Download now: Semantic Polling: The Ethics of Online Public Opinion

Nick Anstead and Ben O'Loughlin have published LSE Policy Brief 5, 'Semantic Polling: The Ethics of Online Public Opinion'. The authors note the emergence of new forms of public opinion research based upon machine-reading of Twitter and other social media during the 2010 UK General Election. They argue that such research raises new ethical questions about the relation between parties, media and citizens. While a better understanding of what and how the public thinks might seem an intuitively good thing for democracy, it is unclear citizens realise their opinions are being monitored and reported back to them as 'public opinion' through news media coverage of elections. Traditional public opinion is regulated and subject to norms about transparency of data and reliability measures, but if public opinion is increasingly measured by private companies who guard their algorithms as intellectual property, journalists, regulators and citizens themselves have no way to check the results are valid or not simply made up.

These issues are only likely to become pressing as we look ahead to the use of semantic polling in the 2012 US Presidential Election. Anstead and O'Loughlin's paper is based on interviews with party campaign managers, pollsters, election regulators, journalists and social media marketing firms operating in the UK.

Has US political communication risen from the dead?

The 2012 International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention in San Diego this week was a good opportunity to test the state of US political communication. Studies of political communication in previous ISAs have been marked by an obsession with analyzing media content then extrapolating about how politics or IR works. The latest content analysis of the New York Times and Washington Post is presented as if this is a bellweather for public discourse. Comparing US elite press to the Guardian or even Le Monde is seen as a radical step, allowing for claims about “international” public discourse. Heavily conditioned by the quants-orientation of US political science, the focus is on mastering datasets. This will get you into the house journal. Students are encouraged to avoid looking at the effects of political communication – what difference did that elegant sample of New York Times editorials actually make to anything? - because it is “too complex” or involves talking to psychologists or sociologists. Just study texts – don’t talk to producers or consumers of political communication. Aim low, do normal science. Questions of power recede, as does the relevance and vitality of the whole enterprise.

This is a caricature, to an extent. Research in the US on information infrastructure, governance and political economy is lively and gets to the heart of explaining both how communication operates and the structures that condition it. At ISA this year it was encouraging to see the strides being made here. Amelia Arsenault explained how US firms and diplomats have locked-in South Africa’s media-political power relations by supplying both the regulatory model and technology, and created a productive contrast with J.P.Singh’s theorization of power diffusion. Craig Hayden’s work on digital diplomacy is reaching towards an explanation both ecological and historical that gets at motives, institutional pressures, contingency and everything else lying beyond texts.

Nevertheless, the normal science was still there. As one colleague said, now you don’t have to sample the New York Times to be a grown up political scientist; you sample twitter instead. Single-medium studies remain. There was a lot of counting. Nobody dared ask the So What? question. But more importantly, political communication cannot be a normal science today because all of its concepts have been exploded by the transformed media ecology. As my colleague Andrew Hoskins repeated so often at ISA he’s stopped coming, we do not live in the 1970s when there was a discrete set of news outlets and a public consuming them in predictable patterns. That era let us measure ‘exposure’ to media and allowed for simple models of ‘frames’ moving from politician through media to publics and up again. But how can you discern exposure to something environmental? How can you analyse the frames in all the thousands of media sources you consume everyday, how those frames interact, and the compound effect on political understandings? It is a dead end.

Michael X. Delli Carpini, Dean of the Anneberg School Pennsylvania, acknowledged this in 2009. He said, ‘we cannot gauge the positive or negative consequences of the new information environment on citizens’ attitudes and actions without first being able to accurately gauge what information (in the broadest sense of the word) people encounter’. And we can’t, even with Big Data tools, because some of this information is offline. Todd Gitlin wrote in 2003, ‘In some ways the very ubiquity of the mass media removes media as a whole system from the scope of positivist social analysis; for how may we “measure” the “impact” of a social force [i.e. mass media] which is omnipresent within social life and which has a great deal to do with constituting it?’

