Monthly Archives: November 2010

Literature Review

The adoption of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) by citizens has drastically changed the way we live and interaction patterns. The impact of the Internet on every aspect of our life has been a very intriguing topic for scholars of many disciplines. In this work, under the broad topic-the relationship between the internet and political participation, we specifically focus on the question whether the use of social networking sites by university students can enhance their political participation in China. In the literature, compared with comprehensive discussions of the general terms of internet and political engagement, fewer work has emphasized the aspect of a particular form of internet applications, such as social networking sites, partly because social media or web2.0 technology are relatively new.

Thus, we will firstly review some dominant views on whether the rise of Internet could play an active role in widening and deepening citizen’s political participation so as to provide a broad background before examining the previous works answering a similar question of our research. Secondly we move to review some research about the usage of social media and youth’s political participation. Thirdly how Chinese participate in politics and the implication of the popularity of internet will be discussed.

Internet and Political Participation

In the literature there are various and even opposite hypotheses developed with regard to the political impact of the prevalence of the internet. Optimists support the idea that a more engaged political community can be achieved by the internet (Stanley & Weare, 2004), while pessimists believe the internet shows little advantage in providing a participatory model (Gerhards & Schafer, 2010) . Many other research doesn’t provide a firm answer to the question (Ward, Gibson & Lusoli, 2003, Gennaro & Dutton, 2006, Polat, 2005), which can be explained by the fact that no constant evaluation systems have been widely accepted. The full panel data from 1992 to 2002 was used in one more recent research showed internet was not able to explain significant variation in democracy cores around the world (Best & Wade, 2009).

Predictors of Political Participation

To well measure the forms, the style and the level of the political participation in our article, the concept of political participation should be carefully examined. As mentioned above many studies have adopted the socioeconomics status （SES）as the predictor of political participation, based on the ideal that unequal levels of participation should be given equal consideration. Based on the SES model, a resource model of political participation was developed with the advantage that it can not only perform as predictor of the political participation, but also it in fact links the SES to the political activities, explaining why people from different social background participate in particular kinds of political activity. Authors claim the resources, time, money and civic skills, which distribute relating to SES, are powerful predictors of political participation (Brady, Verba, & Schlozman, 1995). However, it may not be such case, because the motivations in politics, such as interest and efficacy, are excluded by the model. Using this framework, another paper analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation develops its first two steps by modeling and assessing how non-monetary factors influencing online participation distribute across social categories (Best & Krueger, 2005).

.

A more informed public?

Research examining the social implications of the internet questions whether the increased availability of information provided by the internet has served to a more informed public (DiMaggio et al, 2001). A common logic is that a more informed society is achieved by easier access to a high volume of information (Browning, 1996; Rheingold, 1991). Not only the use of traditional sources of information online but also the emergence of usage of weblogs is equally important predictors of online political engagement (Zúñiga & Rojas, 2009). However, another empirical study rejects the mechanisms linked between the information availability and levels of engagement (Bimber, 2001). Meanwhile Polat summarizes why high volume of information online doesn’t guarantee a more informed public: that human processing information ability is limited, that most online information comes from traditional sources, that unequal distribution of information exists, and that the internet feature of narrow casting leads to fragmentation (Polat, 2005).

Increased deliberative discussion?

In addition, optimists suggest another reason to argue the enhanced level of participation, namely, the potential to increased deliberative discussion. Interactive civic messaging reinforces interpersonal political discussion which in turn fosters civic participation (Shah et al. 2005). A comparison between an online forum and traditional media confirms the effect of the internet bringing new participants to political discussion (Stanley & Weare, 2004). By expanding the communication capacity, the internet may facilitate a qualitative change from mass communication into horizontal discussions, but it still needs further observation (Ward, Gibson & Lusoli, 2003, Polat, 2005). An empirical study rejected the idea to consider the internet as a public sphere, where deliberative participation is improved, by laying out a model to compare internet and print media (Gerhards and Schäfer, 2010).

A more interactive government?

