The EU Parliament on Twitter—Assessing the Permanent Online Practices of Parliamentarians

REFERENCES

• Ameripour, A., Nicholson, B., & Newman, M. (2010). Conviviality of Internet social networks: An exploratory study of Internet campaigns in Iran. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 244–257.
   Google Scholar
• Anduiza, E., Cantijoch, M., & Gallego, A. (2009). Political participation and the Internet: A field essay. Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 860–878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ausserhofer, J., & Maireder, A. (2013). National politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, T. P., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beevolve (2012). An exhaustive study of Twitter users across the world. Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.beevolve.com/twitter-statistics/
   Google Scholar
• Bekafigo, M. A., & McBride, A. (2013). Who tweets about politics? Political participation of Twitter users during the 2011 gubernatorial elections. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 625–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentivegna, S. (2006). Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs. European Journal of Communication, 21(3), 331–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. A., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: the Internet in U.S. elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenthal, S. (1980). The Permanent campaign: Inside the world of elite political operatives. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brugger, N. (2012). Historical network analysis of the Web. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 306–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., & Stieglitz, S. (2012). Quantitative approaches to comparing communication patterns on Twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4), 160–185.
   Google Scholar
• Calenda, D., & Meijer, A. (2009). Young people, the Internet, and political participation: Findings of a Web survey in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 879–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, T. (2007). It’s a man’s world? Male and female election campaigning on the Internet. Journal of Political Marketing, 6(1), 41–67.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, T., & Strandberg, K. (2008). Riding the Web 2.0 wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish national elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(2), 159–174.
   Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing e-democracy back in: Why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2010). Twitter adoption in Congress. Review of Network Economics, 10(1), 1–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, H. S., & Bengtsson, Å. (2011). The political competence of Internet participants: Evidence from Finland. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Shane, P. M. (2012). Connecting democracy: Online consultation and the flow of political communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Paper presented at the AAAI-11: Twenty-Fifth Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2007). The technological development of congressional candidate Web sites. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 425–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enjolras, B., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Wollebaek, D. (2012). Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations: Transcending participatory divides? New Media & Society, 15, 890–908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, D. (1996). Campaign strategies and tactics. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing Democracies (pp. 160–183). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. (2004). Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review, 11(1), 95–126.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., & Römmele, A. (2001). Changing campaign communications: A party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6(4), 31–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. K., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2008). Nationalizing and normalizing the local? A comparative analysis of online candidate campaigning in Australia and Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(4), 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Giglietto, F., Rossi, L., & Bennato, D. (2012). The open laboratory: Limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a research data source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4), 145–159.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van ‘t Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. (2012). Becoming a Tweep. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 680–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Shaw, A. (2013). Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of Internet skills and engagement in young adults’ political participation around the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 115–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermans, L., & Vergeer, M. (2012). Personalization in e-campaigning: A cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used on candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society, 15, 72–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, C.-L., Park, S. J., & Park, H. W. (2013). Political discourse among key Twitter users: The case of Sejong City in South Korea. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia,12, 65–79.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. G. (2009). Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 232–250.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. J., Danziger, J. N., & Venkatesh, A. (2007). Civil society and cyber society: The role of the Internet in community associations and democratic politics. The Information Society: An International Journal, 23(1), 39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, K. F. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kalnes, Ø. (2009). Norwegian parties and Web 2.0. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 251–266.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, M., & Strömbäck, J. (2010). Freezing the flow of online news: Exploring approaches to the study of the liquidity of online news. Journalism Studies, 11, 2–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. Y., Painter, D. L., & Miles, M. D. (2013). Campaign agenda-building online: The effects of online information source and interactivity on affective evaluations and the salience of the election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 326–340.
