“War has rules, mud wrestlinghas rules - politics has no rules.”                   -Ross Perot
The “online politicking 3.0”                     model   Media technologies at the center of contemporary    formal and i...
The “online politicking 3.0”                        model   Recent political movements/mobilization    initiatives that h...
The “online politicking 3.0”                     model   The gun debate in the United States and the rise of    the “patr...
“Broadcast politics”                                   paradigmHighly hierarchical                   Limited interactionst...
The rise of the political Web in                             the United States       Four distinct stages of Web-based po...
Context of the “onlinepoliticking 3.0” model                                   social media           Source: PEW Internet...
Context of the “onlinepoliticking 3.0” model                                   social media           Source: PEW Internet...
Context of the “online                politicking 3.0” model                                                              ...
Context of the “online                          politicking 3.0” model                                                    ...
Context of the “online                          politicking 3.0” model                                                    ...
Context of the “online                politicking 3.0” model                                       Post modernistic mindse...
Context of the “online                      politicking 3.0” model                                                        ...
Context of the “online                                politicking 3.0” model                                              ...
The concept of decentralizationThe diffusion of the initiative, the execution and the control of digital  political commun...
The concept of decentralization          Political content production and sharing processes:              Reduction of t...
The concept of decentralization   Structure of e-politicking:        Content-based interactivity:              Hyperlin...
The concept of decentralization                       or compartmentalization         Internal structure of political org...
The concept of fragmentation                            or compartmentalization       The “breakdown of broadly shared soc...
Meteoric growth of the Tea                            Party movement      Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:   ...
Meteoric growth of the Tea                                        Party movement                  Mainstream emergence in...
Meteoric growth of the Tea                 Party movement   Many authors have defined the Tea Party movement    as an Ast...
Meteoric growth of the Tea                 Party movement   It can in fact be defined as a highly-decentralized and    fr...
#TEAPARTY                                       Methodology   Quantitative content analysis of #teaparty discourse    on ...
#TEAPARTY                              Overview of the results   Overview of the #teaparty twittering dynamic:       1,7...
#TEAPARTY                                                                   Twittering patterns                           ...
#TEAPARTY                                                      Twittering patterns                   Monthly number of uni...
#TEAPARTY                                 Twittering patterns   85,629 @replies (4.9% of the dataset) by 11,296    unique...
#TEAPARTY                                                                             Twittering patterns                 ...
#TEAPARTY        Twittering patterns of prominent Tea PartiersPolitical or media personality     Number of #teaparty tweet...
#TEAPARTY    Network analysis         December 14, 2009          to December 20,               2009           Number of   ...
#TEAPARTY    Network analysis          November 1, 2010           to November 7,                2010           Number of  ...
#TEAPARTY    Network analysis         October 25, 2010 to          October 31, 2010           Number of          4,280    ...
#TEAPARTY    Network analysis         January 10, 2011 to          January 16, 2011           Number of          688      ...
#TEAPARTY                                       Hashtag use   49,797 different hashtags (including the #teaparty    hasht...
#TEAPARTY                                                                                              Hashtag use        ...
Conclusion   The Tea Party movement is a political game changer;   Transformation of the concept of populism:       Mov...
QUESTIONS    or            Great research:COMMENTS                                               “The neighbourhoods of ...
POLI334 - The grassroots-intensive uncontrolled decentralization and hyper fragmentation of e-politicking processes: Why s...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

POLI334 - The grassroots-intensive uncontrolled decentralization and hyper fragmentation of e-politicking processes: Why should anyone care?

460 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
460
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

POLI334 - The grassroots-intensive uncontrolled decentralization and hyper fragmentation of e-politicking processes: Why should anyone care?

