This study presents data from content analyses of the websites of all parties that stood in the 2009 European parliamentary elections in France, Germany, Great Britain and Poland. It cross-nationally examines the main functions of the websites, the adoption of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 features, and the political and cultural factors that determine parties’ online communication. The findings show that while the main website function varies across countries, Web 1.0 is still the dominant mode of campaigning. Moreover, offline inequalities within and between nations determine differences in parties’ individual online strategies: specifically, major parties in states with long histories of democracy and EU membership lead the way and offer more interactive and innovative modes of campaigning. On the other hand, minor parties, particularly in Poland, remain in a more Web 1.0, information-heavy mode of communication. This supports the so-called normalization thesis on both the meso and the macro level.

Conducting interviews can be a fundamentally important part of a research project that analyses the motivations and activity of those within the political process. However the logistics of interviewing are fraught with a number of serious obstacles and what information one can glean may not always serve the purpose that was originally intended. This article offers some observations gathered from conducting interviews with a wide range of political actors which is intended to help prepare all those considering interviewing for the first time.During the course of my doctoral research, and as part of my role as research assistant, elite interviewing has been one of the key methodologies employed. In fact when first asked how I intended to discover what motivated radical members of the parliamentary Labour party I responded, somewhat glibly, 'I'll ask them'. This appeared obvious. When one reads many works of political analysis it becomes apparent that many academics have relied upon the elite interview as the staple method for getting inside the subject. Elites can be loosely defined as those with close proximity to power or policymaking; the category would include all elected representatives, executive officers of organisations and senior state employees. Beyond the confines of politics the definition could clearly be broadened out.The fact that interviews are an integral part of many research projects is apparent if one refers to the preface or the endnotes of many authoritative texts. Here a veritable plethora of household names can be found. However few authors hint of the difficulties that are faced: when locating individuals one feels are imperative for a project; when attempting to obtain answers to the questions one has set, and when dealing with the data gathered from interviews. These, as well as matters of courtesy and legal necessity, are key factors to consider when beginning a programme of interviews. This article aims to offer some pointers to the would-be interviewer.

Twitter, a microblogging site which allows users to deliver statements, thoughts and links in 140 characters to followers as well as a wider Internet audience, is the latest online communications technology adopted by MPs. Assessing the use of early adopters, this article considers which MPs are most likely to use Twitter (e.g. tweeting), and how. Content analysis of tweeting MPs was conducted, and identified personal and political characteristics which may influence use. The data suggested that of the six characteristics tested, gender, party and seniority had most impact on adoption. Applying Jones and Pittman's (1982) typology there is clear evidence that MPs use Twitter as a tool of impression management. Constituency service is a secondary function of the use of Twitter by MPs. Where MPs use Twitter as part of their constituency role it is to promote their local activity. We note that a small group of MPs use Twitter as a regular communication channel, but most are only occasionally dipping their toe into the microbloggersphere.

No abstract

Web 2.0 has heralded a networked, participatory and conversational culture reaching beyond national borders and cultures, reshaping communicational hierarchies and thus creating a new set of communicative rules. Web 2.0 offers political actors a potentially effective means of building a relationship with activists, supporters and possibly floating voters. The cost, however, is that the interactive nature of these technologies requires some loss of control of political discourse. Election campaigning tends to be synonymous with top-down, persuasive and propagandastyle communication which aims to win the support of voters crucial for the victory of a candidate or party. While this remains as the dominant paradigm for understanding campaigns, the use of Web 2.0 tools, features and platforms challenges this notion. Emerging in 2005, Web 2.0 ushered in a networked, participatory culture to be observed online with tools facilitating asynchronous or symmetrical conversations to take place within a variety of online environments. This participatory and conversational culture, like the Internet itself, reaches beyond national borders and cultures, reshaping communicational hierarchies, thus creating a new set of communicative rules. Web 2.0 applications raise significant questions for political parties and individual candidates in terms of how they might use the Internet for building relationships with activists, supporters and possibly floating voters. Through the systematic measurement of the usage of Web 2.0 tools, features and platforms-embedded within or linked to-from the websites of six UK parties we analyse the use of the Internet, and in particular Web 2.0 tools, features and platforms, during the 2010 general election in the UK. We find that differing strategies emerge between parties, with some withdrawing from interactive feature -69 -© 2010 Policy Studies Organization use. Where Web 2.0 features are employed they are largely within discrete areas aimed at building contact with communities of supporters, but largely these are geared towards electoral objectives and not harnessing the collective wisdom of party networks to inform policy.