Politicians online - Identifying current research opportunities
First Monday

Politicians online - Identifying current research opportunities by Anders Olof Larsson and Jakob Svensson

For more than a decade, researchers have shown interest in how politicians make use of the Internet for a variety of purposes. Based on critical assessments of previous online political communication scholarship, this paper identifies a series of overlooked areas of research that should be of interest for researchers concerned with how politicians make use of online technologies. Specifically, three such research opportunities are introduced. First, we suggest that research should attempt to move beyond dichotomization, such as conceiving of the Internet as either bringing about revolutionary changes or having a normalizing effect. Second, while there is a considerable body of knowledge regarding the activity of politicians during election campaigns, relatively little is known about the day–to–day communicative uses of the Internet at the hands of politicians. The third section argues that as political communication research has typically focused on national or international levels of study, scholars within the field should also make efforts to contribute to our knowledge of online practices at the hands of politicians at regional and local levels — something we label as studies at the micro level. In synthesizing the literature available regarding the use of the Internet at the hands of politicians, the paper concludes suggesting routes ahead for interested scholars.


Three opportunities for researching politicians online




While several variables certainly come into play when researching the electoral performance and governing style of politicians, the role of communication technology cannot be easily overlooked [1]. Specifically, it is hard to imagine the key political activity of campaigning, or even political work more generally, without also conjuring up images of such technologies and the parts they have played. As the bulk of research on these matters has largely emanated from U.S. contexts — especially during elections, examples of techno–political processes from that particular environment are abundant, serving in large parts as sources of inspiration for politicians — as well as the scholars who study their activities — in other regions. Indeed, research has suggested that as former U.S. presidents like Thomas Jefferson made successful employment of the printed press in his endeavor for the coveted job, so did Roosevelt make use of his “great radio voice” during his famed fireside chats [2], as Kennedy played on his understanding of the television medium. Since the mid–1990s, the advent and spread of the Internet has “vexed academics and commentators” [3] regarding its potential for politicians (e.g., Blumler and Kavanagh, 1999; Chadwick, 2006; Druckman, et al., 2007; Stromer–Galley, 2000; Vaccari, 2008a; 2008b). While the 2004 Howard Dean primary campaign can be seen as a starting point for the buzz about politicians online (e.g., Kerbel and Bloom, 2005), a considerable increase in interest regarding these matters were only a few years away.

Indeed, while many such early scholarly exertions seemed to build on what could be labeled a classical effect studies rationale that “the Internet has the capacity to [...] reshape political communication and campaigning” [4], most empirical efforts have for the most part produced results suggesting more of a status quo than anything else (e.g., Larsson, 2013a; Schweitzer, 2011). The relatively recent emergence of the Web 2.0 rationale for Web publishing, harnessing design values such as “user participation, openness and network effects” (O’Reilly, 2005) has, however, yet again provided a raise of interest in the potential of the Internet to act as a “magic elixir” [5] for political purposes. As technological developments like the supposed shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 are almost universally greeted with “predictions of [...] revolutionary potential” [6], we are perhaps best adviced to be somewhat wary of the hype surrounding the current terminology and its uses at the hands of elected officials. Nevertheless, the employment of what has been loosely described as the “more human aspects of interactivity on the Web” [7] has apparently proven successful in certain political campaigning efforts, such as the much–publicized 2008 Obama campaign for the U.S. presidency (e.g., Cogburn and Espinoza–Vasquez, 2011; Costa, 2009; Kalnes, 2009; Montero, 2009; Wattal, et al., 2010).

As suggested above, scholarly interest in the uses of the Internet at the hands of politicians has been “highlighted for more then a decade” [8]. This paper, then, offers an overview of research performed looking into the uses of the Internet at the hands of politicians. In so doing, the paper identifies a series of research opportunities for interested scholars. As similar reviews of the literature have been performed looking into topics such as online political conversation (Wright, 2012) online journalism (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski, 2009; Mitchelstein and Boczkowski, 2010), virtual communities (Hercheui, 2011) and practices related to blogging (Larsson and Hrastinski, 2011), a comparable review focused on how politicians make use of their Internet presences should be relevant to researchers as well as practitioners interested in issues pertaining to these topics.



Three opportunities for researching politicians online

In the following, we outline what we consider are three of the most pertinent current opportunities for scholars interested in online political communication — specifically, in studying how politicians make use of various Web–based tools and platforms. As will be made evident throughout our description of the three opportunities, we base our case on research gaps identified and suggestions made by previous research. While some of the identified challenges could be said to be of a more general nature — i.e., relating not only to the study of online political communication, but rather to broader aspects of social scientific research — it is our belief that such challenges need to be contextualized in specific sub–disciplines, as is done here. Finally, each of the identified challenges are complemented with suggestions regarding their practical implications in research settings.

1. Research should attempt to move beyond dichotomization

While the broader field of political communication is home to a great many subfields, altogether making up for something akin to what Whitley (2000) has labeled a “fragmented adhocracy”, there are unquestionably concepts, methods and theories that gives the field a certain amount of coherency. This is also the case in the subfield dealt with here. Specifically, our first suggestion for furture research efforts is based on the argument that the introduction of the Internet has led to two overarching perspectives or hypotheses regarding its role for political communication; perspectives that can be broadly understood as “Internet–optimism” and “Internet–pessimism”. This argument is developed in the following.

