Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회 (World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Interacting or Just Acting? -A Case Study of European, Korean, and American Politicians' Interactions with the Public on Twitter

  • Otterbacher, Jahna (Illinois Institute of Technology) ;
  • Shapiro, Matthew A. (Illinois Institute of Technology) ;
  • Hemphill, Libby (Illinois Institute of Technology)
  • 발행 : 2013.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Social media holds the potential to facilitate vertical political communication by giving citizens the opportunity to interact directly with their representatives. However, skeptics claim that even when politicians use "interactive media," they avoid direct engagement with constituents, using technology to present a façade of interactivity instead of a genuine dialogue. This study explores how elected officials in three regions of the world are using Twitter to interact with the public. Using the Twitter activity of 15 officials over a period of six months, we show that in addition to the structural features of Twitter that are designed to promote interaction, officials rely on language to foster or to avoid engagement. We also provide evidence that the existence of interactive features does not guarantee interactivity.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bimber, Bruce. 1998. "The Internet and Political Mobilization: Research Note of the 1996 Elec-tion Season." Social Science Computer Review, 16 (4): 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939801600404
  2. Braghiroli, Stefano. 2010. "Politicians Online! MEP ommunication Strategies in the Internet Era."EPIN Working Paper No. 29.http://ssrn.com/abstract=2001356.
  3. Delli arpini, Michael X. 2000. "Gen.com: Youth, ivic Engagement, and the New Information Environment."Political Communication 17:341-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178942
  4. Downes, Edward J. and Sally J. McMillan. 2000. "Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identifi-cation of Key Dimensions."New Media & Society 2 (2): 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440022225751
  5. Giles, David . 2002. "Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research."Media Psychology 4 (3):279-305. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
  6. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  7. Hemphill, Libby,JahnaOtterbacher and Matthew A. Shapiro. 2013. "What's ongress doing on Twitter?"Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2013), San Antonio, TX, February 2013.
  8. Hyland, Ken. 2005. "Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Dis-course."Discourse Studies 7 (2):173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  9. Jankowski, Nicholas W., Kirsten Foot, Randy Kluver andSteve Schneider. 2005. "The Web and the 2004 EP Election: Comparing Political Action Web Sites in 11 EU Member States."Information Polity 10:165-176.
  10. Kiousis, Spiro. 2002. "Interactivity: A oncept Explication."New Media & Society 4 (3): 355-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480200400303
  11. Levy, Mark R. 1979. "Watching TV News as Para-social Interaction." Journal of Broadcasting 23: 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838157909363919
  12. Lilleker, Darren G.,Karolina Koc-Michalska, Eva Johanna Schweitzer, Michal Jacunski, Nigel Jackson andThierry Vedel. 2011. "Informing, Engaging, Mobilizing or Interacting: Search-ing for a European Model of Web ampaigning."European Journal of Communication 26 (3):195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111416182
  13. Lilleker, Darren G. and asildaMalagon. 2010. "Levels of Interactivity in the 2007 French Presi-dential andidates' Websites."European Journal of Communication 25 (1):25-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323109354231
  14. McMillan, Sally J. 2002a. "Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents and Systems."In The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Con-sequences of ICTs, ed. Leah A. Lievrouw and Sonia Livingstone, 163-182. London: Sage.
  15. McMillan, Sally J. 2002b. "A Four-part Model of Cyber-interactivity: Some Places are more In-teractive than Others."New Media & Society 14 (2):271-291.
  16. Norland, Jan-Erik. 1978. "Media Interaction." Communication Research 5: 150-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027800500202
  17. Rafaeli, Sheizaf. 1990. "Interacting with Media: Para-social Interaction and Real Interaction." Mediation, Information, and Communication: Information and Behavior 3: 125-181.
  18. Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Fay Sudweeks. 1997."Networked Interactivity."Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2 (4).
  19. Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. New York: Harper.
  20. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2000. "On-line Interaction and why andidates Avoid it."Journal of Communication 50 (4):111-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x
  21. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer and Kirsten A. Foot. 2002. " itizen Perceptions of Online Interactivity and Implications for Political ampaign ommunication."Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8 (1).
  22. Van Dijk, Jan. 1999. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

피인용 문헌

  1. Introduction to the special issue: social media interaction between public and government in Asia-Pacific vol.24, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.857905
  2. Social media communication strategies of government agencies: Twitter use in Korea and the USA vol.24, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2013.851723
  3. Predicting Opinion Leaders in Twitter Activism Networks vol.58, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527091
  4. Mapping election campaigns through negative entropy: Triple and Quadruple Helix approach to South Korea’s 2012 presidential election vol.99, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1122-5
  5. Networking Interest and Networked Structure vol.33, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314527054
  6. A webometric approach to policy analysis and management using exponential random graph models vol.49, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0010-2
  7. Unspeaking on Facebook? Testing network effects on self-censorship of political expressions in social network sites vol.49, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0078-8
  8. Content? vol.9, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.120
  9. Uncovering stakeholders in public–private relations on social media: a case study of the 2015 Volkswagen scandal vol.51, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0462-7
  10. Social media, trust, and disaster: Does trust in public and nonprofit organizations explain social media use during a disaster? pp.1573-7845, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0594-4
  11. New media for the new electorate? Congressional outreach to Latinos on Twitter pp.2156-5511, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1358186
  12. Social Media Use during Japan's 2011 Earthquake: How Twitter Transforms the Locus of Crisis Communication vol.149, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x1314900105
  13. The EU Parliament on Twitter-Assessing the Permanent Online Practices of Parliamentarians vol.12, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.994158
  14. A Social Network Approach to Examine K-12 Educational Leaders’ Influence on Information Diffusion on TWitter vol.26, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600305