Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Content Analysis 10-11-11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Content Analysis 10-11-11

  • 274 views
Published

Lessons from content analysis component of my thesis

Lessons from content analysis component of my thesis

Published in Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
274
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Interactive behaviours in constituency level onlinecampaigns in the 2010 UK General Election Benjamin Lee Institute for social change benjamin.lee@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk 1
  • 2. BACKGROUND Part of a PhD looking at the use of Web campaigns Previous work had looked at adoption of online campaign tools, but how were they used? Web 2.0 services built on interactivity, creates the possibility for innovation? Specifically wanted to measure the level of interactive behaviour campaigns were engaging in 2
  • 3. REQUIREMENTS Had to measure different levels of interactivity  Public dialogue  Potential dialogue  Site based interactivity Had to cover the entirety of a web presence across three platforms  Website  Facebook  Twitter Had to be relatively simple, 300+ campaigns in a week 3
  • 4. 4
  • 5. RESULTS – PUBLIC DIALOGUE 5
  • 6. RESULTS – POTENTIAL DIALOGUE 6
  • 7. RESULTS – SITE BASED INTERACTIVITY 7
  • 8. LESSON 1 – IDENTIFYING WEBSITES How can we identify websites? Web 2.0 has shifted analysis away from individual sites to collections of sites, we need to consider web presences How can these be identified, especially when we don’t know the context Practical difficulties in tracking down websites  Google  Tweetminster  Facebook search 8
  • 9. 9
  • 10. LESSON 2 – WEB 2.0 IS DIFFERENT Difficult to identify equivalent behaviours across platforms  Common interactive behaviours on websites are very uncommon on social networks e.g. downloading material  Social networks also very structured, difficult for campaigns to do new things  Interactivity is inbuilt into Web 2.0 platforms 10
  • 11. LESSON 3 – KNOW YOUR MEASUREMENTS What is content analysis actually measuring? Consider an aggregate interactivity index either additive or based on PCA Can we really combine public dialogue, potential dialogue and site-based interactivity? Is a Facebook message as interactive or more interactive than a Twitter message? Are we measuring behaviours or design decisions and organisational choices? 11
  • 12. LESSON 4 – THE FUTURE IS UNWRITTEN Future developments mean more complications  Google +  Diaspora  Mobile applications/html 5  Proprietary social networks LibDemACT, MembersNet, MyConservatives  ?  ‘I think Google Plus will change all that… Because you can search on issues, you link it up with Twitter and it’s designed to interact with other social networks, it’s somewhere between Live Journal, Facebook and Twitter all rolled into one’  Lib-Dem Campaign Manager Innovation within current platforms e.g. Facebook pages Also, changes in user behaviour and attitudes e.g. Privacy on Facebook 12