CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Cultural and political discourse analysisDiscourse Analysis and Cultural CommunicationCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Guided by the science”: (De)politicising the UK government’s response to the coronavirus crisis

Open access
Kettell, Steven, Kerr, Peter·2022·The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
DOI 10.1177/13691481211054957
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article sets out to examine the politicising and depoliticising effects of the various stories that were deployed by the UK government in its response to the coronavirus crisis during its daily press briefings over a 2-month period between 16 March and 16 May 2020. In doing so, we identify four key narratives: (1) unprecedented government activism; (2) working to plan; (3) national security, wartime unity and sacrifice; and (4) scientific guidance. Through a quantitative and qualitative study of the deployment of these narratives, we attempt to further recent theoretical insights on depoliticisation by noting that the COVID-19 crisis produced a particular type of crisis moment in which the government was forced to respond in ‘real time’ to a set of circumstances which were rapidly changing. As such, this made it much more difficult to control the various stories they wanted to tell and therefore find a coherent ‘anchor’ for their politicising and depoliticising strategies. This led to some deft discursive footwork as the government sought to pass the ball of responsibility between various groups of actors in order to rapidly and continually shift the balance between avoiding blame and taking credit.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/13691481211054957

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Boggs C, 2000, The End of Politics
  2. Fawcett P, 2017, Anti-Politics, Depoliticisation and Governance, 217
  3. Fawcett P, 2017, Anti-Politics, Depoliticisation and Governance
  4. Hay C, 2007, Why We Hate Politics
  5. Rancière J, 2007, On the Shores of Politics
  6. Wilson J, 2015, The Post Political and its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 50

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kettell, S., & Kerr, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Kettell, Steven
ORCID
Venue
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-11-08
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
11-30
ISSN
  • 1369-1481 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-856X
DOI
10.1177/13691481211054957
OpenAlex
W3213889095
Cited by
50
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
22.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Cultural and political discourse analysis
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Discourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, depoliticization, politicization, government communication, press briefings, crisis communication, national security rhetoric, government activism, UK government response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review