Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Candidates' Communication patterns on Twitter

768 views

Published on

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

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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 />

×