P. 1
Jankowski Et Al 2005 Ip

Jankowski Et Al 2005 Ip

|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by gpnasdemsulsel

More info:

Published by: gpnasdemsulsel on Jan 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Information Polity 10 (2005) 165–176 IOS Press


The Web and the 2004 EP election: Comparing political actor Web sites in 11 EU Member States
Nicholas W. Jankowskia,∗, Kirsten Footb , Randy Kluverc and Steve Schneiderd
University Nijmegen, The Netherlands of Washington, USA c Nanyang Technological University, Singapore d State University of New York Institute of Technology, USA
b University a Radboud

Abstract. This study reports on incorporation of the Web during the 2004 European Parliament election as played out in 11 EU Member States. Based on an analysis of Web site features related to a conceptualization of political engagement, the study examines utilization of features reflecting information provision and opportunities for discussion and political action. The findings reflect the low level of importance historically ascribed to European Parliament elections. The study also illustrates the diversity in how the Web was incorporated into this election campaign across the 11 EU Member States, which may be a consequence of the broad range of political cultural and contextual aspects shaping this pan-European event. Keywords: European Parliament election, Web sphere analysis, Web feature analysis, political communication, political engagement, information provision, political action, Internet and elections

1. Introduction Many scholars have reflected on how information technologies are transforming political processes [1, 4,8,11]. Although the jury is still out as to whether the Internet is ‘democratizing’ politics, there is little doubt that this electronic network is an increasingly important resource for candidates, parties, political organizations and citizens who seek to provide or acquire political information and to engage in political action. A growing number of empirical studies (e.g. [2,3,10,16,26]) have systematically explored the nature of the structure for political action produced on the Internet by different kinds of actors involved in election campaigns. Still, none compares incorporation of the Internet in election campaigns across countries. And, because of the cultural and political context in which much of the research has been framed, primarily in North America, analysis and policy issues arising from this work tend to overlook contextual factors prominent in many European countries that may mediate the role of the Web in political activity.
Address for correspondence: Nicholas W. Jankowski, Department of Communication, Radboud University Nijmegen, Post Office Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 24 3612372; Fax: +31 24 3613073; E-mail: N.Jankowski@ maw.kun.nl, nickjan@xs4all.nl. 1570-1255/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

. the Internet provides less powerful players possibilities for political impact when “transnational advocacy networks and alternative social movements . governments – for the purpose of sharing information. and mobilize global coalitions around issues” [20. researchers from 22 countries in Asia. The central research question of the project. pp. . / The Web and the 2004 EP election This article draws on data from a research project designed to compare how Web sites are being used during election campaigns on an international scale. and philosophical and religious . ‘Cyber-pessimists’ assert that the Web merely reflects political forces already dominant in society. Gibson and Lusoli summarize these positions and suggest that “.” Norris [20. discussing issues. shaped by political institutions. we illustrate the range of features found on the Web sites examined in the 11 EU Member States related to indicators of political engagement. we present some of the material brought together in the reports prepared by these teams. [24. . mostly an extension of political life off the Net. Jankowski et al. . . pp. researchers focused on the election held in 11 countries for the European Parliament (EP) in June 2004. focusing on the contextual and regulatory diversity at play in the EU election. 14] formulate this position succinctly: “political life on the Net is . To begin. Margolis and Resnick [17. p. The final section of this article sketches areas for additional theoretical development and empirical research. At the same time. there is a long-standing claim that the Internet potentially provides space to a wide variety of the politically concerned – citizens. ‘Cyber-optimists’ stress that politics on the Web provides opportunities for deliberation and direct decision-making among a broad spectrum of the public (e.25]). The third involves examination of the structure of Web sites within which political engagement may emerge. 2. is: In what manner and to what extent do the structures of Web sites produced by political actors during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign facilitate political engagement of site visitors through provision of election-related information and opportunities for discussion and political action? In the first section of the paper we introduce the main theoretical considerations that have informed this work.g. 667]. interest groups. . The second section provides an overview of the methods and procedures followed by the research teams situated in the 11 countries. the Internet will make a modest positive contribution to participation and mobilization” [31. which serves as the centerpiece for this paper. press. Related to the above.W. 238–239]. The Internet and elections Three interrelated theoretical considerations inform this exploratory study. particularly during periods of election campaigns.166 N. organize. p. A second consideration is how features of political culture and context may mediate deployment of technologies like the Web during elections. Political culture may be described as the symbolic environment of political practice. Called the Internet & Elections Project. we are concerned with the presence of features found on the Web sites of political actors during the 2004 EP election corresponding to a conceptualization of political engagement consisting of two components: information provision and political action. With regard to this study. candidates. Ward. 233–239] suggests a middle-ground for ‘cyber-skeptics’. tailored to this election. She notes that political institutions are relatively conservative in adopting new communication technologies and the Internet is better at supporting the already active than in mobilizing the disengaged. historical experiences. Europe and North America took part in an investigation of elections during 2004–2005. have adapted the resources of new technologies to communicate. parties. In Europe. The first concerns ways in which the Internet may contribute to increased political engagement and power for less prominent or significant political actors. social movements. Next. Then. differences in the utilization of the Web may be associated with different political cultures and contexts. and engaging in political action.

