SNS + Politics = ???

  Johnson et al article investigated online social network sites (SNS), especially YouTube, and civic engagement. The top-down style of political campaigning, which was mass-media oriented, was shifting toward online social networks style campaign where users quickly share information or links, promote political events, and create supplementary contents that would eventually energize public. Social network site not only function as new gathering spaces where users exchange information and disseminate contents, but also serve as a new conduit for energizing political atmosphere (Kaye).

Political conversations likely facilitate an increased desire to participate in political affairs because the interactions with others given political interests help to solidify opinions. Elaborated political conversation contributes to the development of higher-quality opinions due to the refined opinions throughout such conversational processes (Johnson et al). Formerly, such processes occur in interpersonal manners. One shares his or her political opinions with friends, families, and co-workers to refine their political aspects that eventually influence one’s intention to participate civic duty to vote.

However, in the era of social network, such processes can occur in a bigger scale. Political conversations can spread widely, reach more audience, and help to formulate political opinions based on varieties of sources. Besides, social network’s wider ranges of functionalities—email, multimedia sharing, and connectivity management (Kaye)—also play a vital role because SNS can accommodate multifaceted nature of political conversations. It simply facilitates information exchange among users in vastly expanded capacities (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009).

Surprisingly, Johnson and colleagues’ study showed that reliance on YouTube did not boost intention to vote. Rather, it appears that more use of YouTube negatively influences the intention to vote. The authors speculate that YouTube users’ dynamics are different from other social network sites because content creations are more labor-intensive than other social networks. Nevertheless, social network site reliance appears to be a more powerful predictor of offline political participations, which can strongly influence the intention to vote. Also, some studies found no support for a direct spillover effect between online expressive behavior and offline participatory behavior. However, uses of SNS appear to influence ones’ offline actions (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009).  Hence, it is premature to generalize social network sites’ weak influence on the intention to vote because SNS likely exerts significant, but indirect influence on the intention to vote.

In addition, mobile phone was mentioned as an emerging medium influencing political participation (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009). It was not surprising to learn the presence of a positive relationship between mobile phone use for information exchange and political involvement (Campbell & Kwak 2010). Given improving smartphone technologies and its integration with SNS, we will likely witness increasing migration from PC usage to portable mobile devices—smartphones and tablets—because portable devices practically became our third arm!!

Nevertheless, information dissemination by SNS and mobile technologies are not always beneficial because no one can control information flows. Still, in terms of politics, SNS facilitated information flow is  emancipation of the political arena because politics is no longer for movers and shakers. Regular Joes can make a dent now!! Formerly, regular Joes were not allowed to follow up political candidates’ irresponsible promises and actions. Now, they are subject to every action and word, and the advent of SNL may change the job descriptions of politicians.

Week 9 readings – trash talking vs civic engagement on SNSs

One of the things I found fascinating about this week’s readings is the research acquired in the Johnson et al chapter, “United We Stand?” On page 189, they explain,

“Research indicates that the development of homogeneous social networks reinforces existing political dispositions, often leading to more actively empowered political behavior. On the other hand, a more diverse social network stimulates discussion of controversial topics. Past analyses have found that citizens with more heterogeneous discussion networks are more likely to participate in community forums and assorted political activities. It is apparent that interpersonal discussion with those of similar and different viewpoints is related to political activity at many levels.”

It’s hard to say, because of my own perception, that political discussions have increased within the community due to one of the following factors: 1) furthering my education connects me to more “politically minded” individuals, 2) getting older has put me in more “civically engaged” circles, 3) the rising generation maintains a more “politically-inclined” culture. The research above refers to new media as the means. I’m not sure if it’s just one of these factors or a combination of them, but it does appear that citizens are becoming more politically active, particularly the youth.