Ever since “the Internet ‘happened’ in the 1990s” [9], researchers have taken an interest in the utilization of the online at the hands of politicians. While early efforts — especially those with a more conceptual or theoretical focus — generally suggested a more positive take on the influences of the Internet on communication efforts by politicians, the bulk of later, more empirically oriented studies have conversely proposed what could be seen a more negative stance towards these developments. For example, early work discussed the Internet in terms of its potential for ushering in an era of “informational democracy” (Castells, 1996) through the employment of “phase 3” (Farrell and Webb, 2000), “post–Fordist” (Denver and Hands, 2002), “postmodern” (Norris, 2000) or “professionalized” (Gibson and Römmele, 2001) modes of campaigning. While these specific terms differ somewhat in scope and consequence, they all denote the idea of a sea change brought forward by the Internet in the way communicative efforts are shaped at the hands of politicians (e.g., Castells, 2001) — allowing for, among other things, increased conversation and dialogue between politicians and their respective electorates (e.g., Coleman, 2005).

In contrast, later scholarly work has more clearly emphasized empirical efforts while looking into these matters and have, more often than not, come to less cheerful conclusions. These results are often discussed in relation to what is often referred to as the normalization hypothesis — representative here as the negative part of the suggested dichotomy — has been corroborated in a number of studies (see Lilleker, et al., 2011, for a comprehensive overview). This suggests that off–line structures of political, economic and other sources of power are mirrored also in the online, allowing for established patterns of campaigning to shape the online counterparts as well. Over time, this cross–perspective approach of more positive to more negative approaches have led researchers to the adoption of one or more dichotomies through which to interpret their findings on online political communication. Examples of these pairings are shown in Table 1.


Table 1: Examples of dichotomized perspectives used when assessing politicians’ practices online.
(More) positive(More) negativeEmployed by (among others)
Equalization/innovationNormalizationGibson, et al., 2008; Lilleker, et al., 2011; Margolis and Resnick, 2000; Mascheroni and Mattoni, 2012; Resnick, 1998; Schweitzer, 2008; Schweitzer, 2009
OptimisticPessimisticBentivegna, 2006; Coleman and Blumler, 2009
Cyber–optimistCyber–realistShane, 2004; Wright, 2012
OptimistScepticChristensen and Bengtsson, 2011
UtopianDystopianHara and Jo, 2007
ShiftEnhancementLarsson, 2011
E–ruptionWeb 1.5Kalnes, 2009; Pascu, et al., 2007


While the pairings listed in table one have also been employed to denote the possible role of the Internet to increase citizen participation in governmental processes (e.g., Budge, 1996; Chadwick, 2006; Rheingold, 2000), they are used here to illustrate the ways in which the online activities by politicians have been fashioned. As such, these standpoints appear as more specified, situated varieties of broader theoretical perspectives that often come into play when discussing technological innovations, like the Internet, and their alleged impacts on some specified societal aspect — such as social or technological determinism (e.g., Heilbroner, 1967; Kling, 2000; Parvez and Ahmed, 2006). However, more recent empirical inquiry has suggested a third, middle–ground alternative, suggesting a position somewhere between the positive and the negative takes outlined above. As labeled by Lilleker, et al. (2011), “the ebb and flow thesis” [10] proposes that a dichotomization of perspectives when dealing with these matters can only take scholarly efforts to a certain point. Similarly, as suggested by the entry in the very last row of Table 1, conceptualizations of a “Web 1.5” have started to emerge in order to further describe a midway between more positive and more negative takes, between innovation and stagnation in online campaigning (Jackson and Lilleker, 2009; Larsson, 2011; Larsson, 2013a). Suggesting more complex and sophisticated ways of understanding the uses of the Internet at the hands of politicians, these developments beyond dichotomies should serve interested researchers well.

Indeed, the more recent middle–ground findings discussed above would suggest that a search for new interpretative perspectives when assessing the online activities of politicians could be of use. As such, perhaps it is time to abandon our collective attempts at “measur[ing] whether the Internet is revolutionizing politics” [11] and instead approach these developments as ongoing processes of evolution — as “the longue dureé of social institutions” [12] such as political parties and the politicians that make up their ranks. While many of the studies who champion a dual perspective must be seen as relatively old — especially in terms of how fast developments regarding these issues are taking place — the fact that work published also more recently appear to uphold this division speaks to the fact that while the perspective at hand might be diminishing, it is still has a presence in the literature In sum, we suggest interested scholars to move beyond what could be seen as the preconceptions that have seemingly been traded down from one study to the next. In so doing, our collective understanding of politicians online will be enriched in novel ways, looking beyond the dichotomized views proposed and sometimes challenged by earlier research.

