triangulation of research techniques ensures the accuracy and validity of the findings. These are further encoded into main outputs: catalogue of best practice to tackle disinformation in social media, emotional gap maps, validated survey questions and democratic resilience heatmaps. These outputs are not expected only to enhance current scientific framework, but also are planned to underpin the future emotional narratives co-designed by diverse groups of citizens in innovations labs and further validated by Delphi expert panels and vignette experiments. This bottom-up approach anchored in citizen science ensures that policy-making strategy are in first place created by citizens and only in the next step discussed by expert teams who will elaborate policy-making strategies, the roadmap for their implementation, alongside future foresight scenarios which will be disseminated widely across EU and EU wide community of 1000+ members. This strategy creates emotional bonds between ordinary citizens, increases trust in governance and supports better informed political decision-making and communication.
Despite emotions being a driver of political choices, building democratically meaningful emotional narratives in politics remains an uncharted territory. Hence the main venture of ENCODE is to decode the meanings of emotions and encode them to policy-making strategies aiming for a positive emotional turn, breaking the cycle of depolarisation. To meet this ambitious goal, ENCODE builds its conceptual frameworks arising from a novel concept of affective pluralisation, as opposed to affective polarisation. This term serves to frame empirical research carried out in 6 geographically diverse European countries, representing both EU member states and candidates. This study will span desk research, sentiment analysis, biometric research, in-depth interviews, experiments and panel survey. Such triangulation of research techniques ensures the accuracy and validity of the findings. These are further encoded into main outputs: catalogue of best practice to tackle disinformation in social media, emotional gap maps, validated survey questions and democratic resilience heatmaps. These outputs are not expected only to enhance current scientific framework, but also are planned to underpin the future emotional narratives co-designed by diverse groups of citizens in innovations labs and further validated by Delphi expert panels and vignette experiments. This bottom-up approach anchored in citizen science ensures that policy-making strategy are in first place created by citizens and only in the next step discussed by expert teams who will elaborate policy-making strategies, the roadmap for their implementation, alongside future foresight scenarios which will be disseminated widely across EU and EU wide community of 1000+ members. This strategy creates emotional bonds between ordinary citizens, increases trust in governance and supports better informed political decision-making and communication.
Consortium:
- ASM Centrum Badan i Analiz Rynkuspolka z Ogra
- Uniwersytet Wroclawski
- University of Copenhagen
- University of Vienna
- Reimagine Europa
- Predictby Research and Consulting
- The European Centre for Populism Studies
- Centre for the Study of Democracy
- Institut za Demokratija Societas Civilis Skopje
- University of Sarajevo
- ASM Centrum Badan i Analiz Rynkuspolka z Ogra
- Uniwersytet Wroclawski
- University of Copenhagen
- University of Vienna
- Reimagine Europa
- Predictby Research and Consulting
- The European Centre for Populism Studies
- Centre for the Study of Democracy
- Institut za Demokratija Societas Civilis Skopje
- University of Sarajevo
Objective:
To foster productive political engagement in contemporary democracies, it is vital to understand how citizens respond to information that challenges their beliefs. Yet relevant research focuses overwhelmingly on the U.S., where public trust in media is uniquely low. INFOTRUST hypothesizes that a major comparative study of low, medium, and high media-trust nations from N. America, Europe, and Asia will upend settled assumptions and promote a more robust theoretical framework for understanding public discourse in the Internet age. Working at the juncture of political science, communication studies and psychology, it will conduct a series of experiments, engineered for cross-national comparability, in 7-8 representative nations, testing whether and how levels of media trust affect the way people select and process attitude-discrepant information. In a first, moreover, the project will operationalize trust at both individual and contextual levels and explore the interactions between them. Its pathbreaking methodology, which adopts web-tracking and eye-tracking techniques, will yield more precise observations than the literature offers, providing a wealth of data for its own conclusions, and for succeeding researchers to plumb. INFOTRUST will facilitate knowledge transfers among E.U. and non-E.U. researchers concerning politics, media, culture, and methodologies. The project will allow an early-career female researcher to gain crucial experience in administering ambitious, cross-national projects, implementing cutting-edge technologies, and working in the E.U. contexts. Moreover, INFOTRUST will employ an international dissemination plan to engage activists, policy makers, journalists, and citizens in its findings, yielding concrete and practical strategies to promote deliberative engagement. The insights it yields will lead to evidence-based solutions for combating political polarization, echo chambers, and the worrisome erosion of democracy we are witnessing at present.
To foster productive political engagement in contemporary democracies, it is vital to understand how citizens respond to information that challenges their beliefs. Yet relevant research focuses overwhelmingly on the U.S., where public trust in media is uniquely low. INFOTRUST hypothesizes that a major comparative study of low, medium, and high media-trust nations from N. America, Europe, and Asia will upend settled assumptions and promote a more robust theoretical framework for understanding public discourse in the Internet age. Working at the juncture of political science, communication studies and psychology, it will conduct a series of experiments, engineered for cross-national comparability, in 7-8 representative nations, testing whether and how levels of media trust affect the way people select and process attitude-discrepant information. In a first, moreover, the project will operationalize trust at both individual and contextual levels and explore the interactions between them. Its pathbreaking methodology, which adopts web-tracking and eye-tracking techniques, will yield more precise observations than the literature offers, providing a wealth of data for its own conclusions, and for succeeding researchers to plumb. INFOTRUST will facilitate knowledge transfers among E.U. and non-E.U. researchers concerning politics, media, culture, and methodologies. The project will allow an early-career female researcher to gain crucial experience in administering ambitious, cross-national projects, implementing cutting-edge technologies, and working in the E.U. contexts. Moreover, INFOTRUST will employ an international dissemination plan to engage activists, policy makers, journalists, and citizens in its findings, yielding concrete and practical strategies to promote deliberative engagement. The insights it yields will lead to evidence-based solutions for combating political polarization, echo chambers, and the worrisome erosion of democracy we are witnessing at present.
Consortium:
- University of Vienna
- University of Vienna
Objective:
Corruption is a pressing global challenge, which imposes substantial costs on the lives of people and businesses, and undermines citizens’ trust in democratic institutions. Anticorruption reforms and political ethics regulation have also grown dramatically in European countries, but display varying degrees of success. While scandals, policy diffusion and political will have been advanced as explanations for the success or failure of anticorruption policies, it not yet understood under which specific conditions politicians will adopt anticorruption policies (ACPs) aimed at changing their own status quo and conduct. If we don’t know the answer to this question, then anti-corruption efforts are doomed to failure. Unlike previous studies that focused on the implementation of broad anticorruption reforms in the public sector or on the behaviour of participants acting out the part of policymakers in controlled laboratory experiments, the novelty of the SIR project is that it will investigate the specific conditions that surrounded the adoption of each anticorruption law aimed at political officials, namely party funding, conflict of interest and lobbying. The focus on policies will allow the research to go beyond simple national variations and grasp the conditions under which the policies were adopted in any given time. This research will be divided into two phases: i) the creation of an original database with the contextual conditions surrounding the adoption of ACPs and the adoption of GRECO recommendations in EU countries; ii) quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of the contextual conditions surrounding the adoption of each specific ACPs dedicated to political office holders.
Corruption is a pressing global challenge, which imposes substantial costs on the lives of people and businesses, and undermines citizens’ trust in democratic institutions. Anticorruption reforms and political ethics regulation have also grown dramatically in European countries, but display varying degrees of success. While scandals, policy diffusion and political will have been advanced as explanations for the success or failure of anticorruption policies, it not yet understood under which specific conditions politicians will adopt anticorruption policies (ACPs) aimed at changing their own status quo and conduct. If we don’t know the answer to this question, then anti-corruption efforts are doomed to failure. Unlike previous studies that focused on the implementation of broad anticorruption reforms in the public sector or on the behaviour of participants acting out the part of policymakers in controlled laboratory experiments, the novelty of the SIR project is that it will investigate the specific conditions that surrounded the adoption of each anticorruption law aimed at political officials, namely party funding, conflict of interest and lobbying. The focus on policies will allow the research to go beyond simple national variations and grasp the conditions under which the policies were adopted in any given time. This research will be divided into two phases: i) the creation of an original database with the contextual conditions surrounding the adoption of ACPs and the adoption of GRECO recommendations in EU countries; ii) quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of the contextual conditions surrounding the adoption of each specific ACPs dedicated to political office holders.
