BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Constituency level Web campaigns in the 2010 UK General Election
Benjamin LeeInstitute for social [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
My thesis: Is a study of the adoption, implementation and organisational implications of Web usage at the local level in the 2010 UK general election
This presentation: Focuses on the first two chapters of my thesis dealing with the adoption of web campaign tools and how they are used
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND – PROBLEMS Political parties
Declining membership (Katz & Mair, Mass & Bizen) Catch All/Electoral Professional parties (Kircheimer,
Panebianco) The end of linkage?
Campaigns The arrival of political marketing Professionalization and modernisation (Green &
Smith, Gibson & Rommele, Norris) Why get involved?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND - SOLUTIONS Can technology offer a solution? Internet and Democracy: Rheingold,
Negroponte, Toffler, Castells Party organisational change
The Cyber-party (Margetts) The Network Party (Heidar & Saglie) Organisational hybridity (Chadwick)
What about campaigns?
CAMPAIGNS IN THE WEB 2.0 ERA
We are living in a post-Obama environment, 2008 a perceived watershed
Emergence of Web 2.0 Highly interactive, based on the ‘architecture of
participation’ In the UK 2010 campaign most often
represented by Facebook and Twitter Easy/free to use
So are we moving towards more connected campaigns in the UK?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Three things we need to know about the use of Web 2.01. Are campaigns using it? TOOLS2. If so how are they using it? BEHAVIOUR3. What kind of campaign organisation is it
supporting? ORGANISATION Today I am focussing on questions one
and two
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Campaigns unlikely to be uniform, need a framework to distinguish between them
Need a socially determined reason to adopt online campaign techniques, reject a purely technologically determinist stand point
Adopted Fisher and Denver (2009) indices, sees campaigns as being traditional and modernised to various degrees
TRADITIONAL AND MODERN CAMPAIGNS A heuristic device Traditional campaigns
Emphasise techniques such as doorstep canvas and distribution of leaflets
Rely on building local networks of supporters, face-to-face or retail politics
Do not have access to political marketing tools, likely to be low priority receive little scrutiny
Modernised campaigns Emphasise techniques such as direct mail and telephone canvassing Rely on marketing techniques to deliver votes With access to money and advanced techniques comes greater
scrutiny NOT mutually exclusive
HYPOTHESES
H1 traditional campaigns are likely to make more use of social media and be more interactive
H2 modernised campaigns are likely to make less use of social media and be less interactive
H3 combined campaigns are likely to make less use of social media and be less interactive
H4 low activity campaigns are less likely to make use of web campaign techniques overall
ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS
Party affiliation Different parties have different propensity to
campaign online Campaign status
Incumbent candidates, marginal candidates The digital divide in constituencies
Some constituencies less likely to be online The digital divide in candidates
Some candidates less likely to be online
WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Want to know the extent to which campaigns adopted online tools
Data comes from 2010 Electoral Agent Survey 1079 cases across England, Scotland and Wales Established survey, basis for original measures
of traditional and modern, although these could not be replicated
Good for measures of campaigning, but less so for candidate specific measures
WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Reference category: No WebPseudo R2 0.0521 Log likelihood -1026.3932* p<.1 **p<.05 ***p<.01
WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS
Conventional Traditional and modern indices remain significant All parties less likely to engage in conventional campaigns than
Conservatives % pop no qualifications negative effect
Social (small n) Traditional campaign index positive effect
Hybrid Both traditional and modern indices positive effects Nationalists less likely to engage in hybrid only campaigns than
Con, others no effect % pop no qualifications negative effect Younger and female candidates also more likely to adopt hybrid
(CCS model)
WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
So it seems like that the kind of campaign activity engaged in has little impact on the kind of online campaign tools adopted
But what about the adoption of online campaign behaviours?
Data comes from content analysis of campaign websites in the NW of England during 2010 campaign
Addresses three kinds of interactive behaviours public dialogue, potential dialogue and site-based interactivity
CONTENT ANALYSIS SCHEMA
PUBLIC DIALOGUE BEHAVIOURS
POTENTIAL DIALOGUE BEHAVIOURS
SITE-BASED INTERACTIVITY BEHAVIOURS
WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
But Not easy to analyse these measures
individually Lack of variation in the sample
To get around this I created an aggregate measure of interactivity Based on regression scores from Principal
Components Analysis
WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
* p<.1 **p<.05 ***p<.01
WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
BUT When other contextual variables are added
in the significance of this disappears Only significant result in the wider model
concerns incumbent candidates (much less interactive) except where they are in marginal seats (more interactive)
Different approach to analysis and incorporate candidate level data
INTERVIEW DATA
Good reason to think that interactivity isn’t driven by the external factors represented here
Anecdotal evidence shows candidates often struggle to justify why they went online
Online campaigns often seem driven by circumstantial factors e.g. an affinity for tech ‘I don’t like technology for technologies sake, but I do
like what it can do and I enjoy working with technology, just because it’s a fun way of communicating with people.’
Candidate for campaign E, traditional/hybrid/interactive
Surveys do not cover this level of detail
CONCLUSIONS – WEB CAMPAIGN TOOLS Are campaigns using Web 2.0?
Yes, very much so 50% of campaigns report using both social
media and conventional websites Use is driven equally by traditional and
modern campaign techniques – intensity Use also driven by age, gender, party
affiliation and incumbency However – large amounts of variation
remain unexplained
CONCLUSIONS – WEB CAMPAIGN BEHAVIOURS
How are Web 2.0 tools being used? Public dialogue very rare Admittedly a high threshold for interactivity Potential dialogue far more common but harder to
measure Site-based interactivity also common, campaigns
able to bring a level of sophistication to sites beyond brochure-ware
Haven’t been able to analyse the drivers yet but interview data suggests that these may be attitudinal/difficult to measure
HYPOTHESES
H1 traditional campaigns are likely to make more use of social media and be more interactive NOT SUPPORTED
H2 modernised campaigns are likely to make less use
of social media and be less interactive NOT SUPPORTED
H3 combined campaigns are likely to make less use of social media and be less interactive NOT SUPPORTED
H4 low activity campaigns are less likely to make use of web campaign techniques over all SUPPORTED
NEXT STEPS - ORGANISATION
Final question remains, what kind of campaign organisation is Web 2.0 supporting?
Networked party models v Managed citizens Framing analysis based on CCS data e.g.
attitudes towards democracy or party organisation and adoption of Web 2.0 tools
Largely going to be based on interview data Already uncovered some interesting case studies
THE END
Any questions? Feedback welcome