E electioneering and e democracy government 2 0 in australia
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 22

E-electioneering and E-democracy (Government 2.0) in Australia PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

E-electioneering and E-democracy (Government 2.0) in Australia. Studies of online citizen consultation and social media in the 2010 Australian federal election Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, MA, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC. Australian federal election 2010.

Download Presentation

E-electioneering and E-democracy (Government 2.0) in Australia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


E-electioneering and E-democracy(Government 2.0) in Australia

Studies of online citizen consultation

and social media in the 2010 Australian federal election

Professor Jim Macnamara

PhD, MA, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC


Australian federal election 2010

Macnamara, J., & Kenning, G. (2011). E-electioneering 2010: Trends in social media use in Australian political communication. Media International Australia, 139 [in print].


E-ELECTION 2010

Methodology

  • Content analysis – quantitative and qualitative

    • Number of social media types and sites

    • Blog posts

    • Facebook ‘friends’, ‘likes’, ‘Wall posts’, comments, notes

    • Twitter ‘followers’, ‘following’, ‘tweets’ (broadcast, responses & coded)

    • YouTube video uploads, channel visits, and views

    • Other networks (e.g. LaborConnect, ‘ThinkTank’, etc)

  • Sample(quantitative)

    • 206 re-standing Members of House of Reps and Senate

    • 2 major political parties (Labor & Liberal)

  • Sample(qualitative)

    • Top 10 most frequent tweeters and most ‘liked’/befriended Facebook sites


E-ELECTION 2010

2007 – 2010 comparison


E-ELECTION 2010

Politicians on Twitter


E-ELECTION 2010

Top 20 politician tweeters


E-ELECTION 2010

Facebook page ‘likes’ & friends


E-ELECTION 2010

Facebook page ‘likes’ & friends

(Excl PM & ‘Rudd factor’)


E-ELECTION 2010

Followers & following


E-ELECTION 2010

Followers and following


E-ELECTION 2010

Types of tweeting

* Attack on opponent by name or opposition policy combined.


E-ELECTION 2010

ALP party use of social media


E-ELECTION 2010

Liberal party use of social media


Web 2.0 / social media

  • Two-way – listening as well as talking

  • Dialogue

  • Conversations

  • Openness

  • Democratisation of the public sphere

  • PRACTICES of communication are changing/reverting – not just the technologies


E-democracy/Government 2.0

  • E-government – service delivery

  • E-democracy – consultation and engagement of citizens

  • UK Power of Information review (Mayo & Steinberg, 2007)

  • UK Digital Dialogues report (Miller & Williamson, 2008)

  • UK Power of Information Task Force (2009)

  • Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce (2009)


E-DEMOCRACY


E-DEMOCRACY

Methodology

  • Depth interviews with architects of 11 federal departments and agencies involved in online citizen consultation

    • Policy, IT, and communication staff

  • Content analysis of online citizen engagement sites

    • AG’s national online human rights consultation

    • DBCDE blog on digital economy

    • DEEWR early childhood education consultation

    • ATO

    • Australian War Memorial

    • Australian Museum

  • Participation (netnography)


E-DEMOCRACY

Findings of analysis on online consultation

  • Lack of planning

    • Clear objectives (not)

    • Involve IT, policy and communication

  • Hijack by controversial issues and lobbyists

  • Limitations on meeting response time expectations

  • Poor design and navigation in some cases

  • Lack of resources to monitor and respond

  • Culture barriers (PS regulations, attitudes)

  • Language barriers

  • Focus on government hosted, not independent

  • Lack of sense-making tools (e.g. text analysis)

  • Communities of interest / practice


E-DEMOCRACY

Findings of analysis on online engagement

  • Listening requires work

  • An architecture of listening

    • Policies

    • Resources

    • Open culture

    • Tools to monitor and analyse


Where to now?

  • Will the conversation end in the ‘politics of peacetime’?

  • The future of ‘government 2.0’ and e-democracy?


T H A N K Y O U

Peter Lang, New York (2010) http://bit.ly/21Cmediarevolution

Pearson Australia (2011)


  • Login