research proposal - may 2009

8/14/2019 Research Proposal - May 2009

1/8

Which aspects of web 2.0 have been perceived by political organisations and theirmembers as being the most effective at encouraging user participation in politics inthe UK and why? A qualitative approach.

Sub Questions

What is web 2.0? What potential does it have for encouraging participation? How is this different to previous uses of the web? How are political organisations using web 2.0? How has this been perceived by members? Does using web 2.0 lead to more or less participation by members? Why?

IntroductionThis is a qualitative approach to the question of the impact of web 2.0 on politicalparticipation. This question is designed to provide an opportunity to assess the impact ofweb 2.0 at both the organisational and the user level. Specifically it presents anopportunity to identify cause and effect, asking users directly how recent developments inthe use of the web make them more or less likely to get involved. By relying on specificcase studies based on organisations rather than aggregate data this question will be ableto explain the specific issues within individual cases. This will add a level of detail that isdifficult to achieve in a quantitative analysis at the expense of reducing the ability togeneralise widely.

This research will provide detailed case studies and develop a framework for subsequentanalysis. By examining specific patterns of web use on the micro level this research willuncover variables that have been absent from previous research which, by necessity, hasbeen much more general. By developing this detailed framework this project will allowsubsequent research to more easily identify variables relevant to the issues ofparticipation.

What is web 2.0?

Web 2.0 is an difficult concept to define. However the term retains much of its value forplacing into context the trends which have developed in both web use and web designrelatively recently.

Web 2.0 does not represent any major leap forward in technical standards since the webwas created in the early 1990s. What it does represent is a change in the way existingtechnologies are used. According to some sources the term itself was coined as the resultof a 2004 media conference of the same name although this is difficult to verify (Wikipedia2008). In general, and in this context, the term web 2.0 refers to the development of webapplications which are more interactive than the first generation of websites.

Some examples of this new generation of interactive websites include social networkingsites, wikis (collaborative works such as Wikipedia) and blogs. The technology that these

1


2/8

sites rely on to work has been present for many years, but only in the last few has it beenused to develop applications which rely much more heavily on user generated content.

The simplest way of thinking about web 2.0 would be to see it as allowing a much greaterflow of information between the user and the developer rather than the one way flow ofinformation which was prevalent as recently as a few years ago. Web 2.0 offers the user

greater power to add, edit or provide content compared to what had previously been amainly passive experience i.e. users simply reading information from web pages.

Theoretical background

Initially hopes were high for the web. Some of the earliest writings were not born out of thedevelopment of the web but from pre-existing communities established on the internet.Rheingold wrote about his early experiences in an online community called the WELL,originally in 1992 but revised in 2000. He records that:

The great power of the idea of electronic democracy is that technical trends incommunications technologies can help citizens break the monopoly on theirattention that has been enjoyed by the powers behind the broadcastparadigm.(Rheingold, 2000 p308)

Although Rheingold was also cautious about the quality of the resulting democracy theidea that perhaps these emerging technologies could offer radical alternatives to thecurrent political status quo was common among the academic community. Writers such asRheingold, Negroponte and Budge all believed that the web had the potential to radicallyalter the way democracy functioned by providing the individual with a much greater say

over the day to day running of a state.

It is hard to defend restrictions on democratic citizens power to decide whatgovernments should do and how they should operate. The new challenge of directdemocracy lies in the startling fact that it is now technically possible. Public policycan be discussed and voted upon by every one linked in an interactivecommunication net. (Budge 1996 p1)

As well as these optimistic projections there were also a number of writers who predictedproblems. Many writers argued that that electronic communication would reduce thequality of debate, reduce the potential for collective action and damage the community ties

(Oates, Owen & Gibson 2006 p3). Dimaggio et al cite Nie and Erbring in their synthesis ofe-politics research (Dimaggio et al 2001 p316). Nie and Erbrings survey of four thousandinternet users which showed a decline in socialising amongst the heaviest internet users.

The cornerstone of civic society is argued by many to be social capital, which is basedmainly on the development of social trust and networks which allows for collective actionand co-operation (Chadwick 2006 p87). Robert Putnams seminal essay Bowling Aloneidentifies the technical transformation of leisure as one of the issues leading to a declinein social capital and ultimately turn out. The villain of the piece was to a large extenttelevision, which was leading to people spending their leisure time alone and not in thesocial networks which were essential for developing social capital (Putnam 2005 p75).This criticism could easily be levelled at the internet as it plays an increasingly importantrole in leisure activities.

