Social Media and Politics

Latest Episodes:

How Social Media Affects Engagement with Civic and Political Life, with Dr. Shelley Boulianne Jun 18, 2017

Show notes

The Social Media and Politics Podcast is a podcast bringing you innovative, first-hand insights into how social media is changing the political game. Subscribe for interviews and analysis with politicians, academics, and leading industry experts to get their take on how social media influences the ways we engage with politics and democracy.Connect with us on Twitter @SMandPPodcast & Facebook: Social Media and Politics PodcastDr. Shelley Boulianne, Associate Professor in Sociology at MacEwan University, joins the show to share insights from her research on how social media is impacting citizens' engagement in civic and political life. Dr. Boulianne discusses the findings of her meta-analysis studies, comparing the results of existing research in order to better uncover how social media is affecting citizens engagement with politics. Check out Dr. Boulianne's full research paper that we discuss in the podcast: "Revolution in the making? Social media effects across the globe".Full Transcript:[00:00:00] Michael Bossetta: Welcome to Episode 26 of the Social Media Politics Podcast, bringing you expert insights into how social media is changing the political game. I'm your host, Michael Bossetta, political scientist at the University of Copenhagen. You can follow us on Twitter @SMandPPodcast, and also our Facebook Page: Social Media and Politics Podcast.[00:00:48] Thank you so much for tuning in. I'm going to be interviewing Dr. Shelley Boulianne, who is an Associate Professor of Sociology at MacEwan University in Canada. And as we alluded to a little bit in our previous episode, looking at social media use in the British elections, as academics we tend to really focus in on one aspect of social media and politics. We'll look at one platform for one specific case or one specific protest. And what's cool about Dr. Boulianne's work is she's been looking at, in some cases hundreds of studies, and looking at the findings of those and then seeing what are the similarities and differences between those studies. And what really do we know about the effects of social media on for example: people's likelihood to vote, or people's likelihood to engage in activism or community involvement?[00:02:40] My guest today is Dr. Shelley Boulianne, Associate Professor in Sociology at MacEwan University. Dr. Boulianne is an expert on how digital media influences civic engagement and political participation and joins us via Skype from Edmonton Canada. Dr. Boulianne, Thanks so much for taking the time out and welcome to The Social Media and Politics Podcast thank you very much for inviting me. So as I mentioned, in your research you're interested in the influence of digital media on civic and political engagement. Could you lay out these concepts for our listeners? What exactly is civic and political engagement?[00:03:12] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Sure. My working definition of civic and political engagement includes activities designed to influence government activities designed to improve community life and activities designed to express one's views about civic and political issues. So the type of activities that tend to link up with these studies are activities such as: voting, participating in boycotts, protesting in the streets volunteering in the community, talking politics, and then donating to political campaigns, charities, political causes.[00:03:43] Michael Bossetta: And is it actions from only citizens or are there other actors that can engage in these type of activities?[00:03:51] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Well the research that I'm trying to summarize or is largely focused on surveys of citizens.[00:03:57] Michael Bossetta: And speaking of that research you've done a number of really great what's called meta-analyses, looking at how social and digital media influence these type of engagement. So can you describe what a meta-analysis is and kind of how you go about conducting one?[00:04:13] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Sure. A meta-analysis is a systematic analysis of existing research on a topic. Specifically, I like to call it a quantitative analysis of quantitative studies on a topic. It's largely used in the medical and health sciences, and it's often used to summarize a large body of experiments on a particular topic. So I and others have adapted meta-analysis techniques to try to summarise survey research on specific topics. So like other meta-analyses I search for manuscripts through academic databases. I also use Google Scholar to find sources. And finally I consult the reference lists of relevant works to identify relevant research.[00:04:53] Michael: Ah ha, so You look at a study and then who else has cited that study to sort of broaden that net.[00:04:58] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Sure, and then which sources have that study cited. So we're always building on each other's academic research and so I go forward and backwards with the citation lists. Who have they cited? And who is citing this reference, using Google Scholar and other similar software.