Department of Sociology

The Department of Sociology Blog

  • By Ranjana Das

    As I have noted previously, the social media activity around the Charlie Gard case has been unprecedented. My analysis of Twitter data has revealed American religious, so-called pro-life, right-wing groups have dominated a verbally violent Twitterstorm, and that key strategies of populism have been mobilised across Facebook and Twitter to misunderstand and misrepresent evidence, science and law, and to malign public institutions.

    So, what lessons needs learning now, from the Charlie Gard case, in terms of the critical role of the media?

    1. Design and language in the press: Some of the issues surrounding tabloid media coverage of the case are excellently analysed here by Barbara Rich. It is clear that the press reporting of family law cases occupying substantial amounts of national interest need to reflect closely on its use of emotive language, the selective use of quotes, interviews, photographs and headlines – none of which are used in a purely coincidental sense. A few design and language related practices during the Charlie Gard case stand out, which the press need to pay attention to
      • Printing old photographs and old videos to report about a current situation inviting audience focus away from complexities of the current situation towards idyllic images of what is never to return;
      • Juxtaposing images from a complex current case (for instance, a photo of Charlie Gard) with provocative headlines relating a different case (‘Manslaughter’ relating to the Grenfell tragedy), thereby inevitably inviting a fleeting mental connection between the word ‘manslaughter’ and Charlie Gard;
      • Selectively using quotes from one party in a case which are chosen specifically as they place blame on public institutions;
      • The use of emotionally-laden language, especially during the reporting of verdicts and hearings, that shifts the focus from reporting on evidence and facts to creating an emotional narrative that shapes the heightening of tension amongst readers;
      • Unclear representation of the law, and of evidence, replacing evidence-based reporting with emotionally appealing narratives, including those authored by publicists, rather than reporters (alone).
    2.  Social media reporting categories: Social media companies need to pay close attention to the categories available for ‘reporting’ posts on Facebook. The existing categories do not go far enough – for instance, reports about a group or an institution being maligned cannot easily be classified into either attacks agonist an individual or a religious community, and people reporting posts need to settle for categories that don’t quite work.
    3. Community reporting and response in urgent situations: Teams responding to reports of posts need to take into the account the urgency, contexts and consequences of the content being reported. Even if posts do not violate community guidelines as they stand, a high volume of reports coming up with regard to the same  group, in a case of national significance, needs attention that goes beyond existing community standards- urgent and specific situations may need something more than or different than standard protocol.
    4. Abusive content: A vast amount of content labelling the judiciary and clinicians as murderers and killers has been allowed to stand and is still standing – producing long lasting texts that have societal consequences and can be shared and reacted to. A clear explanation is called for as to how these posts are not in violation of existing protocol, and reflection is needed on how protocol needs to be context-sensitive and responsive rather than tick-box.
    5. Social media strategy for organisations: Social media teams for organisations need to be vigilant about the lines between critical and healthy debate and abuse. Online abuse is real, and its impacts are real and long lasting – on individuals and teams. There needs to be a way of being on top of at all times of the day and night, responding to and removing abuse that bridges the gap rather than leaving things to the public to report to a social media company with varying results as above.
    6. Peaks in posting activity: Heightened emotions around cases occupying national interest tend to arise around the live tweeting of court hearings. There is a need for organisations with a social media presence and for social media companies to be particularly aware at the times of live tweeting, given the sheer volume of discussions that unfold on Twitter and Facebook, to read, respond to and moderate abusive content.

    The media, including social media, have substantial roles to play in public understandings of evidence, health, science and law, and it is critical, for the sake of a healthy public sphere, that we reflect on lessons learnt from the role of the media in cases that occupy substantial amounts of national interest.


    Please note: Blog entries reflect the personal views of contributors and are not moderated or edited before publication. However, we may make subsequent amendments to correct errors or inaccuracies.

  • By Jo Smith

    On 30th June 2017 the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey hosted a British Sociological Association Early Career Forum Regional Event centred around sexualities studies. Presenting keynotes were Zowie Davy (De Montfort University) and Yiu-Tung Suen (Chinese University of Hong Kong), and short ‘lightening’ papers were given by Sebastian Bartos (University of Surrey), Ben Colliver (Kingston University), David Griffiths (University of Leeds), Mia Harris (University of Oxford), Ruth Pearce (University of Warwick), Katy Pilcher (Aston University), Claire Tunnacliffe (University College London) and Ben Walters (Queen Mary University). The afternoon gave attendees the chance to engage in a workshop exploring the challenges and opportunities for researchers working in sexualities, gender, and queer studies.