This is why European political communication turned to studies of mediatization and mediality in the 2000s. Mediatization asks how the logics of each medium (re its visuality, temporality, interactivity, controllability) penetrate political institutions and decision-making – indeed it comes from US theories of media logics in the 1970s that were pushed aside. The Scandinavians are good at this. Mediality is the equivalent of IR’s recent practice turn: can we discern the effects of everyday media exchanges and practices – how we use media rather than what is said? The Germans are good at this. And some US political communications experts are revisiting classic theories to see how they operate today: Lance Bennett’s work on the Logic of Connective Action springs to mind. These are more promising avenues since they let us re-conceptualise how media, power and politics work at a time of flux.  

These are broad strokes. Unimaginative content analysis is done in Europe and fascinating work on mediatization and mediality is being done by some US scholars. ISA this year seems to reflect a slight shift to the latter. Hopefully Arsenault, Hayden and Bennett’s work will gain traction and US political communication will rediscover its scope and ambition.  

Ben O'Loughlin, San Diego, 4 April.

Insight 2.0: The Future of Social Media Analysis, 27 April 2012

The NPCU is supporting the launch of a special conference and networking event on social media analysis entitled Insight 2.0: The Future of Social Media Analysis on Friday 27 April 2012 in central London. It is designed for everyone interested in the potential of social media data to stimulate data-driven discovery and decision-making in this hyper-connected digital era. 

For a limited time, until Monday 13 April, a special admission price for University affiliates of GBP 37 will be available. Please email lampofo@zero1events.com for the discount code. More information about the event including the programme can be found by visiting www.zero1events.com

The event will feature short, energetic talks from experts from the fields of psychology, political and security intelligence, gamification, big data and brand insight amongst others. 

Distinguished speakers include:

Kevin Anderson – The Guardian, Al-Jazeera

Pippa Norris – Ministry of Defence

Professor Martin Everett – University of Manchester

David Stillwell – University of Cambridge

Nathalie Nihai – The Web Psychologist

Alfred Rolington – Former CEO Jane’s Information Group, Oxford Analytica

Ben O'Loughlin and Nick Anstead - NPCU and LSE

For more information, please visit www.zero1events.com and Twitter @zero1events

Olympics@NPCU - Call for papers

Call for Papers - Olympics and the ‘isms’

Deadline 23 March 2012

Royal Holloway University of London, 20 July 2012

In summer 2012, London will host the XXX Olympic and XIV Paralympic Games.  As part of the Olympic Village, Royal Holloway provides a stimulating environment for a multidisciplinary dialogue that explores the tensions and contradictions within and between modern Olympic ideals and traditional ideologies (‘isms’). By seeking to sustain certain narratives and ideologies that precede the 21st century, the Olympics seemingly stands as an anomaly in our post/alter-modern times.

Following the Olympic idea of combining “a healthy body and a healthy mind”, we would like to invite contributions from athletes and academics to explore and problematise the framing of Olympics in the following binary logics:

  • Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism
    • What impact do the Games have on ‘cosmopolitan’ and ‘national’ narratives and identities?
  • Commercialism and Idealism
    • How does the commercialisation of the Games bear upon the political and ethical ideals underpinning our conceptions of sport generally and the Olympics in particular?
  • Amateurism and Professionalism
    • Is there a contradiction between the Olympic ideal of athletic amateurism and trends towards professionalism? How does this impact beyond the Games?

These are the ‘isms’ we are interested in, but we welcome additional ideas and contributions.

The morning session will follow a traditional conference format with speakers giving presentations followed by questions. The afternoon will be devoted to an interactive discourse analysis workshop in which we invite all participants to analyse selected Olympic-related texts, PR materials and media coverage. The results of this analysis will contribute towards a paper evaluating the discourse surrounding the Games. This, together with a selection of papers from the morning session, will be put forward for publication in a special issue of a journal.

If you are interested in taking part at this conference, please contact us with a 300 word abstract at olympismconference@gmail.com  by 23rd March 2012.

O’Loughlin at GCHQ - Cyber Security: Lacunae of Strategy

On 31 January 2012 a workshop will be held at King’s College London for GCHQ on the theme, ‘Cyber Security: Lacunae of Strategy’. The UK’s cyber security strategy seems to build upon ideas evident in Foreign Secretary William Hague’s recent speeches. In November 2011 he stated:

Our vision is for the UK in 2015 to derive huge economic and social value from a vibrant, resilient and secure cyberspace, where our actions, guided by our core values of liberty, fairness, transparency and the rule of law, enhance prosperity, national security and a strong society.

