Marina Schenkel: 4th Year PhD Student

Can you give us a brief overview of your research and what inspired you to choose this topic?

I am studying why some governments adhered to scientific guidelines for their COVID-19 policy responses while others challenged them. Specifically, I examine the influence of populist, anti-intellectual, and authoritarian sentiments on policy decisions, focusing on elected officials in the US and Brazil.

I am also exploring what determines public acceptance of health-related policies during such threats. I was still living in Brazil when the pandemic hit the globe. I was working in the health department in my state and preparing a research project to study abroad considering the rise of the extreme right.

This relationship between science denialism and right-wing started to puzzle me by witnessing not only the national political scenario with Bolsonaro mishandling the crisis but also at the local level. In my job, I saw decision-makers disregarding the best evidence and claiming that the common sense of the ‘everyday man’ should guide public health.

What has been the most surprising or interesting finding in your research so far?

One of the most interesting findings in my research is that the relationship between populism and support for evidence-based policies is not as straightforward as initially thought, especially during the early stages of the pandemic.

While leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro are well-known for their right-wing populism and openly expressing contrarian views about science, this pattern is not always the case. In contrast, other right-leaning populist leaders implemented stringent measures to combat the virus.

For example, the Philippines enforced militarised lockdowns, and Hungary declared a state of emergency. While these actions were aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, they were not necessarily effective or democratic. This complexity led me to categorize crisis responses in mode detail. I am now disentangling how anti-intellectual and authoritarian tendencies prevail across different types of policies during health emergencies.

How do you think your research could impact the field of political science or society as a whole?

My research contributes to the intersection of political science and health policy by examining the influence of populism, particularly medical or science-related populism, on public health responses.

There are many questions still unanswered about crisis responses, which are often studied under a binary perception of science versus anti-science. How policies are implemented, for example, whether a vaccination programme is enforced by information campaigns or mandates, can impact public acceptance.

People who have anti-intellectual or authoritarian dispositions might react differently to each strategy. By understanding these dynamics on how types of policies shape health emergency responses and public behaviour, we can inform more effectively policymaking related to public health.

What advice would you give to other students who are considering pursuing a PhD in political science?

I would start with having a research question that you are genuinely interested in answering, as you will be thinking about your puzzle for years.

Curiosity about learning new research methods could help too. During my PhD I ended up diving into computational methods to analyse text data and used social media for data collection and recruiting participants for online experiments. These skills are versatile and will be handy in future projects, even outside political science.

It is also crucial to secure sufficient funding for full-time dedication to your research and teaching if that is the case. And lastly, it is super helpful to have a good match with a supervisor who is interested in the same topic and methods.

February 2025

Learn more about the Political Science PhD Programme