[00:05:15] Michael Bossetta: And then how do you go about it from there? So you have this this huge pool of studies. I mean do you go through and read each one individually or do you look at only there their findings and results?[00:05:26] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: So my focus within that area of research is on survey research. I mean there is a lot of studies on social media engagement that are rich descriptions about specific election campaigns or protest events, and so that type of literature is really hard to summarize because it uses very different methodology. And I have it on my To-Do list to try to write some sort of comprehensive lit review of those types of research projects. But for a meta-analysis it really is meant to be a quantitative review. And so my research is largely focused on survey research. So with these latest studies that I've done have actually hired students to go through studies and figure out whether they use survey research and whether they test the relationship between social media use and engagement.[00:06:15] Michael Bossetta: Interesting. So do they actually scout the research as well or is it you who do scouts the research and then passes it down to them and has that kind of filter out what's relevant and what's not?[00:06:26] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: I would say it's a combination of things. I do like to send them to the academic databases to do searches based on keywords and to consult within the academic databases. And then in terms of Google Scholar we're all sort of hooked in to that, you know to find updates on things that we've queried about or we find updates on what's been cited in this area of research. And so we get those regular updates. So it's a lot of back and forth with my research assistants. Sometimes you find the same study on the same day and we're sending it to each other saying look there's a new study. So I guess a it's team effort in terms of finding those studies.[00:07:05] Michael Bossetta: Right. And what's the... It's an interesting method for me because it's not that you're, you know, going out and conducting surveys yourself. Even though you do that and other research. But what's the benefit of this meta-analysis method, versus using survey data from a specific election or going out and conducting your own?[00:07:25] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Well, definitely. I mean, any single survey is going to have its limitations. We can only ask so many questions. And then of course our sample size will be very much limited by budget. And so I argue the benefit of a meta-analysis is that it basically takes all of these surveys, all of the people who have responded to these surveys, all those survey questions that have been asked within these surveys, and compiling all of that data together in one data set to try to summarize what is the big picture around the relationship between social media and engagement.[00:07:57] Michael Bossetta: And so let's get into that in a little bit. In 2015, you published an analysis of 36 studies that looked at how social media influences political participation. And so my first question is why did you choose to focus on that topic specifically? What's interesting about the connection between social media and participation?[00:08:20] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Well, that paper came about in a rather odd way. I was invited to speak at the 2014 American Sociological Association Annual Meeting. I hadn't planned to do a meta-analysis, but one of the conference organizers read my 2009 piece around internet use and engagement, and she wanted me to give an update on the findings. And so what we had agreed upon and what we could do and the timelines that we had, I decided to focus very narrowly on social networking sites and what this new research on social networking sites was saying about engagement and that's how I got back into I guess the meta-analysis business. I was invited to update my findings, and I decided to do that very narrow focused.[00:09:03] Michael Bossetta: And what was the timeframe of those studies that you were looking at?[00:09:07] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Those, because I focused on social networking sites, I would say I have just maybe one or two studies that was in 2007, possibly one in 2006. But the bulk of the research was collected in 2008 through the 2013 time period. And then of course the paper was published in 2015. So there's always a little bit of a time lag between when the paper the meta-analysis gets published and then when the data has been collected in these other sources.[00:09:37] Michael Bossetta: Yeah it's interesting. 2008 is kind of an early adoption period. I think especially for scientists that are that are looking at this, so you have the nice, uh, catching the beginning there. So what did you find? Was there, you know, some common findings that came out by looking at all these 36 different studies? Or was it really a kind of grab bag of different findings?