Social media & election campaigns, American style

Fred Stutzman posted reflections at techPresident on what he terms the 'social filter' feature of social media and how this seems to be generating a change in political candidate strategies and electorate engagement. Reading his piece, a commentary on a NY Times article, 'Finding Political News Online, the Young Pass it On', resulted in a longer-than-expected thread of related posts, some of which are summarized / addressed here.

The central point in this series of posts is that electoral politics is changing rapidly and radically; and, if we believe Stutzman's analysis and prediction, politics a decade down the road will be a different animal and hardly reflective of the 'politics as usual' cliché.

To begin with the NY Times article and one of the sources cited therein, a Pew report from last January suggests that media use during the 2008 US election campaign varies consistently and strikingly along age: half of the 50 and older respondents attend to TV for campaign news, 39% of the middle-age voters do so, and only a quarter of the under-30 crowd watch TV for their election news consumption. Some two-thirds of the last group, call them 'youth' for ease, rely mainly on social networking sites for campaign information.

In the context of this thread, social networking sites, although multiple and varied, encompass the very large social contact sites like MySpace and Facebook as well as file sharing sites like YouTube and Flickr and, and that vast terrain known as the blogosphere including 'micro blogging' as reflected in initiatives like Twitter.

The NY Times quote from Pew Project director Lee Rainie sums up the different way youth seem to acquire and process campaign information: "Young people are particularly galvanized in this campaign, and they have a new set of tools that make it look different from the enthusiasm that greeted other politicians 30 years ago …. They read a news story and then blog about it, or they see a YouTube video and then link to it, or they go to a campaign Web site, download some phone numbers, and make calls on behalf of a candidate."

The 'social filter' component of social media is reflected in the personal and informal character, 'between us, in conversation' as Stutzman puts it. He argues that these media are 'identity driven', that is, generated by individuals known in some manner to the other persons within a particular social network. The 'rub', of course, is that the nature of this knowing, the meaning of being a 'Friend' on SNS Friendster for example, is both thin and nebulous (see boyd's elaboration of this feature).

In an earlier post this month, called The Social Media Voter, Stutzman elaborates on how social media are being used in the 2008 US campaign and suggests a typology that he qualifies as a 'brainstorm' rather than research-based construction. Still, this typology has a ring of clarity and, for those of us weaned on various typologies of adoption patterns, familiarity. He suggests four types of social media voters: (1) Window-Shoppers, (2) Toe-Dippers, (3) Communicators, and (4) the Mavans (experts). Persons interested in the description of these categories should consult Stutzman's posting; what is relevant here is that a clustering of social media users in relation to their attention to election-oriented news is possible **and** that there is a increasing shift from consuming to producing such news in the typology. In Stutzman's words, "…the turn isn't consumption of information, but production and communication of information."

Another post from Stutzman, from almost a year ago, entitled 'Authenticity in Social Media', reflects on a conference panel discussing social media and the then upcoming US election cycle. Panelists talked about using these media to humanize candidates and, as paraphrased by Stutzman, to generate "the perception that candidate are actively engaging with digital supporters." He rightly points to the issue of authenticity with regard to social media and wonders whether such political strategy may back-fire – that voter trust may be undermined through such sham-style presentations.

There is, in other words, much to learn about the effective ways in which social media may be integrated into electoral campaigns; some of the comments to this last posting by Stutzman provide nuances of importance, such as one suggesting distinguishing between social media environments which by their nature accentuate socializing and activist networks that have a more action-oriented mandate.

Stutzman's concluding prediction-oriented paragraph merits repeat, in part because of its absolute expression of how tomorrow will be (as an aside, predicting the future is perhaps the most risky of enterprises, resembling more the soothsayer than the scholar) and because embedded in that statement is a hypothesis worth scientific exploration:

"… it is clear beyond a doubt that social media will play significant roles in 2008, 2012, 2016 and so on. The candidates that use social media most effectively will set the precedent that will resound for years to come. I've got a feeling that the candidate that most authentically represents her or himself online will be this precedent-setter, and they'll benefit substantially as a result."

Digital literacy: KNAW conference overview

Yesterday I attended a conference organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of the Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam entitled 'Literacy in the Age of New Media' [Footnote: the book 'Literacy in the New Media Age' which was published just a couple of years ago and widely reviewed (see e.g., review1, review2), failed to receive a nod of acknowledgement.]

In a series of postings I plan to sketch and comment on the presentations. Here, in this introductory post, I wish to dwell on the objectives of the half-day event, the program, and the venue.