Having said that, for SNSs and other new media to catalyze civic engagement is a almost too good to be true (I’m not saying it isn’t true, but it’s a pretty remarkable finding). Based on past our discussions of gap-filling and the new media’s role in joining together previously disparate groups of people with common interests, I would say that the internet has the power of creating political force within groups (forums are huge in this regard). But I’m still leery of SNSs’ role in facilitating “serious” civic action.

When I enter Facebook, all I see are memes about “binders full of women,” “ponies and bayonets,” and “Big Bird.” I see a lot of sour rants and soap boxes and annoying political jabs from people who I thought were my friends but suddenly become something else altogether on Facebook. Overall, SNSs make me want to defriend my friends. Because of our conversation about Facebook mimicking reality, does this make me “hate” my friends in real life? That’s not the question I want to pose to our class, but I would like to have a discussion about how SNSs specifically foster civic engagement, and not do the opposite (which I’m not sure what the opposite of civic engagement is—anarchy?).

One last question: what does an SNS stimulate more, civic engagement or plain old trash talk? Even though trashing politics is easier than civic engagement, it seems like SNSs provide not just a medium for this to happen but a completely new means of understanding politics. Memes are the new political cartoons, and that is how, I believe, most of the public understand politics today.

Week 9 readings

In the Campbell and Kwak reading, we learned about the “uses and gratifications” (U&G) theory. This theory is primarily used to determine “how user needs and motivations shape media use and other outcomes ” (Blumler and Katz, 1974).  A study was conducted using the U&G theory, and the results trevealed positive relationships between mobile phone use for information exchange and civic and political involvement. This is interesting, considering I use my mobile phone for information exchange, but have very little to no interest in political affairs. I guess this could be true for the masses, but I’m having a somewhat difficult time making the connection between mobile interaction specifically and political interaction. Now if we were talking specifically of “social media” or the internet, then I’d totally understand. For example, on Facebook, I see much more political dialogue taking place among my peer group taking place than I would ever see in face-to-face interactions among my peer group. However, I can look at older adults who don’t use mobile technology who are very much politically active, so I’m having a hard time seeing a correlation with the mobile technology and politics. Maybe if they are using Facebook or Twitter from their mobile devices…I don’t know.

In the Rojas piece, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) focused on issues of access, digital inequalities and descriptions of how they were used. I definitely see how the access has the ability to play a role in the increase in participation, simply by giving a person a more convenient means of acquiring information. And definitely, demographics have the potential to impact the availability that a person has to this type of technology. However, it certainly in my mind is not the “end all, be all” to whether a person is active in political spectacles.

Week 9

This weeks readings dealt with how different types of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) impact civil and political engagement (Rojas & Puig-i-Abril 2009). Though some of the findings were somewhat interesting, I was most intrigued by the discussion of how the network among certain sites and technologies can drastically differ.

For example, in the book A Networked self, chapter 9 discussed the potential differences among networks within social networking sites like YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Chapter 9 (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 187) states “A third important distinction between YouTube and other social network sites is that the networks on sites such as Facebook and MySpace often (though not exclusively) feature interactions between users who also have interpersonal connections offline, potentially resulting in homogeneous networks of likeminded individuals interacting with one another in the networked space.” To me, this can certainly explain why much of the dialogue on sites such as Facebook appear to be more civil than what you may find when reading the comments under a YouTube video. In a homogeneous network, individuals are more likely to agree about things due to their similarity. Therefore, there may not be as many arguments as one may find in heterogeneous network like YouTube where individuals may clash with one another due to differing opinions or ideas.

Also, as the above quote mentions, individuals who are friends on Facebook often have relationships offline. That is, the discussions on these sites are not between anonymous individuals. You may actually run into these individuals in your daily life. However, individuals may not personally know the others with whom they are conversing with on sites like YouTube that are characterized has having heterogeneous networks. Although heterogeneous networks may sometimes result in more aggressive discussions, there are also some advantages to networks like this. These networks can introduce individuals to differing viewpoints, and potentially result in a better understanding of the individuals holding these views (Papacharissi, 2010).