    The conference was a success, which was due in no small part to the thought put into the event by the organisers. They created a space that was inclusive and encouraged participation, which allowed researchers at all levels of their career to engage with each other about the theoretical, methodological and structural challenges working in the field of queer studies. The organiser’s approach to ‘queering the conference’ is something which we can learn from and apply to other academic spaces, in order to encourage participants to engage with the event, to share their work, and to develop networks with other researchers.

    ‘Queer’ has long been used as a synonym for odd, spoilt, strange or for something going wrong. Something that is ‘not normal’. We are all familiar with the pejorative use of the term. In describing the organisation of this event as ‘queering a conference’ we are embracing the idea that it is okay to be strange, different, not normal. Stepping outside of the expected ways of doing things can encourage us to reflect critically on the successes and limitations of our actions, to create change, and to allow us to explore new and potentially better approaches. In queering a conference we are again reclaiming the word queer as something positive and constructive, and refusing to persist with the familiar, the usual, the ‘normal’ with reflecting on the limits of such.

    So how did the organisers queer the conference? One example was their use of the physical space. A relatively plain room was decorated with queer posters from some of the participants. Participants sat around tables, rather than in rows of chairs which encouraged conversation, and also discouraged the separation and hierarchy that sitting in rows might engender – the speaker as the conveyor of wisdom, the audience as passive recipients. Speakers were encouraged to take responsibility and control of timing their own papers, using of an egg timer. Whilst potentially unhelpful for those who want ‘5 minute, 1 minute’ warnings (and to adjust their presentation accordingly), adopting this technique was a way of trying to queer the power dynamics between organisers and participants: attempting to take some (albeit not all) power away from a single individual chair presiding over and controlling the time and space of the room, and giving this power to those presenting papers. Another success was the decision to give participants the opportunity to seek ‘mentoring’ support from Rachel Brooks (University of Surrey).

    At a queer studies conference, gender, identity and names are (unsurprisingly) of importance to many of those attending. Name badges were created by participants, giving them control over how they were named, and the organisers made efforts to ask and address participants by their preferred gender pronouns or using gender neutral language, something often overlooked at conferences and in academia generally. Although there were mistakes, is it heartening that these efforts were made.

    These (and other) relatively small decisions made a significant difference to the conference. There was a sense that everyone present was part of the event and was being taken into consideration. However, as was discussed during the open space workshop, this event was an overwhelmingly white space. With only one speaker, few of the attendees, and none of the organisers being people of colour, it is necessary to critically reflect on whether the ‘queering narrative’ is a predominantly white and often middle class narrative, the impact that this can have on queer spaces and queer studies, and what can be done to discourage this. This is, of course, not to diminish the efforts of the organisers, who created a positive and collaborative space, as ‘safe’ a space as one can make such events. With these reflections in mind, if we want to see academic events and conferences as a positive and inclusive place for researchers to talk about their work, and to develop networks and collaborations, we could do worse than think about how queering those spaces might encourage participation and engagement.

    With thanks to Fabio Fasoli, David Griffiths, Katherine Hubbard, Luke Hubbard, Andy King, and Kirsty Lohman for the hard work you put into organising this event, and to Rachel Brooks for her provision of mentoring support.

    This blog post was first published on The BSA Postgraduate Blog available at


    Please note: Blog entries reflect the personal views of contributors and are not moderated or edited before publication. However, we may make subsequent amendments to correct errors or inaccuracies.

Our news

News story

Sara Arber wins BSA Distinguished Service to British Sociology award

This year's BSA Distinguished Service to British Sociology award has been given to Professor Sara Arber.

Read more

News story

Showcasing Sociology Week- Thursday 23rd March 2017

‘Towards a UK history of intersex'
 Dr David  Griffiths
Thursday 23rd March 18.00-19.00, Room 21AC 03.

Read more

News story

Showcasing Sociology- Wednesday 22nd March 2017

Apart of our Showcasing Sociology week, we have two great speakers presenting this Wednesday.


Read more