Studying Computer Mediated Communication:
Chances for Enhancement of Political Engagement and Chances for Studying It

Carlo Hagemann
Nijmegen Institute for Communication Research
(NiCoR)
P.O. Box 9104
6500 HE Nijmegen
phone: 31 24 361 5469
c.hagemann@maw.kun.nl

While studying Political Communication in combination with Computer Mediated Communication, lots of thoughts come to mind. In this note I try to make some of them more explicit. It contains a mixture of theoretical, empirical as well as political remarks.
--- Carlo Hagemann

Fourteen years ago we had other problems. Entman (1988) asserted in Democracy without citizens that due to a continuing dependence of reporters on self-interested elites, the journalistic status quo was merely perpetuated. Because of this interdependence of the "free press" and the government, the press was no longer capable of enhancing public opinion. Yet Entman sees a very improbable solution:

Since then, things have changed. An external shock has taken place. The Internet emerged and invaded our society, our work and our politics. In doing this it has, in a sense, upset the gridlocked relationships of media, elites, and audiences. However, it remains to be seen whether it has strengthened the public's desire for accountability journalism, or whether it has enhanced the media's ability to provide this. In other words, the question remains whether things have changed for the better.

Maybe it is not the interdependence of media and elites that has changed so much. Election campaigns require more media money than ever, and during campaign weeks one cannot escape politicians while watching television. In the Netherlands, which had the luck of having two general elections within one year, public broadcasting companies and commercial broadcasting companies competed for the politicians to appear in talk shows and news programs. Politics sells, or at least, politicians sell.

What may have changed, though, is the dependence of citizens on the media. With the Internet at hand, one is able to find out for himself or herself what politicians want and what they do. Typing in the name of a political party, preceded by www. and followed by .org or .nl (for the Netherlands) gives access to all the information, right from the horse's mouth. Moreover, apparently independent organizations give voting suggestions, based on political preferences. In the Dutch election campaign of 2002, the online stemwijzer.nl was asked for voting suggestions over 1 million times (Boogers & Voerman, 2002). Stemwijzer.nl became an example for other institutions, who made their own online voting advisors. Among them, of course, television companies. A citizen can circumvent the media and have access to political information nonetheless.

Moreover, the citizen can actively contribute to the public opinion, without directing himself or herself towards the media, or even towards the political parties. One can participate in political discussions and gather political insights from these directly. Instead of an old fashioned elite democracy or a pluralist democracy, we have entered the age of strong democracy (Barber, 1984) or deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 2000).

However, in the real world of politics, one does not see any improvement. Margolis and Resnick (2000) elaborate on this with their reinforcement hypothesis. This hypothesis asserts that online politics is just the same as politics offline. A minority in the real world is a minority online as well. Existing political parties with their established relations have colonized the Internet. Norris (1999) cannot deny that a reinforcement hypothesis is confirmed by empirical evidence, and not the mobilization hypothesis which asserts that the Internet would bring a change in that minorities could gain access to the attention of the people, to the public agenda, and thus to the centers of power.

Discussion lists

There seems to be a discrepancy between these somewhat depressing results and the rather bright picture we ourselves have of the Internet. Of course this may have to do with the special function that the Internet has for scholarly work. I vaguely remember myself working through several editions of the Social Science Citation Index to find a title that turned out to be unavailable at the local library. But the joys of Internet are not confined to this elite. My four year old son loves to color Winnie the Pooh drawings his father downloads, and the fact that the Internet is filled with great amounts of not-so-intellectual content, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Internet has definitely stepped out of its academic boundaries some years ago.

Moreover, in conversations with people who study the Internet, the enthusiasm about what is possible, is great. Yet, the actual achievements are limited. In my own research on political discussion lists (Hagemann, 2002; 2003), I have to concede that the criteria for e-democracy (Tsagarousianou, 1998), and the criteria for a well-functioning public sphere (Dahlberg, 2001; 2002) are seldomly met. For example, equality is not a typical ingredients of an online discussion. Although the debate may not be monopolized by a few, the participants are a tiny selection of all possible citizens that could participate. Likewise, the quality of the discussions varies. This is not only because the level of rational argumentation is higher in one discussion group than in the other, but also because different definitions of quality are used (see Schneider, 1996; Wilhelm, 1999; Hagemann, 2002).