Indonesia. Although this article focuses on the 2004 EP election.g. Six of the selected countries – France.23]). it refers to the ways in which values and attitudes influence political behavior. Three of the 11 countries – France. Six are located in northern Europe. two in the south. Schneider and Foot [26] elaborate on this heritage and on the distinction between structure and action. and Slovenia – became new EU Member States as of 2004. research teams examined how the Internet was deployed in Australia. Hungary. and mechanisms of political practice within a country. This formulation of political engagement is derived from a typology Tsagarousianou [30] suggests as the basis of digital democracy: obtaining information.N. [6. and texts. Luxembourg. Here we concentrate on data collected and analyzed with respect to the 2004 European Parliament (EP) election. For the purposes of this study. building on a range of theoretical contributions (e.13. Within this framework. Korea. operational restrictions – availability of qualified researchers and resources – limited this study to 11 EU Member States. Three of these countries – Czech Republic. which provide site users opportunities to associate and to act [26]. Netherlands. and opportunity for undertaking election-related political actions. both online and offline. Ultimately. Ireland. These two elements. On the Web. In and around Asia. we suggest that online structures may facilitate political engagement in the election process through three interrelated activities: provision of election-related information. the Internet & Election Project involved the study of national elections during 2004– 2005 held in 22 countries across Asia. more specifically and recently.15]. it serves as the basis for a modified typology of components labelled political engagement. UK – are considered relatively large in population size and four – Finland. In the context of electoral campaigns. a research team studied the 2004 US Presidential election. mythologies. the potential of the Internet to contribute to political change. 3. Research design As noted earlier. expectations. as well as between producers and users. Philippines. each online structure enables and constrains the potential for various kinds of political action. and three are eastern European states. Sri Lanka. and Thailand. Ireland. engaging in deliberation. and UK – have been represented in the European Parliament since its first election in 1979.19. Jankowski et al. Italy. Slovenia – are among the smaller Member States. and participating in decision making. . Although citizens from all 25 EU Member States took part in the EP election. online structures may be seen as particular combinations of features. In North America.22. This brushstroke description includes the assumptions. political participation. see also [18]). India. Although preliminary in nature and with some limitations (see [16]). information provision and political action. relations between Web producers. Translating these formulations into an online environment. links. economic prosperity. a complementary consideration is the structure of election-related Web sites. are examined on the basis of features found on the Web sites of political actors engaged in the 2004 EP election. In this study. Japan. geopolitical location. the typology is reduced to two elements: information provision and forms of political action related to an electoral event. and an indicator of democratization. following the design and research procedures of the Internet & Elections Project as detailed in the next section. Luxembourg. Furthermore. Europe and North America. are enacted and mediated through online structures. a number of indicators of political culture and context are considered: electronic infrastructure. / The Web and the 2004 EP election 167 traditions ([14. The theoretical heritage of this notion is grounded in literature on social movements and. Italy. including discussion of issues and candidates. opportunity for discussion and debate.W. the design and research procedures were identical for all of the elections investigated during the Internet & Election Project (see further [9]). EU membership.

