Molinari @ EDEM10

8/8/2019 Molinari @ EDEM10

1/20

Francesco Molinari & Erika PorquierKrems, 6th May 2010

Social Networking on ClimateChange: The IDEAL-EU Experience


2/20

Abstract Our paper reports about the deployment of a multilingual SocialNetworking Platform in three Regions of Europe (Catalonia,Poitou-Charentes and Tuscany), in the context of a EU-fundedPreparatory Action on eParticipation (IDEAL-EU), dealing withthe issue of climate change and energy policy making at the levelof the European Parliament.

The US (Obama) approach and a novel European usage of social networks in political online discourses are compared.

A recommendation to policy makers is that social networking can be useful whenever the topics under discussion are limited inscope, but also wide in implications, so that they require movingforward from one-shot and ad-hoc participation experiments,towards the permanent coverage of mission critical PublicAdministration functions.

Krems, 6th May 20102


3/20

Overarching research questions

1. Are computer-based social networks a valid extension of those based on face-to-face interaction?

2. Can the former be of use for politicians and policy makers?3. Are there any structural differences between the US and

the EU approach (if any) to social networking in politics?

Not a systematic collection of evidence, but some hints from existing theories and practice



4/20

Evidence

Research Question #1



5/20

Contradictory trends?Global Web Traffic to SocialNetworking Sites

Unique Visitors Growth Vs.Penetration



6/20

Social implications of Dunbars number



7/20

Maximum network size averaged 153.5 individuals ,

with a mean network size of 124.9 for those individuals explicitly contacted;these values are remarkably close to the group size of 150 predicted for humanson the basis of the size of their neocortex. Age, household type, and therelationship to the individual influence network structure, although the

proportion of kin remained relatively constant at around 21%. Frequency of contact between network members was primarily determined by two classes of variable: passive factors (distance, work colleague, overseas) and active factors(emotional closeness, genetic relatedness). Controlling for the influence of passive

factors on contact rates allowed the hierarchical structure of human social

groups to be delimited. These findings suggest thatthere may becognitive constraints on network size .


Source: Hill and Dunbar (2003)


8/20

Evidence




9/20

Five impact areas of social networks inUS politics


Branding Voter registration Fund raising Volunteering Voter Turnout

Source: Chris Kelly (2007)


10/20

Can we say they work? Yes, we can!


This graph taken from Marcelo et al. (2008)


11/20

Evidence




12/20

A European Way to Social Networking?


The IDEAL-EU SNPhttp://www.ideal-debate.eu


13/20

The IDEAL-EU SNP Figures

July-December 2008 January-December 2009



14/20

The IDEAL-EU SNP Traffic


Google Stats


15/20

Five characters of successful socialnetworks in EU/US politics


a) Specialist / rather than generalist like in the US (e.g.electoral Facebook groups)

b) Top down (by Government initiative) / rather than

bottom up (Party campaign)c) Dealing with policy issues / rather than electoral aimsd) The presence of lively debates increases reputation and

attractiveness, thus Google driven traffic (only EU)e) They can induce mass imitation and multiplicative effects

(both but at different action levels presumably)


16/20

Vote Rush Vs. Bar Chat

The US Way The EU Way



17/20

Recommendation for EU PA


Build an ICT infrastructure (better if OpenSource) for social networking whenever thetopics under discussion arelimited in scope, but wide

in potential implications. This can justify moving forward from one-shotand ad-hoc participation experiments, towardspermanent coverage of Public Administrations

mission critical functions.


18/20

Disclaimer


The underlying research was made possible in part by a co-financement of the European Commission to the IDEAL-EUProject, a Preparatory Action in the area of eParticipation.However, the opinions expressed in this paper are solely of

the authors and do not involve any of the EU institutions.


19/20

References


R.A. Hill and R.I.M. Dunbar (2003): Social Network Size inHumans. In Human Nature, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 5372.

K.B. Marcelo, M.H. Lopez, C. Kennedy and K. Barr (2008):Young Voter Registration and Turnout Trends. CIRCLE/Rock theVote, online: http://www.civicyouth.org

Morgan Stanley Research (2009): Economy + Internet Trends.March 20, 2009, online: http://www.slideshare.net/tcrock08/techtrends032009final

Nielsenwire (2010): Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spenton Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year. http://

blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter-global-time-spent-on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year/


20/20

Contacts Corresponding author:Francesco Molinari, [email protected]

Erika Porquier, [email protected]


Molinari @ EDEM10

Documents

Transcript of Molinari @ EDEM10