Lydia Laurenson Polarisation and Peacebuilding Strategy on Digital Media Platforms: Current Research 3 The State of the Research According to Merriam-Webster, societal “polarisation” is “concentration about opposing extremes of groups or interests formerly ranged on a continuum” (definition retrieved 2/28/2019). Conflict theorists pay attention to polarisation because increased polarisation is a warning sign for armed conflict, as documented in texts like Contemporary Conflict Resolution (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall; 4th edition 2016). Even when it does not lead to war, polarisation can drastically decrease the effectiveness of governments and other institutions. The question of whether polarisation is good or bad is outside the scope of this brief, but it is worth noting that it can be understood as positive. For instance, one way of thinking about polarisation is as an indicator that narrative and power are being negotiated. (How much of the idea of “polarisation” is broader society reacting to marginalised groups asserting themselves?) From this perspective, conflict can also be understood as positive; the threat of conflict or revolution can be a deciding factor reining in sadistic dictators. In writing this brief, my intent is not to dismiss oppressed groups’ concerns. In some parts of the world, we are already starting to see the blatant combination of authoritarian sensibilities plus finely-tuned behavioral modification through constant surveillance. Digital media could become a straightforward tool for the privileged to quell their subjects. Imagine a dictator who can press a “depolarise” button, from an isolated tower, insulated from consequences after their subjects protest abuse. Yet although these are important concerns, peacebuilding is important, and empathy, and nonviolent conflict resolution — and depolarisation can be a way of talking about those things. 1. Research Methodology, Focus, and Limitations This review focuses narrowly on research related to polarisation and peacebuilding-related political questions, such as how digital media can change voting patterns; digital propaganda; how viral content works; and so on. As per the author note, this review excludes many studies with slightly suspect findings and those that are out of scope (for example, studies about how digital media affects well-being). Researching this subject is complicated by the fact that there is no common methodology or set of definitions. Some people have created, or are working on, meta-analyses of disinformation specifically — for instance, Jonathan Stray at Columbia University and Jennifer Kavanagh at RAND Corporation — but there are no common methodologies for broader political and societal impacts of digital media. The Social Science Research Council is working on this problem, and Samuel Spies at SSRC sent the following statement: “SSRC is in the process of creating a web portal and content aggregation service, with a target launch date in the fall of 2019. The Council hopes this new project will consolidate an expanding scholarly literature that originates in multiple, partially overlapping fields. As part of this initiative, it will summarize research findings,