24
1 / Daniel Heine Government Communication on the Social Web An Experimental Study Exploring the Use of Interactive and Participative Elements Daniel Heine, M. A. General Online Research 2010 Pforzheim

Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

1 / Daniel Heine

Government Communication on the Social Web

An Experimental Study Exploring the Use ofInteractive and Participative Elements

Daniel Heine, M. A.

General Online Research 2010 Pforzheim

Page 2: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

2 / Daniel Heine

Introduction

Page 3: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

3 / Daniel Heine

Research Question

_ Is the Social Web more effective than other, “established” communication tools?

Page 4: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

4 / Daniel Heine

Experimental Research Setting

Object

_ Examining a causal link between the use of a communication tool as an instrument of government communication and the achieved effects

Basic idea

_ Simulating the communication process occurring in the context of policy implementation using different communication tools under constant circumstances

Page 5: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

5 / Daniel Heine

Independent Variable: Social Web Use

Social Web

_ Interactive and participative elements in online communication settings (Welker & Zerfaß 2008 p. 12)

Four levels of Social Web use

1. Neither participative nor interactive: no Social Web (control group)

2. participative and interactive: Simple Social Web

a. based on text: Simple Social Web/Comment (experiment group I)

b. based on video: Simple Social Web/Video (experiment group II)

3. participative and interactive based on both text and video allowing to recount relatedness of earlier messages : Complex Social Web (experiment group III)

„Lurking“ as dominant using practice

_ Only six percent off all onliners are writing blogs, adding comments or videos (Busemann & Gscheidle 2009: 357)

_ Analyzes of passive use (reception) of Social Web

Page 6: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

6 / Daniel Heine

Dependent Variable: Communication Effect

Initiation of communication processes

Measu-rement range

Results ofcommunication processes

Output

Outcome

Internal Output

Process efficiencyQuality

Budget complianceFailure rate

ReadabilitySatisfaction of internal clients

External Output

CoverageContent

ClippingsVisits

DownloadsImpact ratio

Share of voice

Direct

Outcome

PerceptionUtilization

Knowlegde

AwarenessUnique visitorsSession length

Reader per issue

RecallRecognition

Indirect

Outcome

OpinionAttitudeEmotion

Behavioral dispositionBehavior

Reputation indexBrand image

Strategic awareness of employees

Purchase intentionLeads

Innovative ideas…

Ressources

Employee assignmentFinancial Expenses

Personnel costsOutsourcing costs

Input

Value creation

Impact on strategic and/or financial targets (Value chain)

Impact on tangible and/or intangible

resources(Capital

accumulation)

SalesNo. of project

agreementsCost reduction

Reputation capitalBrand valueEmployeeknowledge

Outflow

ORGANIZATION

Communication processes

MEDIA/CHANNELS STAKEHOLDERS ORGANIZATION

low impact on value creationstrong influence of communication management

Level of impact

Indica-tors(e.g.)

Mea-sured object

high impact on value creationweak influence of communication management

© DPRG German Public Relations Association & ICV International Controller Association 2009

DPRG/ICV framework for communication controlling

Page 7: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

7 / Daniel Heine

Treatment: Fake Law

“Konsumkostenentlastungsprogramm” – “Consumption Discharge Act”

_ Saxon federal state law

_ Refund of VAT payments for private spendings in shops in Saxony in July 2009

_ Application as condition sine qua non

_ Other regulations, descriptions, etc. according to real wording

_ Sophisticated internal construction – understanding all the regulations is not trivial

_ Issue and political intent refer to the surrounding situation of economic crisis (e.g. in Germany Abwrackprämie, Wachstumsbeschleunigungsgesetz)

Page 8: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

8 / Daniel Heine

Treatment: Fake Government Website

Control Group

_ No Social Web

_ Neither opportunities to participate nor to interact (no relations between messages because there is only one sender: the government)

_ Represents „traditional“ tools of online (government) communication

Page 9: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

9 / Daniel Heine

Page 10: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

10 / Daniel Heine

Treatment: Fake Government Website

Experiment Group I

_ Simple Social Web/Comment

_ Opportunity to participate in communication sequences by adding a comment

_ No differentiation between sender and recipient

_ Relations between messages from different senders

_ Represents the communication style ofweblogs

Page 11: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

11 / Daniel Heine

Page 12: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

12 / Daniel Heine

Treatment: Fake Government Website

Experiment Group II

_ Simple Social Web/Video

_ Opportunity to participate in communication sequences by adding a video comment

_ No differentiation between sender and recipient

_ Relations between messages from different senders

_ Representing the communication style ofvideo blogs

Page 13: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

13 / Daniel Heine

Page 14: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

14 / Daniel Heine

Treatment: Fake Government Website

Experiment Group III

_ Complex Social Web

_ Opportunity to participate in communication sequences by addingboth videos and text comments