2. Research should focus on everyday practices

The study of political communication is, to a not insignificant extent, the study of political campaigning. While there certainly are exceptions (e.g., Auty, 2005; Grant, et al., 2010; Lilleker and Koc–Michalska, 2013), the bulk of research on the uses of various communication channels at the hands of politicians appears to have been performed in full campaign mode — where politicians make certain to maintain online presences of various types and qualities (e.g., Foot and Schneider, 2006; Wright, 2012). Thus, the argument is made here that this emphasis on the regularities of “the Congressional calendar” [13] has led to a periodical bias in how scholars interested in the Internet use of elected officials plan their studies and collect their data. While the study of political campaigning is certainly an important part of the work within this particular field of research, what is suggested here is that the attention devoted to these traditional, recurring events could be complemented with the study of the everyday online practices by politicians.

The bias towards studying political campaigning can be understood as two separate, yet related, tendencies. The first has to do with tradition — as researchers interested in political communication have focused on these types of periodic events in several contexts over a multitude of years, this type of scholarly work could be considered as a long–standing institution within the discipline — indeed, longitudinal work regarding these issues is being performed in conjunction with election campaigns in a number of different countries, such as the U.S. (Rainie, et al., 2005; Smith, 2009) or Sweden (Oscarsson and Holmberg, 2008). As mentioned in the previous section, such efforts have traced the developments of different modes of campaigning, providing insights into the online as well as off–line efforts of incumbents and challengers alike. While this body of research has certainly provided useful insights into campaign strategies, we argue that this focus has diverted attention from the everyday, non–election related activities of politicians. While such activities to be studied could be expected to be rather limited when compared to the efforts made by politicians competing for office during campaigns (e.g., Larsson, 2011), a focus on online political ‘legwork’ should provide the research community with a deepened understanding of whether the influence of the Internet has truly brought about “radical systemic changes” [14], leaving traces of ‘permanent campaigning’ (e.g., Jackson and Lilleker, 2004; Vaccari, 2008a; 2008b) in the behavior of politicians also outside of election periods or not. As an example, in his study of an individual candidate in the Swedish 2010 elections, Svensson (2011) found that as election day drew closer, more focus was placed on traditional off–line campaigning at the expense of online campaigning. On the other hand, studies of political party Web sites have suggested that activities are rather limited in–between elections when compared to the online activity during election campaigns (e.g., Larsson, 2011; Karlsson, et al., 2012). While these studies feature different foci, they all suggest that online activity differs during and in between elections — findings that needs further corroboration through other approaches, methodological angles or theoretical explorations.

Moreover, such a suggested emphasis on day–to–day activities of politicians would prove a suitable conceptual fit when combined with studies performed on the everyday political behaviors of citizens. Rather than a general withdrawal from political participation, researchers have suggested an increase in what is often described as more reflexive and individualized approaches to politics, so–called lifestyle politics (Giddens, 1991) or sub–politics (Beck, 1997). In such accounts, the Internet is often pointed to as being the signature tool for lifestyle–based participation. For example, Bakardjieva (2012) provides a discussion about mundane citizenship in this context as firmly rooted in the everyday experiences of individuals. Similarly, Hermes’ (2006) theorizing of cultural citizenship has brought attention to the uses of popular culture while negotiating civic identities [15]. In line with these works, Graham (2009) studied political discussions on docu–soap fan discussion board, and Andersson (2013) studied similar activities in an online youth community, basing its membership not on explicit political preferences, but rather on music preferences and fashion styles. However, this scholarly interest in the everyday political behaviour of citizens is not resonating to any larger degree in similarly aligned studies of elected representatives. Such a focus arguably merits more attention.

The second, related tendency has to do with availability. As online campaigning efforts have become almost mandatory for politicians seeking office (as suggested by Druckman, et al., 2007), recurring election cycles offer a multitude of online data gathering and subsequential analytical possibilities for researchers. Indeed, the “stop–start nature” [16] of political campaigning often amasses vast amounts of political content to be studied. Such studies have typically focused on campaign Web sites, more often than not utilizing methods such as content analysis to gauge the presence or non–presence on these sites of certain types of features. While online activity at the hands of politicians could be expected to be rather limited in–between election cycles, data from the Web pages of politicians and parties is arguably available for archiving and scrutiny also during these periods. Taking this ebb and flow of political activity into account, a focus on the data available during these periods of low activity should be helpful in determining the degree to which politicians are truly employing novel modes of permanent or even postmodern campaigning, as previously discussed.

Finally, as the study of officially sanctioned campaign web pages or “web spheres” (Foot and Schneider, 2006) have become almost commonplace in the continuing efforts of interested scholars, we must not lose sight of what traces of relevant activity is potentially available elsewhere online. The suggested influences of social media is one such case where data is comparably easily available for collection (e.g., Bond, et al., 2012; Bruns, 2012; Bruns and Liang, 2012) — given certain ethical considerations that especially apply here (Moe and Larsson, 2012). As suggested by Lilleker and Malagón (2010), the everyday popularity of these services among the general populace might lead to greater uptake also among their elected officials, who in turn could be expected to use these channels to connect with the electorate. Thus, data available from various social media services should not be ignored by scholars wishing to analyze the day–to–day activity of politicians. In order to efficiently gauge these activities, it is suggested here that we may need to place our analytical gaze elsewhere than has traditionally been the case.