  1. 1. “War has rules, mud wrestlinghas rules - politics has no rules.” -Ross Perot
  2. 2. The “online politicking 3.0” model Media technologies at the center of contemporary formal and informal political processes; Two dimensions of the “online politicking 3.0” model:  Uncontrolled decentralization of politicking (3 axes);  Hyper fragmentation of politicking. (multiples axes) The Tea Party movement is one of the first mainstream manifestations of this model. Source: Raynauld, 2013
  3. 3. The “online politicking 3.0” model Recent political movements/mobilization initiatives that have adopted a Tea Party-inspired mobilization model: High levels of mobilization “net geners” despite low levels of political knowledge Sources: Mascaro, Novak et al., 2012; Gaby and Caren, 2012; Sawchuk, 2012; Twenge, 2008; Wattenberg, 2008
  4. 4. The “online politicking 3.0” model The gun debate in the United States and the rise of the “patriots”: Source: Youtube.com
  5. 5. “Broadcast politics” paradigmHighly hierarchical Limited interactionstop-down transfers of “controlled information” Geographically -dispersed mass audience Deceitful; Negative; Costco-style Limited number of Manipulative. traditional political and politics? media elites Sources: Trippi, 2004; Putnam, 2001; Bennett and Manheim, 2006; Chadwick, 2006; Shah, Cho et al., 2005
  6. 6. The rise of the political Web in the United States  Four distinct stages of Web-based politicking:  Emergence phase (1994-1998);Web 1.0 1996: “Kitty Hawk” moment of Web politics  Definition and diffusion phase (2000-2002);  Maturation phase (2004-2006);  Post-maturation phase (2008-…) Gradual emergence of the “online politicking 3.0” model shortly after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election cycle Sources: Williams and Gulati, 2006; Davis, Baumgartner et al., 2009; Foot, Schneider et al., 2009; Xenos, and Foot, 2008
  7. 7. Context of the “onlinepoliticking 3.0” model social media Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012
  8. 8. Context of the “onlinepoliticking 3.0” model social media Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012
  9. 9. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model social media Lowering of the threshold for political participation (offline and Web 1.0 media vs. Web 2.0 media)  Reduction of financial costs;  Reduction of the digital knowledge and technical expertise required;  Reduction of time constraints;  Accessibility (e.g.: apps, software, etc.);  Content generation.  Etc. New opportunities? Sources: Vergeer, Hermans et al., 2011; Gulati and Williams, 2010; 2011; Tau, 2011
  10. 10. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model Post modernistic mindset Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:  Openness to “extraversion” (new political and media experiences);  Desire to be creative, innovative and autonomous;  Willingness to be self-expressive and socially- active;  Propensity for individualistic self-promotion through “affirmation and validation”. Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009
  11. 11. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model Post modernistic mindset Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:  Readiness for greater personal and collective transparency;  Openness to the playful nature of social media technologies;  Self-efficacy towards politics and Web-based media platforms. Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009
  12. 12. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model Post modernistic mindset Dispositions anchored in personal values:  Freedom;  Assertiveness;  Self-mastery;  Empowerment. Self-instigated or highly entrepreneurial form of political engagement Sources: Twenge, 2006; 2008; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009
  13. 13. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model Post modernistic mindset  Rapid incubation of politically-oriented digital “hipster narcissism” or identity-centered egoism: The use of the concept of narcissism in this context does not refer to the clinical personality disorder, but to a culturally and technologically-induced state of “introspection and self-absorption that takes place in blogs”, social networksites and other user-generated media platforms. Zizi Papacharissi Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Chi and Yang, 2011
