Advertisement

Building Public Trust in Social Media

  • Dorota Marquardt
  • Barbara Filipczyk
  • Jerzy Gołuchowski
  • Joanna Paliszkiewicz
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we focus on trust as an important factor in the development of the relationship between public organizations that use Twitter and the users who follow them. Public trust is analyzed in three dimensions—competence, benevolence, and integrity—using the example of communication via Twitter during the participative budgeting process in Poland’s voivodships. We examine how trust is earned on Twitter and how the medium is used as a communication tool by politicians and public institutions. We attempt to identify patterns of building trust and the impact of this relationship on the public trust. The methods of communication used by the City Halls of voivodship capitals in Poland and/or their presidents on Twitter are identified, with a focus on the subject of the participatory budget.

Keywords

Twitter Participatory budget Building public trust Social media 

References

  1. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouckaert, G. (2012). Trust and public administration. Administration, 60(1), 93–94.Google Scholar
  3. Burgess, F. (2013). The language of corporate governance: A sociological analysis. Retreived from http://www.lccge.bbk.ac.uk/publications-and-resources/postgraduate-research/docs/130930-Dissertation-Language-of-CorpGov.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
  4. Carnevale, D. G. (1995). Trustworthy government: Leaderships and management strategies for building trust and high performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crystal, D. (2002). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Czarnecki, K. (2014). Udział mieszkańców w ustalaniu wydatków budżetu gminy w ramach tzw. budżetu partycypacyjnego (na przykładzie Torunia w latach 2013–2014) [Shares of the inhabitants in determining the community expenditure under the participatory budget (on the example of Toruń, 2013–2014)]. Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i Samorządu, 2(1): 125–145.Google Scholar
  10. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doligalski, T. (2009). Budowa wartości klienta z wykorzystaniem Internetu [Building the customer value by using Internet]. In B. Dobiegała-Korona, & T. Doligalski (Ed.), Zarządzanie wartością klienta [Managing customer value]. Warszawa: Poltext.Google Scholar
  12. Effing, R., Van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social media and political participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & H. De Bruijn (Eds.), Electronic participation. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Fard, H. D., Asghar, A., & Rostamy, A. (2007). Promoting public trust in public organizations: Explaining the role of public accountability. Public Organization Review, 7(4), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferro, E., Loukis, E. N., Charalabidis, Y., & Osella, M. (2013). Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtue and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2005). Online participation in the UK: Testing a ‘contextualised’ model of internet effects. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 7(1), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilman, H. (2016). Engaging citizens: Participatory budgeting and the inclusive governance movement within the United States. Ash Center occasional papers series, Harvard. http://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/participatory-budgeting-paper.pdf?m=1455295224
  18. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gołuchowski J., Konieczna D., & Losa-Jonczyk A., (2015). Zarys koncepcji dyskursywnego badania blogosfery [Outline of discursive concept of blogosphere research]. In Język a media. Zjawiska komunikacyjne we współczesnych mediach [Language and media. Communication phenomena in the modern media] (pp. 13–31). Kraków: Collegium Columbinum.Google Scholar
  20. Gołuchowski, J., Filipczyk, B., Paliszkiewicz, J. (2017a, October 26). Social media and trust. In J. Liebowitz, J. Paliszkiewcz, & J. Gołuchowski (Eds.), Intuition, trust, and analytics (Data analytics applications), Auerbach Publications 1st Edition.Google Scholar
  21. Gołuchowski, J., Konieczna, D., & Losa-Jonczyk, A. (2017b, October 26). Building trust in CSR reports. In J. Liebowitz, J. Paiszkiewcz, & J. Gołuchowski (Eds.), Intuition, trust, and analytics (Data analytics applications), Auerbach Publications 1st Edition.Google Scholar
  22. Hadzialic, S. (2016). Transformation of the new communication media within the frame of interpersonal interaction. International Journal on Global Business Management & Research, 5(2), 116–134.Google Scholar
  23. Harisalo, R., & Stenvall, J. (2004). Citizens’ trust in ministers. In M. Huotari & M. Iivonen (Eds.), Trust in knowledge management and systems in organizations (pp. 147–117). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hatun, B. T. (2016). Government public relations in turkey: Social media usage of turkish ministries in relationship building. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  25. Hong, H. (2013). Government websites and social media’s influence on government-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 346–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hynan, A., Murray, J., & Goldbart, J. (2014). ‘Happy and excited’: Perceptions of using digital technology and social media by young people who use augmentative and alternative communication. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(2), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, S. E. (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state. Administration and Society, 37(5), 611–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kożuch, B., & Dobrowolski, Z. (2014). Creating public trust. An organisational perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.Google Scholar
  29. Kruikemeier, S., Van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication, 28(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media – Based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, E. J., & Oh, S. Y. (2012). To personalize or depersonalize? When and how politicians’ personalized tweets affect the public’s reactions. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 932–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levinson, P. (2010). New new media. Cracow: Penarson.Google Scholar
  33. Llewellyn, S., Brooks, S., & Mahon, A. (2013). Trust and confidence in government and public services. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Łukomska-Szarek, J. (2014). Budżetowanie partycypacyjne jako instrument współzarządzania sferą publiczną [Participatory budgeting as an instrument for co-management of the public sphere]. Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy, 40: 137–144.Google Scholar
  35. Madestam, J., & Falkman, L. L. (2017). Rhetorical construction of political leadership in social media. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mainka, A., Hartmann, S., Stock, W. G. & Peters, I. (2014). Government and social media: A case study of 31 informational world cities. System Sciences (HICSS), 47th Hawaii International Conference on, Hawaii, 6–9 January, pp. 1715–1724.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paliszkiewicz, J. (2013). Zaufanie w zarządzaniu [Trust in management]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
  39. Paliszkiewicz, J., & Koohang, A. (2016). Social media and trust: A multinational study of university students. California: Informing Science Press.Google Scholar
  40. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as public sphere. New Media and Society, 4(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park, H., & Reber, B. H. (2008). Relationship building and the use of web sites: How fortune 500 corporations use their web sites to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 34, 409–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  43. Poster, M. (1997). Cyberdemocracy: The internet and the public sphere. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 character or less: How fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2014). Context clues for the stall of the citizens’ initiative: Lessons for opening up e-participation development practice. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sztompka, P. (1996). Trust and emerging democracy. International Sociology, 11(1), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tench, R., & Jones, B. (2015). Social media: The wild west of CSR communications. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tybuchowska-Hartlińska, K. (2016). Budżet partycypacyjny–nowe narzędzie w rękach obywateli [Participatory budget-a new tool in the hands of citizens]. Political Preferences 12. Google Scholar
  51. Utz, S. (2009). The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yi, M., Oh, S. G., & Kim, S. (2013). Comparison of social media use for the US and the Korean governments. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorota Marquardt
    • 1
  • Barbara Filipczyk
    • 1
  • Jerzy Gołuchowski
    • 1
  • Joanna Paliszkiewicz
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Economics in KatowiceKatowicePoland
  2. 2.Warsaw University of Life SciencesWarszawaPoland

Personalised recommendations