Kim Strandberg

Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections

ABSTRACT This article seeks to expand the research on the adoption of social networking Web sites in electoral politics beyond the U.S. by exploring the use and impact of the YouTube video-sharing Web site in the 2007 Finnish national elections. Focusing on uploaded videos featuring candidates, the study shows that YouTube played a marginal role in the elections. Only 6% of the candidates disseminated YouTube videos. Online, the videos did not generally attract much public interest. However, the study also demonstrates that YouTube gave a voice to certain minor electoral players and ordinary citizens in the elections. The findings are compared with scholarly observations from the 2006 U.S. midterm elections—the first “YouTube elections.”

Online Deliberation and Its Outcome—Evidence from the Virtual Polity Experiment

ABSTRACT In this article, findings are presented from a pilot experiment carried out online via a platform designed specifically for citizen deliberation. The purpose of the experiment was to assess how online deliberation works in practice and also to test several hypotheses concerning the effects of taking part in an online deliberation has on participants. Additionally, an examination is made to ascertain whether a variation in the deliberative procedure affects the outcome. The findings show that carrying out an online deliberation has its problems—especially technical ones. Moreover, the effects of deliberation are somewhat modest. Knowledge gains and opinion changes were indeed traced, but regarding other potential effects, only a few significant changes were found. The article also comes up with some recommendations regarding the organization of online discussions.

Designing for democracy?: an experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums with those of online discussions in a forum designed according to deliberative principles

Democratic theorists often envision public deliberation as being essential to the working of democracy. Several scholars have also highlighted a potential for realising such deliberations on the internet. Consequentially, an emerging array of experiments in online deliberation has now been developed to achieve online discussions, which would be beneficial for democracy. However, few studies have yet attempted to compare the outcomes of online mini-publics to online citizens’ discussions in general. This article, thus, concerns an online experiment carried out in 2013 with the purpose of examining whether, and under which conditions, forums designed according to deliberative principles produce better ‘democratic outcomes’ – such as coherence of opinions, increased efficacy, trust, and propensity for civic participation – than online citizens’ discussions, which are ‘left to their own devices’. The study applies a post-test only, 2×2 factorial design, with a control group. In total, N =70 participants taking part in the experiment. The findings indicate that the effects of designing for deliberation were generally positive, albeit not for all of the democratic outcomes. In addition, methodological issues of relevance for the internal and external validity of the current experiment, which could be of relevance for future studies, are also brought forth.

Taking Risks in Social Media Campaigning: The Early Adoption of Blogging by Candidates

This article concerns whether and how political candidates adopt social media in their election campaigns. For campaigns, the openness and interactivity of social media tools bring about risks in terms of losing control over the message. Departing from a cost-benefit perspective, this study addresses the question as to whether certain groups of candidates – differing in incumbency status, party type, gender, generation and urbanization level of the constituency – are more prone to adopt and utilize new social media tools and practices. In order to study how candidates approach social media in an early stage when the benefits are uncertain and the risks are apparent, candidate blogging in the 2007 Finnish national elections is examined. The findings show that the candidates generally were not ready to pursue the full potential of blogs and thereby to accept the risks associated with this open, interactive and personalized way of campaigning. Rather, the candidates took a cautious approach by not engaging extensively in the social media features and practices. However, female candidates and candidates not representing major parties were more likely to utilize a broader range of social media features and practices. The study adds support to the claim that campaigns do not simply adopt and utilize novel social media tools with the purpose of being innovative; they assess risks, costs and benefits. Social media do not alter the basic need of campaigns to control the message and to avoid stress in the campaign organization.

Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization

In today’s society, we can easily connect with people who share our ideas and interests. A problem with this development is that political reasoning in like-minded groups easily becomes lop-sided since there is little reason to critically examine information that everyone seems to agree with. Hence, there is a tendency for groups to become more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. We designed an experiment to test whether introducing deliberative norms in like-minded discussions can alleviate such group polarization. Based on their attitudes toward a linguistic minority, participants were divided into a positive and a negative opinion enclave. Within the two enclaves, the participants were randomly assigned to group discussions either with or without deliberative norms. Both face-to-face and online discussions were arranged. We found that free discussion without rules led to group polarization in like-minded groups, whereas polarization could be avoided in groups with deliberative norms.

Mapping the Online Campaign Audience: An Analysis of Online Participation and Its Mobilizing Potential in the 2011 Finnish Parliamentary Campaign

Abstract This article analyzes Internet use in conjunction with the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election. The aim was to examine online participation and aspects of its mobilizing potential by studying both the extent and the ways citizens used the Internet for participatory activities. The analysis utilizes survey data from the Finnish National Election Study survey. The findings show that a certain group of citizens uses the Internet in a broad and expressive way. This use is also reflected in how they participate online and offline, as well as how they form the informational basis for their voting choices. Moreover, to some extent, use of the Internet also appears to indirectly mobilize citizens beyond the Internet.

Expanding the Online Political Demos but Maintaining the Status Quo? Internet and Social Media Use by Finnish Voters Prior to Elections, 2003–15

Though reinforcement/mobilisation theories regarding the impact of the Internet on citizens’ political engagement are predictive, there are few longitudinal studies on how the profile of the citizens using the Internet for political purposes has changed and how this relates to such theoretical perspectives. Using survey data from four Finnish parliamentary elections, 2003–15, this longitudinal study examines the evolution of the predictors of belonging to the segment of citizens who extensively engage in searching for political information online during the elections. Additionally, the research longitudinally studies the evolution of the drivers of citizens deeming online sources as important for informing their voting decisions. In light of demographic and resource-based traits, a mobilisation trend is detected across time in the analyses. As to factors concerning attitudes and orientation to politics, however, a more evident reinforcement trend has emerged. These patterns are also evident when examining social media engagement through searching for political information during campaigns. Although the Internet and social media are becoming important for a demographically increasingly diverse group of citizens, especially the young, it is those already predisposed for doing so who have, over time, engaged politically to an increasing degree through these channels.

Impact of Temporality and Identifiability in Online Deliberations on Discussion Quality: An Experimental Study

There is a perception that citizen deliberation brings about higher-quality discussions than discussions where deliberative norms are not used. Often, deliberations are realised in mini-publics in which certain contextual features ensure, a priori, that the discussions are likely to be of a high quality. However, few studies have as yet explored the boundaries of deliberation; that is, contemplated what happens to discussion quality if the ideal-speech situation is strayed away from. To address this point, this article reports on an online experiment in which the discursive setting of citizen deliberations is manipulated. The experiment (n = 50 participants) was carried out online in Finland in November 2013 in order to test the impact on discussion quality related to two factors: the temporality (asynchronous or synchronous discussions) and identifiability of participants (known or anonymous) in an online deliberation. The findings clearly indicate that asynchronous discussions have the most positive influence on discussion quality. Moreover, the identifiability factor only had a small weak influence on discussion quality, and there was only one weak interaction effect between the two factors.