  14. 14. Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model Post modernistic mindset Sharp contrast with the dutiful or managed citizenship model: Individuals are motivated “by a sense of duty to incur costs toparticipate for the good of society by voting and joining with others in sanctioned civic organizations that promote civic spirit”. Link with self-actualizing approaches to offline politics:  “Lifestyle politics”;  “Subactivism”;  “Sub-politics”. Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Stolle and Hooghe, 2009; Bennet, Wells et al., 2009
  15. 15. The concept of decentralizationThe diffusion of the initiative, the execution and the control of digital political communication and mobilization processes from formal political elites to a rapidly growing number of formal and informal political players with an increasingly diverse range of preferences, interests and objectives. Three axes of decentralization: 1. Political content production and sharing processes; 2. Overall structure of e-politicking; 3. Architecture of political organizations. Sources: Blumler and Coleman, 2010; Balmas, Rahat et al., 2012; Rheingold, 2008; Stromer-Galley and Wichowski, 2011
  16. 16. The concept of decentralization  Political content production and sharing processes:  Reduction of the multidimensional “transaction costs” of being politically-active online;  Anonymity and pseudonimity;  Mobilization of previously-peripheral formal and informal political players:  Resource-poor candidates and organizations;  Citizen-driven groups;  Ordinary citizens.Sources: Gil de Zuniga, Jung et al., 2012; Williams and Gulati, 2009; Hughes, Rowe et al., 2012; Huberman, Romero et al., 2008
  17. 17. The concept of decentralization Structure of e-politicking:  Content-based interactivity:  Hyperlinks;  “Liking” or sharing content on Facebook;  Other functions.  Social interactivity:  Multidirectional social interactions;  Synchronous and asynchronous interactions;  Horizontal political organizing. Sources: Endres and Warnick, 2004; Xenos and Foot, 2008
  18. 18. The concept of decentralization or compartmentalization  Internal structure of political organizations:  Declining confidence in formal political institutions;  Rise of “self-organizing” (“organizing without an organization”);  Rise of “post bureaucratic organizations”:  Flexible structure;  Constantly adapting to external environment;  Redefinition of formal tasks.Bruce Bimber Sources: Kreiss, 2009; Pasek, moore et al., 2009: 199; Bimber, Flanagin et al., 2005.; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009
  19. 19. The concept of fragmentation or compartmentalization The “breakdown of broadly shared social and political experience [, knowledge, community concerns as well as traditional behavioural patterns] and the rise of personalized realities” (rise of networks of sphericules)  Multiple axes of fragmentation:  Political preferences (political polarization);  Issue preferences;  Credibility perception;  Socio-demographical characteristics;  Etc.Sources: Bimber, 2005; Bennett, 1998; Brundidge, 2008; Sampedro, 2011; Metzgar and Maruggi, 2009; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012
  20. 20. Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:  “Porkulus” demonstrations by Keli Carender (“Liberty Belle”), a Seattle-based activist:  120 participants in President’s Day rally on February 16, 2009;  300 participants in demonstration on February 23, 2009;  600 participants in Tax Day protest on April 15, 2009.Keli Carender Sources: Disch, 2001; Berg, 2011; 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Skinner, 2012; Formisano, 2012; kelicarender.net
  21. 21. Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement  Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:  Rick Santelli’s rant against foreclosure relief that aired live on CNBC on February 19, 2009. Rick SantelliSources: Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Joe, Gimpel et al., 2012; Weaver and Scacco, 2013; Bailey, Mummolo et al., 2012; Youtube.com
  22. 22. Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement Many authors have defined the Tea Party movement as an Astroturf or “genetically modified grassroots” phenomenon essentially driven by members of the media and political elite:  Interest groups;  Media organizations;  Media personalities;  Elected and non elected politicians;  Etc. Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012
  23. 23. Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement It can in fact be defined as a highly-decentralized and fragmented political mobilization initiative:  Formal and informal political players;  Geographically-dispersed;  Wide range of interests and objectives:  Healthcare;  Economy;  Social issues (e.g.: gay rights, personal responsibility, etc.);  Gun rights. Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012