3. Research should focus on the micro level of study

Researchers often distinguish between scholarly efforts as being situated on distinctive levels of analysis, identifying units of observations accordingly. Inspired by sociology, social scientists often label these levels as micro and macro. While the former connote research on an individual level, focusing on the practices of individuals, the latter, macro level of analysis is often aimed at more overarching, inter–societal systems. It follows from such a broad set of distinctions that while the basic meanings of these terms might be more or less intact throughout the social sciences, they need to be appropriated to specific disciplines. In political science more generally, these different levels have largely been understood as pertaining to the individual on the one hand, and the state or some larger international body on the other. From the perspective of political communication, arguably our focus here, we can suggest a similar set of definitions, perhaps somewhat more suited to the study of the online activity of politicians. While other definitions of these terms exist (e.g., Lilleker, et al., 2011), we relate specifically to the theme of the present work and therefore define macro as suggesting research done at the level of individual country systems, whereas the micro level here denotes scholarly work on political communication aimed at regional or local levels.

Based on these definitions, studies on the macro level tend to take comparative or single case-study approaches, sometimes applying longitudinal rationales. As the category implies, the former of these types focus on political communication practices in two or more nation states, considering similarities and differences between the countries selected for analysis and presenting and discussing their results correspondingly. For example, Hara and Jo (2007) considered the uses of online practices like fundraising, civic participation and e–mobilization during presidential campaigns in the U.S. and South Korea (taking place in 2000 and 2002, respectively). The results from the cross–country comparison suggested that minority presidential candidates in both countries appeared more adamant in employing the Web for the above mentioned purposes, especially when it comes to fundraising opportunities. As such, the results clearly relate to a minority of studies adhering to the previously mentioned equalization effect — suggesting that minor parties would make more extensive use of the Internet and its potential for voter engagement, effectively moving beyond the early definitions of political Web use as “electronic brochures” [17] or “campaign gimmicks” [18]. While relatively early studies such as the previously mentioned one tends to find minor parties as having the upper hand when it comes to employment of the web to a fuller extent (e.g., Gibson, 2004; Schweitzer, 2005), the bulk of research has found major parties to generally be more proficient online. As such, more recent research efforts, on the macro level as well as elsewhere, has generally found major parties to dominate when it comes to the utilization of the online. Indeed, in their “search for a European model of web campaigning”, Lilleker, et al. (2011) compared Web use practices by parties in a series of European countries, finding that “parties offering the most innovative websites have the greatest resources at their disposal” [19].

While the comparative design often obvious in macro studies is arguably a very constructive aspect (e.g., Ragin, 1987), the bulk of studies of online political communication at the hands of politicians available have been performed as case studies focused on how the practices placed under scrutiny here are played out in one specific country — and often during elections, as previously discussed. While many such efforts have focused on U.S. campaigns (e.g., Davis and Owen, 2005; Foot and Schneider, 2002; Margolis and Resnick, 2000; Rainie, et al., 2005; Schneider and Foot, 2002; Smith, 2009; Stromer–Galley, 2000; Vaccari, 2008a; 2008b), a number of studies are available that look into party practices in a series of other countries. Adopting somewhat different approaches to study the 2007 French election campaign, Vaccari (2008a) and Lilleker and Malagón, 2010) nevertheless came to similar conclusions — in general, finding significant gaps between large and small parties in respect to more innovative online practices, as well as substantiating the low degree to which those features are generally used. Employing a longitudinal approach, Schweitzer has studied the online activity of German parties during a series of elections in a series of studies (Schweitzer, 2005; 2008; 2011; 2012). Basing her analyses on various appropriations of the content analysis method, the overall results fall in line with the aforementioned normalization hypothesis, largely defying the “public and scientific hopes that have been placed on the democratic potential of the Internet” [20].

While longitudinal and comparative approaches such as the ones discussed here are certainly of the utmost importance for the advancement of our understanding regarding online political communication, we suggest that the relative dearth of studies emphasizing the micro level should be more clearly taken into account. While the aforementioned normalization hypothesis has been strengthened through a series of studies on the macro level of politics, the knowledge base when it comes the online practices of politicians at regional or local levels is arguably more limited. As many of the studies focused on the micro or local level predominately deal with what could be described as technical–administrative issues — such as usability (e.g., Baker, 2007) or accessibility (e.g., Evans–Cowley, 2006; Kopackova, et al., 2010) — the suggestion is made here for researchers to complement this “managerial bias of e–government” [21] with a focus on the more communicative aspects of micro level political work. While work dealing with these issues is certainly available (e.g., Gibson, et al., 2008; Gibson and Römmele, 2005; Larsson, 2013b; Svensson, 2011), we argue that more insights are needed into these local level practices in order to balance out the macro findings. This suggestion could be especially salient in times of voter alienation (as pointed out by Borge, et al., 2009; Haug, 2008), and particularly since “smaller, incremental changes [...] can occur (often at the periphery)” [22].




The research field of political communication is arguably a broad one, encompassing a multitude of theoretical viewpoints, methodological approaches and scholarly themes. Inherently an interdisciplinary field, the tendencies discussed in the paper at hand can almost certainly be discerned also in other, related areas of research. What we have sought to do here, though, is to appropriate three current challenges that we feel hold salience for academics interested in what could be described as a sub–field of political communication, focusing exclusively at the online activities of politicians. With this in mind, what has been brought up here is not to be considered an exhaustive list of all possible research opportunities for this particular direction of research — rather, our intention with this piece is for it be seen as a conversation starter, based on our take of the above identified opportunities.