A couple of this weeks articles also discussed the type of ties that mobile communication seems to gravitate towards. For instance, Campbell and Kwak (2011) state, “although mobile communication is sometimes used to connect with new and weak ties (Boase & Kobayashi, 2008; Wilken, 2011), it has become a primary resource for connecting with close personal ties, who have an especially important influence on technology’s use and consequences” (p. 1006). Thinking about last week, I wonder what may create stronger social capital, a text message or a Facebook wall post. They could both create a stronger bond between the individuals, but one is more public than the other. It is somewhat interesting to think about which individuals we communicate with while using a certain type of technology or website.

References:

Boase, J., & Kobayashi, T. (2008). Kei-Tying teens: Using mobile phone e-mail to bond, bridge, and break with social ties – a study of Japanese adolescents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 930–943.

Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Political involvement in ‘mobilized’ society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61, 1005-1024.

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobiliza- tion and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902-927.

Wilken, R. (2011). Bonds and bridges: Mobile phone use and social capital debates. In R. Ling & S. Campbell (Eds.), Mobile communication: Bringing us together or tearing us apart? (pp. 127–150). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Between the Tower and the Trenches: How perspective shapes understanding.

When I was looking at Communication programs for my PhD, there was a small part of me that wanted to go to UPenn to study with Kathleen Hall Jamison, one of the best known authors and researchers of Political Communication.  This was not because I wanted to bask in the glow if her intellect.  No, I really just wanted an opportunity to tell her how wrong she was about so many things.

Perhaps because I am coming from a political background to Communication studies rather than from Communication to look at politics as the authors of this week’s articles, the research seems a bit backwards.  In other words, the questions that normally occur to me are how politically minded and involved people use communication rather than how communication use shapes political attitudes and involvement. From my point of view, some of the issues that confound or surprise the researchers are perfectly understandable to me.  Most of the studies noted that SNS, Youtube, and mobile communication use is higher generally among younger people.  They also noted that uses of this technology correlates to political and civic engagement, generally. However, what the studies fail to discuss is that political engagement increases with age.  While civically engaged, young people are the lease likely to vote.  To understand the significance of these seemingly contradictory trends, one has to consider findings of articles read earlier in the semester, specifically, the understanding that SNS and the like are most often facilitating factors in communication rather than initiating or instigating factors.  Social engagement offline generally correlates to social engagement online because the technology is a tool which increases the ease at which a person can do what they are already inclined to do.  Likewise, the technology increases the ease at which a person can engage politically in a way they were already inclined to do, so it is adopted by those wishing to engage.  Since the uses of this technology is not limited to political activity, young people who are highly motivated to engage socially, and thus use the SNS as a tool for doing so, aren’t necessarily going to increase their political participation just because the same technology facilitates it.  Likewise, large, heterogeneous network participation offline correlates to increased political participation, which is reflected online.  Conversely, people who generally have a limited homogeneous social network offline are less likely to be politically engaged.  This is also reflected online.  Campbell & Kwak argue that technology comfort levels predict political engagement.  I argue this is because politically engaged people become more comfortable with the technology because it is a useful tool of self-efficacy and education.  As such, addressing the digital divide may have only limited impact on political engagement.  Interest drives use rather than use driving interest.

I also suspect that if Kaye had been more familiar with day to day party politics, she would not be confounded by the findings that party affiliation was tied to SNS and blog use but ideology was not.  While ideology is significant to party id, it is not a determining factor.  In Tennessee and across the South, there are many Democrats who are Democrats because Republicans started the War of Northern Aggression.   For many people, they identify themselves with the party they do for the same reasons they are Baptists or Catholics or Cubs fans, which may have nothing to do with ideology.  They were just raised with that label and they don’t question it.  Also, people with strongly held ideological beliefs may feel ignored or dismissed by mainstream parties.  People who feel disenfranchised have low political participation.