Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sub-National Democracy and Politics Through Social Media pp 169–182Cite as

Small Is the New Big – At Least on Twitter: A Diachronic Study of Twitter Use during Two Regional Norwegian Elections

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 29))

Abstract

Launched in 2006, Twitter is now entering its second decade of existence. As such, the service can no longer be considered as ‘novel’, and researchers might find it suitable to adopt longitudinal or diachronic approaches to study its many applications. This study adopts the latter of the two mentioned research design principles in order to provide over-time insights into the field of online political communication. Guided by the equalization and normalization hypotheses, an analysis of the 2011 and 2015 Norwegian regional elections on Twitter is presented, focusing on how comparably larger or smaller political actors made use of the service at hand. Thus, the paper makes a contribution not only by means of its diachronic arrangement, but also since it goes beyond the often studied national level of politics. Results suggest that while larger actors were more visible on Twitter in 2015 than in 2011, their comparably smaller competitors prevail – at least in terms of getting attention on the service under scrutiny.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aardal, B., Krogstad, A., & Narud, H. M. (2004). I valgkampens hete: strategisk kommunikasjon og politisk usikkerhet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B. (2014). Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 130–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronstein, J. (2013). Like me!: Analyzing the 2012 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages. Online Information Review, 37(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A. (2011). How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323–1351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). #ausvotes - How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture, 44(2), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (2012). (Not) the Twitter election. Journalism Practice, 6(3), 384–402.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics : States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogburn, D. L., & Espinoza-Vasquez, F. K. (2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: examining the impact of web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, E. (2008). Hillary is my friend: MySpace and political fandom. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 4(2), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. (2004). Web campaigning from a global perspective. Asia-Pacific Review, 11(1), 95–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12107.

  • Gibson, R. K., Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Ward, S. J. (2003a). Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: A comparative analysis. Party Politics, 9(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., Römmele, A., & Ward, S. (2003b). German parties and internet campaigning in the 2002 federal election. German Politics, 12(1), 79–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giglietto, F., & Selva, D. (2014). Second screen and participation: A content analysis on a full season dataset of tweets. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 260–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2013). Social media and campaign 2012: Developments and trends for Facebook adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 31(5), 577–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifukor, P. (2010). “Elections” or “Selections”? Blogging and twittering the Nigerian 2007 general elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 398–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jürgens, P., & Jungherr, A. (2016). A tutorial for using Twitter data in the social sciences: Data collection, preparation, and analysis. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2710146.

  • Kalnes, Ø. (2009). Norwegian parties and Web 2.0. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koc-Michalska, K., Gibson, R., & Vedel, T. (2014). Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the web. 2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 220–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O. (2015). Studying big data – Ethical and methodological considerations. In H. Fossheim & H. Ingierd (Eds.), Internet research ethics (pp. 141–157). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O., & Ihlen, O. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30(6), 666–681.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2013). Representation or participation? Twitter use during the 2011 Danish election campaign. Javnost – The Public, 20(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2014). Triumph of the underdogs? Comparing Twitter use by political actors during two Norwegian election campaigns. SAGE Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014559015.

  • Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2016). From emerging to established? A comparison of twitter use during Swedish election campaigns in 2010 and 2014. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, A. O. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A. O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online – Identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4897.

  • Lilleker, D. G., & Jackson, N. A. (2010). Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet, 2(3), 67–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society, 30(4), 256–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual : The cyberspace “revolution”. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Wolfe, J. D. (1999). Party competition on the internet in the United States and Britain. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 4(4), 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., Resnick, D., & Levy, J. (2003). Major parties dominate, minor parties struggle. US elections and the internet. In R. Gibson, P. Nixon, & S. Ward (Eds.), Political parties and the internet: Net gain? (pp. 53–69). London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, H., & Larsson, A. O. (2012a). Methodological and ethical challenges associated with large-scale analyses of online political communication. Nordicom Review, 33(1), 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, H., & Larsson, A. O. (2012b). Twitterbruk under valgkampen 2011. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 19(2), 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. M. (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter's streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose. Paper presented at the the 8th International AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), 2–4 June 2013, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228

  • Raynauld, V., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Tweet, click, vote: Twitter and the 2010 Ottawa municipal election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(4), 412–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2012). Social media and political communication: A social media analytics framework. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 1277–1291.

    Article  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 General Conference, Pisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titcomb, J. (2016). Twitter’s growth screeches to a halt. The Telegraph, 10 February 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topolsky, J. (2016). The end of Twitter. The New Yorker, 29 January 2016. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-end-of-twitter.

  • Vaage, O. F. (2014). Norsk mediebarometer 2011. Oslo–Kongsvinger: Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway).

    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(4), 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (2015). What is Twitter’s new Periscope app? The Telegraph, 28 March 2015. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2015/12/010/what-is-twitters-new-periscope-app/.

  • Wright, S. (2011). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. (2014). A topology of Twitter research: Disciplines, methods, and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 250–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Westerdals Oslo School of Arts, Communication and Technology, Oslo, Norway

    Anders Olof Larsson

Authors
  1. Anders Olof Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Olof Larsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey

    Mehmet Zahid Sobacı

  2. Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey

    İbrahim Hatipoğlu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Larsson, A.O. (2018). Small Is the New Big – At Least on Twitter: A Diachronic Study of Twitter Use during Two Regional Norwegian Elections. In: Sobacı, M., Hatipoğlu, İ. (eds) Sub-National Democracy and Politics Through Social Media. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73386-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation