While ‘hard-right’ has gained traction in scholarship and newsrooms, its conceptual vagueness and practical effects have remained underexamined. Drawing on Framing Theory and Agenda-Setting Theory, this article offers the first systematic, crosspublication study of how seven leading English-language outlets – The Guardian, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Politico, The New Statesman, The Economist, Reuters, and The Financial Times – employed the term between 2022 and 2025. A qualitative content analysis of 140 articles demonstrates that ‘hard-right’ functions as an umbrella label that conflates distinct far-right currents, while framing devices selectively highlight certain traits and agenda-setting practices that elevate the term’s prominence in headlines and summaries. Although outlets vary in their use of contextual qualifiers, all exhibit comparable patterns of misclassification, label inflation, and strategic ambiguity. It can be argued that the strategic use of vague terminology can soften the far-right’s image and bolster their electoral appeal. The findings demonstrate the urgency of adopting established political science typologies and clearer editorial guidelines to safeguard analytical precision and democratic accountability in media coverage.

This article examines the Portuguese maritime epic through the discourses of gatekeepers, particularly members of the Portuguese parliament. The study positions the maritime epic as a crucial element of Portuguese identity and self-esteem, central to an ongoing culture war over the past and the contestation of official narratives. The analysis reveals that, while the maritime epic serves as a ‘lieu de mémoire’ for collective memory, it is increasingly contested by decolonial movements and actors. The findings indicate (i) a left–right polarisation and (ii) a more nuanced, depolarised stance among mainstream political actors, characterised by two distinct approaches: a voluntarist perspective, advocating for revising the narrative, and an antivoluntarist stance, expressing caution regarding the terms of the debate.

Vaccine hesitancy was a major concern during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a significant percentage of healthcare workers (HCWs) proved to be hesitant too. Various governments, including that of Greece, reacted aggressively, imposing mandates stipulating dismission of HCWs from work unless vaccinated. Hesitancy was understood as a case of moral failing and against the principle of ‘do no harm’. In this article, we deploy hermeneutics policy analysis based on interviews and analysis of texts to challenge this view. On the basis of qualitative analysis of transcripts of press conferences organized by the Greek Ministry of Health and 74 interviews with hesitant HCWs, we show that government’s and HCWs’ understanding of the risk of infection and the associated threat posed to the public health system were starkly different. For HCWs, hesitancy was linked to distrust toward political institutions, which should be treated in a different manner from a case of moral failing of HCWs. We argue that, rather than mandates, persuasion is a better strategy, since hesitancy raises the question of trust toward the politicoscientific establishment. Therefore, reforming science advice institutions so that they make use of local expertise and engage civil society is key. We focus on Greece, as we consider it to be an interesting case of a newly established science advice system with a distinctive character that we term the ‘look from inside’, based on the model of ‘ethical chief scientist,’ which makes it a brilliant case study for others considering building or reforming their systems.

Scholars have proposed integrating deliberative democracy processes and new technologies within party structures to address the legitimacy crisis of political parties. However, for established political groups, this is not an easy road to take. The paper delves into these issues by presenting the case study of Agorà Democratiche within the Italian Democratic Party (PD), the major center-left party in Italy. Agorà aimed to engage party members and like-minded citizens in shaping the party’s agenda through deliberative assemblies. This adoption by Agorà introduced a new form of political participation that led thousands of citizens to voice their opinions. However, it encountered several challenges. The paper argues that democratic innovations do not always yield the desired outcomes for political parties. Participatory and deliberative processes might be hard to implement in established political groups that are accustomed to old political schemas. More specifically, I pinpoint four main obstacles encountered by Agorà Democratiche: the ‘culture of verticality’ within the party, an unfavorable external context, the lack of institutionalization of the programme, and the ambiguous role played by technology. If not handled carefully, new technologies and deliberative processes can worsen the existing crisis within political parties by falling short of expectations and further undermining the organization’s credibility.