Beginning with the last, the venue, the Royal Academy is the home of the arts and sciences in the Netherlands. The building, situated in the 17^th century heart of Amsterdam, reflects the history, culture and wealth of the country – all projected in a modest and circumspect Calvinist manner. The conference was organized by a national scholarly commission appointed by the KNAW to consider literacy in a multimedia era. The commission was initiated and is still dominated by humanities scholars and institutions, although this 'bias' is seemingly changing. The new chairman of this commission, for example, comes from the Amsterdam Communications Department, which is – still – dominated by a behaviorist, quantitative conception of communications scholarship. This means, among other things, that the commission is expanding from a humanities perspective on literacy to one more pluralistic and embracing of the social sciences.

The objective of the event, according to the announcement text found on the KNAW website, is to facilitate exchange between media, language and literature scholars; and representatives from educational institutions and from publishing industry active in the world of new media. The final sentence of the conference announcement, in translated form, suggests much: 'a search for refinement of collective analysis and for refinement of the terms through which societal and educational discussion [on the topic of the conference, literacy in the age of new media] can be conducted'. The obvious question, emerging from this objective, is to what degree this conference contributed to such a broad and ambitious intent. Obvious though it is, the question is impossible to answer at this point in anything other than subjective, impressionistic terms. Here, then, are a few personal impressions….

As far as academic conferences go, this event faired well: the speakers were well chosen and knew their trade, the conventional conference formula – presentations and panel, short moments for interventions from the floor, long coffee breaks and a concluding reception – was successfully applied. I genuinely enjoyed the Friday afternoon, in being able to partake of the presentations given and insights shared. That appreciation stated, I nevertheless felt a strong discomfort about the conventionality and predictability of the formula. The formula lacked what is, in fact, the frequently stated component in the new media environment: participation and user-generated content. The conference reflected the way academics have organized such events for decades and the way most of us probably organize our seminars and classes. The personal and 'real' moments of engagement and exchange took place, predictably, during the coffee breaks and during the reception afterwards. The formula lacked creative innovation related to that core component of new media, user generation, because of which the concern about literacy in a new media age has gained prominence. In this respect, the organizers of this conference missed an opportunity to 'go beyond' the conventional formula of presentation and exchange in an effort to contribute to the overriding objective: generation of discourse among members of the academic community.

I know how difficult it is to 'go beyond' such conventionality; most events for which I have shared organizational responsibility have reflected the same features and formula. All too often we seem captives to the 'one to many' notion of communication and, when there are relatively large numbers involved, as in the case of this KNAW event involving some 150 persons, we close our minds to alternatives. I am involved in organizing an ICA pre-conference entitled the Long History of New Media, and we are facing the same organizational difficulty: how to construct a setting within which engagement, participation, can be optimalized? We've considered several alternatives, like a 'speed dating' variant of small group meetings where individuals rotate among groups at pre-determined time intervals and address topics of the event in groups of 10-15 persons. Until now we've come up with nothing better than a wide range of panels with time built into each for audience interventions. I feel this is a far cry from serious participation, but haven't yet come up with any organizational structures that would accomplish more than something as mundane as increasing the duration of the coffee breaks.

Here's the latest description of how the day is organized, sent this week to authors of papers for the event:

We also wish to mention again the particulars about the roundtables at the pre-conference.  In an effort to facilitate exchange, the roundtables will be organized as follows:

a)      First, each participant in the roundtable presents a 5-minute statement concerning their work.

b)      After each participant has presented, there will be a round of interactions between participants.

c)       After this, there will be time reserved for interventions from the floor.

 We are planning to video and audio record the sessions and hope to archive them and make them available to participants via the Web.

 

As I re-examine the procedures, I see little substantive difference with the KNAW approach and expect a blogger afterwards will express the same disappointment I now share in this post with the paucity of participation built into the KNAW new media literacy event… Before it is too late, within the next few weeks, I would welcome suggestions for facilitating engagement among a group of a hundred, using conventional large room university facilities.

 

 

 

Discussion lists and blogs for librarians

Once again, as we would expect, librarians score as ultra-organized professionals active in the domain of information storage and retrieval.

The Library and Information Science Wiki (LisWiki) is a treasure chest filled with the kinds of information professional librarians crave – and the rest of us would like to have access to in our respective fields. One of the treasures on this wiki is a long list of discussion groups devoted to library-type issues. Another is a list of blogs specialized on the profession; another is material, some now classic, on digitalization, which is one of my present interests (exploring ways to digitalize 30-year-old video tapes from one of the very first community television stations in Europe, the Lokale Omroep Bijlmermeer).

If anyone finds similar wikis for the various department labels of communication studies (e.g., media studies, cultural studies, communication science) and Internet studies (also: multimedia, digital studies, ICT, telematics), please let me know….

WorldCat addendum

WorldCat, I should have guessed, is an initiative of a parent organization of libraries that has been around a long time, since 1967, and encompasses research libraries around the world. Originally known as 'Ohio College Library Center', with globalization it transfigured itself into 'Online Computer Library Center'. Here is text from the OCLC page of history:

History of OCLC

In the beginning…

In 1967, the presidents of the colleges and universities in the state of Ohio founded the Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) to develop a computerized system in which the libraries of Ohio academic institutions could share resources and reduce costs.