As we have discussed here, the bulk of previous studies have largely revealed that the effect of the Internet on electoral participation, opinion formation and established geometries of power is at best limited. The Internet, while not inherently a positive or negative force in and of itself, can however not easily be seen as completely neutral. It is interesting how some researchers fall into what could perhaps be described as a kind of ‘effect studies mode’ when some new communication technology makes its entrance into society at large. Arguably one of the lessons learned from the rich history of communication studies is that such types of ‘effects studies’ approaches can only take us so far. Nevertheless, there is still considerable buzz surrounding the Internet in general and social media in particular when scholars, pundits and politicians alike weigh in on current tendencies in the field. Part of the explanation for this attention to the online realm within the field of political communication, could be that its emergence and rise coincided with decreasing rates of civic participation and, conversely, an increase in dissatisfaction with the processes and elected officials of representative democracies [23].

While the message of ‘politics as usual’ seems to prevail in most empirical findings, perhaps these “somber assessments” (Vaccari, 2008a; 2008b) of previous research is at least in part due to the rather high expectations on the new medium held by many of those involved. Behavioral and organizational change happens at a slow pace, especially when it comes to established societal practices like those of electioneering (e.g., Larsson, 2013a). Still, there is a sense that practices like these are indeed changing, if ever so slowly (e.g., Larsson and Svensson, 2013). Traces of such perceived change seem to be found in a number of different contexts — perhaps most famously in the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential campaigns, but also when assessing similar initiatives in other contexts. Indeed, “technology is often viewed as a key driver of change in the electoral arena” [24]. However, while technology might be ‘key driver’, the bulk of research suggest that we should not expect a ‘revolution’ of online political activity. Not only would that type of societal development prove hard to define, it can also be seen as a misguiding perspective for understanding a series of developments that we are experiencing ourselves, firsthand. Wright (2012) suggests that other, similarly technology–driven watershed developments like the agricultural or industrial revolution were defined as such only with the benefit of hindsight. As such, while the task of dividing human history into manageable, easy–to–label units of time is arguably an alluring task, it is perhaps best left to future researchers. Our present task should have a different mission — or rather, a multitude of them. The suggestions made here could be utilized — by themselves or in tandem — to provide food for thought and advancing such future studies.

In this review paper, we have outlined a series of research opportunities for scholars interested in the online communicative activities undertaken by politicians. Given this particular selection criterion, we have undoubtedly omitted several other, related areas equally deserving of increased inquiry. As an example, a review of research performed regarding the online political activities of citizens could constitute such an interesting opportunity, ideally providing suitable counterpoints to the suggestions presented here. Given the breadth of the field at hand, as well as its many touch points with other, related disciplines, we feel it safe to assume that there are several more opportunities available for interested researchers beyond those dealt with here. End of article


About the authors

Anders Olof Larsson, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo.
Web: http://andersoloflarsson.se
E–mail: a [dot] o [dot] larsson [at] media [dot] uio [dot] no

Jakob Svensson is Associate Professor in the Department of Informatics and Media at Uppsala University.
E–mail: jakob [dot] svensson [at] im [dot] uu [dot] se



1. E.g., Pepe and di Gennaro, 2009; Gibson, et al., 2008, p. 15.

2. Foot and Schneider, 2006, p. 7.

3. Wright, 2012, p. 245.

4. Lilleker and Malagón, 2010, p. 25.

5. Stromer–Galley, 2000, p. 113.

6. Jackson and Lilleker, 2009, p. 233.

7. Barsky, 2006, p. 33.

8. Nielsen, 2010, p. 755.

9. Loveland and Popescu, 2011, p. 2.

10. Lilleker, et al., 2011, p. 197.

11. Wright, 2012, p. 248.

12. Larsson, 2013a, p. 77.

13. Golbeck, et al., 2010, p. 1,618.

14. Kalnes, 2009, p. 251.

15. See also Dahlgren, 2009, p. 137.

16. Gibson, 2004, p. 102.

17. Kamarck, 1999, p. 108.

18. Lilleker and Malagón, 2010, p. 26.

19. Lilleker, et al., 2011, p. 205.

20. Schweitzer, 2011, p. 324.

21. Chadwick, 2003, p. 450.

22. Wright, 2012, p. 252.

23. Coleman and Blumler, 2009, p. 143; Dahlgren, 2009, p. 159.

24. Gibson, et al., 2008, p. 15.



E. Andersson, 2013. “Det politiska rummet. Villkor för situationspolitisk socialisation i en nätgemenskap av och för ungdomar,” Institutionen för humaniora, utbildnings– och samhällsvetenskap. Örebro: Örebro University.

C. Auty, 2005. “UK elected representatives and their weblogs: First impressions,” Aslib Proceedings, volume 57, number 4, pp. 338–355.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530510612077, accessed 31 March 2014.