Consortium:
- Dublin City University
- Dublin City University
Objective:
CRISPOL analyzes the systemic impact of crises on democratic policy-making. The fact that crises have turned into ordinary rather than exceptional phenomena in modern democracies may not only erode trust in government. Crises also spawn additional crises. Because crisis responses absorb governmental attention, problems in policy areas not affected by crises might be neglected. This can in turn lead to the escalation of neglected issues into full-blown crises, thus increasing the burden on governments to manage an ever-growing number of crises. Crises might thus trigger a vicious cycle that un-dermines democratic legitimacy. It is the central objective of CRISPOL to study systemic trade-offs in policy change across sectors re-sulting from crisis events both theoretically and empirically.(1) CRISPOL maps crises across policy areas, countries and over time. It provides an encompassing long-term mapping of crisis events across different policy sectors and countries. The project captures all crisis events across six policy areas for 23 OECD countries over a period of 50 years. (2) CRISPOL analyzes cross-sectoral trade-offs in crisis-induced dynamics of policy change. Can we observe crowding-out effects, with radical departures of the status quo in ‘crisis-proximate’ areas com-ing at the expense of policy inertia in more ‘crisis-remote’ ones? (3) CRISPOL analyzes cross-temporal trade-offs in change dynamics: Are neglected policy sectors catching up when the crisis is over; i.e., is policy inertia during crisis times offset by more dynamic change in post-crisis-periods? Or do crises have enduring consequences for change dynamics in crisis-remote sectors? (4) CRISPOL investigates whether cross-sectoral and cross-temporal trade-offs vary across countries. Do certain countries possess a greater capacity to handle crises while simultaneously addressing other policy areas, and which factors contribute to this ability?
CRISPOL analyzes the systemic impact of crises on democratic policy-making. The fact that crises have turned into ordinary rather than exceptional phenomena in modern democracies may not only erode trust in government. Crises also spawn additional crises. Because crisis responses absorb governmental attention, problems in policy areas not affected by crises might be neglected. This can in turn lead to the escalation of neglected issues into full-blown crises, thus increasing the burden on governments to manage an ever-growing number of crises. Crises might thus trigger a vicious cycle that un-dermines democratic legitimacy. It is the central objective of CRISPOL to study systemic trade-offs in policy change across sectors re-sulting from crisis events both theoretically and empirically.(1) CRISPOL maps crises across policy areas, countries and over time. It provides an encompassing long-term mapping of crisis events across different policy sectors and countries. The project captures all crisis events across six policy areas for 23 OECD countries over a period of 50 years. (2) CRISPOL analyzes cross-sectoral trade-offs in crisis-induced dynamics of policy change. Can we observe crowding-out effects, with radical departures of the status quo in ‘crisis-proximate’ areas com-ing at the expense of policy inertia in more ‘crisis-remote’ ones? (3) CRISPOL analyzes cross-temporal trade-offs in change dynamics: Are neglected policy sectors catching up when the crisis is over; i.e., is policy inertia during crisis times offset by more dynamic change in post-crisis-periods? Or do crises have enduring consequences for change dynamics in crisis-remote sectors? (4) CRISPOL investigates whether cross-sectoral and cross-temporal trade-offs vary across countries. Do certain countries possess a greater capacity to handle crises while simultaneously addressing other policy areas, and which factors contribute to this ability?
Consortium:
- Ludwig Maximilians Universitat Munchen
- University of Oslo
- Ludwig Maximilians Universitat Munchen
- University of Oslo