Except that opinions on increased horizontal participation diverse, whether the internet can play a positive role in promoting a more interactive government is still doubtful. A simplistic view regarding that increasing the access to broadband internet can result trust in government is denied research studying four cases of municipalities (Tapia & Ortiz, 2010). Another research with a special interest in the vertical relationship between the authority and citizens in China claims that people can enhance participation by e-information, e-consultation, e-discussion and e-decision making, but it’s all under government’s close monitoring (Jiang&Xu 2009). A case study examines the e-participation and local governance seems to come to a similar conclusion that though increased involvement exists there is no fundamental change because of the civic culture and social capital (Alonso, 2009). The evolving technology may indeed not be able to perform perfectly for e-democracy at present time, but government should take incremental steps to adapt to the internet (Coleman & Norris, 2005, Dutton & Peltu, 2007).

Widened participation or digital divide?

When measuring political participation, socioeconomic status (SES), gender and age are often used as control variables (Shi, 1997, Tolbert & McNeal, 2003, Weber et al.2003, Best & Krueger, 2005, Gennaro & Dutton, 2006). While still using these factors for online participation, many other studies look into the area of digital divide and internet use by the youth. Physical locations are identified as a predictor of the access to the internet, the usage of which has a clear effect on civic participation-contacting a public official (Sylvester & McGlynn, 2009). One noteworthy result from the study of municipal e-participation in Norway shows the younger citizens who usually stand outside the political participation use the web actively, and there is no obvious difference of the online political participation between the political elites and citizens, even though the internet widens the social and demographic divisions (Saglie & Vabo, 2009). Apart from the individual level, a perspective from media is adopted by the research claiming the plurality of media, especially the social media, is challenging the previous relationship between the monopolistic media and politics (Muir, 2008).

Youth and social media

Since it is indicated in several studies that the internet have brought the younger generation into political participation either online or offline (Coleman, 2005, Gennaro & Dutton, 2006), it is necessary to narrow down our review into works related to young adults, where also our research question lies in. To examine the extant relationship between the youth’s internet use and civic engagement, a study shows a digital renaissance of youth and the two concepts are positively related (Vreese, 2007). A more recent study confirms this finding but the difference of civic participation and political participation is distinguished, and the interpersonal communication is considered as the essential predictor (Zhang et al, 2010). Although the emergence of social networking sites seems to promise a democratic discourse for its users, this hypothesis is rejected since young adults do not more inclined to participate in politics than other forms of media (Baumgartner & Morris, 2009). Avoiding direct answer to the question, the authors broke the internet use into purposes and time dimensions, and then reached the conclusions that the youth’s activity is an important predictor of the civic engagement rather than time spent online (Quintelier 2008). Then later research further focuses on the ordinary youth neither apathetic nor activists but the influence of the medium the internet have on youngsters is not emphasized (Harris, Wyn, & Younes, 2010). Although internet may not be the point in this research but actually their individualized acts expressing their political and social concerns are shaped by the internet.

Political Participation in China

What reviewed above mainly neglects how to assess the political participation and to provide a meaningful concept in China, we have to move into the area of the modes of political participation in China and how internet fosters the participation. Combining the dimensions, initiative required, risks (the most important factor) and conflict, a study divides the political participation acts in Beijing into seven modes: voting, campaign activities, appeals, adversarial appeals, cronyism, resistance, and election boycotts. The institutional arrangements have played a very important role in people’s political behavior in Chinese society. For example, the individualized acts can be effective, so the differentiation between particularized contacts and communal activities will disappear (Shi, 1997). Instead of directly examining the ordinary people’s forms of political participation, a research proposes six policy agenda setting models to explain how participants at various levels have a say in the process of policy formulation (Wang, 2008), which has not been emphasized by Shi’s work for his pessimistic view on the possibility. In addition it is noteworthy to mention that Wang envisages the rise of the internet provides primary channels for Chinese citizens to comment on public affairs and challenge the authority, but except for extreme controversial cases, most issues brought by the internet still needs long time to transform accumulative online political participation into policy adjustments (Wang, 2008).