(UK Cyber Security Strategy: Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World)

This suggests the trade-offs any national cybersecurity strategy faces, not least how security policy should not impinge upon democracy, liberty or other ‘core values’. Meanwhile there is a lack of conceptual clarity, with cyber war, crime and security often being used interchangeably, and a recurring difficulty among policymakers of how to conceive of ‘cyberspace’ given its social and technical character.

Ben O’Loughlin and Andrew Hoskins will talk about how strategy can be organized and communicated in these conditions, conditions they have theorized as ‘diffused war’. Other speakers include Thomas Rid, Richard Clayton and Tim Jordan.

Strategic Narratives working paper published

The working paper 'Forging the World: Strategic Narratives and International Relations' is available to download here. It is authored by Alister Miskimmon, Ben O'Loughlin and Laura Roselle, and is based on the International Studies Association (ISA) South keynote delivered by Miskimmon and O'Loughlin at Elon University, US, in October 2011.

This is a paper aimed at both scholars and policymakers. Comments to the authors are very welcome. They plan to publish the first book on Strategic Narratives in late 2012.

Andrew Chadwick: Newly-Published Article in "Connecting Democracy"

My 2009 journal article, “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance,” which originally appeared in I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5 (1), pp. 9-41, has now been reprinted in Stephen Coleman’s and Peter Shane’s excellent new edited volume, Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication (MIT Press). My chapter has been revised very slightly, but it is essentially the same as the 2009 version.

Connecting Democracy is the culmination of a three-year project in which I participated: the International Working Group on Online Consultation and Public Policymaking. This was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and it was steered superbly by Peter and Stephen through our several meetings—in March 2007 at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, in November 2007 at the University of Leeds, in March 2008 at The Ohio State University, in November 2008 at the Aspen Institute in Washington, D.C., and in April 2009 at Sciences Po in Paris, France.

Links:

MIT site, with more information and sample chapters.

U.S. Amazon.

U.K. Amazon.

The full citation for the reprinted article is: Andrew Chadwick (2012) “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance” in Coleman, S. and Shane, P (eds) Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp. 45–75.

2012-02-21: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Speaking on his Major New Book, "Ground Wars"

Screenshot

Date: February 21, 2012.
Time: 5.15–6.30 p.m.
Location: Founders West FW101.
All Welcome!

Ground Wars: Personalized Political Communication in American Campaigns

American elections today are won or lost in the so-called ground war—the strategic deployment of teams of staffers, volunteers, and paid part-timers who work the phones and canvass block by block, house by house, voter by voter to sway the undecided and turn out the base. Faced with a changing communication environment, characterized by audience fragmentation, an increasingly strained attention economy, and a certain desensitization to traditional mass-mediated appeals, campaigns have increasingly turned to “personalized political communication”—the use of people as media for political communication.

Today, both candidate campaigns, the two major parties, and interest groups spend millions of dollars on new technologies for targeting voters and combine them with increasingly intense old-fashioned efforts to mobilize and organize volunteers and paid part-timers, all to be able to contact millions of people at home—43% percent of all voters reported being contacted in person in 2008, and we will see equally intense ground war operations in the 2012 electoral cycle.

Drawing on extensive ethnographic research in two congressional districts in 2008, I will show how American campaigns employ personalized political communication to engage with the electorate. I will argue that the resurgence of labor-intensive and seemingly old-fashioned campaign techniques like canvassing gives campaigns a renewed incentive to try to mobilize people to take part in campaigns. This stimulates increased levels of political participation even as the orientation of personalized political communication towards marginal voters reinforces existing tendencies to cater primarily to the most polarized and/or lethargic elements of the electorate.

Dr Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is research fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford and assistant professor at Roskilde University in Denmark.

Princeton University Press Website
Amazon

PhD Success for New Political Communication Unit Students

Two doctoral students at the New Political Communication Unit have successfully defended their theses and been awarded PhDs in the last few weeks.

On 15 December Christopher Boerl was awarded his PhD for a thesis entitled, "A Kingdom Divided: New Media, the Fragmentation of Evangelical Cultural Values, and U.S. Politics". This is a wonderful success for Christopher, who first joined us from the United States in 2006 as a Masters student, before going on to register for his PhD in September 2007. His PhD was supervised by Professor Andrew Chadwick.

