Content uploaded by Karolina Koc Michalska
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karolina Koc Michalska on Jul 12, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
2
Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e-representation and self-
representation
Abstract
Research into the communication strategies of legislators has a long history.
The European Parliament offers an opportunity to add to understanding of how
legislators prioritise styles of communication, with a comparative perspective across
twenty-seven nations. Through content analysis of online communication we
investigate how the Internet is used by MEPs. Our analysis assesses three
communication strategies: homestyle, impression management and participatory. We
find that a homestyle strategy predominates followed by impression management.
Participatory communication is emergent, but may earn legislators political capital as
it appears that proactive communicators who offer participatory opportunities are
more likely to build an online following.
Keywords
Legislators, Representation, strategic communication, homestyle, impression
management, interactivity, social media.
3
Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e-representation and self-
representation
Introduction
Traditionally, the communication from legislators provides information on the
various duties they perform (Rush, 2001). Studies of US legislators discuss the
concept of homestyle, where communication focuses on a combination of her
allocation of resources, the ways in which she presents herself to others and the
explanation of her activities in Washington (Fenno, 1978). The strategy is to
demonstrate their actual and potential representational capacity in order to shore up
support when it comes to standing for re-election (Cain, Ferejohn & Fiorina, 1987).
The use of Web 2.0 socially and politically has questioned the extent to which a
purely informational mode of communication is tenable. Web 2.0 is a metaphor for
the technological development of websites from a static informational paradigm to
one that permits a range of interactions that can be user-to-site or user-to-user (Ferber,
Foltz & Pugliese, 2007). Many studies have raised the question of whether more
interactive forms of communication, between the represented and their representative
are or should be prevailing (Coleman & Blumler, 2009). It is argued that the online
environment, including websites and weblogs, and now social networking sites
(SNS), Twitter and video or picture sharing platforms, can be used to support the
representational link (Jackson, 2003).
The fact that this link can be purely virtual and online leads to this being
defined as e-representation (Jackson, 2003; Pole, 2004) and offers a homestyle model,
facilitated by platforms offering a range of conversational-style communication, that
can develop stronger ties between the legislator and their constituents (Gibson, Lusoli,
4
Ward, 2008). Interactive communication also has the capacity to link the legislator to
a wider network and extend their reach into the online political communication
ecosystem (Chadwick, 2011). Representation-focused communication competes with
a longer standing tradition in parliamentarians’ communication strategy: impression
management. It is suggested by works on the personalisation thesis (Mughan, 2000;
Langer, 2007), that voter choices are increasingly driven by the personality and
charisma of the individual. In order to reap the benefits of incumbency politicians are
argued to increasingly be attempting to build a three-dimensional public persona, one
that projects ordinariness and professionalism (Langer, 2007). Online environments
empower the individual to create personal and bespoke communication tools at
minimum cost. Wring and Ward (2010), reflecting on the use of the online
environment during the 2010 general election in Great Britain, note “New media have
been seen as providing more opportunities for individual candidates to personalise
their message. Web 2.0 tools, in particular, also allow activists and interested
supporters more scope to create their own campaigns and network with one another
without having to go through party HQ” (p. 228).
In order to explore legislators’ online strategic communication we analyse the
online presence of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Analysing MEPs
presents an opportunity to understand how communication strategies evidence
legislators’ communication priorities when resources inequalities are not a
determinant factor. The research permits us to assess the extent to which personal and
political characteristics influence prioritisation, as well as capturing comparative data
covering legislators which represent all twenty-seven member nations of the European
Union. Our research involved a detailed counting of the features identified as present
or absent across all the platforms utilised by MEPs. Features were categorised as
5
pertaining to three specific strategies. Firstly, an informational service-oriented
homestyle, highlighting the work and achievements of the legislator in order to
demonstrate active service to those they represent. Secondly, a personalised,
impression management strategy focusing on the individual characteristics of the
legislator. Thirdly a participatory communication strategy which allows constituents,
or any interested online user, to contact the legislator and discuss local or
supranational political issues and contribute to the thinking of the legislator. The data
enables us to understand how these strategies are prioritised as well as the role of the
Internet within legislators’ communication strategies and draw broader conclusions
regarding the way the Internet supports the representative functions of
parliamentarians. Drawing on previous studies of legislators online, and incorporating
the notion that prioritisation in communication is an indicator of the importance given
to communication modes and the image conveyed (Ingall & Crisp, 2001) we focus on
three research questions:
RQ1. What is the balance between homestyle information provision,
impression management and participatory strategies across MEPs’
websites and linked online presences?;
RQ2. What factors appear to influence MEPs developing specific online
strategies?;
RQ3. Can we identify benefits to the MEP from pursuing any specific
combination of these strategies in their online communication?.
Legislators and Strategic Communication
This paper explores how EU legislators use the Internet to communicate to and
with their constituents and what that indicates regarding their communication
priorities. Homestyle conceptually offers a way to understand the relationship the
6
legislator seeks to have with his or her constituents. Studies have shown that websites,
and this should extend to the range of auxiliary platforms available for online
communication, are used in a similar manner to offline means of communication, to
demonstrate their priorities and express their homestyle (Adler, Gent & Overmeyer,
1998). Homestyle focuses on identifying communication priorities but dovetails with
the broader concept of constituency service (Cain, Ferejohn & Fiorina, 1987) and, for
online environments, e-representation (Coleman, 2007)
E-representation concerns the extent to which the Internet supports the
representative functions of elected members of parliaments within democratic nations
(Jackson, 2003). Previous research has shown that e-representation is usually
expressed in communication through the provision of information targeted towards
specific voter groups, so using the Internet as a direct communication channel
between the representative and a constituency (Bimber, 1998; Ward & Lusoli, 2005;
Ward, Lusoli & Gibson, 2007) in order to explain their contribution to the area they
represent within the legislature (Fenno, 1978; Denzau, Riker, & Shepsle, 1985).
Despite trends in online communication moving towards a more interactive mode
with the Web 2.0 era (O’Reilly, 2005), informing remains the predominant strategy.
Where there is innovation in the use of the online environment, research has shown
this is the preserve of younger MPs elected to represent constituencies with high
technological penetration and where local voting patterns return close results (Ward &
Lusoli, 2005). The online behaviour of parliamentarians may well be at odds with
that of the online browser who may seek political information. Cho, Gil de Zuniga,
Rojas and Shah (2003), studying the uses and gratifications of online browsers, found
those with a higher economic status, who we posit would be those most likely to
access political websites, use the Internet for interaction, surveillance and
7
consumption. As parliaments, as a sum of their elected members as well as legislative
bodies, need to form connections with citizens (Coleman, 2007), legislators may be
required by those most likely to visit their websites or linked platforms to offer
information while also being accessible and providing features that facilitate dialogue
and interaction. Yet, most studies echo the finding that parliamentarians who are
online fail to offer tools that facilitate “any significant reconnection or possible
deepening of existing connections citizens have to their representatives or
representative institutions” (Gibson, Lusoli & Ward, 2008).
The most recent research from an e-representation perspective found
adherence to an e-representation model was limited to detailing their work within the
legislature on behalf of their constituency and specific constituents or groups thereof
(Jackson & Lilleker, 2009). However studies assessing the use of websites, e-
newsletters, weblogs and social networking profiles found different platforms
potentiate different communication strategies (Jackson & Lilleker, 2011a). The more
traditional platforms and tools such as websites and e-newsletters are, on the whole,
push communication tools designed to transmit information out to browsers or
subscribers. On the other hand Web 2.0 platforms such as weblogs and social
networking sites (the most popular of the latter being Facebook) provide an inbuilt
architecture of participation which encouraged some legislators to provide space for,
as well as on occasion entering into, discussions relating to policy. Discussions can
range across a territorial axis (relating to specific constituencies or the nation as a
whole) and an issue axis (relating to broad current political issues of a partisan or non-
partisan nature). Furthermore weblogs and social networking sites provide spaces for
interaction with no requirement for technological know-how; hence they facilitate
conversation more. Still, few attempted to elicit two-way communication between
8
themselves and website visitors, not even constituents (though they were given
specific details of how to contact the MP) or those interested in specific areas of
policy which connected with the role of the MP. Studying the use of Twitter, Jackson
and Lilleker (2011b) found that the majority of legislator’s tweets were classified as
adhering to an impression management strategy, promoting the legislator as a person
rather than a representative. Therefore, legislators who have been the subject of
previous research largely conform to an informational homestyle, one that provides
information and contributes to an impression management strategy but avoids
interaction with members of the online community. It is interesting to explore the
extent this would be the case for legislators within the European Parliament. MEPs
tend to work some distance from their constituents and national polities, they stand in
a second order election to a second order parliament, hence they are given little
attention by those they represent or their national media (Maier, Stromback & Kaid,
2011). The European Parliament is also perceived as lacking legitimacy, and greater
communication via the Internet has been proffered as one panacea. Plan D for
Democracy, Dialogue and Debate specifically promoted the use of the Internet at both
the institutional and representative level in order to “strengthen and stimulate
dialogue, public debate and citizen's participation” (European Commission, 2005).
Therefore, in order to connect with those they represent, so legitimising themselves
and the legislature, MEPs may be more likely to develop a more mixed
communicational strategy that attempts to legitimise the European Parliament
through informing constituents as well as offering them opportunities to have input
into the thinking of the legislator.
Three Strategies for Online Communication
9
Research indicates a number of reasons why parliamentarians eschew an
interactive communication. The most prominent of these is that they have limited
resources for communication, therefore do not have the time or staff to monitor and
respond to inbound communication (Jackson, 2003). MEPs have a higher budget than
most national legislators, so have the ability to be innovative if they wish. National
legislators also argue that the Internet adds little to their representative role, they
claim those who wish to interact with them will do so face-to-face, in constituency
surgeries, or privately by email (Jackson, 2003). While constituents can contact their
MEP by email, and can visit local surgeries or the office of the MEP in Brussels, the
possibilities for face-to-face interaction are rather limited. Williamson (2008) suggests
there are also cultural barriers underpinning the lack of innovation. Legislators tend to
prefer to control the parameters of communication and so will be unlikely to discuss
policy with citizens outside of private spaces (see also Stromer-Galley, 2000).
However, given the separation between the MEP and their domestic polities, and the
drive within the EP for legitimacy across member nations, one could suggest MEPs
might combine informing and impression management with a more interactive mode
of communication.
We hypothesise that MEPs could follow three models of communication:
Homestyle Information Provision (HIP), Impression Management Strategy (IMS) and
a Participatory Communication Strategy (PCS). None of the models will appear in
isolation but, by identifying which features of websites and linked presences support
one strategy rather than another, we can identify the strategy that predominates.
Previous studies have developed similar typologies, for example informing, involving,
connecting and mobilising (Schneider & Foot, 2006; Schweitzer, 2008); information,
participation and professionalism (Vaccari, 2008a) or informing, engaging, mobilising
10
and interacting (Lilleker, Koc-Michalska, Schweitzer, Jacunski, Jackson, & Vedel,
2011). These latter studies focused on party websites, and conducted their analysis in
the context of elections. Common to all studies is the informational typology, while
Schneider and Foot (2006) separate interaction with the site and site host (involving)
and facilitating interaction within a bounded space such as a forum (connecting), and
Vaccari conflates these as participation, we follow Vaccari and other studies (Gibson,
Lusoli & Ward, 2008; Lilleker, Koc-Michalska, Schweitzer, Jacunski, Jackson, &
Vedel, 2011) using the single label participation (involving both web and social media
two-way interactivity possibilities). Outside of elections minimal mobilisation tactics
will be utilised, however studies of candidates (Jackson & Lilleker, 2010) show a
tendency towards personalisation and impression management. Hence our choice of
three clear categories on which we elaborate further and base our analysis.
The most common model of political communication, online or offline, is
providing information. MEPs who purely inform follow what we describe as
Homestyle Information Provision (HIP) involving the strategic demonstration of the
MEPs’ active service within the EP and how that service benefits those they represent.
The HIP strategy offers the perception of the representative as hard working and
adherents would prioritise regularly updating their website with information of
interest to citizens and journalists. The predominance of HIP would be consistent with
previous research and would suggest little innovation within the communication of
legislators (Foot & Schneider, 2008).
The online environment may be used by MEPs for an impression management
linked to electoral imperatives (Ward & Lusoli, 2005). As suggested by Ward and
Wring (2010), online platforms and technologies allow individual representatives to
promote themselves directly to online publics. The Impression Management Strategy
(IMS) is concerned with the promotion of the MEP as an individual. Self-promotion
11
provides an impression of symbolic representation, expressed through emphasising
the ordinariness of the lifestyle and background of the elected representative,
Symbolic representation works on the principle that a shared socialisation would
equate to shared political positions (Lawless, 2004). At a more simplistic level,
legislators can present themselves as qualified professionals and credible
representatives. We suggest that this strategy is largely concerned with building
support based on personality rather than political activity (Langer, 2013), perhaps
appealing to journalists rather than constituents, but by gaining interest in them as a
person rather than just a legislator they are able to gain a personal vote (Cain,
Ferejohn & Fiorina, 1987).
A number of factors, offered by technological developments, suggest a more
interactive strategy would be appropriate. The use of features such as SNS and
weblogs have been foregrounded within studies of elections, particularly those which
focused on the development of an online model of campaigning by Barack Obama in
his successful bid for the USA presidency in 2008 (Johnson 2009). Interactive
features, particularly those which permit conversations are found to enhance learning
(Cho, Gil de Zuniga, Rojas & Shah 2003), build communities (McLeod, Scheufele &
Moy, 1999), and encourage wider forms of participation (Rojas, Shah, Cho,
Schmierbach, Keum, H. & Gil de Zuniga, 2005; Shah, Cho, Nah, Gotleib, Hwang,
Lee, Scholl & McLeod, 2007). The fact that interactive sites are able to provide space
for a civic commons to interact, related to either a geographic or political identity, can
be of benefit both to democratic engagement as well as the individual representative
(Gil de Zuniga, Puig-i-Abril & Rojas, 2009).
The Participatory Communication Strategy (PCS) entails hosting features and
creating participatory spaces which encourage website visitors, followers or friends
on social networking sites to act as online advocates (Koch, Fuller & Brunswicker,
12
2011). More fundamentally, however, is the provision of opportunities for discussion
around policies. Legislators can use interactive features to support the development
of ideas and arguments relating to their legislative duties, for example soliciting local
knowledge and experiences from constituents. While doubts have been raised as to
the efficacy of interactive political communication (Hindman, 2009), the building of
communities around ideas is a central feature of work on the democratising potential
of the network society (Castells, 2009) and is argued to have significant impact on the
self-efficacy of citizens (Gil de Zuniga, Puig-i-Abril & Rojas, 2009). As Hindman
(2009) notes only a minority may engage, but if citizens feel there is a social presence
(Rafaeli, 1988) and they are able to have influence within the networks they will
participate (Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001; Rojas, Shah, Cho, Schmierbach, Keum, H. &
Gil de Zuniga, 2005). Furthermore, though there is a lack of research on the impact of
interactions with legislators, having some degree of meaningful input into the thinking
of an elected representative theoretically should connect the individual to the
democratic processes and institutions.
The community building aspect of Participatory Communication Strategy can
aid the democratic and representative functions of the MEP, as well as building
connections between the European parliament and member states’ citizens (Coleman,
2007). MEPs’ communication strategies can draw citizens towards them with the
website functioning as a pull communication tool and create communities of interest
around the MEP (McLeod, Scheufele & Moy, 1999). MEPs can also build
communities around their ideas and issues, thus developing strategies for releasing
information about upcoming votes or campaigns (Jackson & Lilleker, 2009).
Interaction can be allowed on the website or alternative platforms such as weblogs,
Twitter and video and picture sharing sites, the use of which is increasing among
political actors (Panagopoulos, 2009). Ideas sharing can utilise non-synchronous
13
symmetrical or asymmetrical feedback elements, such as opinion polls, which allow
MEPs to collect data explicitly, or through monitoring conversations, and engage in
discussions around political policy with citizens. The extent to which Homestyle
Information Provision or Participatory Communication Strategy is being adopted is of
significant interest in order to understand online communication strategies as well as
considering the potential impact in terms of the political engagement and participation
of those who visit MEPs’ websites and choose to participate (Gil de Zuniga, Puig-i-
Abril & Rojas, 2009; Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga & Shah, 2010). We suggest that
the embedding of social networking and Web 2.0 into politics has the potential to
reshape how citizens participate in politics, and that an interactive and connection-
making strategy may be even more important within non-election periods, but this is
dependent on the opportunities potentiated by legislators and their communication
strategists and website designers (Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga & Shah, 2010).
This article explores how European legislators use the communication
potential of the Internet and whether they engage with the political communication
ecosystem. Numerous political activists engage in a range of partisan and non-partisan
campaigning activities and build followings for campaigns; these compete for the
attention of politically engaged browsers. Within the political communication
ecosystem, where there is both a hierarchy as well as a sense of interdependence
(May, 2009), legislators’ communication is no longer bracketed away from non-
partisan activism (Castells, 2009). It is argued that politics is part of a ‘big
conversation’ which takes place across websites, weblogs, social networking sites and
microblogs and can involve a range of actors (Margolis & Moreno-Riano, 2009). It is
the extent to which legislators participate and so facilitate the working of this
interdependent and participatory ecosystem that we explore.
14
Method, Coding and Categorisation Strategy
Our data is developed from a content analysis of the 440 MEPs’ websites
linked from their official profile on the European Parliament website and any linked
platforms or profiles on SNS.
1
Content analysis of the official websites was
conducted in November 2010
2
. The content analysis identified the presence or
absence of 52 features. Both coders (the authors) passed inter-coder reliability tests
(Cohen's Kappa (.81) and Krippendorff's Alpha (.81)), irregularities were checked and
corrected. Websites were coded online or, but only when necessary to check details
following the first coding, offline from the archived
3
version of official websites.
For the purposes of our research we developed a series of coding categories by
grouping together features within our content analysis to fit each strategy
conceptualised in the previous section, these are as follows:
Homestyle Information Provision (HIP) is demonstrated through the
presentation of information regarding the service of the elected representative to their
nation or region and to parliament. The HIP strategy presents the MEP as a hard
working public servant and a proactive communicator. To test for the presence of this
strategy we coded for section(s) dedicated to work in the EP, focused on specific
policy areas, or sections and documents which made EP work relevant to their nations
and regions, as well we counted presences on other platforms (so including the
presence of links to social networking and filesharing sites which also provide
1
MEP profiles are provided on
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=EN [entry
02.11.2011]. Only 440 out of 736 MEP had official websites. Additionally we searched Google.com
for 296 MEP by entering name and surname (we found that probably 166 of them had websites
however they did not link it to their EP profile). Due to methodological issues (e.g. we were unsure that
the websites found on google.com are official MEP websites, as in some case there were more than one
website listed, some were not updated since 2009 or sometimes with the popular surname, the MEP
websites was not listed among first 50 entries). To avoid all the problems caused we decided to exclude
from the analysis all those MEPs who did not officially list their website address.
2
November was chosen as a normal month, with MEPs into a daily routine after their summer holidays
but not close to the Christmas break.
3
The data archives were downloaded to local computer at Sciences-Po, Paris. It was performed by
TelePort Ultra provided by Tennyson Maxwell Information Systems, Inc.
15
information). These sections offer an insight into the working patterns of the MEP,
the array of duties performed and the committees they sit upon. 14 items appearing
on websites were categorised as adhering to this Strategy (Cronbach’s α = .531)
4
.
The Impression Management Strategy (IMS) is one of personalisation and
denotes the inclusion of biographical or personal information; professional
background; education; personal/family information; interests; sports and hobbies
both on the website and social networking profiles and use of internal photo gallery or
external photo or video sharing sites. All these provide a range of information about
the MEP as a professional and/or individual and indicate their qualifications and
specific character qualities (de Landtsheer & de Vrees 2011). 12 features were
categorised under IMS (Cronbach’s α = .652).
The Participatory Communication Strategy (PCS) involves the inclusion of
features that facilitate the creation of an interactive e-constituency which may
function only in online environments (Jackson & Lilleker, 2009). Members of an
MEPs’ e-constituency follow the work of an MEP but may also, on encouragement
from the MEP, share material posted to websites or linked presences across online
social networks. MEPs adhering to PCS will also be likely to provide online spaces
where e-constituency members can engage in political discussions. Hence, to detect a
Participatory Communication Strategy we focus on two types of behaviour. Firstly
MEPs crowdsourcing by soliciting feedback or opinion data or encouraging their
online contacts to extend their communication reach through social sharing. Secondly
MEPs interacting or encouraging interaction, specifically providing spaces for open
conversation without hierarchy and for ideas to flow both from and to the MEP. We
4
We decided to keep this strategy regardless of the low Cronbach score as George and Mallery (2009,
p.231) recognize this score as ‘poor’. However it is consistent with our theoretical assumption of the
Homestyle Information Provision as well as with the existing literature on legislators use of the
Internet.
