When opinion leaders blog: new forms of citizen interaction

ABSTRACT

Web logs (i.e., blogs) provide enhanced opportunities to extend capabilities of traditional electronic mail and discussion lists, especially in the hands of opinion leaders; such tools offer greater social interaction and informal discussion, and opportunities for conversational content production. Because blogging tools are simple, available, and free, users can easily communicate with others in their social networks, their geographic communities and the interested public. Blogs represent self-organizing social systems that can help many persons to: 1) interact collaboratively, 2) learn from each other by exchanging ideas and information, and 3) solve collective problems. For opinion leaders -- that small percentage of the population that is socially and politically active -- blogs represent another channel to disseminate ideas and garner feedback from members of their social network. The present research offers findings from a random household survey of citizens of Blacksburg and Montgomery County, Virginia about citizens' interests and attitudes towards local government, discussion of political issues, and their Internet use. We find that opinion leaders who engage in some form of blogging (read or write) are more likely to be male, extroverted and educated than bloggers who are not politically active. They score higher than other bloggers on measures of offline and online political interests and activities, community collective efficacy, and the size and heterogeneity of their political discussion networks. As such, their use of blogs may serve as a growing new communication channel to exercise their informal influence.

REFERENCES

• 1: Arterton, F. C. Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987.
• 2: Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, 1997.
• 3: Barber, B. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984.
• 4: Carroll, J. M. and Reese, D. Community collective efficacy: Structure and consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-36 (January 6-9, Kona) 2003.
• 5: Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Dunlap, D., Kavanaugh, A., Schafer, W. and Snook, J. Social and civic participation in a community network. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin and S. Kiesler (eds.) Domesticating Information Technologies. Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
• 6: Coleman, S. and Gotz, J. Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. 2002. Downloaded from: http://bowingtogether.net/
• 7: Dahl, R. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press New Haven, CT, 1991.
• 8: Dahlberg, L. The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society 4, 4 (2001), 615--633.
• 9: Fishkin, J. S. Democracy and Deliberation. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1991.
• 10: Gastil, J. and Levine, P. (eds.) Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2005.
• 11: Horrigan, J. Online communities: Networks that Nurture Long-Distance Relationships and Local Ties. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2001. http://www.pewinternet.org
• 12: Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., and Resnick, P. The Internet and Democratic Debate. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2004. http://www.pewinternet.org
• 13: Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York, 1961.
• 14: Katz, E. Communications research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (1987), 525--545.
• 15: Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. The Free Press, New York, 1955.
• 16: James E. Katz , Ronald E. Rice, Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002
• 17: Andrea Kavanaugh , Andrew Cohill , Scott Patterson, The use and impact of the Blacksburg Electronic Village, Community networks (2nd ed.): lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia, Artech House, Inc., Norwood, MA, 2000
• 18: Andrea Kavanaugh , Debbie Denise Reese , John M. Carroll , Mary Beth Rosson, Weak ties in networked communities, Communities and technologies, Kluwer, B.V., Deventer, The Netherlands, 2003
• 19: Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., and Zin, T. T. Participating in civil society: The case of networked communities. Interacting with Computers 17 (2005a), 9--33.
• 20: Kavanaugh, A., Isenhour, P., Cooper, M., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., and Schmitz, J. Information technology in support of public deliberation In P. Besselaar, G. de Michelis, J. Preece, and C. Simone (eds.) Communities and Technologies 2005. Springer, The Netherlands, 2005b, 19--40.
• 21: Kavanaugh, A., Isenhour, P., Godara, J., Cooper, M., Midha, A., and Randolph, W. Detecting and Facilitating Deliberation at the Local Level. In T. Davies and B. Noveck (eds.) Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Forthcoming.
• 22: Keller, E. and Berry, J. The Influentials. The Free Press, New York, 2003.
• 23: Kim, J., Wyatt, R. and Katz, E. News, talk, opinion, participation: the part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication 16, 4 (1999), 361--385.
• 24: Kirn, K. Building social capital on the web: The case of Minnesota E-Democracy. In Turow, J (Ed.), Energizing Voters Online: Best Practices from Election 2000. Report No. 39, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
• 25: Robert Kraut , William Scherlis , Tridas Mukhopadhyay , Jane Manning , Sara Kiesler, The HomeNet field trial of residential Internet services, Communications of the ACM, v.39 n.12, p.55-63, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.1145/240483.240493]
• 26: Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Bonka, B., Cummings, J., Helgelson, V., and Crawford, A. Internet paradox revisited, Journal of Social Issues, 58 (2002), 49--74.
• 27: Krugman, P. The Self-Organizing Economy. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK, 1996.
• 28: Lave, J. and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
• 29: Markus, M. L. Toward a "critical mass" theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14, 5 (1987), 491--511.
• 30: Michaelson, M. Political efficacy and electoral participation of Chicago Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 1 (March 2000), 136--150.
• 31: Milbrath, L. and Goel, M. Political Participation: Why and How Do People Get Involved in Politics? University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1977.
• 32: Miller, A., Goldberg, E., and Erbring, L. Type-set politics: participation, representation, and policy preferences. American Political Science Review 73, 1 (1980), 67--84.
• 33: Bonnie A. Nardi , Diane J. Schiano , Michelle Gumbrecht , Luke Swartz, Why we blog, Communications of the ACM, v.47 n.12, December 2004 [doi>10.1145/1035134.1035163]
• 34: Pippa Norris, Digital Divide?: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2001
• 35: Price, V. 2005. Online Health Discussion Project. Paper presented at Stanford Online Deliberation conference, May 19-21, 2005.
• 36: Rainie, L. 2005. The State of Blogging. Norris, P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2001.
• 37: Price, V. Online Health Discussion Project. Paper presented at Stanford Online Deliberation Conference, May 20-22, 2005.
• 38: Rainie, L. 2005. The State of Blogging. Pew Internet & American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org
• 39: Everett M. Rogers, Communication Technology: The New Media in Society, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1986
• 40: Rogers, E. and Shoemaker, F. Communication of Innovations (2nd edition), The Free Press, New York, 1971.
• 41: Schmitz, J., Rogers, E., Phillips, K., and Paschal, D. The Public Electronic Network (PEN) and homeless in Santa Monica. Journal of Applied Communication Research 23, 1 (1995), 26--43.
• 42: Schudson, M. The limits of teledemocracy. The American Prospect. (Fall, 1992), 41--45.
• 43: Schudson, M. Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14 (1997), 297--309.
• 44: Douglas Schuler, New community networks: wired for change, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1996
• 45: Verba, S. and Nie, N. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Harper and Rowe, New York, NY, 1972.
• 46: Wheatley, M. J. Leadership and the New Science. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, 1992.
• 47: Wiley, D. and Edwards, E. Online Self-Organizing Social Systems: The Decentralized Future of Online Learning. 2003. Downloaded from: http://wiley.cc.usu.edu/
• 48: Wulf, V. Evolving cooperation when introducing groupware: A self-organization perspective. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 6, 2 (1999), 55--75.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Collaborative computing

General Terms:
Human Factors, Measurement, Theory

Keywords:
computer mediated communication, empirical methods, internet, social computing, survey research