In spite of these results I myself did value the attempts that were made to discuss political issues in a non-institutionalized way. Whereas the studies indicated a rather negative picture of the function of these discussion lists for the public sphere and e-democracy, there was a discussion on public affairs. In the real world, there is almost no way someone can discuss public affairs and current issues on a daily basis. Political parties in the Netherlands for example organize discussion meetings, but these are limited to one theme, are organized only every three months or so, and can welcome even less participants that the online venues.

In my opinion, it is very useful to keep on studying online discussion groups. A crucial condition for successful studying this, is that definitions of the concepts under study should be made explicit. This goes for general concepts like public sphere and (e-)democracy, but it goes also for the operationalization of quality and rational-critical argumentation. Moreover it would be a good thing to pay attention to the design of the discussion. Results from online political chat sessions are not unproblematically comparable with usenet-discussions or listserv-conditions. The difference between synchronous (chat) and a-synchronous (usenet/listserv) settings may have big implications for the way in which the discussion is structured, and eventually for the topics and issues that are discussed. The difference between the way in which people access the discussion, may also play a role in the way the discussion goes. If one reads the ongoing discussion in a consultational way (Usenet), the impetus to participate might be much smaller, than if one receives the discussion by way of allocution (Listserv).

Another important way to keep this line of research healthy is by not being too disappointed if discussions do not lead to a radical democratization of the politics. Online political debates do not always directly link to politics, and seldomly to democracy. Part of the disappointment stems from the fact that many studies inhabit a radical democratic perspective. In the the near future, further attention should be given to the concept of democracy. Not so much from a normative or whishful thinking perspective, but from a realistic, maybe even old fashioned perspective. I regard it more useful to assess the function of online discussion and online information from a pluralist or even elitist democracy perspective, than from a libertarian perspective, because the main players in the online political discussion and information are grounded in these theories (see Dahl, 1989). One of the aspects that has to be taken into account is the difference between Europe and the United States. Like Hagen (2000) asserts, European politics is traditionally more party-oriented than the Anglo-Saxon politics.

Nevertheless, discussion lists do have a function. It may train people in putting forward claims and to found these claims with rational arguments. Moreover, discussion lists may be of great importance for lurkers. So far, the role of these ‘observers’ has mainly been neglected by scholarly research. Nonnecke already investigated the persistence of this group (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000). The motives to watch discussions, and the things people learn from them, are too often overlooked, or taken for granted.

A final issue that requires empirical research is the difference between organized discussions and spontaneous discussions. The input will be different, and so will be the output. Moreover it is interesting to distinguish discussions organized by some government (Van Os, 2002), from discussions organized by political parties (Jankowski & Van Selm 2000), and to distinguish them from discussions organized by grassroots organizations (Hauben & Hauben, 1997) or even more spontaneous (Hagemann, 2003). Expectations about the actual effect of government-organized discussions will be higher than those of grassroots discussions. On the other hand, the frustration among participants will be huge, if they find out that their participation is only welcomed as a sustainment of existing policy. Ideally speaking, discussions may play a significant role if representatives from the government or political parties participate (actively or passively) in discussions to get a feeling of what lives among (a very specific part of) the electorate (Hagemann, 2002; Jankowski & Van Selm, 2000)

Web sites

The novelty that is associated with online discussions is not present anymore when people discuss web sites. In a couple of years, Web sites are normalized in the perception of people who use the Internet. In politics, a web site seems to be a prerequisite to enter elections. All political parties do put great effort in designing and maintaining web sites. Contents of these web sites differ from slogans and pictures to information on issues, and information specifically for members (agenda, training sessions).

Margolis & Resnick (2000) assert that the Internet is colonized by existing political parties. On the other hand, it can be seen that political parties are colonized, or at least surprised by the Internet. Almost none of the existing parties in the Netherlands makes use of the possibilities the Internet offers. Parties do implement interactive possibilities, but not always wholeheartedly. Exemplary for this is the Web site of the Dutch Christian Reformed SGP. Whereas this party does not act in television programs, it has a web site. To keep this in accordance with their religious views, the web site cannot be visited on Sundays.

The objectives that parties have with these web sites would be worth studying. It is probably a mixture of persuasion, information and interactivity. The problem with surveying key persons at political institutions about these objectives is that the role of persuasion will be downplayed, whereas the role of interactivity will be boosted.

Another aspect of study is of course the way in which citizens use web sites. The question is not only whether using the web site influences voting decisions, but also whether using the web site enhances their political sophistication.