M. Bakardjieva, 2012. “Mundane citizenship: New media and civil society in Bulgaria,” Europe–Asia Studies, volume 64, number 8, pp. 1,356–1,374.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2012.712247, accessed 31 March 2014.

D.L. Baker, 2007. “Website usability of the most populous counties in the United States,“ Journal of E–Government, volume 3, number 3, pp. 65–89.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J399v03n03_04, accessed 31 March 2014.

E. Barsky, 2006. “Introducing Web 2.0: Weblogs and podcasting for health librarians,” Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, volume 27, number 2, pp. 33–34, and at a https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/502/c06-013.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

U. Beck, 1997. The reinvention of politics: Rethinking modernity in the global social order. Translated by Mark Ritter. Cambridge: Polity Press.

S. Bentivegna, 2006. “Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs,” European Journal of Communication, volume 21, number 3, pp. 331–343.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323106066638, accessed 31 March 2014.

J.G. Blumler and D. Kavanagh, 1999. “The third age of political communication: Influences and features,” Political Communication, volume 16, number 3, pp. 209–230.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105846099198596, accessed 31 March 2014.

R.M. Bond, C.J. Fariss, J.J. Jones, A.D.I. Kramer, C. Marlow, J.E. Settle, and J.H. Fowler, 2012. “A 61–million–person experiment in social influence and political mobilization,” Nature, volume 489, number 7415 (13 September), pp. 295–298.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11421, accessed 31 March 2014.

R. Borge, C. Colombo, and Y. Welp, 2009. “Online and offline participation at the local level: A quantitative analysis of the Catalan municipalities,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 12, number 6, pp. 899–928.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180802483054, accessed 31 March 2014.

A. Bruns, 2012. “How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 15, number 9, pp. 1,323–1,351.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.635214, accessed 31 March 2014.

A. Bruns and Y.E. Liang, 2012. “Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural disasters,” First Monday, volume 17, number 4, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3937/3193, accessed 31 March 2014.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i4.3937, accessed 31 March 2014.

I. Budge, 1996. The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

M. Castells, 2001. The Internet galaxy: reflections on the Internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

M. Castells, 1996. The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

A. Chadwick, 2006. Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

A. Chadwick, 2003. “Bringing e–democracy back in: Why it matters for future research on e–governance,” Social Science Computer Review, volume 21, number 4, pp. 443–455.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439303256372, accessed 31 March 2014.

H.S. Christensen and Å. Bengtsson, 2011. “The political competence of Internet participants: Evidence from Finland,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 14, number 6, pp. 896–916.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.566931, accessed 31 March 2014.

D.L. Cogburn and F.K. Espinoza–Vasquez, 2011. “From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign,” Journal of Political Marketing, volume 10, numbers 1–2, pp. 189–213.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2011.540224, accessed 31 March 2014.

S. Coleman, 2005. “New mediation and direct representation: Reconceptualizing representation in the digital age,” New Media & Society, volume 7, number 2, pp. 177–198.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444805050745, accessed 31 March 2014.

S. Coleman and J.G. Blumler, 2009. The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

P.–O. Costa, 2009. “Barack Obama’s use of the Internet is transforming political communication,” Quaderns del CAC, volume 33, pp. 35–41, at http://www.cac.cat/pfw_files/cma/recerca/quaderns_cac/Q33_Costa_EN.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

P. Dahlgren, 2009. Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J.N. Druckman, M.J. Kifer, and M. Parkin, 2007. “The technological development of Congressional candidate Web sites: How and why candidates use Web innovations,” Social Science Computer Review, volume 25, number 4, pp. 425–442.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439307305623, accessed 31 March 2014.

J.S. Evans–Cowley, 2006. “The accessibility of municipal government Websites,” Journal of E–Government, volume 2, number 2, pp. 75–90.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J399v02n02_05, accessed 31 March 2014.

K.A. Foot and S.M. Schneider, 2006. Web campaigning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

K.A. Foot and S.M. Schneider, 2002. “Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory analysis of the U.S. political Web sphere,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, volume 46, number 2, pp. 222–244.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4602_4, accessed 31 March 2014.

R. Gibson, 2004. “Web campaigning from a global perspective,” Asia–Pacific Review, volume 11, number 1, pp. 95–126.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13439000410001687779, accessed 31 March 2014.

R. Gibson and A. Römmele, 2005. “‘Down periscope’: The search for high–tech campaigning at the local level in the 2002 German federal election,” Journal of E–Goverment, volume 2, number 3, pp. 85–112.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J399v02n03_05, accessed 31 March 2014.

R. Gibson and A. Römmele, 2001. “Changing campaign communications: A party–centered theory of professionalized campaigning,” International Journal of Press/Politics, volume 6, number 4, pp. 31–43.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108118001129172323, accessed 31 March 2014.

R.K. Gibson, W. Lusoli, and S. Ward, 2008. “Nationalizing and normalizing the local? A comparative analysis of online candidate campaigning in Australia and Britain,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 4, number 4, pp. 15–30.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680801979070, accessed 31 March 2014.

A. Giddens, 1991. Modernity and self–identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

J. Golbeck, J.M. Grimes, and A. Rogers, 2010. “Twitter use by the U.S. Congress,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, volume 61, number 8, pp. 1,612–1,621.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21344, accessed 31 March 2014.

