Molinari krems


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Molinari krems

  1. 1. Francesco Molinari & Erika Porquier Krems, 6 th May 2010 Social Networking on Climate Change: The IDEAL-EU Experience
  2. 2. Abstract <ul><li>Our paper reports about the deployment of a multilingual Social Networking Platform in three Regions of Europe (Catalonia, Poitou-Charentes and Tuscany), in the context of a EU-funded Preparatory Action on eParticipation (IDEAL-EU), dealing with the issue of climate change and energy policy making at the level of the European Parliament. </li></ul><ul><li>The US (“Obama”) approach and a novel “European” usage of social networks in political online discourses are compared. </li></ul><ul><li>A recommendation to policy makers is that social networking can be useful whenever the topics under discussion are limited in scope, but also wide in implications, so that they require moving forward from “one-shot” and “ad-hoc” participation experiments, towards the permanent coverage of “mission critical” Public Administration functions. </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  3. 3. Overarching research questions <ul><li>Are computer-based social networks a valid extension of those based on face-to-face interaction? </li></ul><ul><li>Can the former be of use for politicians and policy makers? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there any structural differences between the “US” and the “EU” approach (if any) to social networking in politics? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li> Not a systematic collection of evidence, but some hints from existing theories and practice </li></ul></ul></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  4. 4. Evidence <ul><li>Research Question #1 </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  5. 5. Contradictory trends? <ul><li>Global Web Traffic to Social Networking Sites </li></ul><ul><li>Unique Visitors Growth Vs. Penetration </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  6. 6. Social implications of Dunbar’s number Krems, 6th May 2010
  7. 7. “ Maximum network size averaged 153.5 individuals , with a mean network size of 124.9 for those individuals explicitly contacted; these values are remarkably close to the group size of 150 predicted for humans on the basis of the size of their neocortex. Age, household type, and the relationship to the individual influence network structure, although the proportion of kin remained relatively constant at around 21%. Frequency of contact between network members was primarily determined by two classes of variable: passive factors (distance, work colleague, overseas) and active factors (emotional closeness, genetic relatedness). Controlling for the influence of passive factors on contact rates allowed the hierarchical structure of human social groups to be delimited. These findings suggest that there may be cognitive constraints on network size . ” Krems, 6th May 2010 Source: Hill and Dunbar (2003)
  8. 8. Evidence <ul><li>Research Question #2 </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  9. 9. Five impact areas of social networks in US politics <ul><li>Branding </li></ul><ul><li>Voter registration </li></ul><ul><li>Fund raising </li></ul><ul><li>Volunteering </li></ul><ul><li>Voter Turnout </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Chris Kelly (2007 ) </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  10. 10. Can we say they work? Yes, we can! Krems, 6th May 2010 This graph taken from Marcelo et al. (2008)
  11. 11. Evidence <ul><li>Research Question #3 </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  12. 12. A European Way to Social Networking? Krems, 6th May 2010 The IDEAL-EU SNP
  13. 13. The IDEAL-EU SNP Figures <ul><li>July-December 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>January-December 2009 </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  14. 14. The IDEAL-EU SNP Traffic Krems, 6th May 2010 Google Stats
  15. 15. Five characters of successful social networks in EU/US politics <ul><li>Specialist / rather than generalist like in the US (e.g. electoral Facebook groups) </li></ul><ul><li>Top down (by Government initiative) / rather than bottom up (Party campaign) </li></ul><ul><li>Dealing with policy issues / rather than electoral aims </li></ul><ul><li>The presence of lively debates increases reputation and attractiveness, thus Google driven traffic ( only EU ) </li></ul><ul><li>They can induce mass imitation and multiplicative effects ( both – but at different action levels presumably) </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  16. 16. “ Vote Rush” Vs. “Bar Chat” <ul><li>The US Way </li></ul><ul><li>The EU Way </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  17. 17. Recommendation for EU PA <ul><li>Build an ICT infrastructure (better if Open Source) for social networking whenever the topics under discussion are limited in scope, but wide in potential implications . </li></ul><ul><li>This can justify moving forward from “ one-shot ” and “ ad-hoc ” participation experiments, towards permanent coverage of Public Administration’s mission critical functions. </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  18. 18. Disclaimer <ul><li>The underlying research was made possible in part by a co-financement of the European Commission to the IDEAL-EU Project, a Preparatory Action in the area of eParticipation. However, the opinions expressed in this paper are solely of the authors and do not involve any of the EU institutions. </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  19. 19. References <ul><li>R.A. Hill and R.I.M. Dunbar (2003): “Social Network Size in Humans”. In Human Nature, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 53–72. </li></ul><ul><li>K.B. Marcelo, M.H. Lopez, C. Kennedy and K. Barr (2008): Young Voter Registration and Turnout Trends. CIRCLE/Rock the Vote, online: </li></ul><ul><li>Morgan Stanley Research (2009): “Economy + Internet Trends. March 20, 2009”, online: </li></ul><ul><li>Nielsenwire (2010): “Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spent on Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year”. </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010
  20. 20. Contacts <ul><li>Corresponding author: </li></ul><ul><li>Francesco Molinari, </li></ul><ul><li>Erika Porquier, </li></ul>Krems, 6th May 2010