In the project we plan for the upcoming European elections, all these questions will be addressed. A content analysis The content of Web sites of political actors will be analyzed and interviews with key persons and users will be held. Moreover, because this research project concerns pan-European elections, we endeavour to compare Dutch sites with Irish sites, and with German and French sites. Of course, any contribution form other countries would be appreciated. Contacts with Slovenian students for an exchange program are elaborated.

Some final remarks

Although the Internet may not meet the expectations of enhancing the public sphere or political participation, it still is worth studying. To study the Internet in a fruitful way, it would be good to tone down the expectations of the democratic possibilities. The Internet is a medium that has a lot of opportunities, in a lot of directions. Finally, the citizen decides whether the Internet is a suitable medium for his or her needs. And if this citizen is lazy and uninterested, there is no way the Internet can turn him or her into a politically active citizen. Citizens do not "jump at the chance to become active participants" (Warren, 1996: 266), not only because of apathy or even a rational choice, but also because of the inherent unattractiveness of politics. However, if there is a latent political interest, it depends on the way in which a possibility to political participation is offered, whether this political interest becomes manifest. Chatting with the party leader may make the difference. Downloading the party manifesto seldomly does. Many of the citizens do not mind to be politically active, but do not want to take any pains in that direction.

This leads to the conclusion that the Internet is one of the possibilities for enhancing political participation. However, because it requires activity from the citizen, it is unlikely that Web sites or online discussions attract the barely interested citizen. With this in mind, one has to consider that the role of the old fashioned media (newspaper, radio, and especially television) is still very important. Entman’s problem is still our problem. Interdependence between media and political elites needs to be regarded critically. Yet, the Internet deserves a critical look as well. Reinforcement of the existing situation on the Internet is the default. The Internet leaves out the journalist, but not the elites. But not every elite is successful in transferring its power to the online world. In some respects, oppositional groups win the battle for online attention. But although every single opinion can be (and is) uttered on some web site, somewhere in cyberspace, the opinions and issues that the average citizen is confronted with, still originate from an elite (political parties, government, some NGO’s). Although the Internet may be the place where one thousand flowers bloom, it is very unlikely that an average person will find more than a handful of them.

References

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Boogers, M., & Voerman, G. (2002). Who visits political web sites, and why? Results of an online survey among visitiors of political web sites during the Dutch 2002 general elections campaign. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. 9-12 october 2002. Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Dahl, R.A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Dahlberg, L. (2002). Net-public sphere research: beyond the 'phirst phase'. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. 9-12 october 2002. Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Entman, R.M. (1989). Democracy without citizens. Media and the decay of American politics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hagemann, C. (2002). Participation in and contents of two Dutch political party discussion lists on the Internet. Javnost - The Public, 9(2), 61-76.

Hagemann, C.P.M. (2003). Complotten, sarcasme en bevestiging van de eigen identiteit:Analyse van een Usenet nieuwsgroep over de moord op Pim Fortuyn. In G. Kuipers, J. de Kloet, S. Kuik (Eds.), Digitaal Contact (pp. 110-139). Amsterdam: Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift.

Hagen, M. (2000). Digital democracy and political systems. In K.L. Hacker, & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy. Issues of theory and practice (pp. 54-69). London: Sage.

Hauben, M., & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens. On the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, Ca: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Jankowski, N.W., & Selm, M. van (2000). The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. In K. L. Hacker, & J. van Dijk (Eds.), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 149-165). London: Sage.

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Persistence and lurkers in discussion lists: a pilot study. 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000.

Norris, P. (1999). Who surfs? New technology, old voters & virtual democracy. In E.C. Kamarck, & J.S. Nye (Eds.), Democracy.com? Governance in a networked world (pp. 71-94). Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing.

Os, R. van (2002). Internet-based political discourse: A case study of electronic democracy in the city of Hoogeveen. Conference: Prospects for electronic democracy. Pittsburgh, PA.

Schneider, S.M. (1996). Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion. A case study of abortion converstation on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 14(4), 373-393.

Tsagarousianou, R. (1998). Electronic democracy and the public sphere: Opportunities and challenges. In R. Tsagarousianou, D. Tambini, & C. Bryan, (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks (pp. ). London: Routledge.

Warren, M.E. (1996). What should we expect from more democracy? Radically democratic responses to politics. Political Theory, 24(2), 241-270.

Wilhelm, A.G. (1999). Virtual sounding boards: how deliberative is online political discussion?. In B.N. Hague, & B.D. Loader (Eds.), Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age (pp. 154-177). London: Routledge.