Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?

Transcription

1 Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline? 1 Rachel Gibson Marta Cantijoch Institute for Social Change University of Manchester Paper prepared for presentation at the Colloquium Methodological Challenges in Participation Research, Cordoba, Spain, 4-5 November Abstract This paper seeks to conceptualize and measure online or e-participation with a view to determining how comparable or different it is to offline forms of participation. We do so by investigating two inter-related research questions: first, from a structural perspective we ask whether e-participation is a multi-dimensional phenomenon (like offline participation) and can be broken down into sub-types of activity (the differentiation hypothesis). Second, if sub-types exist, do they replicate offline modes of participation or constitute new and independent form of political engagement (integration hypothesis)? We test the hypotheses using simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis and original survey data from the UK General Election of The results support the differentiation hypothesis, with distinct sub-modes of e- participation being identified. Support is also provided for the integration hypothesis, although the evidence suggests the online environment may be particularly supportive of more expressive types of political participation. 1 The research presented in this paper is funded by an UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Fellowship The Internet, Electoral Politics and Citizen Participation in Global Perspective RES More details can be found at 1

2 This paper seeks to advance the literature on online or e-participation by understanding its relationship to the offline or non-internet based forms of participation that preceded it. In particular we seek to address the key question of whether online participation actually constitutes something new and different within the political system or is simply the translation of existing political practices onto a new medium? Surprisingly this is not a question that has received extensive attention within political science, with classic scholarship on participation tending to overlook internet-based forms of political activity (Teorell, Torcal, and Montero 2007) or dismiss them as inherently less meaningful (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2010), while more recent work by internet and politics scholars has focused primarily on determining the mobilizing potential of a varying set of internet-based political activities, rather than how these behaviors relate to each other and those occurring in the pre-internet era. This lack of conceptual and empirical consistency within e- participation research is seen as one of the main reasons why any effects of internet use on political engagement have proved so difficult to establish (Boulianne 2009). This paper seeks to bridge the divide between these two literatures by directly comparing the similarities and differences in offline and online participatory behaviors in two key dimensions structurally and substantively. First, we examine the structure of online participation and whether it can be differentiated into specific sub-modes or types, as has consistently been shown to be case with offline participation? The online environment arguably offers a much easier and more efficient transition across a range of different types of political activity such as gathering information, contacting a political representative or donating money to a cause or party. As such it may mean that e-participation is essentially a unidimensional phenomenon, lacking the distinctive sub-clusters observed in its offline 2

3 counterpart. Secondly, if differentiation is observed we ask whether the various subtypes identified replicate and integrate with existing forms of offline participation, or constitute newer and more online-specific types of behaviour that do not have an obvious parallel to pre-internet forms of political engagement? The paper addresses these questions in four stages. The first section profiles the literature on e-participation, profiling the wide range of measures of internet use that have been used and some of the more recent attempts to specify types of e-participation. In a second step we map the e-participation items studied to date onto a simple conceptual schema drawn from wider participation literature in order to develop our hypotheses about differentiation within e-participation (i.e. whether distinctive sub-modes can be identified) and the extent of its integration with existing types of political engagement. We test our hypotheses with a measurement model using original survey data from the UK General election of 2010 via simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis (SCFA). In a final step we discuss the implications of the findings for the two key literatures identified, focusing particularly on whether established classifications of participation need to be expanded and updated in light of our findings. The study of e-participation The empirical study of online or e-participation is a rapidly growing field of enquiry, started in the late 1990s with pioneering work of Bimber (1999, 2001). While studies placed under its banner vary considerably in scope, method and conclusions most focus on questions of mobilization and can be classified into one of two basic approaches. The bulk of studies fit into the first category and center on evaluating whether internet use, measured either as basic access or more specific activities 3

4 (information gathering, chatting), influences offline political behaviour, attitudes and/or levels of civic engagement. Such analyses we label as studies of participation and the internet in that the e element of the study is adjacent to or a driver of the offline participatory behaviour of interest (Best and Krueger 2005; Bimber 2001; Hardy and Scheufele 2005; Jennings and Zeitner 2003; Johnson and Kaye 2003; Kaye and Johnson 2002; Kenski and Stroud 2006; Krueger 2002; Mossberger, Tolbert, NcNeal, and McDonald 2007; Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, and Dunsmore 2005; Norris 2004; Quintelier and Vissers 2008; Shah, Schmierbach, Hawkins, Espino, and Donavan 2002; Scheufele and Nisbet 2002; Stoneman 2007; Sylvester and McGlynn 2010; Tolbert and McNeal 2003; Xenos and Moy 2007). A second and growing branch of e-participation research has taken a more direct approach to its subject, operationalizing it as a dependent variable in its own right and then examining the drivers behind it. Typical activities range from ing a politician or posting political commentary on a blog. This work, labelled here as the study of participation on the internet, has been undertaken in a range of national contexts including the U.S., Colombia, Spain, Norway and the UK (Anduiza, Gallego, and Cantijoch 2010; Baumgartner and Morris, 2010; Bimber, 1999; Gibson, Lusoli, and Ward 2005; Gil De Zuniga, 2009; Krueger 2002; Saglie and Vabo 2009; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2010; Sylvester and McGlynn 2010). Both sets of studies have reached broadly positive conclusions about the impact of the internet on levels of political engagement. However, overall the literature to date has struggled to demonstrate a substantial effect of internet use on mobilization and proceeded in a non-cumulative fashion in terms of research design (Boulianne, 2009). In particular, studies have a largely adhoc approach to the question of what constitutes e-participation. The first set of studies have examined real world 4

5 participation and internet access and use as binary measures or generic categories of use including recreational, social, or informational. Those following the second line of enquiry, although moving to look more directly at the activity of e-participation itself, have employed a wide range of indicators from ing a politician and donating funds online to posting comments on a Facebook wall. A more recent branch of this latter literature has sought to examine more closely how any mobilization effects are occurring by differentiating internal dimensions of e-participation. Such work has served to expose e-participation as a multi-dimensional or modal phenomenon, although the dimensions identified differ. Some studies point to clusters of activity that have clear offline corollaries (contacting, campaigning, signing an e-petition) whereas others focus on more expressive and activist types of behaviour that are reliant on social media platforms and involve more collective and directed uses of online technologies and mobile phones to mobilize others (Rojas and Puig-i-Abril 2009; Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005). Despite providing evidence to suggest that e-participation is a multidimensional phenomenon, these studies are primarily concerned with drawing conclusions about the mobilizing effects of internet use and e-participation. The focus is on how these various modes of e-participation link together and prompt offline engagement. Theoretical discussion of the measurement model itself and the locating of these latent behaviours in the wider participation literature is limited, although Rojas and Puig-i-Abril (2009) do make a bid to place expressive e-participation within an expanded view of participation that challenges the governmentally-oriented definition of Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995). E-expressive participation they 5

6 argue fits within a wider notion of participation that encompasses civic and communal forms of engagement, and that builds on Putnam s work in particular (2000). Analysis of the extent to which these e-participatory activities constitute genuinely new and different types of participatory activities or simply import traditional modes of engagement into the online sphere has also received limited direct attention within this field. The two studies that have directly engaged with this question have yielded contradictory findings. Jensen, Danziger, and Venkatesh (2007) used multi-dimensional scaling on a range of offline and online participation items and concluded that there was no overlap and thus that e-participation constituted a new and separate sphere of political action 2. Hirzalla and Van Zoonen (2010) by contrast, using SCFA found a significant inter-mixing of the two types of activity in defining their four modes of engagement politics, activism, sharing and consumerism. That said, the sharing factor was composed primarily of online activities such as forwarding an , signing an e-petition and using an e-discussion forum, with offline discussion forming a fourth significant indicator. While this non-selectivity in the types of e-participation studied is somewhat inevitable given the limited data available compared with that used to measure offline participation, the scramble to trace effects we argue has obscured a deeper more foundational measurement debate within the literature that have become increasingly important to address. Those studies that have attempted to model e-participation have shown support for the idea that e-participation should be disaggregated into sub-types. However, the extent to which these types conform to, or differ from more established offline modes of activity is not clear. Logic combined with evidence provided to date 2 However, there were some substantial differences between the online items measuring community involvement and those measuring offline related more to individuals civic skills. 6

7 suggests both processes are likely to be occurring, with some older forms of participation transferring online such as donations and petitions. While social mediabased activities appear to be linked to more expressive and possibly newer sharing forms of participation and political engagement. A final issue raised but left unresolved by these studies is whether the more passive forms of political activity they typically include such as news and information gathering online are emerging as important precursors to more activist types of political participation, or even forms of participation in their own right. The structural models tested by Rojas (2010) and Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak (2005) in particular suggests this may be the case. If so, then this would seem to re-ignite the debate as to whether such attentive forms of engagement can be considered as forms of participatory engagement (Conway 1991, 12-13; Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs 2004; Pan, Shen, Paek, and Sun 2006; Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995, 39). Perhaps given the pull aspect required for accessing these sources online compared to the push element typical to the traditional broadcast and print media news, there is a case for seeing these activities to be closer to participation, as it is classically understood? This argument has been made by Krueger (2002, 483) who argues that the boundaries between passive and active [participation] are increasingly blurred as actions typically considered as passive attention to and discussions of news take on a more instrumental and active quality. Defining E-participation This paper argues that the e-participation literature to date has focused primarily on questions of outcomes and effects rather than definitional and measurement issues. This has presented problems for the advancement of the 7

8 literature in that it has led to inconsistent use of indicators of e-participation and noncumulative and even contradictory findings. We propose to begin to address this gap in two key ways. First we confront a basic structural question of whether e- participation constitutes a multi-dimensional activity (like offline participation), and if so, what sub-types can be identified the differentiation hypothesis. Secondly, if a distinctive set of internet-based participatory activities can be identified, to what extent do they constitute an extension or equivalent of existing forms of offline participation the integration hypothesis. Or, are they independent of established modes, requiring a new set of conceptual criteria to be fully understood the independence hypothesis? In mapping the underlying dimensions of e-participation we hope to provide a foundation for future work to build on in terms of developing appropriate explanatory models and expectations for any mobilization effects. On the first question of differentiation we first seek to type or identify those behaviours studied to date and divide them according to criteria drawn from the wider participation literature. Notably scholarship in this latter area has remained largely silent on the location of e-participation activities. Most of the work within the canon either explicitly or implicitly sees it as falling outside of the boundaries of true participation. Schlozman, Verba, and Brady (2010) for instance argue that a social networking site like Facebook is simply a forum for political talk among friends rather than a place for organized political effort directed toward influencing public officials. The political groups formed are more about affinity and shared interests than concerted political action. Friending a candidate they argue, is not the same as working in a campaign. However, they do appear open to the idea of these interactive forms of political engagement serving as catalyst to more concerted political behaviour and are alert to the fact that these forums are changing so rapidly that they 8

9 may well morph into new forms of activity aimed at political influence (Schlozman Verba, and Brady 2010, 501). More recent classificatory work by Teorell, Torcal, and Montero (2007) conducted in the post-internet era simply excludes reference to e- participation. We begin, therefore, by hypothesising a basic division of e-participation activities into active and passive types, with a further distinction centering on those actions directed toward influencing government and formal institutions and those centering on non-governmental or extra-representational actors. The latter being a divide with a long history in the literature (Barnes and Kaase 1979; Dalton 2008; Norris 2002; Parry, Moyser, and Day 1992; Teorell, Torcal, and Montero 2007). Despite being somewhat crude this approach is valuable in that it allows for inclusion of the precursory informational activities that have featured heavily in e-participation research. It also allows for a division between the more active institutionally targeted and channelled forms of participation and more informal e-expressive behaviours taking place on platforms such as Facebook and blogs that target peers and public opinion rather than politicians. The result is a four-fold typology into which we can begin to map some of the more commonly featured e-participatory activities. Table 1 about here On the second question of integration versus independence our expectations again are driven by the findings of e-participation literature given the lack of direct or extended discussion of this topic within the wider field. The lack of incorporation of e-participation within existing classification schemes one can argue suggests an independence rather than integration. However, the evidence from the e-participation field indicates that there may be a case for integration in that many of the formal and more passive forms of political activity listed in table 1 have obvious offline 9

10 counterparts (news and information gathering, discussing politics, signing petitions, donating, contacting). The question of how far social media based e-expressive or sharing types of activities such as tweeting one s political views constitutes something new and different within the participation repertoire is more of an open question. Public statements of political opinions in letters to editors occurred long before the internet and expressive types of political engagement offline have received increasing attention from political science scholars (Hamlin and Jennings, 2011). Rather like news gathering, whether it constitutes an action with intention to influence a political outcome and thus a form of true participation is a key issue to resolve (Teorell, Torcal, and Montero 2007, 336). Arguably, however, the viral and more interactive and collective dimension of public speech online gives it a wider reach and more persuasive dimension that enhances its participatory qualities. Data and Hypotheses Drawing on this hybrid classificatory scheme, adapted from both the participation and e-participation literatures, we move to a test of it using data drawn from the UK General Election of Specifically, we hypothesise the following: H1 Differentiation Hypothesis: E-participation constitutes a multi-dimensional concept that can be disaggregated into distinctive clusters or sub-types of activity. Within that differentiated model we expect that activities that are performed offline will also take place online giving rise to the integration hypothesis. H2a Integration Hypothesis: The sub-types of e-participation activity identified will replicate or have a correspondence to existing types of offline participation. We push this argument slightly further arguing that a fully integrated model will involve a mixing or overlap in the online and offline activities involved. 10

11 H2b Full Integration Hypothesis: The sub-types of e-participation identified that correspond to existing types of offline participation will merge offline and online activities By contrast, the independence hypothesis is based on the idea that online participation is diverging from established modes by fostering more active forms of previously passive activities, which although not entirely new, do not easily conform to existing categories of participatory activities. Given the lack of precise expectations of what exactly these new forms of participation constitute and how they would be configured we do not specify an independence hypothesis in this paper. Instead we opt for rejection of the integration hypothesis as evidence to support independence arguments. Testing the differentiation, integration and independence hypotheses To test these questions we utilize data from a national opinion survey that was specifically designed to map the range of citizens online political activities during the 2010 UK General Election. The post-election face-to-face survey was conducted by BMRB, a UK polling company and fielded in May 20 th -26 th. The survey included 13 e-participation items, nine being campaign-specific activities that were measured as binary variables. Three items measured direct engagement with the official e- campaign of the parties and six items measured involvement in more informal and non-party based aspects of the e-campaign, and use of non-official sources of information. A further four indicators measured engagement in non-election related political behaviours during the previous 12 months and were measured with binary responses (e-contacting, e-donating, signing an e-petition and discussing politics online). These items were also asked in relation to offline engagement. The items and 11

12 basic descriptives showing levels of engagement in the online election in the 2010 UK General Election are reported in Table 2 by internet users only (as appropriate) and for the sample as a whole (i.e. including non-internet users). A full listing of the items used in the survey can be found in Appendix A. Table 2 about here. Frequencies are reported in Table 2. Consultation of mainstream news media online was the most popular activity by some margin, followed by accessing party produced sites, which involved fifth of internet users. Other more active types of engagement with the official e-campaigns were more limited (around 5% of internet users). Informal activities such as posting or forwarding political content were similarly confined to a small minority. Taking all these activities together we can see that one third of the UK population and just under half of internet users engaged in some form of online political activity during the election. While these levels of engagement do not match those seen in the US e-campaign during the Presidential election of 2008, which were estimated to be over half of population (Smith 2008), levels have clearly increased in the UK since Particularly the growth of use of official e-campaign resources is striking compared with Ward and Lusoli s (2005) findings. To test our expectations about whether different modes of e-participation exist we first mapped our e-participation survey items onto the axes used in table 1. This resulted in a four-fold classification of items reported in table 3. Table 3 about here Following some of the most recent work to classify political behaviours within the wider participation literature, particularly that of Teorell, Torcal, and Montero (2007), the contact items were separated out as a more targeted type of activity, to 12

13 which we added other targeted and non-campaign actions including petition signing and donating. To test the classification scheme, we then converted Table 3 into the SCFA model shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 about here As a first step to test the differentiation and partial integration (H1 and H2a) hypotheses we included only the e-participation items. In a subsequent step we included offline equivalents of some of the e-participation items to test the full integration hypotheses (H2b). The factors reported in Figure 1 set out our expectations for differentiation and integration within e-participation. Factor 1 E-formal captures active involvement in formal politics but in a specifically campaign related dimension, including signing up for party news feeds and actively using online tools to help campaign for the party. We included starting / joining an election related Facebook group here since it was not specified as party-related or unofficial. Factor 2 E-targeted captures more directed types of conventional online political activity such as donating to causes, contacting government and signing an online petition. A cross-loading of e-donation was seen as possible here and so was included in the first instance. Factor 3 Eexpressive is defined by the newer types of public speech embodied in social media that have been identified in previous studies as important elements of e-participation. A cross-loading was also possible here for starting/joining a social networking group. Finally Factor 4 E-communication combines attention to news sources (official and non-official) with political talk or more personal discussion (rather than public posting of opinions), i.e. the more passive forms of engagement that generate some debate in terms of their participatory status. 13

14 Model Testing: Simultaneous Confirmatory Factor Analysis Step (1) The measurement model outlined in figure 1 was tested using simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis (SCFA) to see how far it constituted a valid representation of the relationships between these variables within the population. The simultaneous estimation of the measurement model allows us to more explicitly test the strength of the relationships between the items and the constructs as well as between the constructs themselves. To investigate the question of whether underlying sub-dimensions of e-participation as specified in Table 2 can be found in our data we used Mplus version 6. The estimator used was weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment (WLSMV) which is recommended when binary data are being analyzed. The data included internet users only. 3 Tests of the individual constructs revealed all items to have positive and significant loadings and where global fit measures were possible to specify, to indicate acceptance of the default model. As two of the constructs had only three indicators (e-targeted and e-expressive), single measurement models were only just 3 Including non-internet users was problematic in that it introduced a set of respondents that scored zero on all 13 items. While statistically the analysis could be conducted, conceptually, the inclusion of these non-responses was seen as problematic in that it changed the meaning of the zero score for the two groups. For internet users the score was an indication that that activity was possible for the respondent but had not been performed for whatever reason. For a non-internet user a zero meant the activity was not possible and we cannot know whether they would have not done it, had they had access. This confusion of meaning of the zero response meant that for purposes of maintaining a clear interpretation of the data and findings only internet users were included. The analyses shown in figures 2 and 4 were run using non-internet users and did not change the key substantive findings reported here. 14

15 identified (i.e. df = 0), making global fit tests not possible. The results of the full SCFA are reported in Figure 2. Figure 2 about here The results reflect a number of adjustments made to the baseline model shown in Figure 1 based on the information obtained from the modification indices, regression loadings and standard errors. The key adjustments were deletion of the e- donation item on the e-formal factor which was found to be non significant. E- discussion was moved from the e-communication factor to the e-expressive factor, thereby joining with the items associated the sharing and public expression of individual political opinions. This last change meant that the e-communication factor was defined exclusively by attention to news sites or watching online political videos rather than discussion and inter-personal interaction. As a result it was renamed einformation. Finally the join sns item was removed from the e-expressive factor due its non-significant regression weight. After performing these modifications results show that the model had a good descriptive fit to the data based on the range of global fit measures reported (CMIN/DF=1.38, CFI=0.989, RMSEA=0.017). All the factor loadings were positive and significant at the.001 level and the standardized values range from 0.64 to The determinant of the covariance matrix did indicate a problem of multicollinearity in that it approached zero and two eigenvalues had values close to zero. However, further checks on the variables within the sample as a whole using multicollinearity diagnostics reveal that none displayed a tolerance less than 0.20 and VIF were below 1.5. Overall then these results were seen as supporting both the differentiation hypothesis and also the integration hypothesis in that e-participation is confirmed to have identifiable clusters or linked activities within it that conform to existing modes 15

16 of offline participation. In particular we see support for a separation between engagement in campaign activities, more targeted contact related activities, expressive actions and finally more passive forms of attention to politics. All of these are types of activity that have been identified or at least discussed as distinct modes of offline participation within the literature. Step (2) In a follow up step we sought to test the extent of integration by adding in offline participation items to our model. This produced a new model shown in figure 3. Figure 3 about here The initial results indicated a good fit of the data to the theoretical model. All regression weights are significant except the coefficient for one of our cross-loading items donation in relation to E-formal. Inspection of the modification indices led to the introduction of a cross-loading for the e-petition item on e-expressive. The results are reported in Figure 4. Figure 4 about here Measures of fit indicated values within an acceptable range, CFI statistic is above the threshold and the standardized RMSEA is below the 0.05 cut off. The chi square test, as expected given the larger sample size proved to be significant but the CMIN/DF ratio was below 2, within the acceptable range. The key finding is that for those items where it was possible to test for convergence of online and offline participation, i.e. e-targeted and e-expression, it seems that there is a commonality present. Online donation, petition and contact can be seen as being part of a broader targeted type of participation that encompasses offline versions, rather than separate activities. This also applies to e-expression where offline discussion is linked with online discussion, along with forwarding or embedding unofficial campaign contents, 16

17 posting comments, or signing e-petitions. The two other types of campaign involvement e-formal and e-information remain as clearly defined factors. However it is not possible to test in this instance the extent of any convergence with any equivalent offline forms of involvement. Discussion and Conclusion This paper has examined the concept and measurement of e-participation and argued that greater rigor needs to be introduced to study of the phenomenon. In particular, we contend that the term e-participation should be restricted to apply to those participatory activities that occur via online technologies, i.e. those taking place on the internet. Moreover we argue that rather than move straight to examining the mobilizing potential of this form of participation, closer attention should be paid to first specifying it as a dependent variable. In this regard two key questions have been addressed, the first being the extent of sub-types of participation that exist within e- participation (differentiation hypothesis). Using typologies developed to model and measure offline participation, we have offered a first cut at the question of whether political activities occurring online also cluster together to form meaningful and distinct sub-types of participation? Secondly, do those types simply mirror and replicate existing practices or can we find evidence to indicate that the internet is introducing new dimensions or modes participatory activities (integration vs. independence hypotheses)? Our key findings are that e-participation can be differentiated into distinctive and meaningful clusters or sub-branches of activities, as has been the case with offline participation. This confirmation of an underlying structure to online participation is significant from a methodological viewpoint in that it indicates the non-selectivity 17

18 applied in the measures of e-participation used so far may have contributed to the varying and conflicting findings produced regarding mobilization. More importantly perhaps, it shows that despite web-based activities taking place in a more bounded context than occurs in offline activities, they still form distinctive practices. Just because one can more easily move between signing an e-petition, discussing politics and posting to a blog, does not lead to these practices merging together and constituting a uni-dimensional scale of activity. On the second question of integration and independence we find strong support for the integration hypothesis. The four modes of e-participation identified in this analysis all have precedents in the offline environment, from the more instrumental campaigning and party activities and targeted forms of action to more expressive modes of engagement and finally passive attention to news and information sources. As well as substantively repeating types of offline participation, our results also reveal a mixing of modes, reinforcing support for the hypothesis that online and offline participation are integrating. For those factors where we were able to match relevant on and offline behaviours we confirmed a clear link between the two. Petition signing in the real world carries over and is associated with petition signing online, as is contacting one s representative via regular post or . Within this general picture of support for integration, however, a couple of caveats or at least queries for further research to address need to be noted. First the finding of an e-expressive mode of engagement supports the results of earlier studies and suggests that while the internet may not be throwing up entirely new forms of participation, it may be promoting and enhancing the status of political activities that were previously seen as falling outside the bounds of true participation. The public expression of one s political views and orientations via commenting on, reposting and 18

19 forwarding political content forms a distinctive and coherent type of political activity online. Whether it qualifies as participation in terms of being an action undertaken to influence a political outcome clearly requires further investigation and closer content analysis. As Robertson, Vatrapu, and Medina (2010), however, have argued, a brief look at Facebook walls suggests that participants are engaged in more than simply discussion and are interested in persuading others and making calls to action. Certainly the collective, interactive and viral nature of social media tools such as blogs gives expressive political engagement a potentially more influential and more immediately public dimension than it ordinarily has in the offline environment. Moreover if e-expressive actions are accepted as genuine forms of participation or even important stimuli to other types of activism, then the close association with online and offline political discussion identified here suggests that informal political talk may be an important precursor to more instrumental political acts. As a corollary, the de-coupling of political talk from consumption of news and information online raises some questions as to how far these latter activities are becoming a more solitary, individualistic and purposeful pursuit on the internet. Our findings show that gathering information online is not necessarily associated with exchange and interaction with others. While this may reduce any participatory claims for such behaviour, we do not see that this removes it from the participatory nexus entirely. Indeed, the requirements for individuals to actively search for and pull news and information to them in the online sphere rather than have it pushed onto them arguably may lead to underlying attitudinal shifts in terms of increasing levels of efficacy and interest. Overall we see these results as demonstrating the need for the participation and e-participation literatures to engage more directly with one another. This paper 19

20 marks a first step toward building that bridge. Definitions of political participation have evolved and expanded considerably over time in a bid to better map external or real world trends (van Deth 2001). The advent of the internet at a minimum has introduced a new context for participation to take place. Whether that shift has altered the fundamentals and underlying structure of participatory activities is clearly a question for conceptual and empirical debate. We hope to have provided some initial answers to this question in this paper as well as posed some new and important ones for future research into e-participation to investigate. 20

21 References Anduiza, Eva, Aina Gallego, and Marta Cantijoch Online political participation in Spain: the impact of traditional and internet resources. Journal of Information, Technology & Politics 7 (4): Barnes, Samuel and Max Kaase, Political Action. Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage. Baumgartner, Jody C. and Jonathan S. Morris MyFaceTube Politics Social Networking Web Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults. Social Science Computer Review 28 (1): Best, Samuel J., and Brian S. Krueger Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political Participation. Political Behavior 27 (2): Bimber, Bruce Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): Bimber, Bruce The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?. Political Communication 16 (4): Boulianne, Shelley Does Internet Use Affect Engagement?: A Meta-Analysis of Research. Political Communication 26 (2): Coleman, Renita, Paul Lieber, Andrew L. Mendelson, and David D. Kurpius Public Life and the Internet: if you build a better website will citizens become engaged?. New Media & Society 10 (2): Conway, M. Margaret Political Participation in the United States. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. Dahlberg, Lincoln The Internet and Democratic Discourse. Exploring the Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society 4 (4): Dalton, Russell J Citizen Politics. Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Washington D.C: CQ Press. Davis, Richard Politics Online: Blogs, Chatrooms, and Discussion Groups in American Democracy. New York: Routledge. Delli Carpini, Michael X., Fay Lomax Cook, and Lawrence R. Jacobs Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7:

22 Gibson, Rachel K., Wainer Lusoli, and Stephen Ward Online participation in the UK. Testing a contextualised model of internet effects. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 7: Gil de Zuniga, Homero, Aaron Veenstra, Emily Vraga, and Dhavan Shah Digital Democracy: Reimagining Pathways to Political Participation. Journal of Information, Technology & Politics 7 (1): Gil de Zuniga, Homero, Eulalia Puig-I-Abril, and Hernando Rojas Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society 11 (4): Hamlin, Alan, and Colin Jennings Expressive political behaviour: foundations, scope and implications. British Journal of Political Science 41: Hardy, Bruce W., and Dietram A. Scheufele Examining differential gains from internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication 55 (1): Hirzalla, Fadi, and Liesbet van Zoonen Beyond the online/offline divide: Convergences of online and offline civic activities among youth, Social Science Computer Review, online access (before print published). Horiuchi, Yasaku, Imai Kosuke, and Naoko Taniguchi Estimating the Effects of Policy Information on Voter Turnout: an Internet Based Randomized Field Experiment in Japan Policy and Governance Discussion Papers 4: Jennings, M. Kent, and Vicki Zeitner Internet Use and Civic Engagement: A Longitudinal Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (3): Jensen, Michael J., James N. Danziger, and Alladi Venkatesh Civil society and cyber society: The role of the internet in community associations and democratic politics. Information Society, 23 (1): Johnson, Thomas J., and Barbara K. Kaye A boost or bust for democracy? How the web influences political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Press/Politics, 8 (3): Kaye, Barbara K., and Thomas J. Johnson Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46 (1): Kenski, Kate, and Natalie J. Stroud Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50 (2): Kim, Sonho Vote and Equality in an Electronic Forum. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia. 22

23 Krueger, Brian S Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research 30 (5): Lawrence, Eric, John Sides, and Henry Farrell Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation and Polarization in American Politics. Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): Lupia, Arthur, and Zoe Baird Can Web Sites Change Citizens? Implications of Web White and Blue Political Science and Politics 36 (1): Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, Ramona S. NcNeal, and Jason McDonald The benefits of society online: civic engagement. In Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation, eds. Karen Mossberger, Caroline Tolbert, and Ramona NcNeal. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press: Moy, Patricia, Erick Manosevitch, Keith Stamm, and Kate Dunsmore Linking Dimensions of Internet Use and Civic Engagement. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (3): Norris, Pippa Building Knowledge Societies: The renewal of democratic practices in knowledge societies. UNESCO World Report: Norris, Pippa Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pan, Zhongdang, Lijiang Shen, Hye-Jin Paek, and Ye Sun Mobilizing political talk in a presidential campaign. An examination of campaign effects in a deliberative framework. Communication Research 33 (5): Park, Hung Myoung, and James L. Perry Do Campaign Web Sites really Matter in Electoral Civic Engagement? Empirical Evidence from the 2004 Post-Election Internet Tracking Survey. Social Science Computer Review 26 (2): Parry, Gerraint, George Moyser, and Neil Day Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, Robert D Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Quintelier, Ellen, and Sara Vissers The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16 year olds in Belgium. Social Science Computer Review 28 (4): Robertson, Scott P., Ravi K. Vatrapu, and Richard Medina Off the wall political discourse. Facebook use in the 2008 US presidential election. Information Polity 15 (1-2):

24 Rojas, Hernando, and Eulalia Puig-i-Abril Mobilizers Mobilized: Information, Expression, Mobilization and Participation in the Digital Age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (4): Rojas, Hernando Corrective Actions in the Public Sphere: how perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22 (2010), 3, Römmele, Andrea Social Media in the 2009 German Federal Election Campaign. Presented at the American Political Science Association Preconference on Political Communication, Toronto. Saglie, Jo, and Signy Irene Vabo Size and e-democracy: Online Participation in Norwegian Local Politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 32 (4): Scheufele, Dietram A., and Matthew C. Nisbet Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Press/Politics, 7 (3): Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): Shah, Dhavan V., Jack M. McLeod, and So-Hyang Yoon Communication, context and community. An exploration of Print, Broadcast, and Internet influences. Communication Research 28 (4): Shah, Dhavan V., Jaeho Cho, William P. Eveland jr., and Nojin Kwak Information and expression in a digital age. Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research 32(5): Shah, Dhavan V., Michael Schmierbach, Joshua Hawkins, Rodolfo Espino, and Janet Donavan Nonrecursive models of internet use and community engagement questioning whether time spent online erodes social capital. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79 (4): Smith, Aaron The internet s role in campaign 2008 Pew Internet and American Life Project Report: Stanley, J. Woody, and Christopher Weare The effects of Internet use on political participation. Evidence form an agency online discussion forum. Administration & Society 36 (5): Stoneman, Paul The Internet and Political Participation: lessons from time use Chimera Working Paper 4. Sylvester, Dari E., and Adam J. McGlynn The Digital Divide, Political Participation, and Place. Social Science Computer Review 28 (1):

