Research Summary
My research is at the intersection of disinformation, the technologization of democracy, and the role of social media in grievance mobilization, with a regional focus on the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. In the face of growing threats from sophisticated disinformation in social media communities, my research asks two questions: a. How does the disinformation the public is exposed to online affect public opinion? b. How can we make online spaces more robust against malign actors who spread disinformation in furtherance of their myopic goals?
My dissertation, “Application of Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing to Understand the Partisan Mobilization of Ethnic Minorities,” explores how and why some groups mobilize around their identities while others remain unorganized. Drawing on theories in political sociology and political behavior, I develop a theory of intra-linguistic and socioeconomic cleavages, which posits that when ethnic groups are not internally divided along linguistic or socioeconomic lines, they are more likely to form parties around their ethnic grievances. I approach this question in two steps. In the first step, to uncover successful mobilization at the macro level, I analyze a cross-national dataset of 21 post-communist countries and assess the capacity for collective action. I propose that the two causal mechanisms, intragroup cohesiveness and distinctiveness, enhance the capacity for group mobilization and help individuals overcome their personal interests for the collective good. In the second step, I employ computational social science methods to investigate grassroots mobilization of grievances in online settings. To measure the strength of collective action in online communities, I developed an original machine learning pipeline to process large sets of text and uncover the capacity for collective mobilization. The findings of this analysis reveal a high correlation between the central topics discussed in online communities and the messages of foreign disinformation campaigns in the sample countries.
My dissertation research contributes to the field both theoretically and methodologically. Theoretically, it advances the theory of intragroup cleavages as a causal mechanism that predicts the mobilization capacity of marginalized groups, controlling for the structural political environment. Methodologically, it offers a novel approach to applying text-as-data analysis to questions at the core of political science. Quantitative chapters of my dissertation have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.
My current research examines how social media platforms handle disinformation and hate speech, and whether public support for their content moderation policies varies across countries. The project extends my dissertation’s focus on digital intermediaries of speech and asks how online communication platforms can gain public legitimacy in order to better regulate content in the face of sprawling disinformation in the post-truth age. Drawing on Schmidt’s framework of input, throughput, and output legitimacy, together with institutional trust, I investigate whether people who perceive platforms as normatively and empirically fair are more likely to approve of content moderation policies against hate speech and deepfakes. To test this, I designed cross-national surveys in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, where platform regulation differs. The surveys examine whether the perceived legitimacy of a platform helps explain the link between exposure to disinformation and trust in platforms, and whether that legitimacy in turn shapes support for regulating disinformation and hate speech online. The project offers one of the first empirical tests of multidimensional legitimacy theory in platform governance, and it connects research on disinformation to a live international debate: how democracies can govern platforms that operate across borders.
Building on this work, my newest project examines how governments use aligned media to turn the public against allies. Using Georgia as a case, I combine computational analysis of television outlets’ coverage of the war in Ukraine with Caucasus Barometer surveys fielded before and during the war to assess whether exposure to anti-Ukraine narratives is associated with shifting public attitudes toward Ukraine.
Together, these projects address my two guiding questions: how online disinformation shapes public opinion, and how digital spaces can be made more resilient to those who exploit them. I am committed to pursuing research that charts new pathways for building democratic resilience, enhancing human security, and fostering coalitions between grassroots and grasstops activists to counter democratic backsliding.
My most recent publication (April 2025) with my dissertation supervisor, the Eberly Family Distinguished Professor of political science Erik Herron, explores the challenges associated with the management of elections in the face of crisis and security threats in the Republic of Georgia. This paper contributes to the growing literature on the study of elections that addresses how - and where - citizens cast their ballots. Natural and anthropogenic disasters, conflict, and terrorism create logistical and security challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic elevated these concerns as densely packed polling places were considered a potential vector for transmission. We explore how Georgia addressed the risks presented by the pandemic in the conduct of its elections. Specifically, we analyze how polling place location decisions were managed, and examine the consequences – how outcomes in polling places created for quarantined voters differ from those in standard polling places.
Please visit the Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy at the link below to read the full manuscript: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2024.0016
Russian Anti-Western Disinformation, Media Consumption and Public Opinion
in Georgia
In this project, with Erik S. Herron and Ralph S. Clem, we examine how Russian-aligned disinformation influences public opinion to further its geopolitical goals, particularly in the Republic of Georgia. Using data from the public opinion survey from 2019, we examine how three specific anti-Western conspiracy theories were amplified by media outlets associated with Russia or with Georgian outlets that aired material more sympathetic to Russian foreign-policy preferences. We found that respondents who trusted Georgian media with a pro-Russian orientation and/or who were exposed to Russian television were more likely to accept conspiracy theories aligned with Russia's geopolitical interests, suggesting that Russian disinformation efforts might be moderately successful in persuading some Georgian citizens.
Full article is available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2023.2220997