Adoption of Social Networking Sites and College Students’ Political Participation in China

Huan SUN

Abstract

This study examines if usage of social networking sites (SNS) by Chinese college students has a positive effect on their political participation. Using data from a survey of 527 Tsinghua University students, this study finds positive relationship between intensity of SNS use and their political participation. Political attitude is proved as mediation linking SNS use and political participation.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

With the existing literature on Internet and political participation, this study uses original survey data to test the relationship between SNS use and college students’ political participation in China. Formally, the hypotheses are as follows:

H1: Time spent on SNS is positively linked with political participation.

H2: Frequency of SNS use is positively associated with political participation.

H3: Political attitude, as important mediation, has an influence on the relationship between intensity of SNS use and political participation.

H4: Political participation skill, as important mediation, has an influence on the relationship between intensity of SNS use and political participation.

Method

Sample

To fulfill the goals of this study, a survey was conducted in spring at Tsinghua University covering both undergraduate and graduate students, excluding international students. We handed out 721 questionnaires and had 521 respondents. The response rate was 73.1%. For sampling procedure, first, whole lists of student dorm in three categories (bachelor, master and doctoral students) were made. Second, according to the proportion of numbers of students in three categories, the number of sample dorms of each category is calculated. Third, a sample size of 141 dorms were randomly selected, composing of 53 for the category of bachelor, 55 for master, and 33 for doctoral students. Once the dorms were selected, we handed questionnaire to all students in that dorm. Each sample dorm was visited at most 4 times unless we collected all answered questionnaires in that dorm before the fourth visit.

Measures

Political Participation

Political participation is measured with references of several western scholars’ works but combined with Chinese students’ character of political participation behavior. This study emphasizes the concept of political participation is behavior not attitude. Three levels of political participation is considered, a) political participation related with gathering controversial information or news, b) civil participation with an focus on caring about public life, c) in comparison with previous categories, more radical political participation behaviors. A specific list of three forms of political participation is described as following—

Table 1 Conceptualization of Political Participation

Factor	Indicators
Information political participation	Talking about political news with others
	Reading political news
	Forwarding or sharing political news
	Making suggestion on development of your organization
	Donation
Civil political participation	Organizing activities for charity
	Community service
	Making a complaint for public interest
	Giving a speech on a topic of public interest
	Forwarding an email about public affair
	Taking part in online petition
Radical political participation	Wearing clothes with an political meaning
	Protesting
	Taking part in an assembly
	Boycotting

Respondents were asked how often they have done these behaviors in the past 12 months. The frequency of conducting behaviors is measured in 5 points. “5” stands for “most frequent” and “1” stands for “never have done”.

Intensity of SNS use

Intensity of SNS use is considered in two dimensions, time spent on SNS and frequency of SNS use. In the survey, Renren.com is the representative of SNS, not only because Renren has all typical functions of SNS but also it is the most popular SNS website among college students in China. We can see from Table2, 86.1% students are users of Renren. Then Students were asked how often they log on to Renren and how much time they spent on it every day. The descriptive statistics is for intensity of SNS use is Table3.

Table 2 Renren membership

Are you a user of Renren.com
	Frequency	Proportion
No	69	13.1
Yes	454	86.1
Missing	4	.8
Total	527	100.0

Table 3 descriptive statistics of Intensity of SNS use

		Note	Min		Max	Mean	SD
Time spent on Renren every day	1=less than 10 minutes 6=over 4 hours			1	6	2.49	1.299
Frequency of logging to Renren	1=less than once a day 5=over 7 times a day			1	5	2.72	1.210

Sociodemographics

The variables included gender (male = 66.3%), age (M = 22.72, SD = 3.16), family monthly income per person (ranging from 1=below 118 USD to 5=over 2212 USD, M=2.89, SD=1.25), and GPA (ranging from 1=top 20% to 4=bottom 20%, M=2.17, SD=0.89).

Results

We can see from the structural equation model, the total effect of time spent on SNS on information political participation is 0.074, on civil political participation is 0.06, and radical political participation is 0.02. So we can accept H1: Time spent on SNS is positively linked with political participation. What needs to emphasize here is that there is no direct effect of time spent on SNS on civil political participation and radical political participation, but through information political participation. Also, we can prove H2 by the structural equation model above, there is a positive link between frequency of SNS use and political participation, while time spent on SNS is the mediation.

