We argue these findings are crucial for any attempt to think about the threat DDC practice poses. Rather than being one thing, DDC comes in different forms that may be more or less problematic. We shouldn’t, therefore, be inherently critical, but need to think about what is ok.

To explain this variation, we introduce a new framework that looks at systemic, regulatory and party-level factors and considers how, in each case, these influence the type of DDC. Discussing each in relation to our cases, we show how each factor can affect the form of DDC.

To study how DDC varies, we then look at practice in Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and US. Drawing on over 300 interviews with campaigners, we trace the types of data, analytics and tech used in parties - and the people involved in each process.

To understand DDC we think you need to know how each of these components is evident. We therefore classify each, outlining the forms of data, analytics, tech and personnel that can make up a modern campaign, providing frameworks to help guide future study.

We define DDC as “A mode of campaigning that seeks to use data to develop and deliver campaign interventions with the goal of producing behavioural or attitudinal change in democratic citizens.”
And we see a data-driven campaign defined by: Data, Analytics, Technology & Personnel

Our book sets out to demystify DDC by asking 3 questions:
1) What is data-driven campaigning?
2) How does it vary?
3) Why explains these differences?
Only by answering these questions can we work out if our concerns are justified, and what our options are for reform.

Our new book (@meinungsfuehrer.bsky.social)Data-Driven Campaigning and Political Parties: Five Advanced Democracies Compared is out today, and we’re thrilled its hitting shelves just as we start the #YearofElections.

global.oup.com/academic/pro...