Presidentas Twitteras: The Social Media Use of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Dilma Rousseff

  • Yanina Welp
  • Saskia P. Ruth
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Crossing Boundaries of Gender and Politics in the Global South book series (CBGPGS)

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the use of Twitter by two female Latin American presidents: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina) and Dilma Rousseff (Brazil). The analysis proceeds along the following two lines of inquiry. First, the authors examine whether these presidents use Twitter to broadcast information in a traditional way or deploy the interactive features provided by the tool to engage in a “digital dialogue” with their followers. Second, they use content analysis to identify for which purposes these presidents use Twitter (i.e. the functions and style of their tweets) and to what extent they tweet about gender-related topics (i.e. gender policy advocacy). The study is based on qualitative content data from two different time periods (during and beyond electoral campaigns).

Keywords

Political Communication Political Campaign Qualitative Comparative Analysis Electoral Campaign Political Opinion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Alexander, Amy C. 2012. Change in Women’s Descriptive Representation and the Belief in Women's Ability to Govern: A Virtuous Cycle. Politics & Gender 8(4): 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anduiza, Eva, Michael J. Jensen, and Laia Jorba, eds. 2012. Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide. A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula. 2008. Mujeres y Política en América Latina. Sistemas Electorales y Cuotas de Género. Buenos Aires: Heliasta.Google Scholar
  4. Banwart, Mary Christine, and Mitchell S. McKinney. 2005. A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed-gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates. Communication Studies 56(4): 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bate, Barbara, and Judy Bowker. 1997. Communication and the Sexes. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blankenship, Jane, and Deborah C. Robson. 1995. A ‘Feminine Style’; in Women's Political Discourse: An Exploratory Essay. Communication Quarterly 4(3): 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broersma, Marcel, and Todd Graham. 2012. Social Media as Beat. Journalism Practice 6(3): 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breuer, Anita, and Yanina Welp (ed). 2014. Digital Technologies for Democratic Governance in Latin America: Opportunities and Risks. UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Calvo, Ernesto. 2015. Anatomía política de twitter en Argentina. In Tuiteando #Nisman. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson, Tom. 2001. Gender and Political Advertising Across Cultures—A Comparison of Male and Female Political Advertising in Finland and the US. European Journal of Communication 16(2): 131–154.Google Scholar
  11. Cha, Meeyoung, Hamed Haddadi, Fabrízio Benevenuto, and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2010. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. Paper presented at the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, United States, May 23–26.Google Scholar
  12. Chaney, Elsa M. 1979. Supermadre: Women in Politics in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  13. Chaney, Elsa M. 1998. Supermadres Revisited. In Women’s Participation in Mexican Political Life, ed. Victoria M. Rodríguez, 78–83. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. ECLAC. 2015. Latin America and the Caribbean: looking ahead after the Millennium Development Goals: Regional monitoring report on the Millennium Development Goals in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2015. Santiago de Chile: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.Google Scholar
  15. Engesser, Sven, and Edda Humprecht. 2014. Frequency or Skillfulness. Journalism Studies 16(4): 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enli, Gunn Sara, and Eli Skogerbø. 2013. Personalized Campaigns in Party-Centred Politics. Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 757–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferber, Paul, Franz Foltz, and Rudy Pugliese. 2005. The Internet and Public Participation: State Legislature Web Sites and the Many Definitions of Interactivity. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 25(1): 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franceschet, Susan, Jennifer Piscoppo, and Gwynn Thomas. 2016. Supermadres, Maternal Legacies, and Women’s Political Participation in Contemporary Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies 48(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gozzer, Juan Carlos, and Pedro Borges. 2014. Elecciones Brasil 2014: la reputación de los pre-candidatos presidenciales en Twitter: un análisis multidimensional, Informe Especial de Llorente & Cuenca. Rio de Janeiro: d+i Llorente & Cuenca.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, Todd, Marcel Broersma, and Karin Hazelhoff. 2013. Closing the Gap? Twitter as an Instrument for Connected Representation. In The Media. Political Participation and Empowerment, eds. Richard Scullion, Roman Gerodimos, Daniel Jackson, and Darren Lilleker, 71–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Graham, Todd, Dan Jackson, and Marcel Broersma. 2014. New Platform, Old Habits? Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the 2010 British and Dutch General Election Campaigns, New Media & Society. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/12/1461444814546728.abstract. Accessed 14 September 2015
  22. Grant, Will J., Brenda Moon, and Janie Busby Grant. 2010. Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ use of the Social Network Tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science 45(4): 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinojosa, Magda, and Gina S. Woodall. 2011. The Rhetoric of Representation: Costa Rican Female Legislators and Representation in Parliamentary Debates, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, United States, September 1–4.Google Scholar
  24. Htun, Mala. 2003. Women and Democracy. In Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America, eds. Jorge I. Domínguez and Michael Shifter, 118–136. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Htun, Mala, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2014. Women in Politics and Policy in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York: Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
  26. Jalalzai, Farida. 2008. Women Rule: Shattering the Executive Glass Ceiling. Politics & Gender 4(2): 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kohrs Campbell, Karlyn. 1989. Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Krook, Mona Lena, and Pippa Norris. 2014. Beyond Quotas: Strategies to Promote Gender Equality in Elected Office. Political Studies 62(1): 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansbridge, Jan. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent “Yes”). Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657.Google Scholar
  30. Meeks, Lindse. 2012. Is She ‘Man Enough’? Women Candidates, Executive Political Offices, and News Coverage. Journal of Communication 62(1): 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan, Jana, and Melissa Buice. 2013. Latin American Attitudes toward Women in Politics: The Influence of Elite Cues, Female Advancement, and Individual Characteristics. American Political Science Review 107(4): 644–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sæbø, Øystein. 2011. Understanding TwitterTM Use Among Parliament Representatives: A Genre Analysis. Paper presented at the Electronic Participation—Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, Delft, Netherlands, August 29–September 1.Google Scholar
  34. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2006. Still Supermadres? Gender and the Policy Priorities of Latin American Legislators. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 570–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Setälä, Maija, and Kimmo Grönlund. 2006. Parliamentary websites: Theoretical and comparative perspectives. Information Polity 11(2): 149–162.Google Scholar
  36. Skovsgaard, Morten, and Arjen Van Dalen. 2013. Dodging the Gatekeepers? Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M., and Roseanna M. Health. 2003. Do women legislators have different policy priorities than their male colleagues? A critical case test. Women and Politics 2(4): 77–101.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, Gwynn, and Melinda Adams. 2010. Breaking the Final Glass Ceiling: The Influence of Gender in the Elections of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and Michelle Bachelet. Journal of Women Politics & Policy 31(2): 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas, Sue. 1991. The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies. Journal of Politics 53(4): 958–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vigil, Tammy R. 2014. Feminine Views in the Feminine Style: Convention Speeches by Presidential Nominees’ Spouses. Southern Communication Journal 79(4): 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welp, Yanina, and Alejandra Marzuca. 2016. La política en la era de la información. Estudio de la presencia en Internet de partidos políticos y representantes de Argentina, Paraguay y Uruguay. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 47: 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood, Julia T. 1995. Gendered Interaction: Masculine and Feminine Styles of Verbal Communication, in Voices. A Selection of Multicultural Readings, ed. Kathleen S. Vederber, 18–29. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Zaremberg, Gisela. 2014. El Género en las políticas públicas, Redes, Reglas y Recursos. México: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanina Welp
    • 1
  • Saskia P. Ruth
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Democracy StudiesUniversity of ZurichAarauSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations