Emilie van Haute

SciencePo ULB is hiring a full time associate professor in IR.

Share widely!

It made me realize that the MAPP dataset is already 10 years old, and pushed me to work towards an update. The update is ongoing - thanks very much to all colleagues working hard on this 🙏🏻 - and will be released at the end of next year!

Party membership in Europe The decline of mass parties and its significance for the future of representative democracy

I wrote a short essay on the state of party membership in Europe for the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
www.kas.de/en/web/wisse...

New Publication with @lhaffert.bsky.social in @ejprjournal.bsky.social!

We study the role of generations in the urban-rural divide, which is increasingly shaping the politics of many democracies.

Studying Switzerland, we show: The urban-rural divide is stronger among younger generations. (1/10) 🧵👇

🎉 Thanks to our incredible authors, reviewers & readers for your patience and support as we move to @universitypress.cambridge.org

📘 @ejprjournal.bsky.social is now live with Cambridge!
💡 And more @ecpr.bsky.social journals to join 🧵

Together towards an #OpenAccess future in #PoliticalScience 🫱🏾 🫲

Sore losers on election night? Examining the temporal emergence of the winner–loser gap | European Journal of Political Research | Cambridge Core Sore losers on election night? Examining the temporal emergence of the winner–loser gap

🆕 Sore losers on election night? 🫢

Einar Bäckström shows #VoterSatisfaction does not change right after electoral decisions, but becomes more polarised over time ⏰ instead long-term processes drive the winner-loser gap🏅

📖 #OA

Banner featuring the text "Read now on Cambridge Core" along with the logos of the European Journal of Political Research and Cambridge University Press.

#OpenAccess from @ejprjournal.bsky.social -

Authoritarian nostalgia and support for (populist radical) right parties - https://cup.org/4h47BcQ

- Luca Manucci & @steven-vanhauwaert.bsky.social

#FirstView

How group appeals shape candidate support: The role of group membership, identity strength, and deservingness perceptions | European Journal of Political Research | Cambridge Core How group appeals shape candidate support: The role of group membership, identity strength, and deservingness perceptions

🆕 Deservingness perceptions & candidate support 👥

#GroupAppeals help connect #VoterIdentity 🧩 to voting choices 🗳️ – @rdassonneville.bsky.social, Rune Stubager & Mads Thau want to know if this appeals to other social groups 📣

📖 #OA

EJPR 64.4 Out Now Click here and read online!

EJPR News 📰

That is all from📘 Vol 64, Issue 4 of EJPR!

Featuring 20 articles and more than 8 research notes, 📖 looking at the latest in #PolSci research and the comparative study of politics.

🔗⬇️

#bearspray exchange at a #polisci conference, I think it’s a first! Thank you for ensuring my safety @brittvandewalle.bsky.social !
#apsa2026 #vancouver #apsa25

- Enjoy one of the many awesome playgrounds. Family favourites are Charleston park, Kitsilano beach, and Hasting mills park (next to Jericho)

Not free but fun:
- Kids market on granville island
- Vancouver aquarium in Stanley park for cute sea otters 🦦
- Pirate ship adventures

Enjoy! #apsa2025

Are you a parent attending #apsa25 with kids? Here are a couple of ideas of great activities:
- Take an aquabus to the maritime museum and check it out, nice old boats 🛥️ and captain costumes👨‍✈️
- Check out the bunnies in the hills at Jericho beach 🏖️

Attending #apsa2025? Interested in the new opportunities offered at @ejprjournal.bsky.social? Stop by the Cambridge University Press stand this Thursday from 9.30 to 10.30am. I’ll be there with @markuswagner.bsky.social to answer all your questions. See you there!

📬 Feel free to reach out if you have questions or want to discuss your fit with any of these calls. Looking forward to collaborating!
#Postdoc #AcademicJobs #PoliticalScience #MarieCurie #BrIAS #ULB #VUB #CEVIPOL #ResearchOpportunity #Brussels

BrIAS | Brussels Institute for Advanced Studies BRIAS stands for Brussels Institute for Advanced Studies. Located in the heart of Brussels, it aims to attract the very best scientists, artists or designers

🔹 3. Senior Fellow – BrIAS Programme
🏛️ visiting fellow opportunity at the Brussels institute for advanced studies, for established academics from CIVIS / EUTOPIA partner universities 
🗓️ Deadline: 1 October 2025
🔗 brias.be