OCLC's first offices were in the Main Library on the campus of The Ohio State University (OSU), and its first computer room was housed in the OSU Research Center. It was from these academic roots that Frederick G. Kilgour, OCLC's first president, oversaw the growth of OCLC from a regional computer system for 54 Ohio colleges into an international network.

Expanding beyond Ohio

In 1977, the Ohio members of OCLC adopted changes in the governance structure that enabled libraries outside Ohio to become members and participate in the election of the Board of Trustees; the Ohio College Library Center became OCLC, Inc. In 1981, the legal name of the corporation became OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Today, OCLC serves more than 60,000 libraries of all types in the U.S. and 112 countries and territories around the world.

Sites for Sharing: WorldCat, a new one on the block….

Social networking sites devoted to sharing lists of things have been around for a long time, as have those specialized in sharing information related to books – bibliographies, reviews, cover images. A month ago a group of librarians initiated the beta version of their site for sharing literature. Called WorldCat for, I presume, World Catalogue, it is little more than a month old and momentum is merely starting. Below are snatches of text from the site and from the blog where the interested can trace WorldCat's development.

Highlighted below is text from the WorldCat homepage with a claim positioned in the future: there are many, many library networks that can be consulted, including those of the largest research libraries in the world; it will take some doing to match or exceed those accessible holdings. Access, by the way, does not include lending rights or even privilege to examine a document. One has access to the metadata prepared by a library and, in a sense, the search has only begun once that information is in hand….

" WorldCat is the world's largest network of library content and services. WorldCat libraries are dedicated to providing access to their resources on the Web, where most people start their search for information.

What am I searching?

WorldCat.org lets you search the collections of libraries in your community and thousands more around the world. WorldCat grows every day thanks to the efforts of librarians and other information professionals."

The several YouTube video on WorldCat are gems of performance. One of my favorites is of a senior law librarian elaborating on a project to be reported in July 2008 on developing a specialized legal reference list. Another video, possibly more prosaic but practical for the rest of us, is how a bibliography for a collaborative project can be created and then formatted into a large assortment of styles, and then exported to other referencing tools like EndNote. And another is how to install a Firefox plug-in tool making WorldCat all the easier.

Now, the WorldCat blog….

Welcome to the WorldCat Blog

By Laura on February 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Welcome to the WorldCat Blog! – a fun spot to read about what's happening on WorldCat.org and to share cool ways that people are using the site and their libraries.

What exactly is WorldCat you ask?
It is the world's largest network of library items. WorldCat lets you search many libraries at once to find books, articles, music, videos and more. And helps you locate items in a library near you.

The team here at WorldCat.org is working on new tools and new ways to allow you to make the most of all the resources WorldCat has to offer - to aid your interests, work, and library selections – and to collaborate and share with other WorldCat users. We will be sharing these things with you in this blog and hope that you will share your thoughts and ideas with us as well.

 

Scholarly-Facebook Apps

A librarian, Gerry McKiernan, posted on his blog some 43 scholarly-oriented applications available on Facebook and asked for suggestions of other applications. Many – most – of these 'apps' are in fact features often mentioned in relation to Web 2.0 and can be used independently of the social networking site Facebook. That minor qualification aside, the list is extensive but probably can be extended. For those in the Ljubljana seminar, I would welcome hearing of other 'apps' you use for scholarly-related purposes.

See the following post to view of the list of apps: What Are YOUR Favorite [Library-Related] Facebook Apps?

Wikipedia: venue for student papers

The day before, 18 March, two university instructors from the University of Washington at Bothell gave a presentation at the 2008 Educause Learning Initiative conference detailing their experiences in having students prepare term papers intended for publication in Wikipedia. The slides of the presentation and an audio accompaniment are available on the web; the 50-minute audio with slides can be consulted via Adobe Connect. As a pedagogical exercise, I think using Wikipedia in this manner has much value, and that aspect, as well as several difficulties encountered during two classes across a two-year period, is elaborated in clear detail in the slides and audio.

The presentation is important for us in Ljubljana for another reason: it is an illustration of a quality presentation and is, at the same time, an excellent application of Adobe Connect. The presentation inspired me to try this form of use of Adobe for a subsequent seminar presentation, and it may be a suitable way for seminar paper presentations to also be prepared and delivered. The presentation is long, but viewing the first ten is sufficient to get a 'feel' for the technique employed. And the slides can be viewed with the audio and skimmed in a matter of a few minutes.

Other material on the site of the Educause conference – see program – is also worth examining; most is accessible online. By the way, the manner in which this event has been organized and how material has been archived seems illustrative of excellent conference practice.

The initiative was also described in an article, 'When Wikipedia is the Assignment' in Inside Higher Ed, October 29, 2007; it has been discussed on several blogs, including eng516.