_ Relations between messages taking into account the relatedness of earlier messages

_ Represents the communication practiced at Social Web Platforms like Youtube

Page 15: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

15 / Daniel Heine

Page 16: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

16 / Daniel Heine

Research Participants and Sampling Procedure

Sampling procedure

_ Particular choice of typical cases: Persons with different use of Social Web and political interest

_ Setting up „statistical twins“

_ Random matching to one version of the website

Location an time

_ Check-in-area of Leipzig/Halle Airport

_ 23., 24. June 2009

Measurement methods

_ Survey (questionnaire)

_ Observation (did anyone take an application form?)

Page 17: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

17 / Daniel Heine

Analysis

Steps

_ Calculation of indices for every measurement range

_ Aggregation of the separate indices to one index describing the global communication effect (PICO)

_ Bi- and multivariate analysis on different levels of data aggregation considering other independent/intervening variables:

_ Analysis of variances

_ Rank correlation

Limitations

_ Statistical analysis yielded no significant effect

_ Probably because of the low number of participants (Diekmann 2009 p. 714).

Interpretation is limited

Page 18: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

18 / Daniel Heine

Socio Demographic Structure

_ All in all 68 research participants

_ According to this 17 research participants each experiment group

_ 59,7 % male, 40,3 % female

_ Average age: 38 years

_ Different professions, use of internet and Social Web, political interest

Page 19: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

19 / Daniel Heine

Social Web Improves Communication Effects

_ Lowest communication effect in control group (no Social Web use)

_ Complex Social Web (comments and videos) shows best effects in affective measurement ranges where it even beats forms of moderate Social Web use (in contrast to the global level)

Page 20: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

20 / Daniel Heine

Influence of Intervening Variables

Use of Social Web

_ Declining communication effect caused by Social Web use when there is a lack of routine in handling Social Web applications and platforms

Political interest

_ Communication effect improvement is higher with research participants with less political interest

Involvement

_ Communication effect improvement is higher with research participants with high involvement

Page 21: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

21 / Daniel Heine

Discussion

Social Web has the potential to be more than a “bypass”

_ Empirical reasons to suppose that Social Web use as an instrument of government communication has positive influence on the communication effects

_ Using relatively simple patterns of participation and interaction is usually the most suitable way to communicate political decisions

_ Complex forms of Social Web should be used when the focus lies on persuasion (changing emotions, opinions, attitudes, behavior)

All these effects do not conform to any automatism

_ Practice in using Social Web leads to greater increase of the communication effect caused by Social Web use

_ Less political interest leads to greater increase of the communication effect caused by Social Web use

_ Higher involvement of a person in a policy leads to greater increase of the communication effect caused by Social Web use

Page 22: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

22 / Daniel Heine

Thank You For Your Attention

Daniel Heine, M. A.

Public Relations Executive/Online CommunicationsCity of Dresden – Economic Development Office

[email protected]

www.danielheine.de

Page 23: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

23 / Daniel Heine

References

_ Bieber, C. (2006). Zwischen Grundversorgung und Bypass-Operation. Von der Idee zur Praxis digitaler Regierungskommunikation. In Kamps, K. & Nieland, J.-U. (Eds.): Regieren und Kommunikation. Meinungsbildung, Entscheidungsfindung und gouvernementales Kommunikationsmanagement – Trends, Vergleiche, Perspektiven (pp. 239-260).

_ Blum, S. & Schubert, K. (2009): Politikfeldanalyse.

_ Busemann, K./Gscheidle, C. (2009). Web 2.0: Communitys bei jungen Nutzern beliebt. Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2009. In Media Perspektiven, No. 7, S. 356–364. URL: http://www.media-perspektiven.de/uploads/tx_mppublications/Busemann_7_09.pdf, last access 12.09.2009.

_ Castells, M. (2006). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. In Castells, M. (Ed.): The network society. From knowledge to policy (pp. 3–21).

Page 24: Government Communication on the Social Web – GOR 2010 / Pforzheim

24 / Daniel Heine

References

_ Diekmann, A. (2009). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen.

_ Krotz, F. (2007). Mediatisierung. Fallstudien zum Wandel von Kommunikation.

_ Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked Interactivity. In Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol 2, No. 4, URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120837708/HTMLSTARTW, last acsess 12.09.2009.

_ Welker, M. & Zerfaß, A. (2008). Einleitung: Social Web in Journalismus, Politik und Wirtschaft. In Zerfaß, A., Welker, M. & Schmidt, J. (Eds.). Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web. Strategien und Anwendungen. Perspektiven für Wirtschaft, Politik und Publizistik. Volume 2 (pp. 12-18).