This publication is made freely available under ______ __ open access. AUTHOR(S): TITLE: YEAR: Publisher citation: OpenAIR citation: Publisher copyright statement: This is the ______________________ version of an article originally published by ____________________________ in __________________________________________________________________________________________ (ISSN _________; eISSN __________). OpenAIR takedown statement: Section 6 of the “Repository policy for OpenAIR @ RGU” (available from http://www.rgu.ac.uk/staff-and-current- students/library/library-policies/repository-policies) provides guidance on the criteria under which RGU will consider withdrawing material from OpenAIR. If you believe that this item is subject to any of these criteria, or for any other reason should not be held on OpenAIR, then please contact [email protected] with the details of the item and the nature of your complaint. This publication is distributed under a CC ____________ license. ____________________________________________________ Page 1 of 42 Aslib Proceedings 1 2 3 Members of the Scottish Parliament on Twitter: good constituency men (and 4 5 women)? 6 7 8 9 Abstract 10 11 Purpose – To explore the use of Twitter by Members of the Scottish Parliament 12 13 (MSPs) for the provision of constituency-related information, or in support of their 14 15 constituency service work. 16 17 Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis of 10,411 tweets sent by the 18 For Peer Review 19 105 MSPs on Twitter during four weeks in early 2014. 20 21 Findings – While there was some evidence of MSPs on Twitter acting as a promoter 22 23 of local community interests and as a conduit for information on local policy issues 24 25 and events, their tweets were dominated by the wider, national, political agenda and 26 27 by the Scottish independence debate. Compared with their online behaviour as 28 29 parliamentary candidates three years earlier, MSPs placed an even greater 30 31 emphasis on the one-way broadcast of information to their followers. They were 32 33 reluctant to respond to contentious local policy questions, or to enter into any visible, 34 35 36 meaningful, political debate with their constituents. 37 38 Research limitations/implications – Although the research was conducted seven 39 40 months before the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September 2014, the 41 42 independence debate still dominated proceedings on Twitter. It might, therefore, be 43 44 appropriate to revisit MSPs’ use of Twitter at some point during a truer ‘peacetime’ 45 46 period. 47 48 Originality/value – This is the first systematic content analysis of tweets sent by all 49 50 MSPs on Twitter. It allows us to compare their actual Twitter use with that envisaged 51 52 by the Scottish Parliament, as a way of MSPs communicating about their work and 53 54 engaging with their constituents. 55 56 Keywords Constituency service, Information provision, Internet, Members of the 57 58 Scottish Parliament, Social media, Twitter, Political communication 59 60 Aslib Proceedings Page 2 of 42 1 2 3 Paper type Research paper 4 5 6 Introduction 7 8 When the Scottish Parliament [1] was being established in the late 1990s, an Expert 9 10 Panel on Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) recommended that 11 12 the parliament should focus upon the contribution that new technologies might make 13 14 in enabling greater openness and transparency and in assisting the democratic 15 16 process. The panel believed that the Scottish Parliament should “aspire to be an 17 18 example of bestFor practice in Peerparliamentary informationReview systems, both in terms of 19 20 external communications and internal efficiency” (Consultative Steering Group on the 21 22 Scottish Parliament, 1998, section 3.6, para. 21). During the first two sessions of the 23 24 Scottish Parliament (i.e. 1999-2003 and 2003-2007), studies of Members of the 25 26 Scottish Parliament (MSPs) found that they were “intensive and competent users” of 27 28 ICTs (Smith and Webster, 2004), and that ICTs had “become a cultural norm of 29 30 contemporary parliamentary life”, where MSPs and their assistants used them 31 32 constantly in order to fulfil their legislative, oversight and representative roles (Smith 33 34 35 and Webster, 2008). Smith and Webster’s studies took place before the emergence 36 37 of Facebook and Twitter; but the potential value of these social media as information 38 39 provision and communication tools has since become recognised within the Scottish 40 41 Parliament, where it is acknowledged that they “can increase the accessibility of 42 43 MSPs and offer new ways in which to engage constituents, stakeholders and the 44 45 wider public” (Scottish Parliament Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments 46 47 Committee, 2012). 48 49 50 51 This paper presents the results of a study, conducted in 2014, which explored the 52 53 use of Twitter by MSPs, in order to establish if there was any evidence of the 54 55 accessible and truly engaging online parliamentarians envisaged by the Scottish 56 57 Parliament. The study sought, in particular, to determine the extent to which Twitter 58 59 60 Page 3 of 42 Aslib Proceedings 1 2 3 was being used by MSPs for the provision of constituency-related information, or in 4 5 support of their day-to-day constituency work. It also aimed to establish if the 6 7 frequency and nature of Twitter use by these elected members differed from that 8 9 encountered when these individuals were prospective parliamentary candidates 10 11 during the 2011 Scottish Parliament election campaign. 12 13 14 15 The paper will firstly review the literature that underpins the study, focusing in 16 17 particular on: the constituency service role of the elected member in Britain; on the 18 For Peer Review 19 information behaviour of British parliamentarians, particularly in relation to their 20 21 constituency service role; and on the impact that new technologies have had on the 22 23 communication and exchange of information between the parliamentarian and his/her 24 25 constituents. The paper will then discuss the study’s methodological approach, 26 27 before presenting the main results of the research. The final section will present our 28 29 conclusions and identify significant areas for future research. 30 31 32 33 Literature Review 34 35 36 The constituency role of the parliamentarian in Britain 37 38 Historically, the constituency role of the UK Member of Parliament (MP) has its 39 th 40 origins in 13 century England, where knights, burgesses and other prominent 41 42 citizens would be sent to Parliament in order to redress the grievances of those 43 th th 44 (largely the propertied classes) in their local communities. During the 18 and 19 45 46 centuries the constituency role became dormant, due to the emergence of mass 47 48 political parties that demanded loyalty from their elected representatives in 49 50 Parliament in supporting national mandates, rather than just local, constituency- 51 52 related issues. In the 20 th century, however, the MP’s constituency service role re- 53 54 emerged, particularly after the Second World War when the phrase ‘a good 55 56 constituency man’ became common parlance in the political sphere. Several reasons 57 58 have been proffered for the revival of the constituency service role, including: 59 60 Aslib Proceedings Page 4 of 42 1 2 3 population growth and the introduction of universal suffrage, resulting in a 4 5 significantly larger electorate that places increased demands on its MPs; the 6 7 expansion of the public sector and a concomitant growth in constituents’ need for 8 9 assistance, as they attempted to navigate the bureaucratic complexities of the new 10 11 welfare state; increased public awareness of political issues, leading to more people 12 13 attempting to challenge and influence the political process (what is termed ‘cognitive 14 15 mobilisation’); and the differing characteristics of MPs, who are no longer drawn 16 17 exclusively from the professional classes, but increasingly have public sector 18 For Peer Review 19 backgrounds and an intrinsic interest in the fair and effective delivery of local services 20 21 (see, for example, Norris, 1997; Gay, 2005; Norton, 2012). 22 23 24 25 In his seminal study of Westminster parliamentarians, Searing (1985) identified the 26 27 ‘constituency member’ as one of four principal – and reasonably distinct – roles that 28 29 the backbench MP might adopt at various points throughout his/her political career; 30 31 the others being ministerial aspirant, parliament man, and policy advocate. At the 32 33 time of his research, in the 1970s, he estimated that 25% of Westminster 34 35 36 backbenchers were constituency members, who devoted themselves to issues 37 38 arising in their local communities. Searing observed two subtypes of the constituency 39 40 member, each with a differing outlook and behaviour: the ‘welfare officer’, who 41 42 focuses on making representations on behalf of individual constituents, perhaps 43 44 holding more regular constituency surgeries [2], making themselves available to 45 46 constituents at weekends, or undertaking visits to constituents’ homes; and the ‘local 47 48 promoter’ who instead makes representations on behalf of their constituency’s 49 50 collective concerns, perhaps being more likely to open local buildings, visit local 51 52 factories, schools and hospitals, or become involved in major local planning 53 54 decisions. In the 1970s, Searing estimated that 75.3% of constituency members were 55 56 welfare officers, 15.3% were local promoters, with the remainder (9.4%) giving equal 57 58 weight to both aspects of constituency service. Interestingly, Searing established that 59 60 Page 5 of 42 Aslib Proceedings 1 2 3 Scotland had a higher proportion of constituency members (41%) than did the other 4 5 UK regions.