The total effect of time spent on SNS on information political participation is 0.074, consisting of direct effect 0.13, and the indirect effect -0.057. It indicates that college students spend more time on SNS, their spent more time collecting and sharing public or political information, even though the effect of SNS use is quite limited. Political attitude is important mediation and it is negatively linked between the two variables, time spent on SNS and information political participation. So we accept H3.

We cannot prove H4 in this model, there is no path going through political participation skills. But actually political participation skills have positive influence on civil political participation and radical political participation.

Conclusion

We find SNS use is positively linked to college students’ political participation. Students spend more time on SNS, they tend to be more possible to read, share, and discuss political news. The political information is positively linked with civil participation behaviors, which contribute to more radical behaviors such as protest and boycotting.

This result can answer the question whether the increased availability of information provided by the internet has served to a more informed public. Our empirical data confirmed the mechanism linked between the availability of information and political engagement as a response to previous literature (DiMaggio et al, 2001, Zúñiga & Rojas, 2009, Bimber, 2001, Polat, 2005).

This study supports political interest and political knowledge have an influence on college students’ political participation. But we cannot confirm socioeconomic variables have an impact on their participation.

Putnam’s discussion about social capital might be helpful to explain the results of this study. The concept of social capital is linked with social networking, life satisfaction, trust, and participation. The key of the concept is the social resources that can be used in social engagement. In college students’ online social capital, there are three main forms, bounding social capital, bridging social capital and maintained social capital (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007). Bridging social capital refers to a weak link between different people, while bounding social capital explains a tight bond between friends and relatives. Maintained social capital focuses on relationship between one person and the social network he left. Putnam’s “time replacement theory” (Putnam, 2000) takes the impact of electronic media on decreased social interaction as a symbol of declining social capital, which I think only affects bounding social capital. Theoretically the adoption of social networking sites can increase bridging social capital and maintained social capital. So we need empirical study to measure whether the increase exceeds the decrease. This study responds to this question, and concludes that total social capital has increased due to usage of SNS, which enhances college students’ political participation.

To sum up, although we cannot make strong causal relationship between SNS use and political participation, we at least omit some pessimistic view. We conclude that there is positive link between SNS use and college students’ political participation. Political attitude and information availability are proved as mediation when considering the positive effect of SNS use on political participation.

References

[1]       Alonso, Á.I. (2009) ‘E-Participation and Local Governance: A Case Study,’ Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 4(3(12)): 49-62.

[2]       Baumgartner, J.C. and J.S. Morris (2010) ‘MyFaceTube Politics: Social Networking Web Sites and Political Engagement of Young Adults’, Social Science Computer Review 28: 24-44.

[3]       Best, S.J. and B.S. Krueger (2005) ‘Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political Participation’, Political Behavior 27: 183-216.

[4]       Best, M.L. and K.W. Wade (2009) ‘The Internet and Democracy: Global Catalyst or Democratic Dud?’, Bulletin of Science Technology Society 29(4): 255-271

[5]       Bimber, B. (2001) ‘Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level’, Political Research Quarterly 54(1):53-67.

[6]       Brady H.E., S. Verba and K.L. Schlozman (1995) ‘Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation’, American Political Science Review 89(2): 271-294

[7]       Browning, G. (1996) Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Influence American Politics. Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.

[8]       Coleman, S (2002). Hearing Voices: The experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. London: Hansard Society.

[9]       Coleman, S. and D.F. Norris (2005) ‘A New Agenda for e-Democracy’, OII Forum Discussion Paper No. 4. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1325255

[10]   Coleman, S. and C. Rowe.(n.d.) ‘Remixing Citizenship; Democracy and Young People’s Use of the Internet.’ In Carnegie YPI. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://cypi.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/cypi/publications/remixing_citizenship

[11]   Dahlberg, L (2001) ‘The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring the Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums for Extending the Public Sphere’, Information, Communication and Society 4: 615-33

[12]   DiMaggio, P., E. Hargittai, W.R. Neuman, and J.P. Robinson (2001) ‘Social Implications of the Internet’, Annual Review of Sociology 27: 307-336.

