Twitter in Congress: Outreach vs Transparency

Chi, Feng and Yang, Nathan (2010): Twitter in Congress: Outreach vs Transparency.

Abstract

The paper provides some support in favor of Twitter adoption being driven by outreach reasons, rather than the well-popularized transparency motive. Furthermore, outreach considerations factor into a Republican's perceived benefit more than a Democrat's.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Government communication, diffusion of technology, political marketing, social media.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M3 - Marketing and Advertising > M30 - General

References

Adler, Gent and Overmeyer (1998). The Home Style Homepage: Legislator Use of the World Wide Web for Constituency Contact. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23.

Ai, C. and Norton, E (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters 80.

Cohen, L. and Malloy, C (2010). Friends in High Places: Peer Effects and Politics. Working paper.

Comm, J (2010). Twitter Power 2.0. Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.

Felten, E (2009). Government online: Outreach vs. transparency. Retrieved on June 1, 2010 from http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/government-online-outreach-vs-transparency. Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy.

Forman, Goldfarb and Greenstein (2005). How Did Location Affect Adoption of the Commercial Internet: Global Village vs. Urban Leadership. Journal of Urban Economics 58.

Gibson et al (2003). Election Campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: A Comparative Analysis. Party Politics 9.

Golbeck, Grims, and Rogers (2010). Twitter Use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61.

Gulati, G (2004). Members of Congress and Presentation of Self on the World Wide Web. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9.

Honeycutt, C. and Herring, S (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Jansen et. al (2009). Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60.

Java et. al (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD.

Krishnamurthy, Gill and Arlitt (2008). A Few Chirps About Twitter. Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks.

Lassen, D. and Brown, A (2010). Twitter: The Electoral Connection? Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

Lipinski, D. and Neddenriep, G (2004). Using "New" Media to Get "Old" Media Coverage: How Members of Congress Utilize their Web Sites to Court Journalists. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 9.

Manski, C (2000). Economic Analysis of Social Interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14.

Manski, C (1993). Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem. The Review of Economic Studies 60.

McFedries, P (2007). Technically speaking: All a-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum 44.

Oleszek, W (2007). Congress and the Internet: Highlights. CRS Report for Congress.

Smith, A. and Rainie, L (2008). The internet and the 2008 election. PEW Internet and American Life Project.

Williams, C. and Gulati, G (2010). Communicating with Constituents in 140 Characters or Less: Twitter and the Diffusion of Technology Innovation in the United States Congress. Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

Williams, C. and Gulati, G (2009). Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and Congressional Elections 2006, 2008. Working paper.