Social Media and Populism: A Science Mapping Study

Abstract

Social media has become a central tool for political communication for populist actors, while its impact on democratic processes, public opinion formation, political mobilization, disinformation, echo chambers, algorithmic manipulation, emotional framing, and polarization has increasingly attracted academic interest. This study examines the academic literature on social media and populism using the scientific mapping method. The study analyzes 761 academic studies retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database using the keyword search "social media and populism". The research identifies the distribution of publications over the years, the most productive authors, the most cited studies, the most influential academic journals in the field of populism and social media, and the most frequently used keywords. Findings indicate that the most commonly used concepts in social media and populism studies are media, disinformation, polarization, political communication, and democratic crises. Academic studies on social media and populism have rapidly increased between 2017 and 2023, but this momentum has declined as of 2024. However, the 2024 U.S. Presidential elections and the resurgence of global populist movements suggest that academic production in this field may gain momentum again in 2025 and beyond. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive scientific mapping to understand how the relationship between social media and populism has evolved in the academic literature.

Keywords

• Social Media
• Populism
• Science Mapping
• Post Truth

Sosyal Medya ve Popülizm: Bir Bilimsel Haritalama Çalışması

Abstract

Sosyal medya, popülist aktörler için siyasal iletişimde merkezi bir araç hâline gelirken, bu platformların demokratik süreçler, kamuoyu oluşturma, siyasal mobilizasyon, dezenformasyon, yankı odaları, algoritmik manipülasyon, duygusal çerçeveleme ve kutuplaşma üzerindeki etkileri giderek daha fazla akademik ilgi çekmektedir. Bu çalışma, sosyal medya ve popülizmi konu edinen akademik literatürü bilimsel haritalama yöntemiyle incelemektedir. Çalışmada, Web of Science (WoS) veritabanında "social media and populism" anahtar kelimeleriyle yapılan tarama sonucunda elde edilen 761 akademik çalışma analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında yıllara göre yayın dağılımı, en üretken yazarlar, en fazla atıf alan çalışmalar, popülizm ve sosyal medya alanında en etkili akademik dergiler ve en sık kullanılan anahtar kelimeler belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, sosyal medya ve popülizm çalışmalarında en sık kullanılan kavramların medya, dezenformasyon, kutuplaşma, siyasal iletişim ve demokratik krizler etrafında yoğunlaştığını göstermektedir. 2017-2023 yılları arasında sosyal medya ve popülizm konulu akademik çalışmalar hızla artmış, ancak 2024 itibarıyla bu ivmenin azaldığı görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte, 2024 ABD Başkanlık seçimleri ve küresel popülist hareketlerin yeniden yükselişi, bu alandaki akademik üretimin 2025 ve sonrasında tekrar ivme kazanabileceğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma sosyal medya ve popülizm ilişkisinin akademik literatürde nasıl şekillendiğini anlamak için kapsamlı bir bilimsel haritalama sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyal Medya
• Popülizm
• Bilimsel Haritalama
• Gerçek Ötesi

References

1. Aria, M.;Cuccurullo, C. (2017), “Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis”, Journal of Informetrics, 11(4): 959-975.
2. Bavili, N. (2023). The impact of new social media technologies on the populist phenomenon. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3)
3. Bennett, W. L.; Segerberg, A. (2013), The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics, Cambridge University Press.
4. Bobba, G. (2019), “Social media populism: features and ‘likeability’ of Lega Nord communication on Facebook”, European Political Science, 18: 11-23.
5. Bovet, A.; Morone, F.; Makse, H.A. (2016), “Validation of Twitter opinion trends with national polling aggregates: Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump”, Scientific Reports, 8.
6. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Polity Press.
7. Canovan, M. (2002). “Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy”, Political Studies, 47(1): 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184.
8. Cobo, M. J.; López-Herrera, A. G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. (2011). “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7): 1382-1402.