25 Teorell, Jan, Mariano Torcal, and Jose Ramon Montero Political participation: mapping the terrain. In Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis, eds. Jan W. van Deth, Jose Ramon Montero, and Anders Westholm. London: Routledge: Tolbert, Caroline J., and Ramona S. McNeal Unravelling the effects of the Internet on political participation. Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): van Deth, Jan W Studying Political Participation: Towards a Theory of Everything?. Presented at the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, Grenoble. Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ward, Stephen, and Wainer Lusoli Logging on or switching off? The public and the internet at the 2005 general election. In Spinning the Web. Online campaigning in the 2005 general election, eds. Stephen Coleman, and Stephen Ward. London: The Hansard Society: Xenos, Michael, and Patricia Moy Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication 57 (4):

26 Table 1: A Typology of E-participation Activities FORMAL INFORMAL ACTIVE PARTY/CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES Signing up as volunteer Online donating (Anduiza, Gallego, and Cantijoch 2010; Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, and Dunsmore 2005) Posted campaign information in social media (Römmele 2009) CONTACT politician/govt (Anduiza, Gallego, and Cantijoch 2010; Bimber 1999; Hirzalla and Van Zoonen 2010; Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, and Dunsmore 2005; Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005; Sylvester and McGlynn 2010) E-EXPRESSIVE Posting to Blog (Rojas and Puig-i-Abril 2009; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2010) Posting to SNS Group (Rojas and Puigi-Abril 2009; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2010) Use SNS to mobilize others about a cause (Rojas and Puig-i-Abril 2009) Forwarded political s (Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga, and Shah 2010; Hirzalla and Van Zoonen 2010; Quintelier and Vissers 2008) COMMUNAL/CIVIC Contacting community/civic group (Jensen et al. 2007; Saglie and Vabo 2009; Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005) ed news editor (Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005) Worked with others online for a cause (Best and Krueger 2005) Persuaded others about an issue online (Best and Krueger 2005; Rojas 2010) Organised social event, community service via (Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005) Signed e-petition (Anduiza, Gallego, and Cantijoch 2010; Hirzalla and Van Zoonen 2010) PASSIVE INFORMATION SEEKING OFFICIAL SITES (Coleman et al 2008; Horiuchi, Kosuke, and Taniguchi 2005; Lupia and Baird 2003; Park and Perry 2008; Shah, McLeod, and Yoon 2001) Online Discussion Official Forums (Dahlberg 2001; Stanley and Weare 2004) INFORMATION SEEKING UNOFFICIAL SITES i.e. Blogs, YouTube (Gil de Zuniga, Puig-i-Abril, and Rojas 2009; Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga, and Shah 2010; Quintelier and Vissers 2008; Sides and Farrell 2010) Online Discussion /Chatrooms/Forums (Davis 2005; Kim 2003; Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, and Dunsmore 2005; Quintelier and Vissers 2008; Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak 2005) 26

27 Table 2: Online election activities of UK voters in the 2010 General Election (weighted data) Type Of Activity Total Sample (%) Internet users (%) Official Campaign Read/accessed official sites Signed up as supporter/for e-news Used online tools to campaign /promote parties Total official campaign engagement Non-Official Campaign Read/accessed mainstream news sites Viewed/accessed non-official online video Joined/started political group on a SNS Posted political comments to own/other blog/sns Forwarded non-official content (jokes, news items) Embedded/reposted non-official content Total non-official campaign engagement Non-Campaign Online / Offline Activities Online contact with government official Offline contact with government official Online donation to political cause/organisation/party Offline donation Signed online petition Signed offline petition Discussed politics online Discussed politics offline Total non-campaign political activities Source: BMRB National Face to Face Quota Survey of 1,960 UK adults May 20 th -26 th Official Campaign Qu: Please could you tell me, whether you have done any of the following activities in relation to official parties or candidates online? Non-official Campaign Qu:: Which, if any, of the following activities did you do online during the election campaign over the last month? Non-campaign offline and online Qu: Here is a list of activities that some people do and others do not. For each one, please could you tell me if you have done this in the past 12 months or not. In the past 12 months have you...? N 27