T.S. Graham, 2009. “What’s wife swap got to do with it? Talking politics in the Net–based public sphere,” Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam.

W.J. Grant, B. Moon, and J. Busby Grant, 2010. “Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter,” Australian Journal of Political Science, volume 45, number 4, pp. 579–604.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176, accessed 31 March 2014.

N. Hara and Y. Jo, 2007. “Internet politics: A comparative analysis of U.S. and South Korea presidential campaigns,” First Monday, volume 12, number 9, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2005/1880, accessed 31 March 2014.

A.V. Haug, 2008. “Local democracy online: Driven by crisis, legitimacy, resources, or communication gaps?” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 4, number 2, pp. 79–99.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680802076140, accessed 31 March 2014.

R.L. Heilbroner, 1967. “Do machines make history?” Technology and Culture, volume 8, number 3, pp. 335–345.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3101719, accessed 31 March 2014.

M.D. Hercheui, 2011. “A literature review of virtual communities: The relevance of understanding the influence of institutions on online collectives,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 14, number 1, pp. 1–23.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691181003663593, accessed 31 March 2014.

J. Hermes, 2006. “Hidden debates: Rethinking the relationship between popular culture and the public sphere,” Javnost–The Public volume 13, number 4, pp. 27–44, and at http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/pdf/2006/4/2/, accessed 31 March 2014.

N.A. Jackson and D.G. Lilleker, 2009. “Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 6, numbers 3–4, pp. 232–250.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680903028438, accessed 31 March 2014.

N.A. Jackson and D.G. Lilleker, 2004. “Just public relations or an attempt at interaction? British MPs in the press, on the Web and ‘in your face’,” European Journal of Communication, volume 19, number 4, pp. 507–533.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323104047671, accessed 31 March 2014.

Ø. Kalnes, 2009. “Norwegian parties and Web 2.0,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 6, numbers 3–4, pp. 251–266.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680903041845, accessed 31 March 2014.

M. Karlsson, C. Clerwall, and U. Buskqvist, 2012. “Digital political public relations and relationship management: The Swedish case,” paper presented at the 62nd annual conference of the International Communication Association (Phoenix).

M.R. Kerbel and J.D. Bloom, 2005. “Blog for America and civic involvement,” International Journal of Press/Politics, volume 10, number 4, pp. 3–27.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1081180X05281395, accessed 31 March 2014.

R. Kling, 2000. “Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics,” Information Society, volume 16, number 3, pp. 217–232.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133661, accessed 31 March 2014.

H. Kopackova, K. Michalek, and K. Cejna, 2010. “Accessibility and findability of local e–government websites in the Czech Republic,” Universal Access in the Information Society, volume 9, number 1, pp. 51–61.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-009-0159-y, accessed 31 March 2014.

A.O. Larsson, 2013a. “‘Rejected bits of program code’: Why notions of ‘politics 2.0’ remain (mostly) unfulfilled,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 10, number 1, pp. 72–85.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.719727, accessed 31 March 2014.

A.O. Larsson, 2013b. “Bringing it all back home? Social media practices by Swedish municipalities,” European Journal of Communication, volume 28, number 6, pp. 681–695.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323113502277, accessed 31 March 2014.

A.O. Larsson, 2011. “‘Extended infomercials’ or ‘Politics 2.0’? A study of Swedish political party Web sites before, during and after the 2010 election,” First Monday, volume 16, number 4, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3456/2858, accessed 31 March 2014.

A.O. Larsson and S. Hrastinski, 2011. “Blogs and blogging: Current trends and future directions,” First Monday, volume 16, number 3, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3101/2836, accessed 31 March 2014.

D.G. Lilleker and K. Koc–Michalska, 2013. “Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e–representation, and self–representation,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 10, number 2, pp. 190–207.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.758071, accessed 31 March 2014.

D.G. Lilleker and C. Malagón, 2010. “Levels of interactivity in the 2007 French Presidential candidates’ Websites,” European Journal of Communication, volume 25, number 1, pp. 25–42.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.758071, accessed 31 March 2014.

D.G. Lilleker, K. Koc–Michalska, E.J. Schweitzer, M. Jacunski, N. Jackson, and T. Vedel, 2011. “Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of Web campaigning,” European Journal of Communication, volume 26, number 3, pp. 195–213.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323111416182, accessed 31 March 2014.

M.T. Loveland and D. Popescu, 2011. “Democracy on the Web: Assessing the deliberative qualities of Internet forums,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 14, number 5, pp. 684–703.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.521844, accessed 31 March 2014.

M. Margolis and D. Resnick, 2000. Politics as usual: The cyberspace “revolution”. London: Sage.

G. Mascheroni and A. Mattoni, 2012. “Electoral campaigning 2.0 — The case of 2010 Italian regional elections,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, volume 10, number 2, pp. 223–240.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.758073, accessed 31 March 2014.

E. Mitchelstein and P.J. Boczkowski, 2010. “Online news consumption research: An assessment of past work and an agenda for the future,” New Media & Society, volume 12, number 7, pp. 1,085–1,102.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809350193, accessed 31 March 2014.