2


3/8

When he came to extend this essay into a book he wrote extensively about how computermediated conversation could never take the place of face to face meetings as a way tobuild social capital. Putnam argues that similarly dramatic predictions were made aboutthe advent of the telephone:

Very much like the nineteenth-century futurists contemplating the vistas opened by the telephone, enthusiast for the virtual community see computer networks as the basis for a kind of utopian communitarianism.(Putnam 2000 p 171)

Putnam concluded that despite the optimism surrounding the use of the internet and itspossible impact on politics, that the supposed democratising effect was based more onhype than careful research (Putnam 2000 p 173). To his mind, computer mediatedcommunication couldnt hope to provide the level of interaction he considered necessaryfor building social capital .

Putnam also points out that as part of his discussion of computer mediated communicationthat:

The bandwidth requirements (communications capacity) necessary for even poor-quality video are so high that it is unlikely to become commonly and cheaply available for at least a decade or more (Putnam 2000 p177)

YouTube, the video sharing web site, was founded in 2005. This doesnt cast doubt on thequality of Putnams research, but instead serves to illustrate the speed at which the webmoves and how easily it can outpace research even in the space of just a few years.

Of all this criticism the one that captured the public and the politicians imagination was the

concept of theDigital Divide

. Norris argued that inevitably there would be a portion of anypopulation excluded from the benefits of the web. Far from empowering those that needed

it the most, the web was just another way for elites to secure their influence. Change,argued Norris, rarely occurred from the bottom up. (Norris 2001 p236). Technical changessince 2001 do provide some promise for resolving these issues, the advent of mobilephones with effective web access for instance, but for the moment Norriss thesis stillholds true.

Research published by Bimber supported the pessimistic arguments outlined above. Hissurvey of data from the late 90s showed that:

With only one exception, neither access to the internet nor use of the internet to obtain campaign information is predictive of voting or other forms of political behaviour.(Bimber 2001 p55)

The drawback to this research however that the information gathered pre-dated severalimportant developments on the internet, for instance the rise of blogging, in particularpolitical blogging, and the development of social networking sites such as Facebook whichallows for the creation of issue groups with just a few button presses. While Bimbersresearch undoubtedly does a good job at reflecting internet use at the time, it does not, norcould it be expected to, take into account developments since.

More recently however, there have been a number of empirical based studies which haveuncovered potential in the internet to increase participation which is distinct from socio-economic factors. Several researchers, working on more recent datasets have found that

3


4/8

the web may indeed be an important tool in both increasing the breadth of participationand the depth of access for many groups which have been previously shut out of thepolitical system.

Shah et al in their 2001 study exploring the relationship between internet use and socialcapital, reported the opposite of what sceptics were arguing. Contrary to what others,

including Nie and Erbring, had found, they reported internet use was positively related tothe production of social capital (Shah et al 2001 p154). Importantly, this study alsoattempted to unpack patterns of internet use, looking at the use of the internet forinformation exchange as separate from financial management or product consumption.Also, by measuring social capital and not voting behaviour, this research was not reliant onvoting as a measure of civic engagement.

Tolbert, McNeal and Ramona in their 2003 study found that those with internet accesswere 12.5% more likely to vote in the 96 and 2000 US Presidential election. This wasincreased a further 7.5% amongst those who also viewed online political information.(Tolbert et al 2003 p184) Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal found much the same when theylooked at online information as it applied to the 2000, 2002 and 2004 US elections. Theyfound that, at least for the presidential elections (2000 & 2004) that any kind of onlinepolitical activity was likely to increase the likelihood of voting (Mossberger et al 2008 p79).

What this study cannot tell us about are developments post 2004, the most notable ofwhich is the increase in the importance of social networking as a common tool. The run upto the 2008 presidential election in the US has demonstrated that sites such as Facebookseem to be playing an increasingly important role in political campaigns. Some recentreports state that Barak Obama raised 87% of his campaign contributions through socialnetworking (Resource Nation 2008).

The most relevant study to date for the UK was performed by Gibson, Lusoli & Ward. Theirquantitative analysis of differing patterns of political web behaviour showed that there weregroups who were being activated through the internet which were previously lying dormantin UK politics. The most significant seemed to be that of young people, traditionallyconsidered a hard to reach group amongst policy makers and campaigners alike (Gibsonet al 2005 p562). This research did not look at several aspects of web 2.0, principallybecause the data required to separate out web 1.0 and web 2.0 style activities was notavailable at the time. Again, social networking, possibly one of the most importantdevelopments was still in its infancy when the data was collected.