  24. 24. #TEAPARTY Methodology Quantitative content analysis of #teaparty discourse on Twitter:  Tweets with #teaparty hashtag posted between December 9, 2009 at 22h41 +0000 and March 19, 2011 at 15h40 +0000 (Midterm elections);  Twapper Keeper for data mining and archiving (open-source);  MySQL and Gephi (version 0.8.1 beta) for data analysis;  Challenges and opportunities. Source: Raynauld, 2013
  25. 25. #TEAPARTY Overview of the results Overview of the #teaparty twittering dynamic:  1,747,306 tweets with at least one #teaparty hashtag;  79,564 unique twitterers;  96.64 per cent of the #teaparty tweets with all the correct information (technical issue affecting 3.36% of the dataset). Source: Raynauld, 2013
  26. 26. #TEAPARTY Twittering patterns Monthly volume of #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets)300,000 275,408250,000200,000 181,122150,000 156,680 204,575 198,596 47,787100,000 129,215 174,582 68,204 50,000 51,197 60,405 50,349 0 33,700 42,357 3,113 11,391 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  27. 27. #TEAPARTY Twittering patterns Monthly number of unique twitterers who contributed at least once to the #teaparty conversation (per number of twitterers20,00018,00016,00014,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  28. 28. #TEAPARTY Twittering patterns 85,629 @replies (4.9% of the dataset) by 11,296 unique #teaparty twitterers; 578,939 #teaparty tweets (31.13% of the dataset) by 54,802 unique users served a retweeting function; 1,179,742 #teaparty tweets (67.52% of the dataset) by 54,534 unique authors featured at least one hyperlink. Source: Raynauld, 2013
  29. 29. #TEAPARTY Twittering patterns Minimum number of hyperlinks embedded in #teaparty tweets (per number and percentage of tweets and per number of unique twitterers) 1,179,7421,200,000 Heavy use of1,000,000 hyperlink 800,000 shortening services 600,000 400,000 Negative impact on 200,000 16,982 the analysis 920 0 83 7 1 2 3 4 5 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  30. 30. #TEAPARTY Twittering patterns of prominent Tea PartiersPolitical or media personality Number of #teaparty tweetsAndrew P. Napolitano 35Glenn Beck 12Rush Limbaugh 5Dick Armey 0Sarah Palin 0Senate contenders Number of #teaparty tweetsJoe W. Miller (Alaska) 921Christine O’Donnell (Delaware) 168Sharron Angle (Nevada) 102Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) 2Jim DeMint (North Carolina) 1Rand Paul (Kentucky) 0Ken Buck (Colorado) 0Marco Rubio (Florida) 0 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  31. 31. #TEAPARTY Network analysis December 14, 2009 to December 20, 2009 Number of 877 @replies Number of nodes 654 Number of edges 648 Average degree 0.991 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  32. 32. #TEAPARTY Network analysis November 1, 2010 to November 7, 2010 Number of 4,424 @replies Number of nodes 3,258 Number of edges 3,542 Average degree 1.087 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  33. 33. #TEAPARTY Network analysis October 25, 2010 to October 31, 2010 Number of 4,280 @replies Number of nodes 2,630 Number of edges 3,131 Average degree 1.19 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  34. 34. #TEAPARTY Network analysis January 10, 2011 to January 16, 2011 Number of 688 @replies Number of nodes 807 Number of edges 624 Average degree 0.773 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  35. 35. #TEAPARTY Hashtag use 49,797 different hashtags (including the #teaparty hashtag) used by #teaparty twitterers; 1,747,306 #teaparty tweets with at least one hashtag; 178,417 different hashtag combinations (hyper fragmentation; 10 most popular hashtags: 1- #teaparty 6- #tlot 2- #tcot 7- #ocra 3- #p2 8- #912 4- #sgp 9- #twisters 5- #gop 10- #iamthemob Source: Raynauld, 2013
  36. 36. #TEAPARTY Hashtag use Minimum number of hashtags embedded in #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets and unique twitterers)1,800,0001,600,0001,400,0001,200,0001,000,000 800,000 Number of hashtags 600,000 Number of unique twitterers 400,000 200,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Source: Raynauld, 2013
  37. 37. Conclusion The Tea Party movement is a political game changer; Transformation of the concept of populism:  Movement not centered on a single politician or a small number of issues;  Movement not driven by traditional politics;  Movement that is out of control;  Etc. True democratization of populism; The case of the “Maple Spring”.
  38. 38. QUESTIONS or Great research:COMMENTS   “The neighbourhoods of #cdnpoli”; Health of the Canadian democracy;  Check out theiwebsite.

×