The European Council is one, if not the, key institution of the European Union (EU). Coming together for the first time about 50 years ago, in March 1975, the European Council comprises notably the Heads of State or Government of the EU member states, thus linking national and European levels. It takes important decisions in various policy areas and has regularly expanded the EU’s agenda and competences. In recent years, the European Council has acted as the prime crisis manager. At the same time, because of its requirement for consensus and its own small internal capacities, it is vulnerable to blockades and depends on other EU institutions for the preparation and implementation of its decisions. This article analyzes the European Council as key actor in the EU’s multi-level and multi-institutional system of governance. Comparing and bringing together different theoretical perspectives, it critically examines its various roles, functions, and shortcomings. Contrary to the predominant view, the European Council – despite its intergovernmental composition – tends to strengthen the EU’s supranational procedures. With this institution becoming ever more important and visible, the paper also suggests avenues for the further study of the European Council.

With the expulsion of the Central European University (CEU) and the establishment of public trust foundations, the academic world in Hungary has come under pressure unprecedented in the European Union (EU). The measures taken by the Orbán government have been decried as an assault on academic freedom, undermining the fundamental values of the EU. While the European Commission is obligated to uphold European values as per the treaties, its capacity to do so with regard to academic freedom has been underwhelming. In this paper, I argue that the EU is institutionally handicapped in its approach to protecting academic freedom because of, firstly, a lack of competences in the field of higher education and, secondly, an insufficient definition of academic freedom in EU law. By finding innovative ways to link the protection of academic freedom to its competences and by institutionalising an operational definition of academic freedom, the EU could better protect academic freedom and universities in general in its Member States.

In a time of polycrisis, internal contestation, and strained transatlantic relations, European identity is timelier and more relevant than ever. Do EU public policies operating in a multilevel governance system contribute to European identity-building, and what can jeopardise the process of identity formation at the level of policy elites? The article adopts a social constructivist and discursive approach and brings to the fore the lacking process of EU socialisation via discursive practices as a key reason leading to failed identity-building. Focusing on EU Cohesion Policy in Wales (UK), Crete (Greece), and Silesia (Poland), the analysis employs primary data and grey literature sources, along with 64 semistructured elite interviews, to show that, despite key differences among the three cases, Cohesion Policy has not contributed significantly to European identity-building among policy elites at different government levels and among the public. This is because the coordinative discourse about EU policies is dominated by ideas about economic goals and practical aspects of policy-making, while the respective communicative discourse is controlled by domestic political elites and the media and is ultimately determined by broader national/regional political cultures about the purpose and limitations of EU membership. Overall, the article contributes to the literature on European identity-building, EU socialisation, and discourse by arguing that the way EU public policies are designed, implemented, and communicated do not favour the achievement of political goals, such as the cultivation of a shared European identity.

An ever-increasing availability of digital texts has opened new research opportunities for political scientists. Yet, researchers who want to utilise these data face several challenges. This paper presents the results of a community-wide survey tapping into various research challenges, training needs, and preferences of scholars using text analysis methodologies. The survey involved respondents from various academic fields and career levels. Our findings indicate that text-as-data methods are gaining momentum in various political science subfields and are used on a wide range of political texts. However, relevant training is not easily accessible to all. Only half of the respondents have ever participated in a training event, though there is a high demand for training opportunities in different formats and at different levels. In ‘Conclusions’, we discuss how the inaccessibility of training risks narrowing the field of researchers.

A lingering feature of academic publications in political science is persistent gender gaps. In the aggregate, men are dominant in the discipline, and on the individual level, men publish and submit more articles and books than women do. In this article, we explore one way that journals may potentially reduce the gender gap in publishing. Focusing on the composition of editorial boards, we hypothesize that a higher share of female editorial board members, particularly if such representation is coupled with a high share of female editors, can increase women’s presence as journal authors. We test this argument using data from 120 political science journals. Through quantitative analyses, we find a relatively strong association between a high presence of female board members and female authors, especially in situations with a high percentage of female editors.