E. Mitchelstein and P.J. Boczkowski, 2009. “Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production,” Journalism, volume 10, number 5, pp. 562–586.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884909106533, accessed 31 March 2014.

H. Moe and A.O. Larsson, 2012. “Methodological and ethical challenges associated with large–scale analyses of online political communication,” Nordicom Review, volume 33, number 1, pp. 117–124, and at http://nordicom02.monoclick-dev.se/sites/default/files/kapitel-pdf/359_moe_larsson.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

M.D. Montero, 2009. “Political e–mobilisation and participation in the election campaigns of Ségolène Royal (2007) and Barack Obama (2008),” Quaderns del CAC, volume 33, pp. 27–34, and at http://www.cac.cat/pfw_files/cma/recerca/quaderns_cac/q33_montero_en.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

R.K. Nielsen, 2010. “Mundane Internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns,” New Media & Society, volume 13, number 5, pp. 755–771.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810380863, accessed 31 March 2014.

P. Norris, 2000. A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

H. Oscarsson and S. Holmberg, 2008. Regeringsskifte: Väljarna och valet 2006. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

Z. Parvez and P. Ahmed, 2006. “Towards building an integrated perspective on e–democracy,” Information, Communication & Society, volume 9, number 5, pp. 612–632.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180600965609, accessed 31 March 2014.

C. Pascu, D. Osimo, M. Ulbrich, G. Turlea, and J.C. Burgelman, 2007. “The potential disruptive impact of Internet 2 based technologies” First Monday, volume 12, number 3, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1630/1545, accessed 31 March 2014.

A. Pepe and C. di Gennaro, 2009. “Political protest Italian–style: The blogosphere and mainstream media in the promotion and coverage of Beppe Grillo’s V–day,” First Monday, volume 14, number 12, at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2740/2406, accessed 31 March 2014.

C.C. Ragin, 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

H. Rheingold, 2000. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Revised edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

S.M. Schneider and K.A. Foot, 2002. “Online structure for political action: Exploring presidential campaign Web sites from the 2000 American election,” Javnost — the Public, volume 9, number 2, pp. 43–60, and at http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/2002/2/3/, accessed 31 March 2014.

E.J. Schweitzer, 2012. “The mediatization of e–campaigning: Evidence From German party Websites in state, national, and European parliamentary elections 2002–2009,” Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, volume 17, number 3, pp. 283–302.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01577.x, accessed 31 March 2014.

E.J. Schweitzer, 2011. “Normalization 2.0: A longitudinal analysis of German online campaigns in the national elections 2002–9,” European Journal of Communication, volume 26, number 4, pp. 310–327.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323111423378, accessed 31 March 2014.

E.J. Schweitzer, 2009. “Europeanisation on the Internet? The role of German party websites in the 2004 European parliamentary elections,” Observatorio, volume 3, number 3, pp. 20–40, and at http://obs.obercom.pt/index.php/obs/article/view/262/274, accessed 31 March 2014.

E.J. Schweitzer, 2008. “Innovation or normalization in e–campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party Websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections,” European Journal of Communication, volume 23, number 4, pp. 449–470.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323108096994, accessed 31 March 2014.

E.J. Schweitzer, 2005. “Election campaigning online: German party Websites in the 2002 national elections,” European Journal of Communication, volume 20, number 3, pp. 327–351.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323105055261, accessed 31 March 2014.

P.M. Shane (editor), 2004. Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet. New York: Routledge.

J. Stromer–Galley, 2000. “On–line interaction and why candidates avoid it,” Journal of Communication, volume 50, number 4, pp. 111–132.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x, accessed 31 March 2014.

J. Svensson, 2011. “Nina on the Net: A study of a politician campaigning on social networking sites,” Central European Journal of Communication, volume 2, number 8, pp. 190–206, at http://ptks.pl/cejc/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEJC_Vol4_No2_Svensson.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

C. Vaccari, 2008a. “Surfing to the Élysée: The Internet in the 2007 French elections,” French Politics, volume 6, number 1, pp. 1–22.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200139, accessed 31 March 2014.

C Vaccari, 2008b. “From the air to the ground: The Internet in the 2004 US Presidential campaign,” New Media & Society, volume 10, number 4, pp. 647–665.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444808093735, accessed 31 March 2014.

S. Wattal, D. Schuff, M. Mandviwalla, and C.B. Williams, 2010. “Web 2.0 and politics: The 2008 U.S. Presidential election and an e–politics research agenda,” MIS Quarterly, volume 34, number 4, pp. 669–688.

R. Whitley, 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S. Wright, 2012. “Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation,” New Media & Society, volume 14, number 2, pp. 244–261.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410679, accessed 31 March 2014.


Editorial history

Received 18 October 2013; revised 20 February 2014; accepted 24 February 2014.

Creative Commons-licens
“Politicians online — Identifying current research opportunities” av Anders Olof Larsson, Jakob Svensson är licensierad under en Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationell licens.

Politicians online — Identifying current research opportunities
by Anders Olof Larsson and Jakob Svensson.
First Monday, Volume 19, Number 4 - 7 April 2014
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4897.

A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.

© First Monday, 1995-2017. ISSN 1396-0466.