documented in a manual available to project participants and demonstrated in an intensive pre-project training workshop. p. then. online newsletters. screensavers).168 N. and religious organizations. recruitment. A sample of 100 sites per country was drawn for analysis purposes from among those sites identified by each country team (in cases in which fewer than 100 sites were identified. businesses. Jankowski et al.1. Web portals. which requested elaboration on contextual factors impinging on the election. based on estimates provided by the research teams. educational. research teams completed internal reports on the election campaigns and Web sites coded. concluding three days before the election in each country. 12 site producer types were identified: candidates. An electoral Web sphere. citizens. speeches. banners. discussion forums. Coders were trained during a project workshop and during subsequent face-to-face and Internet-based meetings.W. A site was included in the study if. Coding & reporting site features The sampled Web sites were coded for the presence or absence of 32 features. the entire population was used for analysis). and promotion of campaign via e-paraphernalia (e. then to follow links to access the item. Finally. 118]. or related. it was considered relevant to the 2004 EP election.2.org. It was adapted for use in the Internet & Election Project. These procedures. The coding frame. comparison of candidate platforms. Site identification & sampling Identification of Web sites related to the EP election was performed by research teams in a manner that attempted to capture the electoral ‘Web sphere’ surrounding the campaign. politically-oriented portals and other depositories of potential Web site addresses. This procedure meant that sites were included that did not contain electoral content at the time of identification. Based on earlier investigations ([26. is a dynamic array of Web materials created by political actors who participate in the electoral process. press. distribution of election materials offline. involved consulting search engines. political professionals. in the assessment of the researcher. audio and video files. Researchers were requested to identify as many sites as possible within the specified time period for each of the 12 producer types. regulations affecting Web sites related to the election and interpretation of . political parties. reproduced in Appendix 1. images.g. Data entry was facilitated by use of Web-based software for distributed coding developed and administered by WebArchivist. The sample was stratified across site producer types to reflect the estimated weighting of each producer type in the population of Web sites related to the election. Sites were identified for inclusion in the study through guidelines developed by the project coordinators. The coding took place during a period of two weeks. In the form of a definition. governments. voter registration.27]). A help desk addressed questions per email and instant messaging during site identification and coding. was based on previously developed measures that had been tested for both conceptual and operational validity by Foot and Schneider [26] in their study of candidate sites in the 2002 US elections. Site identification began some seven weeks prior to the election. 3. Coders were instructed to examine the first and second levels of pages linked from the front page for evidence of an item. to a central theme or object” [28. labour unions. Researchers were requested to spend approximately 40 hours searching for sites. a Web sphere consists of a “set of dynamically-defined digital resources that span multiple Web sites and are deemed relevant. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).. Researchers attended to a set of eight questions. including: candidate endorsements. / The Web and the 2004 EP election 3. making the frame applicable to sites produced by a broad range of political actors in different cultural contexts. which allowed flexibility in searching for the sites of some producer types and for spreading the time devoted to searching across the overall period available for identification. contact information.

/ The Web and the 2004 EP election 169 tables prepared on Web features present on the samples of sites drawn from EU Member State electionrelated Web spheres. the EP elections have no policy implications.aljazeera. Second. Although elected. available at: http://news. interpretations by the research teams regarding the significance of some of the Web site features are presented. Findings This article reflects the first phase of analyzing data from the 2004 EP election and. a few of the contextual aspects in this election.net/NR/exers/BF48424EBFAB-4637-440526970394. in the first place. uyk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/3806503. 1 Citizens in the new member states were the least involved in the 2004 election. available at: http://english. election and campaign regulations. These unpublished reports serve as one of the sources of information for this article. 13 June 2004. This deficit is partially reflected by the generally low and declining voter turnout at EP elections. the 2004 event had no magnetic qualities with which to attract voters. Jankowski et al. come as a surprise to many observers. as mentioned above. First. BBC News. which is appointed by the governments of EU member states. the European Commission. The European Parliament enjoys a mixed status in the overall structure of the European Union. EP election campaigns are generally not marked by intense campaigning. and duration of EU membership – are examined in relation to site features reflecting the two components of political engagement previously mentioned: information provision and political action. 14 June 2004. the only elected body within the EU that is accountable to citizens of the EU Member States during elections held every five years. the EP suffers from a long-standing lack of legitimacy. is exploratory and preliminary. are presented: electoral disinterest. though.stm. EP elections have been under continual criticism for having little significance to voters. the Council of Ministers.N. The overall average of voter turnout fell below the 50% level for the first time in the history of EP elections. at play in the 11 countries included in the study. Contextual aspects of 2004 EU election Electoral disinterest.net. 1 . “Eurosceptics storm the Citadel”. economic wealth. indices of political participation and democracy. 4.co. as such. France. characteristics of the EU Member States included in the study – population. Aljazeeras. The European Parliament has no impact on the orientation of the executive body of EU government. Although turnout among voters of the older EU member states was higher on average. This feeling was reflected in newspapers headlines of stories published just after the election: “Apathy clouds EU voting”. Second. Internet penetration. These structural features contribute to limited interest by voters in this election. EP elections are ‘second order’ elections in that they are usually held during off years and tend to attract less attention “Apathy clouds EU voting”. Portugal. First. This is because. geopolitical location. and cannot influence the composition of the other main body of EU government.W. Three factors contributed to this limited engagement. Sweden. It is. several of these countries had turnouts of around 40%: the Netherlands.1. Finally.htm. and salient aspects related to the election in several of the countries.bbc. often described as a democratic deficit. “Eurosceptics storm the Citadel”. and the UK. Low voter turnout at the 2004 EP election did. Less than 30% of the eligible voters in five of the new member states cast ballots. which is characteristic of many local and national elections. The EP has limited power and shares co-decision status with the Council of Ministers. As with previous EP elections. 4.

the national preferences were accentuated in the campaigns for this European Parliament through so-called Euro-skeptical stances taken by political parties in several countries. In Italy some candidates updated their Web sites on Election Day. interest groups. imposed no restrictions on the Web sites of candidates during the EP election. the UK and France incumbent MEPs were not allowed to use their MEP titles or the Web sites associated with this function during the election campaign. In France this was less than two weeks before to the 2004 EP election. The Czech Republic prohibits involvement of educational institutions in election campaigns. Hungary. partly as a matter of expediency and also as a measure to increase turnout for all of the electoral events. like in Portugal. Some countries stipulated by legal mandate that the official campaign could not begin before a specified date. these elections primarily cover domestic issues and sometimes serve as a referendum for the presiding government. In several countries there is an official ban on campaigning activity on Election Day. like the Communist Party in Portugal and the Mouvement pour la France (MPF) concentrated their campaigns on criticism of European Union policies. Czech Republic. and Italy (Short Message Service [sms] messages sent to registered mobile telephone numbers with voting information and campaign regulation violations on Election Day). candidates. In almost all of . In some countries – Finland. like the UK Independence Party and Europa Transparent in the Netherlands. a few of the EP election campaigns were affected by external events such as the war in Iraq (Hungary. other elections were organized simultaneously. Enforcement of this ban varied from country to country. which had held the office during the six months prior to the EP election in June. the unofficial campaign was initiated months before Election Day. like Slovenia and Finland. such as in Italy. formulating of guidelines that prohibited Web site content on Election Day within the first two levels of a site that might influence voters. Czech Republic. This issue was similarly salient for the Netherlands. Research teams from Hungary. tended to dominate the EP election campaigns in at least six of the 11 countries included in this study: Italy. candidates and parties were the most dominant political actors in the EP electoral Web spheres. which took on the Presidency immediately following the election in July. Italy. Elsewhere. Other countries. Finally. Election & campaign regulations. Some of these parties were dominated by one-issue. which resulted in a minor scandal when a high school invited two candidates to speak at a school assembly. Finland.170 N. 4. Czech Republic – the election was held nationally with proportional representation. In addition to issues prominent in the national or local elections. In Hungary an association of Internet providers cooperated with the National Election Office. and voters. In many countries such as the UK. Hungary and Slovenia. Some well established parties in other countries. Portugal. Jankowski et al. especially parties. and the Netherlands. either at the national or local level. Italy) and the European Cup football competition (UK and Portugal). In Ireland.2. and Portugal. In other countries – France and the UK – the election was organized by electoral districts. Portugal and Italy reported that the EP election was seen as a referendum on the policies of the respective national governments. Candidates developed different strategies to circumvent this restriction – from limiting access to the sites to construction of alternative sites with links from the MEP office sites. / The Web and the 2004 EP election by all political actors. The EU Presidency was an important issue in Ireland. The EP election was organized differently across the European Union. Features on Web sites of political actors Looking overall at the EU countries included in this study of the 2004 EP election. Voting and election campaign regulations were also topics of concern in the UK (postal voting). Hungary (provision for Hungarians to be able to vote from abroad). Ireland. Domestic political issues.W. Finally. Salient aspects of EP election. the Netherlands.

the Netherlands and Finland. the Netherlands.g. emphasized the negative aspects with respect to processes of democratization. 11]. usually. it was mainly younger candidates that constructed Web sites. for example. here.. Jankowski et al. Where the Web does play a role. like the Finnish team. Web site features corresponding to these components were: .3. The Slovenian team considered the Web sphere in that country reflective of a ‘top-down’ strategy by government and the political elites. Hungary) where it could be claimed that the Web was a prominent arena for the campaign. Unlike the situation in Luxembourg. the candidates of major political parties were more likely to have Web sites than candidates of minor or fringe parties. such as Slovenia where a majority of the sites with election content were produced by government institutions. p. although at the same time the support may have led to party control and uniformity in the Web presence of these candidates. There were some notable exceptions. at best. UK. the Web played a very minor role in the campaign. like the researchers in Slovenia [32] and Luxembourg [12]. Those discussion and action features that could be discerned were found mainly on political party sites. such as in the Czech Republic. the situation indicated the minor importance of this election for most political actors – for parties. The lines of division regarding incorporation of the Web into political campaigns seem oriented along the European north-south rather than the west-east axis. also of other actors were sophisticated and professional. and opportunity for discussion and political action. In other countries. / The Web and the 2004 EP election 171 the countries these actors far exceeded other actors in the construction of sites related to the election. no difference in Finland could be discerned between the age and gender of candidates with or without Web sites. Web blogs were utilized by political actors (mainly candidates). downloading of election paraphernalia. Italy. emailing campaign materials to other persons – were infrequent Researchers varied in their assessments of this limited incorporation of the Web into the political campaign. Some. candidates and for voters. The range of development and utilization of Web sites by actors in this election was very wide. these could. which hampered utilization of the Internet by civil society. the 2004 EP election was a case of “using a second order medium in a second-order election” [5. political campaigns are still undertaken with the tried and true tools employed in media strategies [7]. somewhat more common were discussion forums allowing for contributions by site visitors. In rare.N. The researcher in Luxembourg stressed the ‘politics as usual’ character of the Web campaign and its unlikely contribution to increasing political engagement. For others. The political parties in some countries provided templates for use by their candidates. however. This was the case even in those countries (e. that role is primarily related to provision of information related to aspects of the election and only in a minor manner do political actors of any ideological calling provide opportunities for political discussion and action. Citizen sites related to the election usually came up last in terms of the number of sites identified and containing election-related content. such as Portugal. Such technical and organizational support probably contributed to the increased utilization of the Web by candidates in those countries. Other kinds of political action – offline distribution of campaign materials. In countries like Italy and Hungary. be found on press Web sites and a few party sites in the Netherlands. Political engagement For those sites with election related content. Some differentiations could be discerned in the characteristics of candidate and party sites. In Finland. indices were constructed for each of the countries from features reflecting the two components of political engagement – provision of information related to the election.W. the sites of parties and. almost deviant instances. In their words. marginal players in the online arena of this election. Other site producers were. In Luxembourg. 4. Large numbers of government sites were also identified in Hungary and Ireland.

W. Jankowski et al.036). RECENCY : recency of EU membership. political actors in the more populace countries (UK. These relations suggest.026 2. in other words. GDP.959 2. ACTION: list of issue positions held by political actor. distribute campaign-related materials offline. With regard to geopolitical location. Italy. bivariate correlations were computed. p = 0. information on the election campaign process. These two indices of political engagement were subsequently examined in relation to eight characteristics of the countries included in this study: recency of EU membership.569 5. see Table 2. percentage Internet users. / The Web and the 2004 EP election Table 1 Indices Political Engagement with EU Membership & Geopolitical Location Sum squares df Mean square F Sig. contribute to discussions on the site. No relation was found between the indices for information provision and political action and recency of EU membership. Further.015). provision of a calendar of events related to the election. that political actors in those countries with less GDP (e. engage in digital promotion about aspects of the election.116 Abbreviations: INFO: endorsement of candidate or party. donate to the campaign. and volunteer for campaign activities.026 0. Portugal) may provide more opportunities for political action on their sites than do actors in the wealthier countries included in this study.036 ACTION * GEOPOL 2.174 INFO * GEOPOL 1. For the remainder of the characteristics of the EU Member States. presentation of issue positions. a relation between the index for political action and three measures of the EU Member States: GDP (trend. GDP per capita. Slovenia. 7 items: endorsement of candidates. – Political action. No relation was found between information provision and the EU Member State characteristics. able to: join or become members of an organization involved in the election campaign.116 0.857 0. GEOPOL. 5.04): political actors in southern European countries tend to provide more information on their campaign sites than do actors in northern and eastern European countries.052 2 1.g. – Information provision.065). INFO * RECENCY 0. No relation was found between political action and geopolitical location. this analysis suggests a significant relation between information provision and the geopolitical location of the EU Member States (ACTION. The analysis does suggest.026 1 0.174 0. geopolitical location.159 0. make a public statement about a candidate or issue. An Anova analysis was performed for recency of EU membership and geopolitical location.959 1 0. GEOPOL: geopolitical region of Europe. comparison of election-related issues. and indices for political participation and democracy.2. p = 0. France) and those with higher indices of political participation (Italy) tend to facilitate political action on their sites more so than actors in the less populated countries and those with lower degrees of political participation. availability of speeches by candidates. receive email from the site.138 2 0. Discussion This exploratory study commenced with a generally formulated research question concerned about identifying the features of Web sites of political actors during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign that may contribute to the two components of political engagement: information provision and . 10 items. see Table 1. register to participate in the election. however. population (p = 0. and information on the voting process in the country studied.172 N. send a link from the site to another person. population.741 ACTION * RECENCY 0. F = 5.. and political participation (p = 0.

242 0.481 0.001 Notes: Pearson correlations indicated and significance calculated for one-tailed relations.404 −0.072 0.061 0.101 −0.071 0.036 0.470 0. GDP: Gross Domestic Product.167 0. but does suggest that political actors in some of the less economically and powerful EU Member States incorporated the Web into their strategies for promoting political action during the 2004 EP election.389 0.038 0.022 0.000 0.213 0. 0.145 0.038 1 −0.015 0.472 −0.109 0. 1 0. Although the evidence is not conclusive.020 0. She speculates further that more egalitarian patterns of competition may emerge with more opportunities for citizen participation. While there were good reasons to expect a high voter turnout. POP: Population of EU Member state. GDPPC: Gross Domestic Product per capita. 0.350 −0. −0.003 0. ∗ Pearson correlation significant at 0.003 GDPPC Corr. 0.200 0.239 −0.843∗∗ Sig.096 Sig.613∗ 0.096 0.456 0.118 0. DEMO: index of democratization.028 0.364 0.425 Sig.470 0.119 0. possibly mediated by cultural and contextual considerations.141 0. and manifested through the features developed by political actors on election campaign Web sites.015 0.471 Sig.109 0.016 0.561∗ 0.239 1 −0.322 −0.365 0. NET2 estimate Internet users divided by population. 0. for example.561∗ 1 0.386 0.282 0. suggests a balancing of resources among political actors thanks to the Internet.356 0.485 0. In addition. ACTION: index of political action.119 −0.237 0.158 −0.613∗ −0.625∗ 0.W.282 0. In an electoral campaign with more at stake and of interest to more political actors. 0. it is probable that other results would emerge than indicated in this study of the EP election campaign.267 0.267 −0.001 DEMO Corr.051 −0. EP elections have a history of limited attraction to voters for almost all EU Member States. political culture and contextual factors may have played a prominent role in the formation of this electoral Web sphere.407 0.407 0.167 0. For example.396 0.226 0.384 0. NET1: estimate of Internet users. parties.114 0.386 0.252 ACTION Corr.404 0. The study was inspired by various observations on the potential impact of the Internet on the political process.01 level (2-tailed).158 Sig.964∗∗ 1 −0.028 0.061 0.000 0.080 −0.430 0.237 0.020 0.065 0.481 0.096 0.472 1 0.240 0. 0. 0.765∗∗ Sig. results could be expected with greater presence of features on Web sites reflecting political engagement.650∗ 0.964∗∗ 0. And.562∗ 0. during the EU constitution referendum campaigns held in France and the Netherlands a year after the 2004 EP election. some of which seemed to be manifested on Web sites concerned with these referenda.322 1 0.118 −0.071 0.843∗∗ 1 Sig.213 0.009 0. 0.430 0.016 0.650∗ 0. 0.05 level (2-tailed). candidates and other interested actors in large numbers.765∗∗ −0. 0.489 0.080 −0. The EP election failed to capture the interest of voters.141 0.026 0.226 Sig. 0.364 0. PARTICIPATE: index of political participation.145 0. intense public debate took place.589∗ −0.051 0.022 0.114 0.036 0.200 0. INFO political action. 0.240 0. ∗∗ Pearson correlation significant at 0.036 0. such as public opposition to issues with environmental or economic consequences. Abbreviations: INFO: index of information provision. It seems plausible that the limited utilization of the Web during this election may be related to the nature of the event studied.441 0.242 −0. 0. / The Web and the 2004 EP election Table 2 Correlations: Indices Political Engagement & EU Member State Characteristics 173 INFO ACTION GDP GDPpc POP NET2 net1 PARTICI DEMO Corr.489 POP Corr.096 NET2 Corr. issue saliency may be critical for both promoting and achieving high levels of political engagement.384 0. many factors at the national level played a role in this pan-European election that contributed to the second order character of the event.101 −0.471 0.356 −0. during other non-electoral politically-related events.425 0.099 0. 0.099 0.252 0.456 0. 0.065 0.N. Norris [21].036 0. This initial exploration on the possible .321 0.396 0.589∗ 0.485 1 0.389 PARTICI Corr.009 Sig.441 0. This study does not test such transformation directly. Jankowski et al.350 0.562∗ 0.625∗ 0.321 NET1 Corr.026 0.072 GDP Corr. −0.365 0.

The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 1 (1996). Sage. culture. Foot and S. and attendees at the 2005 Association for Internet Researchers conference for comments made on earlier versions of the manuscript. Greenwich. Consalvo and M. Hacker and J. Cunha. K. Internet & Election Project.J. Resnick. Sage. in: Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice.org. Sage. From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures. R. Kluver. Kriesi and S. 391–401. Allen. Bonchek. New York. The Finnish 2004 EP electoral Web sphere. along with the experiences of those that make use of the sites for gaining information and engaging in politics. CT: JAI Press. . New York: Oxford University Press. particularly analysis of online discussions and avenues for political action. Foot. in: Internet research annual. Abramson. Cohen and J. 48–75. eds. Gonzales and D. in: Politics. the Oxford Internet Institute. 2005. Electoral Web sphere of 2004 national and European election in Luxembourg. B. Political culture in online politics. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] J. London. Online action in Campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the US political Web sphere. Chicago. 2005. longitudinal in design. and the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund. unpublished report. T. The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. Strandberg. Newbury Park. A. 2). (Vol. K. eds.S. Wainer Lusoli. Grassroots in cyberspace: Using computer networks to facilitate political participation.L. Politics as usual: The cyberspace revolution. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers. 1997. 2004. Further study. 1999. unpublished report. CA. 2004. Basic Books. Dougherty and K. Davis. N. Oxford University Press.F. B. Political identity and national myth: Toward an intercultural understanding of political legitimacy. Acknowledgements Data reported in this study were collected as part of the Internet & Elections project. R. Tanno. CA. The electronic commonwealth: The impact of new media technologies on democratic politics. Klandermans. Paper presented at 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. The Internet and political mobilization: Research note on the 1996 election season. Arterton et al. / The Web and the 2004 EP election facilitation of political engagement via the structure of Web site features among a wide range of political actors merits. Kies. New York. H. C. R. Jankowski et al. Social Science Computer Review 16(4) (1998). 2000. Glass. and communication: International and intercultural communication annual. London. On-line elections: The Internet’s impact on the political process. Carlson and K. M. van Dijk. 2000. F. pp. M. Such study should be supplemented by research that explores the intentions of Web site producers. Associations and democracy. Sage. 1995. Internet & Election Project.174 N.. pp. Bimber. Tarrow. New York. The Internet & Elections Project: Research design. 140–146. The project and this study were made possible through funding from the Asia-Europe Foundation. Campaigning online: The Internet in US elections. unpublished manuscript. van Selm. The nature of such discussion and action is at the heart of the concept political engagement and merits close examination. in other words. using software and procedures developed by WebArchivist. Jankowski and M. Newbury Park.C. unpublished report. M. 1995. Verso. Davis. R. eds. A. IL. The Portuguese 2004 EP electoral Web sphere. J. B. M. Such a research design may provide a richer empirical basis for determining the emerging role of the Web in European political life. 1988. 222–244. should extend beyond identification of Web site features and include substantive analysis of the content. 2005. Internet and Election Project. pp. Margolis and D. The Web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system.W. Rogers. 1998. Kluver. 149–165. replication during other elections and other political events. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46(2) (2002). 75–84. Bimber and R. 2003. Schneider.

Oldenburg. hangouts.M. S. W. 5. McAdam. Party Politics 9(1) (2003). Norris. R. 157–170. and cultural framings. Parliamentary Affairs 56 (2003). New Media & Society 6(1) (2004). Foot. 43–60. New York. S. Appendix 1: Coding Template for Web Site Features Note: instructions. Berg. S. Communications. Cambridge University Press. R. The great good place: Cafes. 1992. Politics East and West: A comparison of Japanese and British political culture. 1996. 21–45. Freeman. C. Oldenburg. H.W. 1. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.H. H. Online participation and mobilisation in Britain: Hype. or become members of the organization? Does the site enable visitors to register to participate in the election? Does the site provide an opportunity for a visitor to sign up to receive email from the site producer? . 19.A. mobilizing structures. Sharpe. 3. 7. and how they get you through the day. Schneider and K. 15. 2004. general stores. / The Web and the 2004 EP election [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 175 C. definitions and answer categories are not indicated. R. Oxford. Cambridge. Tsagarousianou. NY. McCarthy et al. 6. 1993. Stronach.N. Howard and S. beauty parlors. D. New York. The Web as an object of study. Electronic democracy: Rhetoric and reality. 2001.N. bars. M. P. Lusoli. coffee shops. 17. Preaching to the converted: Pluralism. Zelan and S. 16. ed. 2. history.. Rash.. 137–154. participation and party web sites. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities. Online structure for political action: Exploring presidential campaign Web sites from the 2000 American election. hope and reality. Paragon House. P. Foot. eds. 652–668. 4. Politics on the Nets: Wiring the political process. Harper. Delakorda. Javnost – The Public 9(2) (2002).D. 11. London. 8. Is this site codeable? Is the correct site producer type listed above? Does this site provide election-related content? Does this site provide a biography. S. Jankowski et al. Sage. K. Armonk. 1989. Schneider and K. J. Ward. New York. Web sphere analysis: An approach to studying online action. unpublished report. Foot. 14. 94–102. New York. R. information poverty and the Internet worldwide. or “About Us” section? Does the site provide endorsements for a candidate or party in an upcoming election? Does the site provide a list of issues positions held by a political actor? Does the site provide speeches by a candidate or party representatives? Does this site provide a calendar or list with prospective election-related events? Does the site provide comparison of issue positions of parties or candidates? Does the site provide information about the electoral campaign process in the country studied? Does the site provide information about the voting process in the country studied? Are there images on the site? Does the site provide audio or video files? Does the site provide a privacy policy? Does the site provide a terms of use statement? Does the site provide contact information for the site producer? Does the site provide opportunities for visitors to join. pp. Digital divide? Civic engagement. 2003. Jones. 12. 10. community centers. The European Journal of Communication Research 24(2) (1999). Schneider and K. in: Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet. New York. Schneider and K. 13. Internet & Elections Project. Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the “great good places” at the heart of our communities.A. Hine. Gibson and W.E. 2001. Foot. S. Cambridge University Press. The Slovene 2004 EP electoral Web sphere. P. Norris. Rheingold. Marlowe & Co. W. 1997. Martin and B.. Crisis communication & new media: The Web after September 11. pp. in: Society online: The Internet in context. 189–208. 2005. 18. 9.M.

/ The Web and the 2004 EP election 20. 21. 27. organization or voting in general? Does the site encourage visitors to volunteer for the electoral campaign? Does the site encourage visitors to become involved in the electoral campaign in any way other than the six previous questions have indicated? Is there content on the front page of the site related to the EU and/or to the 2004 EP election? Does the item contain announcement of EP election on front page? Does the item reference candidates for EP elections on the front page Does the item reference environmental policy on the front page Is the content on the site related to EU / EP content located elsewhere on the site (within two links from front page)? Are there EU/EP-related news items in the news section of this site? Is there content on the front page of the site related to youth? . party. 30.176 N. Are donations encouraged or enabled on or through this site? Can visitors to the site participate in an online forum or other communication space? Does the site encourage offline distribution of electoral campaign or election materials? Is there a feature that specifically enables a site visitor to send a link from this site to a friend? Is there a feature that encourages or enables a visitor to make a public statement supporting a political actor or issue? Does the site enable the user to engage in digital promotion of the electoral campaign. 23. 31. 26. Jankowski et al.W. 33. 29. 25. 22. 32. 24. 28.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->