🔹 2. IRIS ULB-VUB Postdoctoral Programme
🌍 Co-funded by ULB, VUB & the European Commission (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Horizon Europe)
🗓️ Deadline: 31 October 2025
🔗 iris-cofund.eu

🔹 1. Full-time Postdoctoral Grant
📍 Project: NLU on group identities, polarisation, and democratic attitudes 
📅 Duration: 1 year
🗓️ Deadline: 30 September 2025
🔗https://cevipol.phisoc.ulb.be/fr/vacancy-–-call-for-applications-postdoctoral-researcher-100-in-political-science-cdd-–-1-year-contract

🚨 Three exciting opportunities to work with me at CEVIPOL! 🚨

We’re currently recruiting for postdoctoral and senior research positions. Come join us in Brussels to work with a fantastic team 🤩

A huge thank you to @eliemichel.bsky.social @bjarneck.bsky.social
@laurauytten.bsky.social who worked hard to collect and organise these data and made it available to all!

The survey covers Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia, offering insights into affective polarization and perceptions of differentness throughout the electoral cycle.
🔍 Ideal for researchers, students, and analysts interested in political behaviour, regional dynamics, and democratic attitudes.

This unique resource tracks public opinion and voting behaviour across key electoral moments:
Wave 1 – January (Pre-campaign)
Wave 2 – May (Campaign)
Wave 3 – June (Post-federal/regional/European elections)
Wave 4 – November (Post-local elections)

📊 New Dataset Release: Belgian Electoral Panel Survey 2024 🇧🇪

We’re excited to announce the release of a new dataset from a 4-wave panel survey conducted during the 2024 Belgian elections!

📥 Download the dataset now:
www.sodha.be/dataset.xhtm...

Wishing @clemencedeswert.bsky.social all the best - rock that panel! 💪 #genderpolitics #womeninpolitics #academicresearch

Through a process of normalisation. We identify 7 mechanisms that make it harder for women to recognise and challenge sexist behaviour in politics.

Proud of this team work with @robindevroe.bsky.social and @elisestorme.bsky.social and a bit sad not to be there in person #FOMO

Our new paper on the normalisation of sexism in politics is presented at the #ecprgc25 by our brilliant co-author @clemencedeswert.bsky.social 🎤

📊Drawing on nearly 44,000 social media reactions and interviews with 21 women candidates in the 2024 Belgian elections, we explore how sexism persists -

VACANCY – call for applications - Postdoctoral Researcher (100%) in Political Science - CDD – 1 year contract - CEVIPOL - Centre d’Etude de la Vie Politique

Focus: experiments, survey research, election studies, democratic attitudes

Work in close collaboration with Caroline Close, Jean-Benoit Pilet and myself, and colleagues at partner 🇧🇪 unis!

Apply now or share with your network: cevipol.phisoc.ulb.be/fr/vacancy-%...
Deadline: 30/09

Are you a junior scholar attending #ecprgc25 or #apsa25? Don’t miss this exciting opportunity to join a dynamic international research team at @sciencepoulb.bsky.social!
📢 Cevipol is hiring a full time postdoc researcher
🗓️ 1-year contract (possible extension)
📍based in Brussels
💼 Project: NOTLIKEUS

When do politicians engage in discourse – and when do they avoid it? estimated reading time: 4 min When do politicians debate each other? Drawing on a study of debates in the German Bundestag, Elias Koch and Andreas Küpfer show how ideological polarisation shapes who debates whom – and why substantive discourse may become less common in the years ahead. In recent years, concern has grown over the increasing polarisation of democratic politics. Legislatures across Europe and beyond have witnessed rising tensions, sharper rhetoric, and a decline in cross-party engagement. In a new study, we take a closer look at the conditions under which elected representatives engage in discourse and shed light on the implications of rising levels of polarisation among legislators in this context. Several studies have convincingly shown that parliamentary debates are characterised by their dialogical nature and that MPs unilaterally make use of this potential to signal affiliation or contestation vis-à-vis other actors in the chamber. This includes using interjections, applause, parliamentary questions or various forms of address. But under what conditions do actual discursive interactions unfold, rather than these types of parallel performance?We propose a novel analytical framework to make sense of the circumstances facilitating discursive interactions between politicians in parliament. In this framework, we distinguish between inviting MPs, who approach others by inviting them for discursive interaction, and invited MPs,who are being invited for discursive interactions (i.e. who are being approached by inviting MPs). Discursive interactions only unfold when both the inviting MP and the invited speaker are willing to engage. As we show further below, rising diverging ideological preferences and government-opposition dynamics have countervailing implications for invited and inviting MPs in the emergence of discourse in parliament. To explore how heterogeneous ideological preferences and government-opposition dynamics shape the strategic interest to seek and avoid discourse for inviting and invited MPs, we study parliamentary interventions in the German Bundestag between 1990 and 2020. During almost every speech in the German federal parliament, any MP in the chamber may signal their interest to intervene and engage in a voluntary discursive interaction, which makes them potential inviting MPs in our framework. It is, however, up to the speaking MPs receiving these invitations (the invited MPs) whether they wish to give way for the intervention and engage in discursive exchanges with their fellow legislators in the chamber, or if they wish to proceed with their speech (illustrated in Figure 1). Figure 1: Illustration of the life cycle of an intervention (attempt) and its actors using the empirical case of interventions in the German Bundestag Note: For more information, see the authors’ accompanying article published in the European Journal of Political Research (EJPR). Using a custom-built annotation pipeline to extract and classify these exchanges from parliamentary transcripts, we examined the conditions under which MPs either sought or avoided discursive contact with one another. Several notable patterns stand out. First, divergence in ideological preferences is associated with a higher interest in seeking discursive interaction among inviting MPs. A particularly illustrative example is the 19th legislative period, which saw the far-right AfD emerge as the most frequent initiator of intervention attempts. However, nearly half of their invitations were rejected by other parties, significantly raising the overall rejection rate for this period to 28%, well above the long-term average of 16%. Figure 2: Intervening (left column) and speaking MP (right column) by party, legislative term and speaker decision Note: The centre column indicates whether an intervention was allowed or rejected. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying article published in the European Journal of Political Research (EJPR). Opposition MPs consistently seek discourse more often than government MPs, though the latter receive the bulk of them. This dynamic is illustrated by the shift in power from the liberal-conservative coalition under Helmut Kohl to the Social Democratic-Green government led by Gerhard Schröder: intervention activity flipped accordingly, with former government parties becoming more active as opposition. Figure 3: Regression coefficients with 90% (wide) and 95% (narrow) confidence intervals for both framework stages Note: Stage 1 uses a Poisson regression; estimates for stage 2 are grounded on a generalised linear model. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying article published in the European Journal of Political Research (EJPR). Moving on to our main findings from the multivariate models, we find robust evidence supporting and extending these descriptive observations: As observed earlier, invitations for discursive interactions are more common among ideologically distant MPs. At the same time, invited MPs are increasingly inclined to decline invitations by these exact colleagues in the chamber. It is important to note that these effects by no means are dependent on the inclusion of the AfD in the sample. When turning towards government-opposition dynamics, invitations are indeed particularly common among opposition MPs facing government representatives. At the same time, we find tentative evidence suggesting that, again, these attempts tend to result in discursive exchanges less frequently. Taken together, these findings draw a nuanced picture of parliamentary discourse. They show that while politicians often seek interaction across lines of difference – be they ideological or institutional – they are frequently met with resistance in these attempts. Hence, the conditions most conducive to an interaction are simultaneously those that reduce the chances of it eventually unfolding. These insights have important implications for how we understand elite behaviour in public settings. Our findings suggest that in times of rising polarisation, the incentives to control the stage may outweigh willingness to engage with the arguments of other legislators. As concerns about polarisation and political polarisation continue to grow, it is crucial to understand how it affects parliamentary behaviour. Our study offers a new perspective on these dynamics, revealing the interplay between engagement and avoidance that characterises modern legislative discourse. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying article published in the European Journal of Political Research (EJPR). Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Juergen Nowak / Shutterstock.com

Very interesting research into MPs' behaviour in 🇩🇪

Congrats to Julia Schulte-Cloos and @robert-a-huber.bsky.social and especially to @ejprjournal.bsky.social for finding excellent #openscience editors - this is really great news!

🆕 EJPR News 📰

📘 Vol 64, Issue 3 of EJPR is out now, featuring 20 articles and more than 8 research notes, 📖 looking at the latest in #PolSci research and the comparative study of politics.

🔗⬇️
buff.ly/rIW46WX