16
suggest that conversations would be linked explicitly to the professional activities of
the MEP and will adhere to e-deliberation communication models (Dahlberg, 2007).
We categorised 19 items as relating to Participatory Communication Strategy
(Cronbach’s α = .743). A full breakdown of the features classified for each strategy is
included (See Appendix 1).
Our analysis firstly seeks to test which of the strategies best explain the MEPs
communication, in particular whether there is consistent adherence to a model of
homestyle information provision or if we can also detect strategies which involve
personalisation or participation (RQ1). Secondly we ran regression analysis to find
explanatory factors for using different strategies. These relate to personal
characteristics of the MEPs, such as age and gender, country of origin characteristics
(GDP, web penetration rate) as well as political characteristics relating to party,
ideology, vote share and length of tenure. Regressions showed there were no country-
specific differences. The variables are used in studies for explaining differences
among a cohort of elected representatives (see Jackson & Lilleker, 2011a) in order to
control for multi-level factors possibly influencing communication strategy (these are
especially relevant for comparative studies where regional and country characteristics
could be determinant). We additionally conduct an exploratory analysis to determine
whether we can explain variations in the number of participants within MEPs’
communities. Although it is impossible to get data on visitors to a website, we use as
a proxy the number of fans or friends MEPs have gained on Facebook, which is the
most popular social networking site used within most of the EU countries and,
perhaps as a corollary, is most used by MEPs; and the number of followers on
Twitter. While this limits the extent to which we can measure a communication effect,
this measure does allow us to draw some inferences regarding the extent to which
different communication strategies better attract an audience through the use of
17
features and communication styles. It is especially interesting if the more traditional
communication strategies (HIP and IMS), based on a simple presence on the platform
are sufficient for building an online following or if there is a need for a PCS strategy
requiring more involvement from politicians (stickyness, responsiveness).
MEPs Online: Mapping the Adoption of E-communication
Prior to looking at specific e-representation or personalisation strategies we
present basic data in order to give an overall topography for MEPs’ use of the Internet
(N=709). Personal characteristics,
5
age (.969***) and gender (1.859***), are
statistically significant and indicate that older and male MEPs are less likely to
provide official links, suggesting they are either less likely to have a website or do not
choose to advertise it. Party size has a statistically significant effect as MEPs
belonging to major (1.737**) and minor (2.472***) parties are more likely to promote
their websites than those representing the fringe parties in national parliaments.
Despite there being no resource differential, there is no evidence MEPs representing
smaller parties use the Internet to gain greater attention from citizens or the media
than their counterparts representing major parties, despite suggestions that the Internet
can benefit parties with lower resources and media interest (Ward, 2007, pp. 4-6). A
positive relationship can also be identified for MEPs elected under more personalized
voting systems (preferential vote (1.561**) in contrast to list voting) and the
percentage of the national population having access to the Internet (2.740**)
suggesting going online may be seen by some MEPs as electorally beneficial. Those
MEPs who have sat for longer in the EP are more likely to have a website, this effect
5
In this paragraph we use outcomes from the logistic regression where the dependent
variable was having=1 or not having = 0 an official link from the EP profile to the
MEP’s website. All numbers in the brackets are odds ratios with statistical
significance *p<.10. **p<.05 ***p<.01
18
is especially strong for MEPs from the so called ‘new’ countries, who joined after
2004 (4.370***).
No other variables showed as being statistically significant for predicting
having an online presence. As expected GDP per country (which we use ass a proxy
for country difference - as each country has a unique GDP rating) has no significant
impact. There is also no significant predictors linked to representing new or old EU
countries, or the ideology of the party the MEP represents. However, surprisingly, the
size of the electorate is also not statistically significant, this is contradictory to our
expectations as it was considered that MEPs who need to communicate to large
populations would use the Internet as a channel to maximise their reach.
In order to compare adherence to the three strategies we generated Average
Online Performance (AOP) indices similar to those used in previous studies (Farmer
& Fender, 2005; Schweitzer, 2008; Vaccari, 2008b; Larsson, 2011). The AOP score
was calculated by initially counting the number of features present for each category
to create an overall mean per strategy. We then divided the mean score for each
strategy by the maximum possible score in that category, e.g. females have an average
performance of 4.56 for PCS, that number was divided by 19 (max possible score)
which equals .240. This technique allows us to compare performance within strategies
(which are groups of differing amounts of features). In table 1 the numbers in bold
show the best performance in the group and statistically significant differences
between groups, italics indicate the worst performance.
These data suggest that age and length of tenure are key predictors of
innovation online. Younger MEPs and those sitting in parliament for their first term
are most likely to pursue a Participatory Communication Strategy (PCS). Similarly,
under 45s and those who were elected most recently are the most likely to personalise
their online spaces. Party characteristics suggest that the most participation enhancing
19
parties are more on the left (Green and ALDE) (though these MEPs also perform well
in other strategies). Interestingly, the left leaning parties seem most likely to follow
Homestyle Information Provision while, broadly, the rightist are the most likely to
follow Impression Management Strategy. Minor party MEPs, and those elected for
neither list nor preferential voting systems, outperform across all strategies. The fact
that voting system appears important for overall online performance indicates MEPs
who are elected as individuals, and not from a party list, see a more innovative online
presence as electorally beneficial or at the very least not harming their chances for re-
election highlighting a rational choice in strategy design noted in previous studies
(Ingall & Crisp, 2001). Given that parties and individual parliamentarians have
historically raised fears regarding the impact of allowing citizens to publicly interact
with them (Stromer-Galley, 2000; Williamson, 2008), we suggest for MEPs these
fears are not outweighed by the perceived benefits.
Table 1 about here please
In table 2 we present the results of Poisson regression
6
analysis for each
strategy and the data suggests there are differential influences. Homestyle Information
Provision (HIP) finds a gender difference with female MEPs being most likely to
adopt this strategy; gender diversity is not statistically significant in influencing any
other strategy.
As expected the generational difference is not statistically significant for
information provision, as it could be assumed that regardless of age legislators need to
broadcast information about their work. In contrast for the Participatory
Communication Strategy, the age of the MEP is a strong indicator, with younger
MEPs the most likely to be interactive. In terms of Impression Management there is
6
Poisson regression was chosen as the best statistical method for estimating count data variables
(Wooldridge, p.645)
20
also a clear generational gap with younger MEPs the most likely to have employed
this strategy.
MEPs from minor parties (based on number of seats won in the national
legislature) are more likely to adopt HIP and Impression Management strategies. In
general our data indicates (see also Table 1) that legislators from minor parties in
national legislatures outperform other representatives. They seem to exploit in the
most profitable way their presence in the European Parliament, probably also in order
to be visible in their respective home countries.
