Congressional social media communications: evaluating Senate Twitter usage
| Pages | 643-659 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0334 |
| Published date | 12 September 2016 |
| Date | 12 September 2016 |
| Author | Jacob R. Straus,Raymond T. Williams,Colleen J. Shogan,Matthew E. Glassman |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Bibliometrics,Databases,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet,Records management & preservation,Document management |
Congressional social media
communications: evaluating
Senate Twitter usage
Jacob R. Straus
Congressional Research Service, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Raymond T. Williams
Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland, USA, and
Colleen J. Shogan and Matthew E. Glassman
Congressional Research Service, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Abstract
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”scorewas developed by evaluating eachSenator’s
clout, interactivity, and originalityon Twitter. These scores are thenused 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.
Keywords Social media, Congress, Communications, Representation, Constituent service,
United States Senate
Paper type Research paper
Three days prior to Barack Obama’s second inauguration, Twitter issued a press
release declaring victory. As of January 18, 2013, all 100 US Senators had a Twitter
account (Sharp, 2013)[1]. Twitter could reasonably claim that it had h elped
revolutionize how Members of Congress communicate with constituents, the general
public, and even each other. But beyond the headline, important questions remained:
adoption aside, how widespread is Twitter use in the Senate? Is there significant
variation in Twitter use among Senators? Are there political or demographic
characteristics of Senators or their states that explain such variation in social media
engagement? This paper takes initial steps to answer these questions.
Online Information Review
Vol. 40 No. 5, 2016
pp. 643-659
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0334
Received 28 October 2015
Revised19February2016
Accepted 26 February 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm
643
Senate
Twitter usage
Why would political scientists care about Twitter use among US Senators? One
reasons scholars of Congress should be interested in social media usage is its potential
for changing norms of representation. In previous decades, representation imposed real
costs on both constituents and legislators. Citizens contacted representatives primarily
by postal mail or telephone. Informing a representative about an opinion was not free.
With the advent of social media and its widespread use among Members and Senators,
the cost of such contact has diminished greatly. This transformation has the potential
to change models of representation in significant ways.
In her landmark study, Jane Mansbridge outlined four categories of representation
(2003). Her new models provided more robust descriptions of representation than the
previous “mandate”and “trustee”dichotomy. Social media adds a new element to
representation that could not have been foreseen by Mansbridge. Specifically, social
media has introduced the concept of “iterative”representation and real time, constant
accountability of Members to constituents.
Mansbridge does premise her model of “anticipatory represent ation”upon
communications between representatives and the governed. However, there is still a
time lag for sanctions if the principal (constituent) is not satisfied. Anticipatory
representation focusses on the “prudential incentive to please the voter in the next
election”(p. 520). Social media is more temporally demanding than this formulation.
As Members use more sophisticated tools provided by social media, they can actually
engage in real-time delivery of information and justifications for action. All Members
must stand for reelection, but social media diminishes the importance of an election-
based, fixed time lag. The expectation is Members will respond instantly and engage in
back-and-forth iterative conversations about pre ferences, priorities, and policy
decisions. Iterative representation is constant accountability.
One academically appealing aspect of social media use by Members is that it can be
studied comprehensively. In earlier eras, it was difficult, if not impossible, to study how
Members engaged in representation. Short of embedding oneself in lawmakers’inner
circles (as Fenno (1978) famously did), gaining access to how Members answered
constituent mail or communicated with voters was haphazard, at best. The transparent
nature of social media allows scholars to easily observe how Members are using these
new tools to communicate and engage in representation. For example, some Senators
are already using Twitter and Facebook to conduct “town hall”meetings. These virtual
events can be easily observed, measured, and analyzed.
The rise of social media magnifies the age-old question of how to gauge what all
constituents, not just the vocal minority, want. Some studies have shown that while the
number of people who are willing to use the internet to contact their Member of
Congress has increased, the type of individuals using online resources is not uniform
across demographics and socio-economic classes (Schlozman et al., 2012). In other
words, groups of constituents are not utilizing the relatively cost free internet to contact
Members of Congress, and likely are not contacting their representatives or senators at
all (Schlozman et al., 2012, p. 500). Further, to what degree accurately representing
constituent preferences imp acts reelection chances remains an open question
(Adler and Wilkerson, 2012, p. 21). Further, constituent preferences may be so varied
that Members must reconstitute district or state desires on a policy-by-policy basis
(Lapinski, 2014). Also, recent preliminary results released by the Congressional
Management Foundation demonst rated that congressional staffer s were more
responsive to a small number of social media comments than a large volume of
constituent e-mail (Nehls, 2014).
644
OIR
40,5
To continue reading
Request your trial