Sofia Collignon’s research while affiliated with Queen Mary University of London and other places

A record number of candidates contested parliamentary seats in the 2024 general election in the United Kingdom. This article discusses three key aspects that have garnered attention from both academics and practitioners studying the characteristics, motivations and experiences of candidates: gender representation, security concerns and local residency. Candidate data shows that, despite an increase in female MPs, the overall number of female candidates declined, highlighting structural barriers within party selection processes. Second, the rise in harassment, abuse and intimidation has led many candidates, particularly women, to withhold their home addresses on ballot papers, impacting their perceived local connection to voters. Finally, while localism remains a valued asset for candidates, security concerns diminish its role in contemporary campaigns. Challenges for future elections remain for political parties to address gender imbalances during the selection process, enhance candidate safety and reconsider local engagement strategies to foster a more inclusive and connected political landscape.

How do voters respond to a co-partisan political candidate after hearing about a serious scandal? We apply qualitative content analysis to open-ended text responses collected from survey respondents, focusing on 159 respondents who remain willing to vote for a hypothetical male candidate after learning that allegations of sexual harassment against him were settled out of court. We uncover two main strategies by which respondents explained and justified their willingness to look past the misconduct allegations. The dominant strategy was to extend moral licence to the candidate based on his prior good deeds; a second prominent strategy was to disbelieve and reject the allegations. Our findings offer new insights on why some political candidates and careers appear untroubled by even serious allegations of misconduct, and frames new research avenues on which voters might be more likely to extend moral licence and in what circumstances.

How do voters respond to candidates accused of sexual harassment? The literature on political scandals demonstrates that candidate characteristics, scandal type, and voter characteristics matter; as well as party affiliation. However, empirical evidence suggests that not all co-partisans react the same way. Why is this the case? Our study uses Schwartz's (1996) theory of values to hypothesise that voters prioritising ‘universalism’ and ‘benevolence’ are less likely to vote for candidates accused of sexual harassment compared to voters who prioritise ‘self-enhancement’ values. Using an original, mixed methods, online survey experiment (n = 704), we show that American voters do become less favourable towards candidates linked to allegations of sexual harassment; but a sizeable minority would nevertheless vote for a co-partisan candidate accused of sexual harassment. Values are an important mechanism to explain this heterogeneity. Qualitative data corroborates our findings, and helps explain why sexual harassment allegations are not always a barrier to electoral success.

Little attention has been paid to the process of members leaving parties in order to support other parties. Party developments in the UK in the 2010's provide an opportunity to analyse the determinants of members to give up their current party and join a rival. We examine this issue using an original panel survey of 2,679 members of the Green Party of England and Wales. Our results show that members who joined the Greens motivated by concern about social justice are more likely to leave and support Labour after Jeremy Corbyn’s election as party leader. Members who joined to protect the environment are less likely to leave. Niche parties can attract members predominantly motivated by issues traditionally represented by a mainstream party but these members are more likely to leave the party again following a position change by the mainstream party.

How do voters respond to candidates accused of sexual harassment? The literature on political scandals demonstrates that candidate characteristics, scandal type, and voter characteristics matter; as well as party affiliation. However, empirical evidence suggests that not all partisans react the same way. Why is this the case? Our study uses Schwartz's (1996) theory of values to hypothesise that voters prioritising 'universalism' and 'benevolence' are less likely to vote for candidates accused of sexual harassment compared to voters who prioritise 'self-enhancement' values Using an original, mixed methods, online survey experiment (n=704), we show that American voters do become less favourable towards candidates linked to allegations of sexual harassment; but a sizeable minority would nevertheless vote for a co-partisan candidate accused of sexual harassment. Values are an important mechanism to explain this heterogeneity. Qualitative data corroborates our findings, and helps explain why sexual harassment allegations are not always a barrier to electoral success.

This article explores the role gender plays in the harassment, abuse and intimidation (HAI) of parliamentary candidates in the UK at election time. Using data from the Representative Audit of Britain surveys (2015–2019) this article takes an intersectional approach to investigate whether trends identified in 2017 suggesting that women candidates reported more incidences of HAI and were more likely to be concerned for their personal safety as a result than men, remain apparent in the subsequent election. Results suggest that HAI is getting worse for candidates in general, and the gender gap is widening. About three in every four women experienced some levels of fear while campaigning.

Recently, the issue of harassment and intimidation of women in politics in long-established democracies has become a source of concern. Current research emphasizes that while women may be more frequently attacked, not all incidents of abuse against women in politics are of a gendered nature. This finding prompts further questions such as are women more frequently targeted because they are women and does such targeting inhibit women from fully participating in political campaigning? Using data from the Representative Audit of Britain’s survey of candidates contesting the 2019 General Election, this study shows that harassment has a negative electoral effect for women, even while controlling for the visibility of the candidate. This article argues that the harassment of women candidates in the UK is gendered, both in its motives and outcomes as it forces women to modify their campaign activities in ways that diminish their chances of gaining office. Our findings contribute to the theoretical and empirical understanding of violence towards women in politics and gendered political violence.

Support for social distancing measures was, globally, high at the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic but increasingly came under pressure. Focusing on the UK, this article provides a rigorous exploration of the drivers of public support for social distancing at their formative stage, via mixed methods. Synthesizing insights from crisis management and securitization theory, thematic analysis is employed to map the main frames promoted by the government and other actors on the nature/severity, blame/responsibility, and appropriate response to the pandemic, which 'follows the science'. The impact of these on public attitudes is examined via a series of regression analyses, drawing on a representative survey of the UK population (n = 2100). Findings challenge the prevailing understanding that support for measures is driven by personal health considerations, socioeconomic circumstances, and political influences. Instead, crisis framing dynamics, which the government is well-positioned to dominate, have the greatest impact on driving public attitudes.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, there has been increasing evidence suggesting that current gendered and racially biased structures put in place to deal with the crises lead women and BAME population to be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Yet, there is less information on how different groups respond to the pandemic in terms of compliance with the measures implemented by the government, and the role that parenthood and employment play in explaining compliance for such groups. We take insights from the literature on policy preferences and compliance to argue that gender, ethnicity, parenthood and employment are associated with high levels of worry about the consequences of the pandemic, leading to variations in compliance with social distancing measures. We test our argument using data from an original nationally representative survey. Results indicate that women and BAME respondents present important challenges to manage anxiety, stress and worry but they manifest differently in their compliance with social distancing measures. We also find that parenthood and employment affect compliance but in an unexpected direction. Together, results indicate that compliance is not only a matter of individual choice but also a matter of structural and contextual factors.