Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ https://doi.org/10.5...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo...
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY SA
Data sources: Sygma
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY SA
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Dataset . 2024
License: CC BY SA
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Anonymised transcriptions (local and translated versions) of 18 Focus Groups with RWPP voters in Spain, UK, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland

Authors: Ruiz Jiménez, Antonia; González Fernández, Manuel T.;

Anonymised transcriptions (local and translated versions) of 18 Focus Groups with RWPP voters in Spain, UK, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland

Abstract

Anonymised transcriptions (local and translated versions) of 18 Focus Groups with RWPP voters in Spain, UK, Denmark, Germany, Hungay, Switzerland In the UNTWIST project, we have carried out a total of 18 focus groups in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. They explore RWPP voters’ subjective perceptions of their needs and demands, their horizon of expectations, and their level of ‘gender fatigue’. Groups’ design followed two minimum criteria: same-sex composition (with a minimum of two same sex -male and female- groups per country) and voting behaviour (current voters of RWPP who have previously voted for mainstream parties or abstained or have doubts about RWPP and mainstream or abstain in case of voting for the first time). The composition of the groups varied between 6 and 10 participants per group in all but one partner’s country. In Denmark, all focus groups experienced dropouts. These unforeseen issues led to conducting the focus groups with fewer participants than was initially designed. In 83% of countries, the empirical composition of focus groups was considered and controlled for participants’ age, social class position and level of education. Finally, groups were same-sex moderated. Two comprised folders are provided. One contains the anonymised transcriptions of 18 Focus Groups carried out for WP2 of the UNTWIST project in their local languages. The other contains the IA-translated (Deepl) version of the same focus groups. Please note that the translations have not been human-supervised. FG_CHE_1 Female Female Group, Switzerland FG_CHE_2 MaleMale Group, Switzerland FG_DEN_1 Female Female Groups, Denmakr FG_DEN_2 MaleMale Group, Denmark FG_DEN_3 Male Male Group, Denmark FG_DEN_4 Mixed Mix Male and Female Group, Switzerland FG_ESP_1 MaleMale Group, Spain FG_ESP_2 MaleMale Group, Spain FG_ESP_3 Female Female Group, Spain FG_ESP_4 FemaleFemale Group, Spain FG_GBR_1 Female Female Group, UK FG_GBR_2 Male Male Group, UK FG_GER_1 Female Female Group, Germany FG_GER_2 MaleMale Group, Germany FG_HUN_1 Female Female Group, Hungary FG_HUN_2 Female Female Group, Hungary FG_HUN_3 MaleMale Group, Hungary FG_HUN_4 MaleMale Group, Hungary

Related Organizations
Keywords

switzerland, voters, qualitative data, public opinion, hungary, right wing, spain, focus groups, populist parties, anonymised transcriptions, UK, denmark, germany

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Funded by