Skip to main content

Click to subscribe: interest group emails as a source of data

Abstract

Modern interest groups frequently utilize email communications with members as an organizational and informational tool. Furthermore, the nature of email communications—frequent, abundant, and simple to collect—makes them an excellent source of data for studies of interest groups. Nevertheless, despite the substantive importance and methodological possibilities of email communications, few interest group scholars have taken advantage of this data source due to the lack of a comprehensive, systematic database of email texts. This article makes the case for emails as a form of (big) data in the interest group field and discusses best practices for compiling and analyzing datasets of interest group emails. The article also introduces the Political Group Communication Database—the first large scale database of interest group and think tank email communications—and discusses the utility of this (and related) data for answering perennial and newly emergent questions in the interest group field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. A growing body of research has focused on Internet-based communication platforms like Facebook and Twitter, with increasingly sophisticated methods and expanded data (e.g., Perlmutter 2008; Williams and Gulati 2013). Nevertheless, as Karpf (2010: 11) notes, these studies demonstrate a “technocentric bias” by focusing on newer technologies like social networking sites. More mundane (but central) modes of communication, such as email, have received little attention.

  2. The complete database and documentation can be found at www.zackalbert.com/PGCD.

  3. There are some methods (e.g., the “gmailr” R package) that enable interfacing with the email server without directly downloading emails, though for large scale analysis it is recommended to export the messages.

  4. It is worth noting that automated non-text filtering procedures will likely be imperfect, leaving some emails with noise that is not easy to extract on a large scale. Despite best efforts, for example, some PGCD emails still contain HTML programming code.

References

  • Albert, Z. 2019. Partisan Policymaking in the Extended Party Network: The Case of Cap-and-Trade Regulations. Political Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919838326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F.R., and B.L. Leech. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bawn, K., M. Cohen, D. Karol, S. Masket, H. Noel, and J. Zaller. 2012. A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics 10 (3): 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormack, L. 2016. Gender and Vote Revelation Strategy in the United States Congress. Journal of Gender Studies 6 (25): 626–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormack, L. 2017. DCinbox—Capturing Every Congressional Constituent E-newsletter from 2009 Onwards. The Legislative Scholar 2 (1): 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormack, L. 2018. Congress and U.S. Veterans: From the GI Bill to the VA Crisis. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drutman, L., and D.J. Hopkins. 2013. The Inside View: Using the Enron E-mail Archive to Understand Corporate Political Attention. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (1): 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimmer, J. 2010. A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases. Political Analysis 18 (1): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillard, D., S. Purpura, and J. Wilkerson. 2008. Computer-Assisted Topic Classification for Mixed-Methods Social Science Research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 4 (4): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. 2010. Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective. Policy & Internet 2 (4): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. 2012. The Move On Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. 2013. How Will the Internet Change American Interest Groups? In New Directions in Interest Group Politics, ed. M. Grossmann, 136–157. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. 2016. Analytic Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political Strategy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koger, G., S. Masket, and H. Noel. 2009. Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks. British Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 633–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollman, K. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, B.L., M.P. Colaresi, and K.M. Quinn. 2008. Fightin’ Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict. Political Analysis 16 (4): 372–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D.D. 2008. Political Blogging and Campaign 2008. International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (2): 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickerill, J. 2003. Cyberprotest: Environmental Activism Online. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, K.M., B.L. Monroe, M. Colaresi, M.H. Crespin, and D.R. Radev. 2010. How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, J.H., and Z. Albert. 2017. The Transformation of Partisan Rhetoric in American Presidential Campaigns, 1952–2012. Party Politics 23 (5): 566–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K.L., and J.T. Tierney. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, Y., B. Acree, J.H. Gross, and N.A. Smith 2013. Measuring Ideological Proportions in Political Speeches. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Seattle, WA.

  • Skocpol, T. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, S.W. 2009. The Case Against Mass E-mails: Perverse Incentives and Low Quality Public Participation in US Federal Rulemaking. Policy & Internet 1 (1): 23–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S., L. Young, and M. Balmas. 2015. Bad News or Mad News? Sentiment Scoring of Negativity, Fear, and Anger in News Content. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659 (1): 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, J., H. Li, Y. Cao, and Z. Tang. 2005. Email Data Cleaning. In Proceedings of SIGKDD 2005. August 21–24, 2005, Chicago, IL. 489–499.

  • Trammell, K.D., and A.P. Williams. 2008. Beyond Direct Mail: Evaluating Candidate E-Mail Messages in the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial Campaign. Journal of E-Government 1 (1): 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, R.L. 2011. Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital Age: Interest Group Response to Supreme Court Nominees. Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 790–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C.B., and G.J. Gulati. 2013. Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and the Congressional Elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society 15 (1): 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary Albert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 119 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albert, Z. Click to subscribe: interest group emails as a source of data. Int Groups Adv 9, 384–395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00097-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00097-7

Keywords

  • Interest groups
  • Emails as data
  • Internet communication