Abstract

This paper discusses the role of Twitter in political advocacy and its potential to create political change through forming networked publics and mobilising them. This paper asserts that Twitter facilitates the creation of networked publics through the use of hashtags that confer an identity around a shared cause or understanding. Advocacy organizations can leverage Twitter to grow their numbers by employing tactics such as using better hashtags, spreading information, and connecting with others, thereby creating a sense of community. The paper highlights the complex relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in political engagement on social media, and how interest groups can leverage both to keep their communities together and to sustain them. Finally, the paper outlines a three-step process for mobilizing these networked publics to create political change.

Full paper available here…

 

Twitter is one of the most widely used social media platforms and has been instrumental in changing the face of political advocacy from top-heavy advocacy organisations with paid memberships to agile, decentralised and digitally-native participatory networked publics. Advocacy organisations can use Twitter to leverage its affordances of creating networked publics to mobilise communities and influence public policy through indirect lobbying strategies. Community organising and grassroots campaigning is seen to be less traditional, less hierarchical and more inclusive—this is particularly true in the social media sphere (Brady et al., 2015). Due to prior research, it has been made clear that the affordances of Twitter have the potential to influence policy and create political change, but this discussion will highlight the role of forming networked publics and mobilising them to illustrate how it can be achieved (Jackson et al., 2018).

Networked Publics

Networked publics are publics—a collection of people who share a common understanding, identity or cause—which are connected through the affordances of technological networks including social media (boyd, 2010). Networked publics are commonly found on Twitter, facilitated through the Twitter affordance of hashtags which confers an identity they tend to form around (Jackson et al., 2018; Mazid, 2020; Saxton et al., 2015). These networked publics can form as short-lived responses to crisis or self-sustaining communities (Saxton et al., 2015). Further, they often feature a high degree of cohesion and identity (Jackson et al., 2018). Engagement in these networked publics is not policed and is emphasised by their open and participatory nature (Jackson et al., 2018; Saxton et al., 2015).

A particular facet of networked publics is interest groups specifically formed around and dedicated to political advocacy. A positive relationship between social media use and political engagement has been identified (Boulianne, 2015; Schmitz et al., 2020). It is important to understand this relationship and how social media draws people into political advocacy. This does not happen automatically, it is the result of concerted efforts on the behalf of advocacy groups to grow their numbers by employing a number of tactics. For instance, the way they use hashtags. Organisations can use specific hashtags that are likely to further the interest group’s cause (Saxton et al., 2015). Better hashtags allow for better ‘brand recognition’ and identity with a cause (Jackson et al., 2018; Saxton et al., 2015). It has been shown that increased feelings of engagement within networked publics can be felt through the use of interest relevant hashtags (Saxton et al., 2015). Organisations can use these hashtags to spread information, advocate for their cause, and to connect with others, which creates a sense of community (Jackson et al., 2018).

Community

Interest groups can use Twitter to extrinsically motivate people into political engagement by joining a group identity and then use community building to keep them together. There is a complex relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in the online sphere, and organisations with political intentions are able to leverage these motivations to grow their publics (Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2017). People tend to engage politically when they have strong intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2017). Prosocial activities like political engagement are particularly well-suited to being extrinsically motivated through social media platforms by expectations of social rewards; particularly when individuals feel that their actions have an impact (Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2017). Lilleker & Koc-Michalksa (2017) found that not only do extrinsic motivations through social media play a role, but the intrinsic motivation from the satisfaction of participating in collective action feeds into further motivation to spread the messaging; which in turn exposes more people to the public, which may be encourage to engage in political action even when their motivation is low (because of effective extrinsic motivation). Because of this complex interplay, interest groups are able to provide a feedback loop of motivation for people to engage in political action and enact broad social change (Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2017).

Networked publics are able to sustain themselves in part because of their sense of identity and community building efforts (Jackson et al., 2018; Schmitz et al., 2020). Interactions between an interest group and their supporters are crucial to fostering community and creating a self-sustaining public (Saxton et al., 2015; Schmitz et al, 2020). Advocacy participation can be broadened by interest groups communicating with their supporters, and allowing these publics to inform and direct the movement which allows for greater feelings of contribution and foster personal investment (Mazid, 2020; Saxton et al., 2015; Schmitz et al., 2020). This can be done by reviewing hashtag use or engagement as well as direct tweets to the organisation.

The community grows when the hashtag or message can escape the bounds of the networked public. Notable public figures are able to leverage hashtags to advocate for causes they care about, as well as boosting their public image in a win-win social media engagement (Jackson et al., 2018). This forms bridges to other networked publics—which may even be tangentially aligned, intriguing the community and potentially expanding its size and influence (Ewbank, 2015).

Mobilisation

Guo and Saxton (2014) outlined a three-step process by which interest groups can affect policy which begins with spreading information and forming a networked public, growing the community (both the feeling of community and the size), and ending in calls-to-action which will mobilise political action within that community (Ewbank, 2015).

One way in which networked can affect public policy is through the fact that political candidates and other decision makers are on Twitter and are therefore more likely to directly see the existence, identity and causes of these networked publics (Whitesell, 2019). This communicative access to policymakers, when utilised, is a form of direct lobbying (Whitesell, 2019). `

The existence and identity of the public can frame public discourse which is a political act in itself while it has sustained presence from community (Chalmers & Shotton, 2016; Mazid, 2020). Furthermore, the networked publics based around a hashtag or movement differentiate themselves in ways that affect their identity in relation to others (Saxton et al., 2015). In the age of social media, shaping the news is important for policy debate, and ultimately, influencing decision makers. Therefore, effective advocacy is dependent on a networked publics ability to frame the discourse around contentious policy (Chalmers & Shotton, 2016).

Interest groups must identify strategies to mobilise their resource (networked public) into achieving strategic objectives (Mazid, 2020; Schmitz et al., 2020). Twitter as a digital tool can increase levels of civic participation, but has little affect on political mobilisation without interest group direction—it is not a substitution for political advocacy groups (Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2017; Schmitz et al., 2020). One way interest groups may be able to utilise their community is by using specific hashtags that can be considered as call-to-action tweets (Saxton et al., 2015).

In political advocacy, researchers have identified two general types of strategies—insider and indirect strategies (Edwards & Hoefer, 2010; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Mazid, 2020). Current research suggests that in the realm of social media, indirect strategies prevail (Guo & Saxton, 2014). The types of indirect strategies advocacy groups tend to employ on Twitter include: public education, grassroots lobbying, public events, research coalition building, and media advocacy (Mazid, 2020). Smaller interest groups can use indirect advocacy tactics in conjunction with networked publics to reduce the influence gap between large organisations which engage in direct lobbying (Chalmers & Shotton, 2016; Mazid, 2020).

One of the most simple, common and still effective methods of indirect lobbying strategies is information politics for which Twitter is particularly well-suited (Edwards & Hoefer, 2010; Ewbank, 2015; Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Saxton et al., 2015; Schmitz et al., 2020). As discussed above with the affordances of networked publics, Twitter is a great tool for information politics, by which interest groups are able to disseminate information with political intentions, and potential audiences have drastically lower entry thresholds (Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019; Schmitz et al., 2020). The negligible costs of spreading information online has made it easier than previous generations to spread one’s political messaging. In fact, the biggest hurdle now is not the ability to spread one’s message, but the struggle to stand out in sheer volume of Twitter posts (Mazid, 2020). Saxton et al. (2015) found that examining the engagement on social media posts from interest groups is an effective way at assessing the probably impact on policy, which provides organisations with a measurable factor by which to determine the effectiveness of their messaging strategies.

One interesting and critical aspect of information politics is that to be visible as a movement is just as important as the message itself (Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019). The political act of presence in the digital sphere itself exerts an indirect effect on policy and decision-makers (Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019). Combined with the strength of community and identity in regard to networked publics that form around hashtags and interest groups, this creates powerful modes of effective advocacy.

Interest groups can leverage the networked publics that have formed around them by including hashtags that include these publics in their messaging. Generally, the more hashtags that are added, the more reach and re-tweets they are likely to get, effectively increasing their indirect impact (Saxton et al., 2015). With more reach comes more exposure between networks and social connections (Boulianne, 2015). Furthermore, political messaging that comes from ones peers or social ties comes with an implicit level of trust in that information, providing motivating effects as well as increased reach (Boulianne, 2015). Call-to-action type tweets can be used to initiate petitions, rallies, events and protests once a large self-sustaining network is achieved (Brady et al., 2015; Guo & Saxton, 2014). This can also involve the use of hashtags with call-to-action type message which further feeds into motivations and can be added to re-tweets to further intersectional messaging (Jackson et al., 2018; Mazid, 2020). With a large built community, it is clear how much more effective this mobilisation has become compared to what it would be if organisations did not leverage Twitter first.

Conclusion

It is clear that Twitter has transformed the face of political advocacy, allowing participatory networked publics to form around common identity and causes. It is also clear that by exploring themes of identity and advocacy, this discussion belongs under the topic of identity and online advocacy. Through the affordances of Twitter, interest groups and advocacy organisations can leverage hashtags to foster community and create a sense of identity. This serves to motivate, create personal investment and overall broaden and deepen political participation. The interplay between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations through social media further serves to create a feedback loop of motivation and commitment which fosters growth as strategic hashtags escape the boundaries of the networked public, bringing in new members. Organisations can also personalise and affirm their presence online as a political statement and exert influence. The role of Twitter for creating networked publics and organisation lead mobilisation has been demonstrated. Expanding networks, community identity, and indirect lobbying tactics such as information politics make for effective advocacy campaigns and it is clear that; overall, Twitter has provided a powerful tool for advocacy organisations to mobilise communities and influence public policy.

 

 

References