바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
 
 

logo

E-ISSN : 2383-9449

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.12 No.1

PDF Citation Share

Interacting or Just Acting? -A Case Study of European, Korean, and American Politicians' Interactions with the Public on Twitter

Interacting or Just Acting? -A Case Study of European, Korean, and American Politicians' Interactions with the Public on Twitter

Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia / Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, (E)2383-9449
2013, v.12 no.1, pp.5-20
https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2013.12.1.005
Otterbacher, Jahna (Illinois Institute of Technology)
Shapiro, Matthew A. (Illinois Institute of Technology)
Hemphill, Libby (Illinois Institute of Technology)
Otterbacher, Jahna, Shapiro, Matthew A., & Hemphill, Libby. (2013). Interacting or Just Acting? -A Case Study of European, Korean, and American Politicians' Interactions with the Public on Twitter. , 12(1), 5-20, https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2013.12.1.005

Abstract

Social media holds the potential to facilitate vertical political communication by giving citizens the opportunity to interact directly with their representatives. However, skeptics claim that even when politicians use "interactive media," they avoid direct engagement with constituents, using technology to present a façade of interactivity instead of a genuine dialogue. This study explores how elected officials in three regions of the world are using Twitter to interact with the public. Using the Twitter activity of 15 officials over a period of six months, we show that in addition to the structural features of Twitter that are designed to promote interaction, officials rely on language to foster or to avoid engagement. We also provide evidence that the existence of interactive features does not guarantee interactivity.

keywords

참고문헌

1.

Bimber, Bruce. (1998). The Internet and Political Mobilization: Research Note of the 1996 Elec-tion Season. Social Science Computer Review, 16(4), 391-401. 10.1177/089443939801600404.

2.

Braghiroli, Stefano. Politicians Online! MEP ommunication Strategies in the Internet Era, EPIN Working Paper No. 29.

3.

Delli arpini, Michael X.. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, ivic Engagement, and the New Information Environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349. 10.1080/10584600050178942.

4.

Downes, Edward J. and Sally J. McMillan. (2000). Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identifi-cation of Key Dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2), 157-179. 10.1177/14614440022225751.

5.

Giles, David. (2002). Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305. 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04.

6.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

7.

Hemphill, Libby,JahnaOtterbacher and Matthew A. Shapiro. (2013). What's ongress doing on Twitter? . Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2013).

8.

Hyland, Ken. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Dis-course. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. 10.1177/1461445605050365.

9.

Jankowski, Nicholas W., Kirsten Foot, Randy Kluver andSteve Schneider. (2005). The Web and the 2004 EP Election: Comparing Political Action Web Sites in 11 EU Member States. Information Polity, 10, 165-176.

10.

Kiousis, Spiro. (2002). Interactivity: A oncept Explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355-383. 10.1177/146144480200400303.

11.

Levy, Mark R.. (1979). Watching TV News as Para-social Interaction. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 69-80. 10.1080/08838157909363919.

12.

Lilleker, Darren G.,Karolina Koc-Michalska, Eva Johanna Schweitzer, Michal Jacunski, Nigel Jackson andThierry Vedel. (2011). Informing, Engaging, Mobilizing or Interacting: Search-ing for a European Model of Web ampaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195-213. 10.1177/0267323111416182.

13.

Lilleker, Darren G. and asildaMalagon. (2010). Levels of Interactivity in the 2007 French Presi-dential andidates' Websites. European Journal of Communication, 25(1), 25-42. 10.1177/0267323109354231.

14.

McMillan, Sally J., ed. Leah A. Lievrouw and Sonia Livingstone. Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents and Systems, The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Con-sequences of ICTs.

15.

McMillan, Sally J.. (2002). A Four-part Model of Cyber-interactivity: Some Places are more In-teractive than Others. New Media & Society, 14(2), 271-291.

16.

Norland, Jan-Erik. (1978). Media Interaction. Communication Research, 5, 150-175. 10.1177/009365027800500202.

17.

Rafaeli, Sheizaf. (1990). Interacting with Media: Para-social Interaction and Real Interaction. Mediation, Information, and Communication: Information and Behavior, 3, 125-181.

18.

Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Fay Sudweeks. (1997). Networked Interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).

19.

Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

20.

Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. (2000). On-line Interaction and why andidates Avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111-132. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x.

21.

Stromer-Galley, Jennifer and Kirsten A. Foot. (2002). itizen Perceptions of Online Interactivity and Implications for Political ampaign ommunication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1).

22.

Van Dijk, Jan. The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media.

Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

논문 투고 OA 정책