[13]   Dutton, W. and M. Peltu (2007) ‘Reconfiguring Government–Public Engagements: Enhancing the Communicative Power of Citizens’ OII Forum Discussion Paper No. 7. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1295337

[14]   Di Gennaro, C. and W. Dutton (2006) ‘The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom’, Parliamentary Affairs 59 (2): 299-313.

[15]   Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C (2007). ‘The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12: 1143–1168

[16]   Gerhards, J. and M.S. Schäfer (2010) ‘Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany’, New Media & Society 12(1): 143-160.

[17]   Harris, A., J. Wyn and S. Younes (2010) ‘Beyond Apathetic or Activist Youth: ‘Ordinary’ Young People and Contemporary Forms of Participation’, Young 18(1): 9-32.

[18]   Jiang, M. and H. Xu (2009) ‘Exploring Online Structures on Chinese Government Portals: Citizen Political Participation and Government Legitimation’, Social Science Computer Review 27(2): 174-195.

[19]   Muir, J.K. (2008) ‘Closing the Gap: Media, Politics, and Citizen Participation’, Harvard International Review, Spring 2008: 54-57

[20]   Polat, R.K. (2005) ‘The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links’, European Journal of Communication 20 (4): 435-459

[21]   Putnam, R.D. (1995) ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital’, Journal of democracy 6 (1): 65-78

[22]   Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon &Schuster.

[23]   Quintelier, E. and S. Vissers (2008) ‘The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium’, Social Science Computer Review 26(4): 411-427

[24]   Rheingold, H. (1991) ‘The Great Equalizer’, Whole Earth Review 71 (summer): P.6

[25]   Saglie, J. and SI Vabo (2009) ‘Size and e-Democracy: Online Participation in Norwegian Local Politics’ Scandinavian Political Studies 32(4): 382 – 401

[26]   Shah, Dhavan V., Jaeho Cho, William P. Eveland, JR. and Nojin Kwak (2005) ‘Information and Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation’ Communication Research 32 (5): 531-565

[27]   Shi, T (1997) Political Participation in Beijing. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

[28]   Stanley, J.W. and C. Weare (2004) ‘The Effects of Internet Use on Political Participation: Evidence From an Agency Online Discussion Forum’, Administration & Society 36(5):  503-527

[29]   Sylvester, DE and AJ McGlynn (2009) ‘The Digital Divide, Political Participation, and Place’, Social Science Computer Review 28(1): 64-74-

[30]   Tapia, A.H. and Julio Angel Ortiz (2010) ‘Network Hopes: Municipalities Deploying Wireless Internet to Increase Civic Engagement’, Social Science Computer Review 28 (1): 93-117

[31]   Tolber, C.J. and R.S. McNeal (2003) ‘Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation?’ Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): 175-185

[32]   Vreese, CH de (2007) ‘Digital Renaissance: Young Consumer and Citizen?’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611(1):207-216

[33]   Wang, Shaoguang (2008) ‘Changing Models of China’s Policy Agenda Setting’, Modern China 34(1): 56-87

[34]   Ward, S., Gibson, R. and W. Lusoli (2003) ‘Online Participation and Mobilisation in Britain: Hype, Hope and Reality’, Parliamentary Affairs. 56(4): 652-668.

[35]   Weber, L.M., A. Loumakis, and J.Bergman (2003) ‘Who Participates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on the Internet and the Mass Public’, Social Science Computer Review 21(1): 26-42.

[36]   Zhang, W., J.T. Johnson, T. Seltzer and S. L. Bichard (2009) ‘The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior’, Social Science Computer Review 28(1): 75-92

[37]   Zúñiga, H. G. De, E. Puig-I-Abril and H. Rojas (2009) ‘Weblogs, Traditional Sources Online and Political Participation: an Assessment of How the Internet is Changing the Political Environment’, New Media & Society 11(4): 553–574