   Google Scholar
• King, J. L. (1982). Local government use of information technology: The next decade. Public Administration Review, 42(1), 25–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinger, U. (2013). Mastering the art of social media. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 717–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O. (2011). “Extended infomercials” or “Politics 2.0”? A study of Swedish political party Web sites before, during and after the 2010 election. First Monday, 16(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3456/2858
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O. (2013). “Rejected bits of program code”: Why notions of “Politics 2.0” remain (mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 72–85.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Kalsnes, B. (2014). “Of course we are on Facebook”: Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 653–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2012). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2013a). Representation or participation? Twitter use during the 2011 Danish election campaign. Javnost—The Public, 20(1), 71–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2013b). Twitter in politics and elections: Insights from Scandinavia. In A. Bruns, J. Burgess, K. Weller, C. Puschmann, & M. Mahrt (Eds.), Twitter and Society (pp. 319–330). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A. O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online—Identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4897
   Google Scholar
• Lilleker, D. G., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E. J., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., & Vedel, T. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilleker, D. G., & Malagón, C. (2010). Levels of interactivity in the 2007 French presidential candidates’ websites. European Journal of Communication, 25(1), 25–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilleker, D. G., & Negrine, R. (2002). Professionalization: Of what? Since when? By whom? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(4), 98–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisi, M. (2013). The professionalization of campaigns in recent democracies: The Portuguese case. European Journal of Communication, 28, 259–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). Divergent trends of euroscepticism in countries and regions of the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 49(6), 787–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: “The cyberspace revolution. ” London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. (2013). The differential role of the media as an agent of political socialization in Europe. European Journal of Communication, 28(3), 309–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, C. (2005). Brand leaders: Clinton, Blair and the limitations of the permanent campaign. Political Studies, 53, 343–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2000a). The Internet in Europe: a new North–South divide? The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(1), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ornstein, N., & Mann, T. (2000). The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Otterbacher, J., Shapiro, M. A., & Hemphill, L. (2013). Interacting or just acting? A case study of European, Korean, and American politicians’ interactions with the public on Twitter. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 12(1), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Porten-Cheé, P. (2013). The use of party websites and effects on voting: The case of the European parliamentary elections in Germany in 2009. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 310–325.
   Google Scholar
• Pujazon-Zazik, M., & Park, M. J. (2010). To tweet, or not to tweet: Gender differences and potential positive and negative health outcomes of adolescents’ social Internet use. American Journal of Men’s Health, 4(1), 77–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puopolo, S. T. (2001). The Web and U.S. senatorial campaigns 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2030–2047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (2001). The digital divide. Convergence, 7(4), 96–111.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2005). Election campaigning online: German party websites in the 2002 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 20(3), 327–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2008). Innovation or normalization in e-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 23(4), 449–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2009). Europeanisation on the Internet? The role of German party websites in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. Observatorio, 3(3), 20–40.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2011). Normalization 2.0: A longitudinal analysis of German online campaigns in the national elections 2002–9. European Journal of Communication, 26(4), 310–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandberg, K., & Carlson, T. (2007). From novelty to necessity? The evolution of candidate web campaigning in Finland 1999–2007. Paper presented at the 4th ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research) General Conference, Pisa, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Strömbäck, J. (2007). Political marketing and professionalized campaigning. Journal of Political Marketing, 6(2–3), 49–67.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenscher, J. (2013). First- and second-order campaigning: Evidence from Germany. European Journal of Communication, 28(3), 241–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Election forecasts with Twitter: How 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 402–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccari, C. (2008a). Research note: Italian parties’ websites in the 2006 elections. European Journal of Communication, 23(1), 69–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccari, C. (2008b). Surfing to the Elysee: The Internet in the 2007 French elections. French Politics, 6(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Os, R., Jankowski, N. W., & Vergeer, M. (2007). Political communication about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states. European Societies, 9(5), 755–775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M. (2012). Politics, elections and online campaigning: Past, present … and a peek into the future. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444812457327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 399–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Cunha, C. (2012). Web campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections: A cross-national comparative analysis. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444812457337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011a). Is the voter only a tweet away? Micro-blogging during the 2009 European Parliament election campaign in the Netherlands. First Monday, 16(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3540/3026
   Google Scholar
• Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011b). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R., & Lo, V.-H. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, C. B., & Gulati, G. J. J. (2012). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444812457332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. (2011). Playing with politics: Political fans and Twitter faking in post-broadcast democracy. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 17(4), 445–461.
   Google Scholar