Twitter Campaigning in the 2011 National Election in Slovenia

Strategy and Application of the Twitter Social Media Outlet in Party Election Campaigns
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 13)

Abstract

The chapter examines the Twitter campaigning of parliamentary political parties and their influential members during the 2011 preterm national election campaign. We examine the rationales behind the adoption and appropriation of Twitter in the Slovenian political arena. Content analysis of 4,610 Tweets and conducted interviews with campaign managers of seven lists of candidates allowed us to revisit three perennial hypotheses about political communication on the web: the copycat, revolution and normalisation hypotheses. While the examined parties’ move into the Twittersphere confirmed the copycat hypothesis, their utilisation of the tool revealed mixed evidence for the revolution vs. normalisation dilemma. Party campaigning did show signs of ‘politics as usual’, with political powerhouses taking the lead on Twitter as well. However, it also demonstrated a substantial degree of genuine direct political interaction between politicians and citizens.

Keywords

Twitter Slovenia Election campaign Copycat theory Normalisation thesis 

References

  1. Agranoff, R. (Ed.). (1972). The new style in election campaigns. Boston: Holbrook Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baxter, G., Marcella, R., & Varfis, E. (2011). The use of the internet by political parties and candidates in Scotland during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Aslib Proceedings, 63(5), 464–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit, W. L. (2011). Content analysis in political communication. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research: methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 268–279). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bertoncelj, T. (2011). Omejevanje svobode. Mladina 23 September 2011. Available via Mladina. http://www.mladina.si/105795/. Accessed 25 May 2013
  5. Bruns, A., & Stieglitz, S. (2012). Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on Twitter. Journal of Technology and Human Resources, 30(3–4), 160–185.Google Scholar
  6. Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. De Vreese, C. H., Banducci, S. A., Semetko, H. A., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2006). The news coverage of the 2004 European parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics, 7(4), 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dertouzos, M. L. (1997). What will be: How the new world of information will change our lives. San Francisco, CA: HarperEdge.Google Scholar
  10. Deželan, T. (2005). Predvolilna kampanja, volilna udelezba in izid volitev: analiza vpliva predvolilne kampanje na problem nizke volilne udelezbe na volitvah v EP. In S. Kustec Lipicer (Ed.), Politološki vidiki volilne kampanje (pp. 147–166). Ljubljana: FDV.Google Scholar
  11. Deželan, T., Krašovec, A., & Kovačič, M. (2010). Volilna kampanja po slovensko. In S. Kustec Lipicer (Ed.), Politične vsebine in volilna kampanja: slovenska izkušnja z volitev v Evropski parlament 2009 (pp. 53–70). Ljubljana: FDV.Google Scholar
  12. Eurostat (2012). Media use in the European Union. Report November 2012. Available via http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb78/eb78_media_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  13. Farrell, D. M., & Webb, P. (2000). Political parties as campaign organizations. In D. J. Rassell & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Parties without partisans (pp. 102–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Franz, D. (2003). Digitalna demokracija in politična kultura na primeru Slovenije. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 30(21), 34–53.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, R., Nixon, P., & Ward, S. (Eds.). (2003). Political parties and the internet net gain? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, R., & Römmele, A. (2007). Political communication. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (pp. 473–492). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, R., & Römmele, A. (2008). Political communication. In D. Caramani (Ed.), Comparative politics (pp. 473–492). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, R., & Römmele, A. (2009). Mesauring the professionalization of political campaigning. Party Politics, 15(3), 265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2000). A proposed methodology for studying the function and effectiveness of party and candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review, 18(3), 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.Google Scholar
  22. Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian Politicians’ use of the Social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hermanns, H. (2004). Interviewing as an activity. In U. Flick, V. E. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Companion to qualitative research (pp. 203–208). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2002). The end of old certainties: Changes in the triangle of media, political system, and electorate and their consequences. Ethical Perspectives, 9(4), 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holtz-Bacha, C. (2008). Professionalization. In L. L. Kaid & C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 656–657). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Kavanagh, D. (1995). Election campaigning: The new marketing of politics. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Košak, K., & Žumer, J. (2012). Njihova govorica. Mladina. Available via Mladina. http://www.mladina.si/115464/. Accessed 25 May 2013.
  28. Krippendorff, K. H. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritche & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social sciences students and researchers (pp. 138–169). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace ‘revolution’. Thousand oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Mekina, B. (2011). Lažna alternativa. Mladina. Available via Mladina. http://www.mladina.si/54328/lazna-alternativa/. Accessed 25 May 2013.
  33. Negrine, R. M., & Lilleker, D. G. (2002). The professionalization of political communication: Continuities and change in media practices. European Journal of Communication, 17(3), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newell, J. L. (2001). Italian political parties on the web. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(4), 60–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris, P. (2003). Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party Politics, 9(1), 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris, P. (2004). The evolution of election campaigns: eroding political engagement? Paper for the conference on Political Communications in the 21st Century, St Margaret’s College, University of Otago, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  37. Oblak, T., & Željan, K. (2007). Slovenian online campaigning during the 2004 European parliament election: struggling between self-promotion and mobilization. In R. K. Kluver, N. W. Jankowski, K. A. Foot, & S. M. Schneider (Eds.), The Internet and national elections: a comparative study of web campaigning (pp. 60–76). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Plasser, F., & Plasser, G. (2002). Global political campaigning: a worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westoprt: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Scammell, S. (1998). The wisdom of the war room: US campaigning and Americanization Media. Culture and Society, 20(2), 251–275.Google Scholar
  42. Selnow, G. W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  43. Solop, F. (2010). RT @Barack Obama we just made history. Twitter and the 2008 Presidential election. In J. A. Hendricks & J. R. Denton (Eds.), Communicator-in-chief. How Barack Obama used new media technology to win the white house (pp. 37–49). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. SORS. (2012). Usage of information-communication technologies in households and by individuals, Slovenia, 2012—final data, Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=5037 Accessed 30 Aug 2013.
  45. Štefančič, M. (2011). Revolucija! Mladina. Available via Mladina. http://www.mladina.si/53094/revolucija/. Accessed 25 May 2013.
  46. Stone, B. (1996). Politics’96. Internet world, 7(11), 44–50.Google Scholar
  47. Strandberg, K. (2008). Online electoral competition in different settings—a comparative meta-analysis of the research on party websites and online electoral competition. Party Politics, 14(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swanson, D. L., & Mancini, P. (Eds.). (1996). Politics, media, and modern democracy: An international study of innovations in electoral campaign and their consequences. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. Tomažič, A. (2013). Moč družbenih omrežij. Available via Pogledi. http://www.pogledi.si/druzba/moc-druzbenih-omrezij. Accessed 29 May 2013.
  50. Tops, P. W., Voerman, G., & Boogers, M. (2000). Political websites during the 1998 parliamentary elections in The Netherlands. In J. Hoff, I. Horrocks, & P. W. Tops (Eds.), Democratic governance and new technology (pp. 88–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. UK Office for National Statistics. (2013). Social networking: The UK as a leader in Europe, UK, New South Wales. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access---households-and-individuals/social-networking--the-uk-as-a-leader-in-europe/sty-social-networking-2012.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2013.
  52. Vehovar, V., Jerman Kuželički, A., & Lebar, L. (2011). Socialna omrežja 2011 (#94). Available via http://www.ris.org/uploadi/editor/1307495011poroilo_spletneskupnosti.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  53. Ward, S., Gibson, R., & Nixon, P. (2003). Parties and the internet: New gain? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Waters, D. W., & Williams, J. M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Centre for Political Science ResearchUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Department of Communication, Social Communication Research CentreUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations