Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aardal, B., Krogstad, A., & Narud, H. M. (2004). I valgkampens hete: strategisk kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me!: Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review, 37(2), 173–192. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). #ausvotes - How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture, 44(2), 37–56.
Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (2012). (Not) the Twitter election. Journalism Practice, 6(3), 384–402. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics : States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
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. CrossRef
Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326. CrossRef
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.
Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774. CrossRef
Erikson, E. (2008). Hillary is my friend: MySpace and political fandom. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 4(2), 3–16.
Gibson, R. (2004). Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review, 11(1), 95–126. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
Gibson, R., Römmele, A., & Ward, S. (2003b). German parties and internet campaigning in the 2002 federal election. German Politics, 12(1), 79–108. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
Ifukor, P. (2010). “Elections” or “Selections”? Blogging and twittering the Nigerian 2007 general elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 398–414. CrossRef
Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259. CrossRef
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.
Kalnes, Ø. (2009). Norwegian parties and Web 2.0. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 251–266. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729–747. CrossRef
Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2013). Representation or participation? Twitter use during the 2011 Danish election campaign. Javnost – The Public, 20(1), 71–88. CrossRef
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.
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.
Larsson, A. O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online – Identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4897.
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. CrossRef
Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society, 30(4), 256–265. CrossRef
Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual : The cyberspace “revolution”. London: SAGE.
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
Moe, H., & Larsson, A. O. (2012b). Twitterbruk under valgkampen 2011. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 19(2), 151–162.
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.
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
Raynauld, V., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Tweet, click, vote: Twitter and the 2010 Ottawa municipal election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(4), 412–434. CrossRef
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
Titcomb, J. (2016). Twitter’s growth screeches to a halt. The Telegraph, 10 February 2016.
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.
Vaage, O. F. (2014). Norsk mediebarometer 2011. Oslo–Kongsvinger: Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway).
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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/.
Wright, S. (2011). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261. CrossRef
Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325. CrossRef
Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. (2014). A topology of Twitter research: Disciplines, methods, and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 250–261. CrossRef
- Small Is the New Big – At Least on Twitter: A Diachronic Study of Twitter Use during Two Regional Norwegian Elections
Anders Olof Larsson
- Chapter 9
Entwicklung einer Supply-Strategie bei der Atotech Deutschland GmbH am Standort Feucht