9. Corbu, N.; Negrea-Busuioc, E. (2020), “Populism Meets Fake News: Social Media, Stereotypes and Emotions”, Perspectives on Populism and the Media.
10. Cuccurullo, C.; Aria, M.; Sarto, F. (2021), “Foundations and trends in performance management: A twenty-five years bibliometric analysis”, Omega, 100: 102447.
11. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W. M. (2021), “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines”, Journal of Business Research, 133: 285-296.
12. Dubois, E.; Blank, G. (2018), “The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media”, Information, Communication & Society, 21: 729 - 745.
13. Engesser, S.; Ernst, N.; Esser, F.; Büchel, F. (2017), “Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology”, Information, Communication & Society, 20(8): 1109-1126.
14. Ernst, N.; Engesser, S.; Büchel, F.; Blassnig, S.; Esser, F. (2019), “Extreme parties and populism: An analysis of Facebook and Twitter across six countries”, Information, Communication & Society, 22(7): 989-1016.
15. Ersöz, F. (2009), ”Avrupa inovasyon göstergeleri (EIS) ışığında Türkiye’nin konumu” , İTÜ Dergisi/b sosyal bilimler, 6:1, 3-16
16. Ekström, M.; Patrona, M.; Thornborrow, J. (2021), “Reporting the unsayable: Scandalous talk by right-wing populist politicians and the challenge for journalism”, Journalism, 23: 955 - 972.
17. Freeden, M. (1998), “Is nationalism a distinct ideology?”, Political Studies, 46(4): 748-765.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00165.
18. Freedman, D. (2021), Media policy failures and the emergence of right-wing populism, The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism.
19. Gerbaudo, P. (2018), The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy, Pluto Press.
20. Göktaş, A.; İşçi, Ö. (2010), “Türkiye’de İşsizlik Oranının Temel Bileşenli Regresyon Analizi İle Belirlenmesi”, Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi -Selçuk Üniversitesi, 14:20, 279-294.
21. Groshek, J.; Kreis, R. (2020), “Beyond the “echo chamber”: The role of political media content in shaping online discussions”, Journal of Language and Politics, 19(3): 368-395.
22. Hameleers, M.; Vliegenthart, R. (2019), “The Rise of a Populist Zeitgeist? A Content Analysis of Populist Media Coverage in Newspapers Published between 1990 and 2017”, Journalism Studies, 21: 19 - 36.
23. Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; de Rijcke, S.; Rafols, I. (2015), “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics”, Nature, 520: 429-431.
24. Krämer, B. (2017), “Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism”, Information, Communication & Society, 20: 1293 - 1309.
25. Laclau, E. (2007), Popülist akıl üzerine (N. B. Çelik, Çev.), Ankara: Epos Yayınları.
26. Moffitt, B. (2016), The global rise of populism: performance, political style and representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. (2016), “The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis”, Scientometrics, 106(1): 213-228.
28. Mudde, C. (2004), “The Populist Zeitgeist”, Government and Opposition, 39(4): 542-563.
29. Mudde, C.; Kaltwasser, C. R. (2019), Popülizm, kısa bir giriş (S. Erdem Türközü, Çev.), Ankara: Nika Yayınları.
30. Pariser, E. (2011), The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin Books.
31. Postill, J. (2018), “Populism and social media: a global perspective”, Media, Culture & Society, 40: 754 - 765.
32. Ragragio, J.L. (2020), “Framing media populism: The political role of news media editorials in Duterte’s Philippines”, Journalism, 23:1301 - 1318.
33. Quandt, T.; Frischlich, L.; Boberg, S.; Schatto-Eckrodt, T. (2019), “Fake news in the context of social media and platformization”, Media and Communication, 7(1): 1-10.
34. Schnyder, G.; Radl, M.; Tóth, F.; Kucukuzun, M.; Turnšek, T.; Çelik, B.; Pajnik, M. (2023), “Theorizing and mapping media ownership networks in authoritarian-populist contexts: a comparative analysis of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey”, Media, Culture & Society, 46: 38 - 59.
35. Tufekci, Z. (2017), Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, Yale University Press.
36. Waisbord, S. (2018), “The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populism”, Communication Theory, 28(4): 476-497.
37. Waisbord, S. (2020), “Mob censorship: Online harassment of US journalists in times of digital hate and populism”, Digital Journalism, 8(8): 1030-1046.
38. World Values Survey. (2022). World Values Survey wave 7 (2017–2022): Official aggregate v5.0. World Values Survey Association. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp
39. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. (2015), “Bibliometric methods in management and organization”, Organizational Research Methods, 18(3): 429-472.