On 20 December Lawrence Ampofo was awarded his PhD for a thesis entitled, "Terrorism 3.0: Understanding Perceptions of Technology, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Spain". This is again a tremendous achievement by Lawrence, who enrolled as a part-time PhD in September 2007 and has been running his own social media research company. His PhD was supervised by Professor Ben O'Loughlin.

Congratulations to both!

Here are the abstracts to the two theses:

Boerl: A Kingdom Divided: New Media, the Fragmentation of Evangelical Cultural Values, and U.S. Politics

Religious movements are a powerful force in politics, but there is no research that analyzes the relationship between new communication technologies and Christian political mobilization in the United States. In addressing this deficit, this thesis has three interrelated aims. First, beginning from an analysis of social capital, civic engagement and mobilization, it provides a historical overview of the U.S. evangelical community and its rise as a dominant cultural and political force. It argues that changing social norms provided the conditions for a strong reactionary religious movement to take root, while the social effects of broadcast media helped to concentrate evangelical energies on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and school prayer. Second, this thesis develops an understanding of the impact of the Internet upon evangelical organizations based on original research and fieldwork. It demonstrates that in contrast to the effects of broadcast media, which served largely to unify evangelical cultural attitudes, the Internet is instead a source of significant theological fragmentation and political pluralization. By serving as a conduit through which dissident religious elements are better able to connect, organize, and mobilize, the Internet is revealed to be a powerful tool for movements such as “creation care” and the “emerging church,” which in years past have been unable to gather significant cultural strength due to the limitations of prevailing communication infrastructures. Collectively, these movements have emerged as a source of considerable unrest and internal religious division. Finally, this thesis discusses the political and electoral implications of a fragmented evangelical community and the ways in which the U.S. Democratic Party may capitalize on these developments.

Ampofo: Terrorism 3.0: Understanding Perceptions of Technology, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Spain

This thesis tests the hypothesis that the availability of new technologies increases the capacities of terrorist and counter-terrorist agencies to achieve their communication objectives. The research question examined within this thesis focuses on the nature and extent to which terrorist or counter-terrorist organisations’ narratives affected the attitudes and behaviours of various Spanish-language audiences. This is analysed through an exploration of policy documents, event analyses, elite interviews, and internet research methods adapted by the author. The data illuminate the shifting understandings of communities of policymakers, journalists, activists and publics during the 2004 to 2011 period, and is the first such study undertaken in Spain. Five themes within the empirical data are examined closely: the relation of terrorism in Spain to immigration, the formation of narratives in relation to understandings of terrorism, terrorism and cybercrime within Spain, the nature of communities in relation to understandings of terrorism and terrorism in Spain in relation to public reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden. The hypothesis is derived from: the theses of Bobbitt (2008) and Barnett (2005) concerning technology’s role in the changing character of the state and terrorist organisations; research from terrorism studies literature concerning the role of technology in terrorist radicalisation, recruitment and communication; and public diplomacy studies that suggest political organisations should be able to communicate effectively to domestic and overseas publics through digital campaigns and initiatives. The main findings are: (i) the availability of technologies has not brought concomitant success for government or terrorist communication strategies; (ii) government narratives were not considered persuasive by general online users, refuting top-down communication models and raising questions about trust and credibility; (iii) online communities wish to engage and may contain key influencers who could be conduits or gatekeepers for government or terrorist narratives; (iv) terrorist organisations now have greater capacity to operationalise visibility and / or invisibility within their strategies; and (v) partly independent phenomena such as immigration and terrorism have been conflated or ‘commensurated’ into one ‘nexus’ of concern by Spanish policymakers and publics. The thesis considers how Web 3.0 is likely to bear upon these relationships, and recommends that counter-terrorist practitioners conduct further multilingual internet research into the attitudes and behaviours of online users and communities, especially the Spanish diaspora, in relation to terrorism to explore ways that communities can be co-opted into future counter-terrorism strategies in light of the development of Web 3.0 technologies. Such research could provide greater understanding of the nature of terrorism online, as well as new techniques of conducting strategic communications.