[00:09:58] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Well I mean, my intent with that piece was really to just give a quick update on what was happening with that research on social networking sites and engagement. So I had a rather narrow focus or a narrow intent with that research. Which was just to give an insight into what was happening. And so that piece really focused on what types of social media uses matter for what types of engagement. And also to address the broader question that was going around, which was: Is social media having a negative effect on engagement? Because that is basically what the concern was at that time when I was writing. And so my objective was to address that point. Is it having a negative effect? And I think pretty conclusively said that it's not. I mean, most of the studies we're coming up with positive effects are seeing a positive relationship between social networking site usage and engagement in civic and political life.[00:10:53] Michael Bossetta: And what exactly does that mean? A "positive effect." We have some students listening to the show who may not be so caught up in their effects research. What is it that that increases that participation or has that positive effect?[00:11:06] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: So I think that that piece really highlighted two different aspects of social media use that we're having positive effects. One is that social media was building people's social networks. So, you know, we go to social media or social networking sites, we're finding friends, we're building up those networks, and we know from research from the 1950s that building your networks increases the likelihood that you get asked to participate in civic and political life. It increases the chances that you will in fact participate in civic and political life. And so what I think that 2015 piece illustrated is that this is happening online now. It's happening through these social networking sites. People are joining groups, they're building their friendship networks, and these networks are becoming mobilized. So people are more likely to be engaged in civic and political life. And then the people that are engaged in civic and political life are also using social media to talk about their activities. And so we see that sort of dual process happening, based on that research.[00:12:08] Michael Bossetta: And, was it so much that the networks corresponded to one's offline network, or? Because there's been some talk about social media enabling people who had known each other previously to kind of seek out and form networks around similar issues or what we're calling "issue publics." Is that the type of networks you're talking about? Or is it more about mobilizing your friends who you already know.[00:12:33] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Yeah I think that this is where the research needs to get into more of the nuances. What type of networks do you create in your social networking sites? And I think part of the question is whether or not your social networks are different across different platforms. So we know quite a bit about Facebook research. Because still, the large majority of this research is done focusing on Facebook. And so, the networks we create and maintain on Facebook are very much different than other platforms where we might interact with people that we don't know as well. We have weak ties too. So I'm glad to see that the research is actually moving in this direction of finding out what types of networks are we creating and maintaining in these social networking sites. Because I think that the different types of networks are going to have different outcomes in terms of whether or not we become more engaged in civic and political life. But again, my research is responding to what's out there. And I think that there needs to be more research on the nuances of what types of networks we're creating in these spaces.[00:13:36] Michael Bossetta: Right. Because that might be a little bit difficult to get out with with survey data or the predominant survey approach needs to be updated. But I want to ask you about one of the difficulties that you noted in that paper, which was that the different research designs and methods can make it a bit difficult to compare the results of these studies. So can you go into that a little bit in terms of where the difficulties in comparing these studies it sometimes might be very different even though they're asking the same questions?[00:14:04] Dr. Shelley Boulianne: Right. Well I would say that the majority of the studies use cross-sectional research designs, which is basically you interview a group of people and you look at what they said about media use, and what they said about engagement, and then try to make some sort of assessment of: is there a relationship? And so, for those studies it is much easier and straightforward to try to summarize the results and to say look these two things, these responses to the media use questions and responses to the engagement question, are sort of going in the same direction. And the direction usually is, the more you use social media, the more that your reporting higher are levels of engagement in civic and political life. So these are rather straightforward to deal with them the analysis techniques are pretty standard. And so this was quite easy for me to do in terms of summarizing. What gets complicated is the longitudinal designs. And I would argue the value of the longitudinal design, despite the complexity that it introduces, is that there is great value in the longitudinal design. So the designs that we're seeing, they track people over time to see if there's changes in their levels of engage…

Full show notes at the publisher

The 2017 British Elections on Social Media, with Dr. Anamaria Dutceac Segesten Jun 10, 2017

Show notes

Host Michael Bossetta and Dr. Anamaria Dutceac Segesten discuss parties and citizens used social media to campaign in the 2017 UK General Elections, where Theresa May's gamble to call a snap election backfired on her Conservative Party. We break down the election results and their implications for Brexit. We also look at how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat were used by the major parties and their supporters during the campaign.

Donald Trump and Scott Walker's Digital Strategy on Social Media, with Matthew Oczkowski May 29, 2017

Show notes

Connect with us on Twitter @SMandPPodcast & Facebook: Social Media and Politics Podcast

This episode has been featured in the Financial Times.

Matthew Oczkowski, Head of Product at Cambridge Analytica, joins the show to discuss his experience heading digital strategy for the Scott Walker primary campaign and Donald Trump general election. We discuss how the candidates used Snapchat and other social media, the differences between primary and general election campaigning in terms of digital strategy and marketing, and we also discuss how microtargeting works in practice. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattOczkowski.

The following shownotes are taken from a blog post about the podcast by American Majority, written by Nick McIntyre.

"2016 was the first year in which we saw candidates really start to use Snapchat as a platform for not only reaching voters with unique content, but also for limited information-capturing purposes. Snapchat is a social media platform that allows users to send/post photos and videos that disappear after a short period of time. This platform is especially popular amongst younger generations who use Snapchat as a more private social experience than Facebook or Twitter and can enjoy it with their peers only. The private and mobile aspect of Snapchat poses a challenge for political campaigns, who often rely on Google searches to drive traffic to their websites and other social media platforms.

Governor Scott Walker, an avid social media user, enjoyed using Snapchat in his brief presidential campaign to reach voters with different content than other platforms. Oczkowski noted that Walker was extremely authentic, and posted content “like your father” would, as opposed to artistic graphics and edited work. Voters valued authenticity highly in this last election, and Snapchat is a good visual platform for “raw” content. Likewise, the Trump campaign used Snapchat to show behind-the-scenes shots of campaign rallies to portray to magnitude of the “MAGA” movement.

Oczkowski used the term “platform agnostic” to describe his preferences on social media for campaigns. All this means is that campaigns will go to whichever platform the voters are on, and message to the demographic appropriately. In Snapchat’s case, this means reaching college age students and those under 35 – a demographic that conservatives have struggled to reach (and convince to vote) at times. New media is giving campaigns a way to capture information as well. One of the advantages of using Snapchat’s advertising feature is that it’s the only straightforward way to measure metrics from Snapchat, due to its private nature. By placing ads on Snapchat, you can track how many people you are reaching, and also give users the option to swipe up and submit their email addresses to the campaign. According to Oczkowski, both Walker and Trump collected tens and hundreds of thousands of emails from Snapchat alone. As Snapchat continues to implement revenue sources into the platform (like Facebook did), it will be interesting to see how they further incorporate advertising into the user experience. It poses an opportunity for future campaigns if offered better targeting and information-capturing, in addition to being a unique content platform.

On Targeting
Microtargeting has been a part of campaigns for a long time, and even digital microtargeting has been around for close to a decade. However, as more information regarding individuals and their preferences have become available on the open market, tech integration has become more widespread. In 2012, Harper Reed and his team at Obama For America even developed an in-house platform called Narwhal, which integrated voter data from all of their digital information pieces. Companies now possess thousands of data points on individual voters, and campaigns purchase this information so that they can target their message to an individual voter more effectively. While this doesn’t replace the value of door-knocking and live voter contacts, it does give campaigns another avenue to message on certain issues. To paraphrase Oczkowski, gone are the days of “madmen” style advertising, where men would identify an issue or product and sit in a room to come up with an ad targeting a wide sect of the population. On information privacy, Oczkowski, a self-proclaimed libertarian-leaning conservative, noted that most citizens will choose convenience over privacy. The steps necessary to protect some personal information isn’t worth the cost for most consumers. Because U.S. data law is among the least-restrictive in the world, companies can legally collect and sell most basic consumer info.

One of the most interesting insights about Trump’s microtargeting was his travel schedule, which was based on algorithms and messaging. Many pundits critiqued Trump’s hectic rally schedule, but it was actually targeted. There was a “Cities to Visit” calculator that ranked possible destinations based on the density of persuadable voters and those with a high percentage of core supporters so that value at rallies would be maximized. This put Trump in areas like the suburbs of Pittsburgh, and states Ohio and Florida. It often put him in suburbs instead of large cities – a strategy some decried but proved effective in multiple Rust Belt states.

“Tech can’t fix bad candidates”
Above all, a good campaign must combine good messaging with data. “Tech can’t fix bad candidates”, as Oczkowski pointed out. Hillary Clinton ran into this problem. The Clinton campaign tried to copy Obama’s team instead of coming up with a messaging strategy unique to Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how good your tech is, it won’t inspire people to vote for you if the message doesn’t resonate – it is merely gasoline for the fire. Trump had a campaign message that persuaded the right voters that he needed to win the electoral college.

The future for campaign targeting and social media is ever-changing. Facebook and Google still dominate the digital ad scene. Trump spent more on Facebook ads than any other digital platform. In addition, TV and traditional advertising still play a large role because it is still a way to reach high-propensity voters. As more of the electorate consumes news online, data collection and targeting will become even more important. Oczkowski is among a new generation of political operatives who specialize in data. “Nerds rule the world” has never been more true on campaigns, where traditionalist political consultants are being replaced by individuals who can prove their worth through actual metrics that lead to more votes directly. This market is still relatively new for everyone, and the campaigns that innovate and message most effectively will win elections, regardless of the platforms used."