There has been some research that has examined aspects linked to web 2.0, includingFrancoli and Ward, who have been examining the phenomenon of blogging amongst MPsin both the UK and Canada. Their understanding is that despite bursts of interest duringtimes of national interest, after the novelty wore off that blogging is being treated by anadditional extra by many MPs, rather than as a main stay of their communications withconstituents. They also note that the most successful blogs seem to be those backed by astrong personality such as Boris Johnson or David Cameron. (Francoli & Ward 2007 p15).In the modern environment how is possible to separate politics from the celebrity culturethat drives many other blogs?

Pasek, More & Romer, in a paper prepared for a conference on Web 2.0 pointed out thatin recent research there has been a rallying cry for the the differentiation between differingtypes of internet use. (Pasek et al 2008 p4) Their paper went on to look at two socialnetworking sites and found stark differences between the differing user bases, further

4


5/8

emphasising the need to account for the differing ways people use the internet right downto the individual site level. (Pasek et al 2008 p29). There is an acceptance amongst manyresearchers that there is a need to reduce the web to more basic components if they are tolearn anything definitive about the impact on politics.

This project, it is hoped, will fit into this debate on emerging technologies at the user level.

While quantitative research may be useful for establishing broad trends, its effectivenessat determining cause and effect is more limited as rigid data sets can only reflect thevariables which are measured. Confounding variables such as the web site cultureidentified by Pasek may well have as much or even a greater baring on outcomes as themore general measures used by even the most detailed of the quantitative studies (Paseket al 2008 p29).

Based on this information it is fair to conclude that there would be value in looking at howthe web has been implemented in organisations which are looking to use the web toconvey a political message, and specifically how the end users within that organisation areresponding to attempts to engage them through the internet. The question of how usersare responding to these new tools and which aspects they think are the most valuable iskey if they are to be deployed correctly in the future. This question seeks to identify notonly how web 2.0 has been deployed by organisations, but how users respond and turnthis engagement into political action.

Methodology

This research will be qualitative based primarily on research conducted at various levels inan organisation. The choice of organisation has not been finalised as it will rely a great

deal on securing the co-operation of that organisation at several levels.1

Potential organisations include:

Political parties Trade unions Pressure groups Advocacy organisations Youth engagement programmes

There also exists potential in this study to examine more than one organisation, perhaps

contrasting the use of web 2.0 in a broader political party and within the narrower confinesof a single issue pressure group. Additionally there is potential to vary the level of theorganisation under examination, for instance there may be local groups using web 2.0 aspart of their campaign methods as well as national groups. A local case study would gofurther to examining web 2.0s potential to either unite or divide local level organisations. Itmay also be able to incorporate a limited amount of a longitudinal aspect within thisresearch. Over the life span of this project (3 years) there are likely to be severalopportunities to revisit interviews. Again this aspect depends heavily on securing co-operation, but it could provide an extra level of insight to the research.

5

1The author retains links to a number of political parties and pressure groups as a result ofprevious research at the MA level and from previous employment.


6/8

The first element of this research will be interviews with those responsible for managingthe web strategy of an organisation which is involved in encouraging political activities ofone kind or another. This is an important exercise as it will not only record the opinions ofthose at the top of the organisational hierarchy, but it will also provide the context forfurther interviews or a possible survey of those who the measures are designed to target.

The interviews should cover:

How the web is used in the organisation A history of web use within the organisation (some of this may be accomplished

by desk based research) Which aspects of the web are being used (web 1.0 vs web 2.0) Why those particular aspects were chosen How effective the organiser thinks they have been in accomplishing the goals

set Any drawbacks of using the web to communicate political ideas

The second part of the methodology is aimed at building on the background informationcollected through the initial interviews and using it as a basis for discussing the impact ofweb 2.0 with users. This will take the form of in depth interviews with members of anorganisation, but it could also include a quantitative survey of users. Again this would becontingent on the target organisations co-operation.

This portion of the research will focus on:

Patterns of web use Which aspects do they find most useful?

Which aspects do they not use or like? What aspects have provided them with the greatest incentive to participate? Why?

Using these techniques we will be able to draw on existing expertise on the use of web 2.0in the field in order isolate the most relevant aspects of these emerging technologies. Thiswill allow us to get a fuller understanding of which aspects are most successful in the eyesof users and which are possibly the most effective at encouraging political participation.

Conclusions

There has been a great deal of research done on the possibilities offered by thedevelopment of the web. Predictions have rested on a spectrum that runs from theopening up of civic society to the collapse in levels of civic participation. So far none ofthese extremes has come true. Initial empirical studies suggested that the webs effect onpolitics has been negligible, whilst more recent studies have started to identify groupswhich may have benefited from the development of the web.

The development of web 2.0 has brought with it new levels of interactivity and a new set ofcommon tools for the average web user. These new possibilities for the use of the webhave already to some extent lent them selves as political tools which both enable andencourage participation in the political arena.

6


7/8

This paper suggests that through a series of unstructured interviews, semi-structuredinterviews and possible surveys of key members in organisations which use the web tocommunicate, that a greater understanding of web 2.0 can be gained. Specifically it seeksto record the knowledge and experiences of those who are using web 2.0 in a politicalcontext. It also hopes to use this information to seek to explain how users are respondingto these developments, specifically how engaging they find them to be. Ultimately this

research hopes to identify the mechanisms which translate political exposure through theweb into political action. From this the author intends to gain a clearer understanding ofwhich aspects of web 2.0 have been the most effective in the field and why. This will allowfuture researchers to more accurately differentiate between differing patterns of web use inbroader analysis.

Bibliography

Berners-Lee (1999) Weaving the web, the past, present and future of the world wide webby its inventorOrion: London

Bimber (2001) Information and political engagement in America: The search for the effectsof internet technology at the individual level, Political Research Quarterly Vol 54, No 1, pp53-67

Budge (1996) The new challenge of direct democracy Polity Press: Oxford

Chadwick (2006) Internet Politics: States, citizens and new communication technologiesOxford University Press: London

DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman & Robinson (2001) Social implications of the internetinAnnual review of sociology Vol 27 pp 307-336

Francoli & Ward (2007) 21st Century soap boxes? MPs and their blogs, Paper presentedto the Political Studies Association annual conference at the University of Bath, April 11-132007

Gibson, Lusoli & Ward (2005) Online participation in the UK: Testing a contextual model ofinternet effectsBritish Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol 7, pp 561-583

Kittilson & Dalton (2008) Virtual Civil Society: The new frontier of social capital?Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association

Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal (2008) Digital Citizenship: The internet, society andparticipationMIT Press: London

Norris, Pippa (2001) Digital divide: civic engagement, information policy and the internetworldwideCambridge University: Cambridge

Oates & Gibson (2006) The internet, civil society, democracy: a comparative perspectivein Oates, Owen & Gibson (eds) (2006) The internet and politics: citizens voters andactivistsRouteledge: London

7


8/8

Pasek, More, Romer (2008), Realizing the social internet? Online social networking meetsoffline social capitalPaper prepared for Politics: Web 2.0: An international conference atRoyal Holloway University of London April 17-18 2008

Putnam (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of american communitySimon &Schuster: London

Putnam (1995) Bowling Alone: Americas declining social capitalJournal of DemocracyVol 6 No1, pp 65-78

Resource Nation (2008) How Obama raised 87% of his funds through social networkinghttp://www.resourcenation.com/blog/how-obama-used-social-networking-to-set-fundraising-records accessed 21/10/2008

Rheingold (2000 revised edition) Homesteading on the electronic frontierMIT Press:London

Shah, Kwak & Holbert (2001) Connecting and disconnecting with civi life: Patterns ofinternet use and the production of social capitalPolitical Communication Vol 18 pp141-162

Tolbert, Caroline & McNeal, Ramona (2003) Unraveling the effects of the internet onpolitical participationin Political Research Quarterly Vol 56 No 2 June 2003 pp 175-185

Wikipedia (2008) Web 2.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 accessed 11/10/08

8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0http://www.resourcenation.com/blog/how-obama-used-social-networking-to-set-fundraising-recordshttp://www.resourcenation.com/blog/how-obama-used-social-networking-to-set-fundraising-recordshttp://www.resourcenation.com/blog/how-obama-used-social-networking-to-set-fundraising-recordshttp://www.resourcenation.com/blog/how-obama-used-social-networking-to-set-fundraising-records

research proposal - may 2009

Documents