Candidates' Communication patterns on Twitter

654 views
614 views

Published on

presentation held the Wapor conference 21-23/9/2011 in Amsterdam.

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
654
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
70
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Candidates' Communication patterns on Twitter

  1. 1. New public deliberationsTwitter as a new campaign tool for public discussions<br />Maurice Vergeer<br />Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands<br />Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea<br />LiesbethHermans<br />Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands<br />WAPOR 64th Annual Conference in Amsterdam<br />September 21-23, 2011<br />Amsterdam, The Netherlands<br />This research was supported by WCU (World Class University) program through theNational Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science andTechnology (No. 515-82-06574)<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />Dividebetween politics and citizens<br />Distrust<br />Decreasingvoterturnout<br />What to do?<br />
  3. 3. The Netherlands<br />Earlyadopter<br />Europeanparliamentelections 2009<br />Low adoptionrate<br />Butsomeveryactivecandidates<br />(Vergeer , Hermans & Sams, 2011; in press)<br />
  4. 4. Social media<br />Informing<br />Connecting<br />Communicating<br />
  5. 5. The Dutch parliamentelections of 2010<br />Significantlylargerimplementation of Twitter as a campaign instrument<br />
  6. 6. Campaign models<br />
  7. 7. Norris, 2001; Gibson & Römmele, 2001; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, in press<br />
  8. 8. Norris, 2001; Gibson & Römmele, 2001; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, in press<br />
  9. 9. Norris, 2001; Gibson & Römmele, 2001; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, in press<br />
  10. 10. Norris, 2001; Gibson & Römmele, 2001; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, in press<br />
  11. 11. But …<br />Does is level the politicalplaying field?<br />
  12. 12. Most dominant mode of analyses<br />Content analysis<br />Politicalmessages<br />Personalcampaigning<br />Trivialcommunication<br />Socialnetworkanalysis<br />Communicationnetworks<br />Dynamics <br />
  13. 13. Networkanalysis<br />Hyperlink analysis (Park )<br />Blog analysis<br />Socialnetworkanalysis<br />
  14. 14. Research questions<br />To what degree do candidates and the public engage in public discussions on the Web?<br />To what extent is do parties engage in online communications?<br />Do discussions take place within the boundaries of the party (i.e. many small ideological public spheres consisting of homogeneous networks) or are they crossing party boundaries?<br />
  15. 15. Data<br />API<br />Profiles<br />All tweetsbycandidatesusingTwitter<br />Tweeting to followers and non-followers<br />All tweetsbyfollowers of candidates<br />Tweeting to candidates, followers of candidates and others<br />
  16. 16. Candidates<br />All tweets in 40 days prior to ElectionDay<br />Inner circle<br />All tweets of Twitterusersthatfollowcandidates<br />Outercircle<br />Twitterusers , notfollowingcandidatesbutwho are (re)tweeted to<br />
  17. 17. Findings<br />All messages: n=4,451,128 sent out by the candidates and the inner circle of the candidates<br />nearly half of all messages is undirected, i.e. sent to no one in particular. <br />About a third is sent to people on Twitter not following any candidates (i.e. outer circle). <br />Little over a sixth of the messages are sent to people following at least one candidate, <br />
  18. 18.
  19. 19. Messages sent to and from party candidates (%)<br />
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39. Conclusion<br />Socialmedia’ssuccesskills the social part<br />Successfullpeople turn social media intomass media<br />Only few replies<br />Littlereciprocity in general<br />Social relations<br />Communication relations<br />Reciprocitydecreaseswhenactivitiesincrease<br />Level playing field?<br />
  40. 40. So . . .Back where we started?<br />

×