Left wing MEPs (EP party ideology scale) are more likely to adopt
Information Provision or/and Participatory Communication Strategy. This finding
stays in line with previous findings on EP communication strategies during 2009
elections where left wing parties provide better information and try to engage more on
their websites (Lilleker, Koc-Michalska, Schweitzer, Jacunski, Jackson, & Vedel,
2011).
MEPs elected to represent ‘old’ EU countries and who have served the greater
number of terms are least willing to interact. However representatives from the new
EU member states seem to stress more their personal attributes through an Impression
Management Strategy.
Surprisingly the only macro-level
7
country-characteristic variable statistically
significant is national GDP which influences pursuing an Impression Management
Strategy. EU Legislators originating from wealthier countries seem to more appreciate
the personalized strategy. None of the other country-specific variables occurred
significant (also a simple dummy variable for each country was not significant for
7
The multi-level regressions were run for each strategies for model of different level variables (micro
(individual), mezzo (EP parliament) and macro (country), not shown due to the lack of space, available
from the authors). However no interesting differences were found (with the exception for gender
difference influence on Impression Management Strategy, as women were less likely to use is, however
the effect was lost when introducing EP and country characteristics. As expected after introducing new
set of variables R
2
rose, achieving the final level indicated in the Table 2.
21
AOP or in regression analysis, results not showed here). Similarly variable describing
the internet penetration rate per country appeared unimportant as an explanatory
variable, which may indicate that politicians use online strategies regardless of the
proportion of their national populations they may reach.
Table 2 about here please
Finally, in order to gain insights into the impacts of online communication by
legislators, we attempted to assess the extent to which any aspect of the MEPs’
communication strategy had an impact on the size of reach into the online community
they earned. The perfect measure would be to obtain an accurate measure of website
visits. Proxies for this, such as number of searches, are too small; hence we use here
the number of fans or followers on Facebook or Twitter and determine whether there
is a relationship to the MEPs’ communication strategies. This is recognised as an
imperfect measure but the size of a following indicates the extent the MEP has created
an audience for their online communication. The main website may both drive traffic
to and receive traffic from MEPs’ auxiliary sites, but in the first instance Internet
users may have gained awareness of the SNS profiles through visiting the website.
MEPs with active SNS profiles and Twitter are the most proactive generally so are a
subset of MEPs within which we can check for a relationship between proactivity and
interest.
In order to analyze the factors influencing the size of an MEPs’ community we
ran regression
8
(table 3) using only MEPs with profile on social networks (N = 191)
as our subsample. Our explanatory model consists of the different strategies and
8
A multilevel regressions models were run, however as there are no significance differences only the
final model is showed.
22
whether they updated their profiles during the period of analysis, while controlling for
other individual and political variables. Introducing all three communication strategies
into community size analysis helps us to recognize if only a presence on the web and
social networks (HIP) is sufficient to attract a larger community or whether it is
necessary to have a profile that offers some interactive elements (PCS), some personal
information (IMS) and frequent updates.
Table 3 about here please
Among the control variables, those with statistically significant predictive
value are political ideology of the party in the EP, the electoral system, the country’s
GDP and web penetration. MEPs representing more left wing oriented parties are
more likely to build online communities. Parliamentarians from preferential (more
competitive and personalised) electoral systems are more likely to attract a larger
following online. Representatives from countries with higher GDP are also more
likely to have larger groups of followings. Contrary to expectations we have found a
negative influence of web penetration on social network community size. The higher
the web penetration rate the lower the number of followers on social networks.
Regression also confirms the importance of using features which offer more engaging
and interactive experiences for building communities as adhering to a Participatory
Communication Strategy is the only statistically significant strategy which has
positive impact on the size of the community. It seems it is not sufficient to only have
a social network profile (HIP) or to provide information, even if personalised (IMS).
Discussion: E-representation in the European Parliament
23
The predominant strategy that is followed by the majority of MEPs is to
pursue an service-oriented informational homestyle model. MEPs communicate as the
legislator and inform visitors to their websites of their work in the European
Parliament and explain how this serves the nation and/or region they represent. This is
highlighted by the fact that 390
9
MEPs have a specific area devoted to their work in
the parliament, 137 additionally have an area which is devoted to their region and 111
an area devoted to political issues which relate to committee roles they perform. The
provision of areas which allow visitors to learn about the work of an MEP, the
relevance of this to nations or localities, and their work on areas of specific interest is
important. MEPs must legitimise their role by demonstrating their service as
parliamentarians and representatives; however a purely informational homestyle may
not satisfy visitors.
The HIP strategy may serve the browser who uses the websites of MEPs for
surveillance, or the professional information seeker, but it is inconsistent with trends
in online political communication (Johnson, 2010). It remains a key communication
function for a legislator to demonstrate an active role within the legislature, offering
transparency and accountability while simultaneously presenting themselves as
hardworking parliamentarians and representatives of their constituents (Jackson,
2003). However, the broadcasting communication paradigm is challenged by social
trends in using the online environment for two-way communication, and the co-
creation and sharing of content (Koch, Fuller & Brunswicker, 2011). These interactive
practices lead to more social experiences, the reduction of hierarchies and the
formation of connections (Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001; Rojas, Shah, Cho,
Schmierbach, Keum, H. & Gil de Zuniga, 2005).
9
Out of 440 MEP under investigation
24
The challenge for legislators is, whether, when providing spaces for browsers
to create content, whether responses to questions, comments on weblogs posts or
input into political discussions, they suggest a shift to a function that is more
consistent with acting as a delegate (Ferber, Foltz & Pugliese, 2007). Research
suggests that those who participate politically online, as avid weblog readers,
commenters, authors or contributors on the myriad social media platforms are highly
motivated, with a high socio-economic status and high degrees of political knowledge
(Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga & Shah, 2010, 2010). These individuals are likely to
have clear objectives for visiting a site (Cho, Gil de Zuniga, Rojas & Shah, 2003) and
expect a return on any investment of time or mental resources (Tedesco, 2007).
These visitors are only served by a minority of younger MEPs. It is they who
are most likely to provide a personal news feed, and this may be linked to feeds going
to, or coming from, SNS or Twitter. Therefore the most proactive and interactive
MEPs deliver news using an array of platforms: 198 use Facebook with a further 42
having other additional profiles on social networking sites; 176 use a weblog, 174
YouTube, 111 Twitter. All of these platforms allow the MEP to deliver content to
visitors while also allowing visitors to share, comment or post content themselves. In
fact a reasonable number of these MEPs actively encourage these practices, 137
promote the sharing of content they created, 140 encourage comments on their
Facebook profiles, 60 encourage the same on their weblogs and 55 provide a forum.
These features encourage visitors to participate in political discussions, have their say
on political issues and so inform the position and arguments of the MEP. The level of
proactivity, matched with the likelihood of gaining a following, suggests some MEPs
recognise the potential mutual benefits to be gained from having an engaged,
participatory following (Cho, Gil de Zuniga, Rojas & Shah, 2003).
25
While tentative, we identify some interesting indicators of the impact from
pursuing different strategies which can be used to shape future research. While using
friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter is an imperfect proxy for the success of
the communication strategy of an MEP, we find that those who follow an interactive
strategy earn a larger following. The Homestyle Information Provision and
Impression Management Strategy strategy has no impact upon gaining a following. .
This chimes with research that suggests that online audiences expect certain types of
communicative behaviour and may reward political representatives who adhere to the
rules of the online environment (Tedesco, 2007). We suggest a combination of
interactive communicative features encourage visitors to the websites of MEPs to
demonstrate their support for the use of these features and they will join groups
sponsored by the MEP and award them permission to communicate with them. The
online politically engaged are more likely to follow MEPs who allow some degree of
comment, solicit feedback and are proactive in encouraging participation from visitors
to their websites. We posit that a Participatory Communication Strategy may also
have a positive impact upon those who visit MEPs’ websites and participate. There is
evidence that participation enhances perceptions of political efficacy (Semetko &
Valkenburg, 1998), and encourages further civic and political participation (Shah,
Cho, Eveland & Kwak, 2005; Rojas, 2008). Therefore, parliamentarians who
encourage interaction may be contributing more broadly to democratic engagement.
Conclusions and Future Research Agenda
Our data offer insights into the communication strategies of a range of
legislators. In contrast with studies undertaken within single nations, there are no
resource differentials between MEPs; hence we are able to identify the personal,
political and national characteristics which lead to adopting differing communication
26
strategies. MEPs predominantly pursue an information-driven communication
strategy (HIP) designed to position them as hardworking representatives. This is
coupled with, for many MEPs, a strategy designed to present them as symbolically
representative (IMS), appealing to voters through their backgrounds, lifestyles and
qualifications. Participatory Communication Strategy is one that is emerging and is
pursued mostly by younger MEPs While MEPs who represent minor parties and who
are elected using individual-centred mechanisms are more likely to have a website,
but do not go beyond the HIP information provision strategy. It is impossible at this
stage to measure for correlation between Internet use and votes received without
accurate longitudinal data, using the size of followings on social networks or Twitter
as a proxy there is evidence that MEPs who have highly interactive strategies are able
to gain an audience they can talk to and talk with. This finding might suggest there
could be political capital in having a more participatory online presence. Certainly a
minority of MEPs are at the forefront of developing highly active communities
similar to a civic commons (McLeod, Scheufele & Moy, 1999), which may have
broader political value within the context of democratic engagement (Gil de Zuniga,
Veenstra, Vraga & Shah, 2010), but they are a minority.
Analysis of the way the Internet is used by legislators is a field of academic
study that has expanded significantly in recent years and particularly since the
technological developments associated with Web 2.0. The extent to which
communicational innovations in technology or society are utilised in politics have
largely dominated the research agenda. Research has questioned the embeddedness
and utility of interactive features within political communication, however the field
must now accept that interactivity is emerging as a feature of online political
communication and move to focus on the questions of how and with what effect. We
therefore propose research should focus on two areas drawing on the indications
27
provided by these data and assumptions drawn from the key findings: firstly
assessments of the strategic objectives that underpin adopting an online
communication strategy; secondly gaining an understanding of the cognitive impacts
of communication strategies upon those who visit legislators’ websites and in
particular the impact of enjoying participatory dialogue via weblogs, forums of social
networks. As yet little is known about those who participate in political discussions
online, and nothing since the development of Web 2.0 technologies.
Research has recognised that political communication is strategic (Manheim,
2011). The extent to which online political communication is also strategic is under
explored. Our data suggests discrete but interlinked communication strategies are
emerging. Currently, there is a generational divide and perceived electoral benefits
may also be a driver of strategic thinking. These analytical assumptions hold face
validity but further research is required to test these through interviews with
politicians and their communications team
10
, comparing data across a range of
political and national contexts. Furthermore, a greater understanding is required of
who politicians want to connect to within the online environment. We make the
assumption that a combination of constituents, issue-specific activists and journalists,
all with a specific interest in politics and the activities of the legislator, are the most
likely potential visitors.
The second strand of future research regards the subject of audiences. Building
upon our indications we need more empirical research on whether visitors to
legislator’ websites wish to be passive information receivers or active participants in
discussion and, assuming that both groups exist, what members of each group seek
from their visits. This connects to an existing uses and gratifications research agenda
10
Originally the in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys with MEP and office members were a
part of this research project, unfortunately the response rate of the MEP offices was at the 3% level.
28
which has explored readers and authors of weblogs (Cho, Gil de Zuniga, Rojas &
Shah, 2003). Research among participants in the political ‘big conversation’, who
seek spaces where they are able to make contributions, needs to focus on
understanding both behaviours and effects. Behavioural research should focus on the
extent of participation, in terms of single visit contributions or conversational
communication, and what motivations drive behaviour. Effects research should
encompass both immediate gratifications, in particular feelings of self-efficacy, as
well as attitudes towards the individual politician, the democratic process as well as
impacts upon future online or offline political participation and voting behaviour.
These questions cannot be answered by this study. We find indications of embedded
and emergent strategies, and a more participatory communication strategy may be the
mode of the future. We also find indications that this pays dividends in finding
legislators a following who will discuss politics, share ideas and amplify the
legislators’ campaigns. These indications require further testing and analysis but
suggest a new trajectory for online political communication research.
29
References
Adler, E. S., Gent, C. E., & Overmeyer, C. B. (1998). The Home Style Homepage:
Legislator use of the World Wide Web for constituency contact. Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 585-595.
Bimber, B. (1998). The internet and political transformation: Populism, community
and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31, 133-60.
Cain, B., Ferejohn. J, & Fiorina, M. (1987). The Personal Vote. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Castells, M. (2009). Information Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cho, J., Gil de Zuniga, H., Rojas, H., & Shah, D. (2003). Beyond Access: The Digital
Divide and Internet uses and gratification. IT & Society, 1(4), 46-72.
Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship: theory,
practice and policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, S. (2007). Connecting Parliament to the public via the Internet. Information,
Communication & Society, 7(1), 1-22.
Dahlberg, L. (2007). Radical democracy and the internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Denzau, A., Riker, W., & Shepsle, K. (1985). Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated
Voting and Homestyle. The American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1117-
1134.
De Vries, P., & de Landtsheer, C. (2011). The centrality of political personality to
political suitability: a matter of charisma? aDResearch: International Journal
of Communication, 2(4), 66-81.
European Commission, (2005). The Commission’s contribution to the period of
reflection and beyond: Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate. COMM
494, Brussels.
30
Farmer, R., & Fender, R. (2005). E-parties: democratic and republican state parties in
2000. Party Politics 11(1), 47-58.
Fenno, R. F. (1978). Homestyle: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little
Brown.
Ferber, P., Foltz, F. & Pugliese, R. (2007). Cyberdemocracy and online politics: A
new model of interactivity. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27(5),
391–400
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update. (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Gibson, R., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2008). The Australian public and politics on-line:
Reinforcing or reinventing representation? Australian Journal of Political
Science, 43(1), 111-131.