Snapchat and the Marco Rubio Campaign, with Eric Wilson May 22, 2017

Show notes

Eric Wilson, Digital Director for the Marco Rubio for President campaign, guests on the podcast to discuss how the Rubio campaign used social media in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. We focus on Snapchat and discuss how the platform was used to reach voters, how the campaign crafted Snapchat stories, and where Snapchat fit into the campaign's overall social media strategy. Eric also discusses how Snapchat was used to promote a 'Vote Early Day' initiative that set off media coverage and tweets from Donald Trump on Twitter, as well as how a Snapchat lens was used in the Australia federal elections the same year. You can follow Eric on Twitter, @EricWilson, and check out his weekly newsletter: www.learntestoptomize.com.

American Politics and Social Media, with Dr. Alan Rosenblatt May 15, 2017

Show notes

Dr. Alan Rosenblatt, Director for Digital Research at Lake Research Partners and Senior Vice President of Digital Strategy at Turner4D, shares his insights into how politicians have historically used the internet to campaign, going back to the first campaign website. We discuss how social media influences campaigns and advocacy, the current state of opinion polling, and the 2016 U.S. elections between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The French Elections and Social Media Part 2: Le Pen versus Macron and Predicting Election Outcomes, with Dr. Antoine Bevort May 04, 2017

Show notes

Dr. Antoine Bevort, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at le Cnam, gives his take on what a Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron victory in the French elections would mean for France. We discuss Dr. Bevort's research into how social media can be a predictor for public opinion, and we also touch upon how bots and fake accounts fit into the sociology theory of social capital.

You can find out more about Dr. Bevort and his research at www.antoinebevort.blogspot.com

The French Elections and Social Media Part 1: What News are Citizens Sharing on Social Media?, with Daniel Fazekas May 01, 2017

Show notes

Daniel Fazekas, founder of Bakamo Social, discusses the findings of his recent research into the French social media landscape leading up to the 2017 French presidential election. We discuss what types of news sources French citizens are sharing, Russian influence on the elections through social media, and the polarization of news consumption patterns among the public. You can download a copy of the study, 'French Election Social Media Landscape', by visiting www.bakamosocial.com

You can also follow Daniel on Twitter @fazekasdani

World Leaders on Instagram: Governing through Photography, Selfies, and Live Stories, with Matthias Luefkens Apr 23, 2017

Show notes

Matthias Luefkens, Managing Director of Digital Strategy for EMEA countries at Burson-Marsteller, comes on the podcast to discuss his 'World Leaders on Instagram 2017' Twiplomacy study, which examines the ways governments and heads of state are using Instagram. We discuss some of the findings of the study, including who has the most followers and drives the most engagement, and we also chat about how politicians and institutions are using the Instagram Live Stories feature in the early stage of adoption. Matthias places world leaders' use of Instagram in context by also sharing insights from his research on other social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, Periscope, and Vine. You can find all these studies at www.Twiplomacy.com

Dark Social Media like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and WeChat: What do they mean for Politics and Marketing?, with Paul Hurley Apr 17, 2017

Show notes

Paul Hurley, digital marketing expert and founder of Frictionless Social, guests this week to discuss how Dark Social networks may be influencing politics. Paul discusses how platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, WeChat, and others can be used by politicians and political campaigns, and we talk about how these networks may have effected the outcome of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Paul highlights how communication in Dark Social networks tends to be more honest, among close friends or those with a shared interest, and may build strong communities of users that can mobilize politically.

Social Media and Politics in Nigeria, with Yomi Kazeem Apr 10, 2017

Show notes

Yomi Kazeem, a Lagos-based writer of politics, entrepreneurship, and sports business, joins the podcast to share his insights on social media's impact on politics in Nigeria. We discuss the role of social media in the latest 2015 Nigerian elections, and how Twitter was used by citizens to guard against government manipulation of the vote. Yomi also brings up the topic of dual sim cards, elaborates on NIgeria's data infrastructure, and explains how political leaders have a love/hate relationship with social media.

You can follow Yomi on Twitter and Instagram @TheYomiKazeem.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected