Matthew Glassman

Congressional social media communications: evaluating Senate Twitter usage

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand why some Senators choose to use Twitter more frequently than others. Building on past research, which explored causal factors leading to early congressional adoption, theories about why some Senators use Twitter more frequently in their daily communications strategies are developed. Design/methodology/approach A “power user” score was developed by evaluating each Senator’s clout, interactivity, and originality on Twitter. These scores are then used as the dependent variable in a regression model to evaluate which factors influence Senators becoming Twitter “power users.” Findings The study found that: constituent income is positively correlated with heavy use, but constituent education level is not; the more ideological a Senator is the more he or she will be a Twitter power user; the number of days on Twitter is a significant indicator of advanced Twitter usage; and having staff dedicated to social media is positively correlated with being a Twitter power user. Research limitations/implications All Senators in the second session of the 113th Congress (2014) were evaluated. As such, future research hope to expand the data set to additional Senators or the House of Representatives. Practical implications A better understanding of why some Senators use Twitter more than others allows insight into constituent communications strategies and the potential implications of real-time communication on representation, and the role of accountability between a Senator and his or her constituents. Originality/value The study examines constituent communication by Senators in a new, more interactive medium than previously considered. Additionally, the study places findings about Senator’s constituent communication in the broader context of representation.

Theriault, Sean M. The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress.

to coalition build around women’s issues; another is occasionally being given prominence in party messaging. The barriers appear to come from those female members who assume that too much activism on women’s issues will harm their reputations as power players in the Senate. Female members also organize their offices and prioritize their activities to overcome the perception that they are not sufficiently “tough.” For the most part, they attempt to balance a special concern for bringing gendered aspects of legislation to the deliberation process with other actions to prevent them from being perceived primarily as “women senators.” Women in the Club substantially advances our knowledge of the ways in which gender matters in the legislative process. Thanks to Professor Swers’ expertly written and researched book, we now have evidence that, without the increasing presence of female senators, much less attention would have been given to public policy issues that especially affect women. Moreover, the gender impact on other proposed legislation would not have been part of the deliberation process in the U.S. Senate in the absence of these female members. Despite the fact that women have reached a critical mass in the U.S. Senate, questions still remain about their overall impact on the institution’s masculine and polarized nature, as well as on legislative outcomes. For example, Swers shows that female senators cosponsor more amendments in the area of troop benefits in the defense authorization process. But to what extent have these amendments been voted on and implemented? Further research would fruitfully examine legislative outcomes. Strategically using female senators to advertise a party message, as Swers highlights, does nothing to lessen the polarization which characterizes the contemporary Congress. Most important, what impact have women in the Senate had regarding institutional change? Feminist institutionalists may build on Professor Swers’ work to consider this question in the future for even broader reflections on gender, representation and policy making.