Gil de Zuniga, H., Puig-i-Abril, E., & Rojas, H. (2009). Blogs, traditional sources
online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is
changing the political environment. New Media & Society, 11(4), 553-574.
Gil de Zuniga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E. & Shah, D. (2010). Digital Democracy:
Reimagining Pathways to Political Participation. Journal of Information
Technology and Politics, 7(1), 36-51.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Grant, W., Moon, B., & Grant, J. (2011). Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ use
of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science,
45(4), 579-604
Hindman, M. (2009). The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
31
Ingall, R. E., & Crisp, B. F. (2001). Determinants of Home Style: The many
incentives for going home in Columbia. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(3),
487-512.
Jackson, N. (2003). MPs and web technologies: an untapped opportunity. Journal of
Public Affairs, 3(2), 124-137.
Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2009). MPs and E-representation: me, MySpace and I.
British Politics, 4(2), 236-264.
Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2010). Tentative steps towards interaction: the use of the
Internet in the British European Parliament Election 2009. Internet Research,
20(5): 527-544
Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2011a). The Member for Cyberspace: e-representation
and MPs in the UK. In M. Z. Sobaci (Ed.), E-Parliament and ICT-Based
Legislation: Concepts, Experience and Lessons (pp. 64-79). Hershey, PA: IGI
Publications.
Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2011b). Microblogging, constituency service and
impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. Journal of
Legislative Studies, 17(1), 86-105.
Johnson, D. (2009). Campaigning for president 2008: strategy and tactics, New
Voices and New Techniques. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, D. (2010). Campaigning in the twenty-first century: a whole new ballgame?.
New York: Routledge.
Koch, G., Fuller, J., & Brunswicker, S. (2011). Online Crowdsourcing in the Public
Sector: How to Design Open Government Platforms. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 6778/2011, 203-212
32
Langer, A. I. (2007). A historical exploration of the personalisation of politics in the
print media: The British Prime Ministers (1945–1999). Parliamentary Affairs,
60(3), 371– 387.
Larsson, A. O. (2011). “Extended infomercials” or “politics 2.0″? A study of Swedish
political party Web sites before, during and after the 2010 election. First
Monday, 16(4), Retrieved from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3456/285
8
Lawless, J. L. (2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen and symbolic
representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 81-99.
Lilleker, D., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E. J., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., and
Vedel, T. (2011) Informing, Engaging, Mobilising or Interacting: Searching
for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of
Communication, 26(3), 195-213.
Maier, M., Stromback, J. & Kaid, L.L. (2011). Political Communication in European
Parliamentary Elections. Farnham: Ashgate.
Manheim, J. B. (2011). Strategy in information and influence campaigns. New York:
Routledge.
Margolis, M., & Moreno-Riano, G. (2009). The prospect of internet democracy.
Farnham: Ashgate.
May, A. (2009). The Preacher and the Press: How the Jeremiah Wright story became
the first feeding frenzy in the digital age. In Johnson, D. (Ed.). Campaigning
for president 2008: strategy and tactics, New Voices and New Techniques (pp.
78-101). New York: Routledge.
33
McLeod, J., Scheufele, D. & Moy, P. (1999). Community, Communication, and
Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local
Political Participation. Political Communication, 16(3), 315–336
McMillan, S. J. (2002). A four-part model of cyber-interactivity: Some places are
more interactive than others. New Media and Society, 14(2): 271–91.
Mughan, A. (2000). Media and the presidentialization of parliamentary elections.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
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/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html.
Panagopoulos, C. (2009). Politicking Online London: Rutgers.
Pole, A. (2004). Trends in E-representation: The Vermont and New York Legislatures
Spectrum Summer, 23-26.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: from new media to communication. In R. P.
Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.). Sage Annual Review of
Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science, 16, (pp. 110-
134). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage:
Rojas, H., Shah, D., Cho, J., Schmierbach, M., Keum, H. & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2005).
Media Dialogue: Perceiving and addressing community problems. Mass
Communication & Society, 8(2), 93-110.
Rommele, A. (2003). Political Parties, Party Communication and New Information
and Communication Technologies. Party Politics. 9(1), 7-20.
Rush, M. (2001). The Role of the member of parliament since 1868: from gentlemen
to players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34
Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland Jr W.P., and Kwak N. (2005). Information and Expression
in a Digital Age. Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation
Communication Research, 32(5), 531–65.
Shah, D., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotleib, M., Hwang, H., Lee, N., Scholl, R. & McLeod, D.
(2007). Campaign Ads, Online Messaging, and Participation: Extending the
Communication Mediation Model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703
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.
Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior and
political participation. Political Communication, 18(3), 273–300
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). Online interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of
Communication, 50(4), 111–32
Tedesco, J. (2007). Examining internet interactivity effects on young adult political
information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1183-1194.
Vaccari, C. (2008a). Research note: Italian parties’ Websites in the 2006 elections.
European Journal of Communication, 23(1), 69–77.
Vaccari, C. (2008b). Surfing to the Elysee: The Internet in the 2007 French elections.
French Politics, 6(1), 1–22.
Ward, S. & Lusoli, W. (2005). From weird to wired: MPs, the Internet and
representative politics. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(1), 57-81.
Ward, S. (2007). Parties and election campaigning online: a new era?. In R. D. Davis,
D. Owen, D. Tara & S. J. Ward (Eds.). Making a difference: the internet and
election in comparative perspective. (pp. 1-13). Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
35
Ward, S., Lusoli, W. & Gibson, R. (2007). Australian MPs and the Internet: Avoiding
the Digital Age. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2), 210-222.
Williamson, A. (2008). MPs Online: Connecting with constituents. London: Hansard
Society.
Wooldridge J. M. (2001). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Wring, D., & Ward S. (2010). The media and the 2010 campaign: the television
election? In A. Geddes & J. Tonge (Eds.), Britain Votes 2010 (pp. 217-232).
Oxford: Oxford University Press/Hansard Society.
36
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Average Online Performance scores for MEPs using different strategies
Homestyle
Information
Provision (HIP)
Impression
Management
Strategy
(IMS)
Participatory
Communication
Strategy (PCS)
General score
.425
.311
.235
Individual characteristics
Male
.411
.321
.233
Female
.447
.297
.240
<35 years old
.444
.347
.321
36 to 45 years old
.403
.351
.267
46 to 55 years old
.438
.298
.226
>56 years old
.421
.293
.205
Political characteristics
1 term in EP
.422
.320
.251
2-3 terms in EP
.425
.315
.239
4 and more terms in EP
.435
.266
.168
GUE
.370
.212
.201
Green
.508
.311
.291
S&D
.423
.310
.245
ALDE
.466
.315
.282
EPP
.419
.323
.215
EFD
.303
.271
.217
ECR
.368
.309
.193
NAM (not associated)
.405
.241
.251
Country characteristics
Major parties
.415
.305
.223
Minor parties
.473
.346
.275
Fringe parties
.380
.267
.246
Old EU (15)
.439
.300
.241
New EU (12)
.391
.339
.223
List voting system
.432
.297
.223
Preferential voting system
.414
.328
.250
Other voting systems (Ireland,
Luxemburg, Malta)
.459
.333
.263
37
Table 2: Poisson regressions on communication strategies
Homestyle Information
Provision (HIP)
Impression
Management Strategy
(IMS)
Participatory
Communication
Strategy (PCS)
Personal characteristic
Gender
.063 (.033)*
-.081 (.053)
-.018 (.067)
Age
-.002 (.001)
-.006 (.002)***
-.013 (.003)***
Party size in national parliament (reference group: fringe)
Major parties
.129 (.099)
.038 (.103)
-.082 (.123)
Minor parties
.224 (.099)**
.208 (.111)*
.068 (.125)
Country characteristics
Preferential voting system
-.008 (.035)
.072 (.052)
.091 (.068)
GDP 2009
.151 (.143)
.455 (.154)***
.205 (.276)
Electorate size
.055 (.045)
-.016 (.058)
-.052 (.091)
Web penetration rate
-.002 (.116)
-.242 (.149)
-.110 (.217)
EP characteristics
EP party ideology scale
-.027 (.013)**
.007 (.020)
-.051 (.024)**
Membership in EP
commissions
.008 (.017)
.017 (.028)
.025 (.034)
Terms-old in EP
-.001 (.017)
-.001 (.028)
-.055 (.032)*
Terms-new in EP
-.086 (.065)
-.042 (.077)
.011 (.133)
‘new EU’
.169 (.129)
.377 (.161)**
-.120 (.265)
Wald Chi
2
44.20
46.69
34.16
Pseudo R
2
0.014
0.037
0.017
Note: Models are results of Poisson regression, robust, with Standard Error in parentheses. Dependent variables are continuous
Homestyle Information Provision (HIP) (0-14), Impression Management Strategy (IMS) (0-12), Participatory Communication
Strategy (PCS) (0-19).Independent variables: gender (dummy, 1=women, 0=men); age (in years); preferential voting system
(dummy, preferential = 1, otherwise = 0); GDP 2009 (ln natural logarithm); electorate size (ln); Web penetration rate (ln);
membership in EP commissions (scale, 1-7); EP party ideology scale (from left to right on 1-7 scale); Terms-old in EP – number
of terms in EP for countries in EU before 2004 (scale, 0-7); Terms-new in EP - number of terms in EP for countries joining EU
after 2004 (scale, 0-2); ‘new EU’ - countries joined EU after 2004 (dummy, joined after 2004 = 1, otherwise = 0). See Appendix
2 for full breakdown.
*p<.10. **p<.05 ***p<.01
38
Table 3: Poisson regression coefficients for online community size of the MEP
being present on Social Networks (sum of number of friends or followers on
Facebook and Twitter)
Online strategies and community building
Online strategies
Homestyle Information Provision
-.016 (.049)
Impression Management Strategy
-.071 (.057)
Participatory Communication Strategy
.160 (.064)**
Updating
.001 (.000)
Personal characteristic
Gender
.244 (.179)
Age
-.011 (.011)
Party size in national parliament (reference group: fringe)
Major parties
-.064 (.354)
Minor parties
-.060 (.324)
Country characteristics
Preferential voting system
.570 (.204)***
GDP 2009
1.02 (.606)*
Electorate size
-.073 (.305)
Web penetration rate
-2.316 (.756)***
EP characteristics
EP party ideology scale
-.115 (.069)*
Membership in EP commissions
-.001 (.081)
Terms-old in EP
-.042 (.094)
Terms-new in EP
-.039 (.350)
‘new EU’
-.401 (.525)
Wald Chi
2
61.97
Pseudo R
2
.4069
Note: Models are results of Poisson regression, robust, with Standard Error in parentheses. Dependent variable: community size
(continuous, number of friends on Facebook + number of followers on Twitter, 0-8752) only for those MEP with SN profile
N=191. Independent variables: gender (dummy, 1=women, 0=men); age (in years); preferential voting system (dummy,
preferential = 1, otherwise = 0); GDP 2009 (ln natural logarithm); electorate size (ln); Web penetration rate (ln); membership in
EP commissions (scale, 1-7); EP party ideology scale (from left to right on 1-7 scale); Terms-old in EP – number of terms in EP
for countries in EU before 2004 (scale, 0-7); Terms-new in EP - number of terms in EP for countries joining EU after 2004
(scale, 0-2); ‘new EU’ - countries joined EU after 2004 (dummy, joined after 2004 = 1, otherwise = 0). Online Strategies HIP,
IMS, PCS (as in table 1); Updating (continuous) – sum of number of entries in November on website, blog, Facebook and
Twitter. See Appendix 1.
*p<.10. **p<.05 ***p<.01
39
Appendix 1
Features Categorised by Strategy
Homestyle Information Provision (HIP)
Link to NGO; Link to own political party; Link to other political organizations; Link
to official EP web sites; Special section: regional/national information; Special
section: special interest issues; Special section: work in EP; Registration on the web;
Invitation to visit Brussels; Possibility to become a member of party; Update on the
website; Any form of newsletter communication; Profile on SNS; Profile on Twitter
Impression Management Strategy (IMS)
Official profile of MEP; Videos online; Online web cam; Photo gallery on the web;
Online photo gallery (e.g. Picassa, Flickr); Information about family (web site);
Information about family (social network profile); Information about hobby (web
site); Information about hobby (social network profile); Information about education
(social network profile); Information about additional interests (books, films) (web
site); Information about additional interests (books, films) (social network profile)
Participatory Communication Strategy (PCS)
Web site update in November; Sending newsletter in November; Online forum or
chat; Blog; Update on blog in November; Possibility to comment on the blog;
Blogroll; Online polls; Registration on the web site to see reserved content;
Possibility to send content of the web site to others; Invitation to visit Brussels; Video
channel on video sharing websites (e.g. Youtube or Dailymotion); Online photo
gallery (e.g. Picassa, Flickr); Link to own social network profile (Facebook and
other); Update on Facebook in November; Possibility to comment on Facebook;
Profile on Twitter; Update on Twitter in November
40
Appendix 2
Independent variables
table 2 and 3
Explanation
Source
Preferential voting system
Compare to list and
transitive vote
Tableau récapitulatif des règles
électorales de chaque État
member, Robert Schuman
Fundation
GDP 2009
GDP per capita in
Purchasing Power
Standards ((PPS) (EU-27
= 100), (natural logarithm)
Eurostat
Electorate size
Number of country
population divided by
number of seats in EP per
country, (natural logarithm)
Eurostat and EP
Web penetration rate
% of population using
internet per country,
(natural logarithm)
http://www.internetworldstats.com/
Party ideology scale
from left to right on 1-7
scale, GUE(1), Greens,
S&D, ALDE, EPP, EFD,
ECR(7)
EP
Terms-old in EP
Number of terms per MEP
from EU countries before
2004, scale 0 to 7
EP
Terms-new in EP -
number of terms per MEP
for countries joining EU
after 2004, scale 0 to 2
EP
New EU
countries joined EU after
2004, dummy for 12
countries
EP
