Advertisement

Small Is the New Big – At Least on Twitter: A Diachronic Study of Twitter Use during Two Regional Norwegian Elections

  • Anders Olof LarssonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 29)

Abstract

Launched in 2006, Twitter is now entering its second decade of existence. As such, the service can no longer be considered as ‘novel’, and researchers might find it suitable to adopt longitudinal or diachronic approaches to study its many applications. This study adopts the latter of the two mentioned research design principles in order to provide over-time insights into the field of online political communication. Guided by the equalization and normalization hypotheses, an analysis of the 2011 and 2015 Norwegian regional elections on Twitter is presented, focusing on how comparably larger or smaller political actors made use of the service at hand. Thus, the paper makes a contribution not only by means of its diachronic arrangement, but also since it goes beyond the often studied national level of politics. Results suggest that while larger actors were more visible on Twitter in 2015 than in 2011, their comparably smaller competitors prevail – at least in terms of getting attention on the service under scrutiny.

References

  1. Aardal, B., Krogstad, A., & Narud, H. M. (2004). I valgkampens hete: strategisk kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  2. Bimber, B. (2014). Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me!: Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review, 37(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruns, A. (2011). How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). #ausvotes - How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture, 44(2), 37–56.Google Scholar
  7. Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (2012). (Not) the Twitter election. Journalism Practice, 6(3), 384–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing e-democracy back in - why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics : States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cogburn, D. L., & Espinoza-Vasquez, F. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: examining the impact of web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764.Google Scholar
  14. Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erikson, E. (2008). Hillary is my friend: MySpace and political fandom. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 4(2), 3–16.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, R. (2004). Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review, 11(1), 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
  18. Gibson, R. K., Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Ward, S. J. (2003a). Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: A comparative analysis. Party Politics, 9(1), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson, R., Römmele, A., & Ward, S. (2003b). German parties and internet campaigning in the 2002 federal election. German Politics, 12(1), 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giglietto, F., & Selva, D. (2014). Second screen and participation: A content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.Google Scholar
  22. Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2013). Social media and campaign 2012: Developments and trends for Facebook adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ifukor, P. (2010). “Elections” or “Selections”? Blogging and twittering the Nigerian 2007 general elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 398–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jürgens, P., & Jungherr, A. (2016). A tutorial for using Twitter data in the social sciences: Data collection, preparation, and analysis. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2710146.
  26. Kalnes, Ø. (2009). Norwegian parties and Web 2.0. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koc-Michalska, K., Gibson, R., & Vedel, T. (2014). Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the web. 2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 220–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsson, A. O. (2015). Studying big data – Ethical and methodological considerations. In H. Fossheim & H. Ingierd (Eds.), Internet research ethics (pp. 141–157). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  29. Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, O. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30(6), 666–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2013). Representation or participation? Twitter use during the 2011 Danish election campaign. Javnost – The Public, 20(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2014). Triumph of the underdogs? Comparing Twitter use by political actors during two Norwegian election campaigns. SAGE Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014559015.
  33. Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2016). From emerging to established? A comparison of twitter use during Swedish election campaigns in 2010 and 2014. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, A. O. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Larsson, A. O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online – Identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4897.
  35. Lilleker, D. G., & Jackson, N. A. (2010). Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet, 2(3), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society, 30(4), 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual : The cyberspace “revolution”. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  38. Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Wolfe, J. D. (1999). Party competition on the internet in the United States and Britain. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 4(4), 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Levy, J. (2003). Major parties dominate, minor parties struggle. US elections and the internet. In R. Gibson, P. Nixon, & S. Ward (Eds.), Political parties and the internet: Net gain? (pp. 53–69). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Moe, H., & Larsson, A. O. (2012a). Methodological and ethical challenges associated with large-scale analyses of online political communication. Nordicom Review, 33(1), 117–124.Google Scholar
  41. Moe, H., & Larsson, A. O. (2012b). Twitterbruk under valgkampen 2011. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 19(2), 151–162.Google Scholar
  42. Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. M. (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter's streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose. Paper presented at the the 8th International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), 2–4 June 2013, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  43. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
  44. Raynauld, V., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Tweet, click, vote: Twitter and the 2010 Ottawa municipal election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(4), 412–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schweitzer, E. J. (2008). Innovation or normalization in e-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 23(4), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schweitzer, E. J. (2011). Normalization 2.0: A longitudinal analysis of German online campaigns in the national elections 2002-9. European Journal of Communication, 26(4), 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2012). Social media and political communication: A social media analytics framework. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 1277–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strandberg, K., & Carlson, T. (2007). From novelty to necessity? The evolution of candidate web campaigning in Finland 1999–2007. Paper presented at the 4th ECPR General Conference, Pisa.Google Scholar
  50. Titcomb, J. (2016). Twitter’s growth screeches to a halt. The Telegraph, 10 February 2016.Google Scholar
  51. Topolsky, J. (2016). The end of Twitter. The New Yorker, 29 January 2016. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-end-of-twitter.
  52. Vaage, O. F. (2014). Norsk mediebarometer 2011. Oslo–Kongsvinger: Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway).Google Scholar
  53. Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams, R. (2015). What is Twitter’s new Periscope app? The Telegraph, 28 March 2015. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2015/12/010/what-is-twitters-new-periscope-app/.
  56. Wright, S. (2011). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. (2014). A topology of Twitter research: Disciplines, methods, and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 250–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Westerdals Oslo School of Arts, Communication and TechnologyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations