Citizen Engagement in a Digital Age Twitters’ Role to Civic and Political Mobilizations

Amber Ebrahim 10202234 Master thesis Political Science: International Relations University of Amsterdam, 23 June 2017 Supervised by dr. S. Tanaka Second reader: G. Schumacher

[email protected] Harvard Style (formatting)

1 Abstract

Using empirical data, this thesis examines several theories on civic mobilizations and political engagement on social networking platforms. In specific, the impact of three drivers of political mobilization and participation on social networking platforms (political party platforms, hashtags and social capital) will be assessed. By focusing on three subcases of Kinderpardon in the Netherlands, this thesis can fill the empirical and theoretical gap in the existing literature. By constructing the three drivers of political mobilization, the impact of different factors on social networking platforms can be determined and measured more specifically. The results of this thesis indicate a predominantly positive relationship between the use of social networking platforms and political engagement, with informational, expressive, and relational uses being of particular importance.

Keywords: political engagement, civic mobilizations, social networking platforms, political party platforms, hashtags, media-hypes, social capital.

2 Table of Contents

Abstract p. 2

List of abbreviations p. 4 List of tables p. 4 List of figures p. 4

Chapter 1: Introduction p. 5

Chapter 2: Literature review p. 9 2.1 Contemporary Western democracies p. 10 2.2 Political participation on social networking platforms p. 11 2.2.1 Web 2.0 p. 12 2.3 Media-hypes p. 13 2.4 The mobilizing role of social media p. 14

Chapter 3: Theory p. 16 3.1 Awareness and information on political platforms p. 17 3.2 Hashtags p. 20 3.3 Social capital p. 21

Chapter 4: Case Study p. 24

Chapter 5: Methodology p. 27 5.1 Data p. 27 5.2 Research design p. 28 5.3 Data collection p. 29 5.4 Population and sample p. 31 5.5 Measurement instruments p. 31 5.5.1 Dependent variable p. 31 5.5.2 Independent variables p. 32 5.6 Ethical considerations p. 32

Chapter 6: Analysis p. 33 6.1 Empirical data on Kinderpardon p. 33 6.2 Political party platforms p. 34 6.3 Hashtags & trending topics p. 43 6.4 Social capital p. 48

Chapter 7: Conclusion p. 51 7.1 Discussion p. 51 7.2 Limitations p. 53 7.3 Future research p. 55

List of References p. 55

3

List of abbreviations

BLM – Black Lives Matter ICT – Information and Communication Technologies U.S. – United States IND – Immigration and Naturalisation Service

List of tables

Table 1: Overview of the reviews case studies p. 16 Table 2: Categories of social media analysis p. 30 Table 3: Overview of spikes in the amount of tweets mentioning p. 34 Kinderpardon Table 4: Top 30 of Dutch politicians on Twitter p. 38

List of figures

Figure 1: Cumulative percentages of messages with strong hashtags p. 20 on social networking platforms Figure 2: Conceptual model p. 24 Figure 3: Number of tweets in dataset mentioning Kinderpardon by day p. 34 Figure 4: Most important media for Dutch politicians in 2013 p. 36 Figure 5: Most important social networking platforms for Dutch politicians p. 37 in 2013 Figure 6: Classification of Dutch politicians following people on Twitter p. 40 Figure 7: Daily use of Twitter by Dutch politicians in 2013 p. 41 Figure 8: Trending topics regarding Kinderpardon in dataset p. 43 Figure 9: Amount of attention for Wime (green), Doritty (blue) and Tri p. 47 (orange) in dataset Figure 10: Examples of tweets by Dutch politician Linda Voortman on p. 48 the case of Wime Figure 11: Number of petitions signed for Doritty during the period p. 49 of analysis Figure 12: Number of petitions signed for Tri during the period of analysis p. 50 Figure 13: Number of petitions signed for Wime during the period of analysis p. 50

4 1. Introduction

Political movements based on digital coordination seem to gather momentum rapidly; yet, many have proved to be unstable and difficult to sustain (Margetts et al. 2016: 4). The Arab Spring in 2014 and the Brazil uprisings in 2014 took most of the world by surprise and pose a challenge to social scientists interested in political communication. Much of the literature in political science is devoted to the study of democratic societies and revolving around the question of whether the government is responsive to the preferences of the mass public. In order for politicians to be responsive to the publics’ preferences and problems, they need to be paying attention to the policy views and debates the public engage with in order to avoid massive uprisings such as the above-mentioned examples. However, the ecology of the online discussions and how the changing use of social media1 affects citizen engagement and eventually politics is not yet fully researched and understood. This thesis is dedicated to increase the academic understanding of the relation between online discussions and various forms of political mobilizations with political engagement, and the effects of these online discussions on different cases within the same topic of discussion. Throughout the year, politicians and individuals send millions of messages, called tweets into the world (Parmelee and Bichard 2012: 1). As social networking platforms move from being regarded as little more than a temporary mania to becoming integrated into the everyday life of millions of people, corporations and organizations, empirical research in the social sciences are starting to form a picture of how this widely popular and distributed form of communication affects democracy and political participation by the public (Gustafsson 2010: 3). As people go about their daily lives, they are invited to make “micro-donations” of their personal time and effort to support political causes (Bennett & Margetts 2013, Margetts 2015). These micro-donations include liking, sharing, retweeting, signing petitions, and so on, extending the ladder of participation at the lower end, offering the public to exercise continuous pressure on their democratically elected politicians (ibid). The narrative of this online engagement and the discussions occurring on social media is, in many cases, led by events or happenings that deviate from the status quo. A specific case would be Kinderpardon, emerging in 2011 and engaging the Dutch public online to take part in the debate on whether or not children from

1 The terms social media, social networking platforms and new media will be used interchangeable in this thesis.

5 refugees are allowed to stay in the country when their parents are refused asylum or a residence permit. I review three children (referred to as subcases) with different outcomes in this thesis. This leads to the following central research question:

Within a single topic, why do some cases get more attention than others on social networking platforms?

Two sub questions are raised in order to deepen the analysis and to increase the understanding of the relation between social networking platforms and politicians.

How does the use of social networking platforms by the public lead to increased citizen engagement?

Does the increased citizen engagement on social networking platforms increase the level of interest/engagement by politicians?

The theoretical foundation of the questions raised in this introduction is based on literature that connects political civic movements (based on erupting issues and events) in Western democracies with the emergence of social media (Margetts et al. 2016; Rasmussen et al. 2017; Kruikemeier et al. 2014; Barberá et al. 2014; Gustafsson 2010; Freelon et al. 2016; Vasterman 2004). Several theories are attached to this emergence; firstly, collective frames create a dominant societal definition of a problem, therefore increasing the visibility and the gravity of the issue (Vasterman 2004: 41). Collective frames are in this study regarded as hashtags; one or more words characteristic for a specific topic or a subgroup on social media. This in turn increases the agenda setting functionality of social networking platforms, making it more likely that an issue is identified by politicians and eventually added to the political agenda or resulting in a policy success. Secondly, political activities have shifted from offline activities such as attending meetings in formal organizations towards online engagement (Gustafsson 2010: 7). This knowledge is increasingly important for the relevance of this study. If connecting with the public through social networking platforms increases, politicians have not only the ability to promote themselves, but also to mobilize voters and to have interactive conversations with the public (Kruikemeier et al. 2014).

6 I argue that specific events, pushed by different conditions, lead to an increased amount of attention on social networking platforms in the form of online discussions. If the amount of attention increases among the public, a higher number of actors becomes active on the issue. When Dutch politicians get engaged in the online conversation, it becomes more likely that a motion for a policy change will be submitted at the Second Chamber.

In order to test this argument, I analyze a set of factors that condition the impact of online discussions on politicians. First, public opinion might play a stronger role if a higher number of non-governmental actors are actively participating in the online discussion regarding an issue. Second, different types of online and offline connections between people on social networking platforms play a role in the attainment of policy to different degrees (Rasmussen et al. 2017: 3). Third, the use of strong hashtags makes it easier for people to find discussions that are already taking place on social networking platforms, making it easier to get engaged. As nowadays most communication goes through social media, this will be the main stage of the research. This argument is inherently related to the number of actors active on a particular issue, but also to the matter of influence the public may have on political decision makers. Policy makers are not very likely to follow the advice of actors who act in isolation, but at the same time single messages on social networking platforms will not get the attention of policy makers (Margetts et al. 2016). On several social networking platforms, like Twitter, the amount of attention can quickly take of when it becomes a media-hype; if the public talks about a topic a lot in a short amount of time, events become trending topics. In this thesis, I assume that public opinion should play an important role in democratic decision-making, as politicians ultimately depend on the public for winning votes to secure re-election (Mayhew 1974; Rasmussen et al. 2017: 5). Indeed, a range of studies provides empirical support for policy responsiveness to public opinion (Erikson et al. 1993; Lax and Philips 2012; Rasmussen et al. 205; Shapiro 2011). However, strong empirical evidence that public opinion on social media influences decision-making in democracies is still in the making.

All tweets regarding the earlier mentioned case of Kinderpardon are analyzed over a 15-month period (between September 1, 2013 to November 1, 2014). Using the Coosto software, all tweets related to this topic are extracted from Twitter. Through this

7 method, I will be able to categorize the content of the tweets and make a distinction between the public and the politicians. Also, the interactive nature of Twitter as a social networking platform where the online discussion takes place, will be analyzed furthermore to understand to what extent the politicians expressed political agenda is affected by what the mass public discuss publicly on this same platform and vice versa. The main advantage of using Twitter as a source of information about online discussions between individuals is that Members of the Dutch Parliament and the mass public are both present on this social networking platform, sending tweets that follow the same format (containing a maximum of 140 characters), and often re-posting each other’s content through retweets. I will explore which factors lead to an increase in attention on Twitter; are the public and politicians more responsive to specific cases within the main topic, depending on the social ties in the community (indicating whether it makes a difference if a child has a large online and offline activist community in the wings), if the discussion becomes trending (and see if the use of strong hashtags are contributing) or more information and awareness on political party pages (including personal action frames, online petitions, and the content of political debates and opinions)? The results of this thesis indicate a predominantly positive relationship between the use of social networking platforms and political engagement, with informational, expressive, and relational uses being of particular importance.

This thesis specifically contributes to the existing knowledge in the field of political science by increasing further understanding of the roles of social networking platforms in relation to political and civil movements in Western democracies. In addition to contributing to the academic literature on civil mobilizations, this thesis also tests what factors are contributing to political agenda setting through online discussions. What differences can be perceived between one case and another? Empirical evidence on this matter is scarce, as this has not been widely analyzed because most studies focus on mobilizations in non-democratic societies or not include social networking platforms as a unit of analysis. Furthermore, the second contribution of this thesis is the empirical evidence of mobilizations on the Internet (and Twitter as a social networking platform) to the different cases of Kinderpardon and the involved children. As the research question implies, not every child got the same treatment by the government. This study

8 empirically tests what makes the difference and if there is a relation between online mobilizations and different comparable cases, paving the way for future research.

The aim of this thesis is to review existing empirical research on civic mobilizations and political engagement, and to expand the research with respect to the diversity of social media by providing a more robust conclusion on the variation and transformation of roles and relations in social media and political engagement. Social media content analysis provides a more specific qualitative understanding of this subject. Combined with a narrative review, this research improves the conclusion because the data is accessible and subject to replication. My intention is to provide a comprehensive overview of existing literature and theories, and derive generalizable measurements to review the relationship between social media use and political engagement. I aim to shed more light on the linkages between different patterns of social media use and specific forms of political engagement by citizens, such as the use of political party platforms and the interaction between politicians and citizens on social networking platforms, engagement with hashtags and social capital.

The following chapters logically narrate this thesis and the concepts and theories used in this study. In chapter 2, I discuss the existing literature on contemporary Western democracies, Web 2.0, media-hypes and the mobilizing role of social media. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses. In this chapter, a theoretical discussion on the impact of social media on democracies and political responsiveness is conducted. Chapter 4 describes the case selection of Kinderpardon and the associated subcases. Chapter 5 introduces the methodology and measurements of the independent variables. Chapter 6 explores the dataset of tweets sent in the timeframe of 15 months by Dutch politicians and the public on Kinderpardon (and the three subcases under review). This thesis concludes in chapter 7 with a summary of the findings, as well as the discussion and limitations of this study, and a list of practical next steps for future research.

2. Literature review

Because of academic interest in the concept of civic movements and political engagement in democratic societies, a vast body of literature exists on this subject. However, for the analysis of public opinion drivers on social media, not all of the existing literature is relevant. In order to limit the scope of this review, the focus is on

9 literature that studies the determinants of social networking platforms and how individuals in relation to political activism use these. This includes literature that deals with public opinion on social media in general. This literature review excludes political responsiveness in societies that are not democratic.

2.1 Contemporary Western democracies The conduct of the state and its policies, public opinion (domestic and international) and all forms of media intermingle in a network of complex relationships. These relationships are being transformed through globalization and the technological marvels that are inherently related to globalization. Considerable academic research has been conducted on these relationships within the fields of political science, and several theorems have been forwarded.

Two perspectives dominate the academic debate: the pluralist model and the elite model (Robinson 2008: 187). The pluralist model assumes that power is dispersed throughout society, including across the media and the public, therefore no group or set of interests dominates. This means that pluralist accounts maintain that media and publics are independent from political influence and therefore can (and should) act as powerful constraints upon governments (ibid). Conversely, the elite model assumes that power is concentrated within elite groups, who are able to dominate politics and society. Elite accounts maintain that both media and public opinion are subservient to political elites. From this perspective, media have a rather less independent form of influence – acting as a mouthpiece for government officials, operating to mobilize publics in support of their policies (ibid).

Liberal democracy has empowered populations to scrutinize policy, making public opinion “both an instrument and a factor in the conduct of foreign policy” (Tatu 1984: 26). Not only foreign policy making is subjective to public opinion; democratic principles demand that the government should respond to public opinion, for which elections and media-orated concerns are tools (Robinson 2008: 139). It is, after all, the public that legitimizes the government within democracies. Public opinion should not be thought of as a rational or singular actor, however, nor of singular consensus, rather it is multi-faceted, as the culmination of interest groups and the masses, while ‘attentive opinion’ varies (Hughes 1997: 187).

10 I will reflect on how Twitter is structurally influencing our public atmosphere and, in particular, the political debate with reference to Jürgen Habermas' research on "Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit". The German philosopher Habermas analyzed how new spaces for public debates sparked in the late eighteenth century in France and the early nineteenth century in England. Newspapers and pamphlets became a prominent way of communicating and formulating public opinion in the seventeenth century. From the late eighteenth century, these media and the meetings of citizens in societies created a new public atmosphere, the so-called "bürgerliche Öffentlichkeit" (Habermas 1990). In the new digital age, media often makes it possible for a thorough restructuring of ways to spread information and ideas. Blogs, web forums, and social media become new spaces for expressing opinions, conducting discussions and the formulation of critical opinions. These media are able to facilitate new forms of political mobilization (Münker 2008: 54).

In the next paragraph, a deeper understanding of these new forms of political mobilization on social networking platforms in relation to Web 2.0 will be conducted.

2.2 Political participation on social networking platforms

Taking a closer look at recent research results on social networking platforms and political participation, the study by Skoric et al. (2016) suggests that there is a positive relationship between the use of social media and political engagement. This relationship is based on the participant’s personality and how the medium is used: it is often those individuals who use social networking platforms primarily to gain information that are politically engaged. The main motivation to join Facebook communities is to socialize and build up reputation among peers (Lilleker and Koc- Michalska 2016: 24), warning us not to become too optimistic about Facebook as a tool for political participation.

These scholars studies the role of social networking platforms in relation to the development and upkeep of bridging and bonding new networks in the form of social capital. Their expectation is that social capital plays a role in fostering civic participation (Skoric et al. 2016: 1820). They found that escapism, diversion and anonymity, characteristics of the former Web 1.0 era, had negative implications for social capital (Shah et al. 2001; ibid). Contrasting to this conclusion, some of the most popular social networking platforms are related to existing offline networks of social

11 ties these days, softening the problems present in online interactions such as impoliteness and free-riding (Kavanaugh et al. 2005; Skoric et al. 2016: 1820). Social networking platforms therefore enable individuals to increase interactions with online and offline networks, expanding their networks and increase their social capital (ibid). Another study by Ahn (2012), for example, found that teenagers use Facebook for both bonding and bridging purposes with regards to social capital, while MySpace use was, for example, associated with bonding social capital only. When comparing this with a study by the same scholar in 2010, interestingly, Ahn’s experiment with Facebook-like social networking platforms created specifically for young individuals failed to find any association with social capital (2010). Ahn concluded that the lack of significant findings is likely due to low participation in such non-mainstream, low-reach social networking platforms. This study suggests that different social networking platforms also mean different technological affordances and user participation across the years. This influences social capital creation, raising further questions regarding possible ways to achieve effective and sustainable political user engagement on these platforms.

In 2014, a dedicated activist movement – Black Lives Matter (BLM) – ignited an urgent national conversation in the U.S. about police killings of unarmed black citizens (Freelon et al. 2016: 5). Social media make it easier for interests to organize; like most contemporary Western social movements, BLM uses online media extensively. In the next section of this literature review, a deeper understanding of why people reach out to digital tools in order to create political turbulence will be conducted by looking at the emergence of Web 2.0 as an interactive online platform and media-hypes on social networking platforms.

2.2.1 Web 2.0 Over the last decades, the increase in number of people with Internet access has been enormous. 46.1% of the world population has access to the World Wide Web in 2016, representing an estimated 3,424,971,237 people. Internet users are defined as individuals who can access the Internet at home, via any device type and connection (internetlivestats.com). The Netherlands has in 2016 15,915,076 Internet users, which corresponds with approximately 93.7% of the population (ibid). In other words, a large majority of the Dutch population uses the Internet.

12 A transformation of the Internet’s functionality itself is the results of he global increase of Internet users. The online environment transformed from a passive environment to a more participatory and active environment. This phase of the Internet is often referred to as Web 2.0. What Web 2.0 entails more concretely, is that people have the ability to share information and collaborate to create to build the environment. The environment can be compared with Wikipedia, inducing people to use collaboration as a common effort of creating content, commenting, organizing, sharing and linking to other works. The online environment is networked, meaning that it includes a collection of technologies, such as blogs, social networking sites, microblogs, mashups and so on (Chun et al. 2010: 2). When political leaders and the mass public engage on Twitter, they are part of the power and promise that comes along with Web 2.0, which inherently means that websites and social networking platforms enable users to create and share their own content with the world (Parmelee and Bichard 2012: 3).

Up until this point I have used the term ‘social networking platforms’ liberally, but it requires a closer definition. Social networking platforms are online platforms where the users – with little or even without interference of professional editors – create their own content through dialogue and interaction (Leyenaar et al. 2012: 323). This definition is in line with the promise of Web 2.0. Twitter is undeniably a large social media platform; ranking tenth on Alexa’s top 500 sites on the web (Alexa.com). With over 313 million unique active users monthly, Twitter makes a viable ground for analyzing the earlier mentioned hypothesis (Twitter 2017). As social media becomes more prevailing, social science has increasingly turned its attention towards the Internet and its applications as a promise of a more democratic future (e.g. Rheingold 2000; Becker & Slaton 2000) or as a dynamic machine concentrating ever more power into the hands of the few (Van De Donk et al. 1995; Hindman 2008). The development of these applications, in the context of Web 2.0 and social media, combined with “anecdotal evidence of new forms of rapid networked mobilization” (Benkler 2006; Jenkins 2006; Rheingold 2000) created a new interest in the effects of technology on political participation (Gustafsson 2013: 6).

2.3 Media-hypes In this research, the explosive effects of social networking platforms are explained by the theory on the phenomenon media-hypes. The definition of the phenomenon media-

13 hypes derived from the movements of news waves in itself. According to Peter Vasterman, the media-hype can be defined as “media generated, wall-to-wall news wave, triggered by one specific event and enlarged by the self-reinforcing process within the news production of the media.” (Vasterman 2004: 515). While Vasterman’s study of media-hypes is mainly orientated towards defining the concept in relation to traditional journalistic media, it is also highly applicable to social media. The definition and key dynamics of the media-hype are highly relevant for a qualitative analysis of news waves on Twitter in relation to online activism. Intense media-hypes can play an important role in the way in which a condition evolves towards a social problem or a crisis (Vasterman 2004: 41). Vasterman explains that social problems are social constructions, emerging in a complex societal force field (ibid). When a new social problem emerges, a small circle of people starts to get involved and raise awareness in order for a political movement to emerge. Central in this process are claim-making activities to convince a larger audience to share their perception of the problem (ibid). These claim-making activities are perceived as frames – or discourse or collective assumptions – consisting of analyses and perspectives on the social problem. Collective frames – shared frames that are characteristic for communicative outings of a larger group - often emerge in larger mobilizations (ibid: 42). Collective frames highly depend on different forms of media, as they have an important agenda setting functionality, but the influence of a collective frame will reach even further in the case of a media-hype (ibid). The next paragraph will deepen the understanding of the mobilizing role of social media when looking at political engagement by the public.

2.4 The mobilizing role of social media New information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been perceived as mechanisms for increasing collaborative communication between governments and the public. Especially over the last decade, as democratic systems have become increasingly decentralized, interdependent and linked by new information technologies (Chadwick 2008; Halpern and Gibbs 2013: 1159).

The rise of the Tea Party is one case study of how Twitter can be used to mobilize political activists and give a stage to grassroots movements. Members of the Tea Party (whose main goal is to reduce federal spending) are part of a movement with

14 little centralized authority and are spread across the U.S. (Parmelee & Bichard 2012: 12). Yet, without the organizational structure and resources of a major political party, they have staged numerous large protests and elected candidates to office (ibid). Sarno (2009) found that the members of the Tea Party movement use Twitter as an instrument to share their ideas on how to build up a movement and attract people to their protests (ibid).

“Much of the sharing is now facilitated by the fast-growing messaging site Twitter, where today the keyword “teaparty” was one of the most frequently used terms. Users sent out a flurry of updates about attendance, links to photos on Flickr and Photobucket, and videos on YouTube and other sites.” (ibid).

The above mentioned quote illustrates how social networking platforms are used by mobilizing groups to get attention in order to get their ideas to change politics. In addition to the studies on political participation by the public, other academic studies have looked at different legislatures to see who individual politicians are responsive to. Based on social media analysis, Barberá et al. examined primarily whether legislators served co-partisans, or their district more broadly (2014: 3), serving the broader question of overall political government responsiveness. Rather than individual legislator responsiveness, the question has most recently shifted to discussion of whom it is responsive to. Gilens (2012) shows that governments tend to be more responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthy than to the policy preferences of the poor. Ezrow et al. (2011) found that European parties are more responsive to shifts in the mean voter position than to changes in the preferences of their supporters. There are similarly broad and long-standing literatures on how different issues reach the political agenda.

Without doubt, the diffusion of communication media and an increasing level of education have been important factors in the world-wide revival of the movements for civil rights and democracy during the 1980s and the 1990s. The spread of international networks of mass communication and telecommunication had a big impact on the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and on the rise of movements fighting democracy in developing countries (Van Dijk 1999: 81).

15

Source Country/Region Methods Used Civic engagement drivers Rasmussen et al. (2017) Europe Social Media Analysis Politicians are active to get votes Barberá et al. (2016) U.S. Social Media Analysis Politicians are active to get votes Freelon et al. (2016) U.S. Social Media Analysis Community- and & Interviews narrative building Gustafsson (2010) Sweden Interviews Pull/push factors, sharing political affiliation with own private network. Skoric et al. (2016) - Meta-analysis Online and offline participation to increase social capital.

Table 1: Overview of reviewed case studies

The discussed literature in this chapter has been used to identify the different forms of social media analysis in relation to research on political mobilizations. While previous studies have conducted research on the interaction between the public and politicians on social networking platforms, no general theories can be deducted from these studies. It is not clear whether the same results can be expected in smaller units of individuals responding on Twitter, but also in smaller geographical units such as the Netherlands. This is because the studies lack in clarifying what drives people to engage to participate in online discussions and mobilizations on specific topics. In the next chapter, I will take a closer look at political party platforms, hashtags and social capital as theories to apply and analyze the behavior of individuals with to deduct generalizable interpretations for future research, filling the gap in the current literature through the empirical application to the case of Kinderpardon.

3. Theory

In this chapter, a theoretical discussion on the conditions of media-hypes on social networking platforms that lead to an increase in the amount of attention will be presented. The insights from this section will be used to construct several hypotheses that I will test in in the analysis in chapter 6. First, I will elaborate on political

16 engagement and civic engagement on political platforms. Next, I will discuss media- hypes as a theoretical concept. Finally, I will introduce the concepts of online and offline social capital and collective behavior. Every sub-section ends with one or more hypotheses.

3.1 Awareness and information on political platforms Political engagement can take on many forms, including contributing money to a political party, voting or working for a campaign (Pew Research Center 2014). But on every measure of political engagement, citizen engagement and relations to one’s own ideology and views on democracy lie at heart (Verba et al. 1995: 1). Previous studies have considered numerous ways in which citizens express political participation, leading to the Civic Voluntarism Model, resting on motivation and capacity as the two main factors driving the participatory process (ibid: 3). Gustafsson makes use of the Civic Voluntarism Model (Verba et al. 1995), to understand the drivers of political participation: “resources (time, money, skills), engagement (interest, knowledge, efficacy), and recruitment” (ibid: 269; Gustafsson 2010: 6). He argues that social media has the ability to theoretically influence all three categories (ibid). “Whereas income, education and time in itself would not be affected by using social media, a wider repertoire of political activities (such as various forms of online participation) is available compared to the old way of attending meetings in formal organizations” (ibid; Joyce 2007). These drivers give a basic idea of how political participation emerges in societies, which will be explored in the next paragraphs. Besides the abovementioned drivers, literature on contemporary democracies identifies media in general as an important factor in shaping civic engagement in the form of grassroots mobilizations (Agarwal et al. 2013). Grassroots mobilizations are occurring when a group of individuals use collective action to organize political changes at a local, national or even an international level. Grassroots refers to building the mobilization from the bottom-up, and is nowadays occurring often on social media. This is supported by several case studies that are mentioned in the former chapter in relation to movements that have manifested on social media over the past years. In order to improve the understanding of mobilizations and civic engagement in relation to social media, my take on this is that networks with a higher certain political party affiliation contribute more to the discussion than networks with a lower affiliation, although networks with a low affiliation (such as

17 communities) still add up to be significant. Besides this argument, there is also an incentive for politicians: if connecting with the public through social media increases, legislators and politicians have not only the ability to promote themselves, but also to mobilize voters and to have interactive conversations (Kruikemeier et al. 2014).

Whereas Verba et al. (1995) identify resources, engagement and recruitment as the main drivers of political participation; other scholars contest the link between these theories on political participation, especially on social networking platforms (Agarwal et al. 2014: 327). The dynamics between values, power and technology, recognizing that technology is according to Agarwal et al. (2014) not value-neutral but shaped by the morals and ideas of the creators of technology, fits with the perception of grassroots mobilizations that is used in this thesis (ibid).

However, there are some scholars who question the relation between technology and social movements. According to Beraldo and Galan–Paez (2013) new media blurs the distinction between private and public domains, creating a dilemma for collective action (320; Bimber et al. 2005, 2013). The affordances related to new digital platforms, when effectively in use, can indeed lead up to radical changes in models of citizen participation and models of mobilization (Earl and Kimport 2011; Beraldo and Galan-Paez 2013: 320, 321). Drawing on the ideas of Mancur Olson, it is argued that the “free-rider problem” is the greatest challenge of contemporary political mobilization. Individuals are only likely to take part in political activities if they are provided with incentives to do so (Anstead 2014: 345). New forms of mobilization and organizational logic are connected with the notion of connective action (Bennett and Segerberg 2012). According to them, “whereas traditional collective action requires organizations to provide individuals with incentives for participation, directives for coordination and frames for identification, digitally enabled connective action emerges on the other hand from self-organizing networks of individuals” (Beraldo and Galan-Paez 2013: 321). The first step in understanding the concept of connective action, is to take a closer look at the core of connective action: personalized communication and its relation to social media (Bennett and Segerberg 2012: 743). Bennett and Segerberg (2012) argue that the level of self-motivation is important for individuals to engage in political action. Due to the globalization, changes have produced a shift in social and political orientations of younger generations in nations that these authors call post-

18 industrial democracies (ibid). New, individualized political orientations result in “engagement with politics as an expression of personal hopes, lifestyles or grievances” (ibid). These orientations are expressed through personal action frames. The authors call personal action frames on social networking platforms central to political mobilization. In personalized action frames, “nominal issues may resemble older movement or party concerns in terms of topics (environment, rights, women’s equality, and trade fairness) but the ideas and mechanisms for organizing action become more personalized than in cases where action is organized on the basis of social group identity, membership, or ideology.” (ibid: 744). Personal action frames on social networking platforms – such as “We are the 99%” (Occupy) and “Put people first” (public health care) – are rhetorically inclusive, so every individual can engage with them. Additionally, personal action frames are mediated through social networking platforms, allowing individuals to take ownership of hashtags, slogans and even related memes, and re-use them to reflect their own personalities and affiliations (Bennett & Segerberg 2012: 36–37). Ultimately, this theoretical statement is important, because Bennett and Segerberg explicitly reject any implication that their argument is teleological, noting that connective action is neither more effective than nor a replacement for collective action (Anstead 2014: 345).

In line with this theory on political and civic engagement, I argue that raising awareness and sharing information on political party platforms increases the civic engagement of individuals mobilized on social networking platforms. This could in turn lead to a grassroots mobilization with a higher amount of individuals participating in the online discussion. This leads to the following hypothesis of this thesis:

H1: “Political party platforms will increase civic engagement on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to a higher amount of individuals participating in the online discussion.”

The next paragraph elaborates on hashtags and personal action frames in the form of media-hypes, forming the second condition of successful use of social networking platforms by the public in order to increase attention for certain topics on social networking platforms.

19

3.2 Hashtags Grassroots mobilisation sometimes seems to explore at random, as most online petitions attract only a small number of supporters in comparison to the discussion, taking place on social networking platforms (Margetts et al. 2016). I argue that this means that success does not depend on the subject matter—similar topics often fare quite differently—but the characteristics of the individual people on social media. Individuals are, for instance, more likely to act by retweeting or signing a petition because they are sensitive to social information: by seeing that others have already signed they know that their endorsement will be seen too (ibid). As a result, if the audience on Twitter participating in the online discussion includes enough people with the same, active mind-set, political hashtags can quickly take off (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Cumulative percentages of messages with strong hashtags on social networking platforms

A theory that identifies a set of criteria for the identification of these media-hypes characterizes the following mechanisms: “a key event; a consonant news wave; a sudden increase in reports on comparable cases; and a strong rise of thematically related news” (Vasterman 2004: 516). Hashtags are considered an important feature of

20 media-hypes on social networking platforms, in particular on Twitter (Conover et al. 2011: 90). They allow users to engage by annotating tweets with a label to specify the topic or intended audience of a communication. #BLM (meaning Black Lives Matter) is one example of a topic that has been hyped through the use of a hashtag. Each hashtag identifies a stream of content and a group of individuals interested participating in the online discussion, with users’ tag choices denoting participation in different information channels (ibid). Messages that spark strong emotion – fear, humor, sadness – are likely to be forwarded and become influential (Parmelee & Bichard 2012: 76). These variables are affecting the topic to become trending and go viral within a short amount of time. Therefore, these variables are included in table 2 as measurements of successful media-hypes in gaining attention.

In line with the theory on media-hypes, this thesis argues that messages with a strong emotion in the network and messages that contain strong hashtags increase attention on topics on social networking platforms. This could in turn lead to trending topics with a higher amount of attention on Twitter. This leads to the following hypotheses of this thesis:

H2: “Messages that contain strong hashtags increase the amount of individuals discussing topics on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to trending topics with a higher amount of attention in the online discussion.”

H3: “Messages that contain strong emotion in the network increase the visibility of topics on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to trending topics with a higher amount of attention in the online discussion.”

The next paragraph elaborates on social capital in networks online and offline, forming the third condition of successful use of social networking platforms by the public in order to obtain more attention for a case and eventually, a reaction from politicians.

3.3 Social capital The concept of social capital in relation to collective identity and political engagement is considered a fundamental feature of political movements among different theoretical perspectives (Polletta and Jasper 2001). These scholars challenge,

21 as illustrated in paragraph 3.1, that political engagement on social networking platforms experience a free-riding issue. In the constructivist school of thought, part of the definition of social movements: is that the construction of a collective identity is the process to account for when studying social movements, it being related to the production of new meanings and challenging dominant perspectives (Melucci 1996). The theory of informational movements explicitly states the crucial role and the power associated with collective identities within a network society (Castells 1997).

Building on the idea of informational movements and network societies, the size of a network undeniably plays an important role as one of its most relevant characteristics. The reach of a network largely determines its power and usability (van Dijk 1999: 80). Accessibility for the interconnected people on the social media platforms also makes one of the strong features of a network – a feature that is largely present on Twitter – but at the same time one of its weaknesses. The chances of ignorant and unauthorized people having access to the network increase proportionally, because the true identity of people behind online profiles remains often unknown, especially on social networking platforms as Twitter, where usernames invite individuals to use a nickname instead of their real names. Some social media campaigns or personal action frames are perceived as having a lack of an identifiable leadership. But people at the front are still needed – be it the early adopters. It is expected to find that highly influential people are at the front of successful mobilizations, hashtags or petitions. However, Margetts et al. (2016) found, among other researchers, that it is nothing is as influential as huge numbers of people without very many followers. It is them that are playing the crucial role, the mass public (ibid.). It could be that an influential is involved, but it would be surprising if this person is leading the online discussion.

Earlier conducted studies have found causal effects of engagement on social media on political knowledge in empirical investigations. These studies explain the findings with the “surprise effect” of unexpected political social media content, neutralizing the effect of already politically interested people actively searching for political information on the Internet (Gustafsson 2010: 7). To further understand the mechanism of engagement on social media, other scholars have established a strong connection between political participation and social capital; in particular, the relation between participation and weak ties. Mark S.

22 Granovetter (1973) discovered that “people rarely act on mass-media information, unless it is also transmitted through personal ties; otherwise one has no particular reason to think that an advertised product or an organization should be taken seriously.” (1374; Gustafsson 2010: 7). As the number of weak ties increases, so does the likelihood of participation (Teorell 2003). If a person’s direct social network is considered large, the chance that he or she will be asked to engage in a political movement is higher (ibid). “Organizing weak ties in social network sites allows for an individual to stay connected to brief acquaintances also when moving to another geographical area, thereby expanding the network and increasing the possibility of recruitment.” (Gustafsson 2013: 7).

Thus, in line with the theories on large communities and social capital, this study argues that a higher size of the online and offline community will lead to increasing attention for a particular child in the case of Kinderpardon. This leads to the following hypothesis of this study:

H4: “Offline and online communities with strong ties will lead to a higher amount of attention in online discussions.”

Based on the discussed theories in this chapter, it can be assumed that information and awareness through political party platforms, the use of hashtags and emotion in messages and social capital frames of the topic and the matter of political engagement in the network. Eventually, this would have an effect on reactions of politicians, leading to agenda setting or even policy successes as subcategories for political responsiveness. Figure 2 provides an overview in the form of a conceptual model of the theoretical expectations as presented in this chapter. In chapter 6, the hypotheses will be tested using different data sources.

23

Figure 2: Conceptual model

4. Case Study

This chapter will outline the case study of Kinderpardon and the organization Defence for Children supporting the mobilizations related to this cause. First, I will underline the importance of this case study and why this case study was picked for this thesis. Next, I will elaborate on the process of Kinderpardon over the past years and the relation with the organization Defence for Children. Finally, I will introduce the subcases that are used in the analysis to measure the determinants of online discussions to see what influences the successes of online discussions and if a variation in attention from politicians can be perceived.

The outcome of online discussions and campaigning on social networking platforms is not simply a function of the characteristics of the actors at play themselves, but also of the characteristics of the policy issues at stake and the preference alignment of other actors. Because the success of the individuals in online mobilizations depends, for instance, on how conflicting the environment in which the discussion takes place is. Mobilizations for a cause should be regarded as a “collective enterprise” in which individuals rely not only on themselves but also on the actions and characteristics of likeminded actors to achieve their (policy) goals. This thesis would underline the importance of taking the potentially crucial role of the public into account when

24 studying online mobilizations in democracies not only for normative reasons – because political decision makers should be responsive to citizens – but also to obtain an accurate picture in the power that the public may have over policy and decision- making processes in the contemporary age.

Defence for Children Defence for Children is an international organization that is fighting for children’s rights in the Netherlands, based on the UN Rights of the Child treaty (Defenceforchildren.nl 2017a). Defence for Children is the Chairman of Defence for Children International, an international network that includes 47 national sections and members. Defence for Children uses lobbying, research, advisement, information provision, education and action to achieve their goals (ibid). The organization does not accept funding from the government or political parties, but they do collaborate together with the Dutch government and the European Commission to stimulate human beings all over the world in several projects and missions. The political agenda of “children’s rights” has seen a rapid growth since the rise of numerous organizations concerned with this issue. Political mobilization on social media regarding the issue of Kinderpardon has contributed to this growth, and would form the main case of this thesis. Kinderpardon is heavily related to online discussions on behalf of children from refugees who did not get a Dutch citizenship after applying for a permanent residency. Kinderpardon is meant for children of refugees who have been living in the Netherlands for a long period of time. This settlement has been reached after years of advocacy, which mainly took place on social media.

After years of battling for the rights of rooted children has come to a successful deconstruction on 31 October 2012. The government announced a Children's Pardon for children of asylum seekers and single-minded minors who have been in the Netherlands for more than five years. In addition, there was a definitive arrangement for children who will be rooted in the Netherlands in the future and not have a residence permit. The arrangement for long-term residents has come into force on February 1, 2013. (Defence for Children 2017e)

25 While Kinderpardon is an official settlement nowadays, not all children of refugees are allowed to stay. Online discussions still plays a big role. A piece of the puzzle that this thesis is seeking for is the question of why some children can stay, while others have to leave. The mentioned hypotheses in the former chapter will function as a guideline to research what makes a case successful.

Subcases Doritty (Ghana), Tri (Vietnam) and Wime (Angola) are children who are either born in the Netherlands or who have lived in the Netherlands for most of their lives. Still, they are (initially) excluded from Kinderpardon because their parents applied for another license instead of asylum, because the situation in their home country is considered to be safe or because they have not been under the supervision of the Government for a selected period of time.

Doritty was born and raised in The Hague. Dorrity's mother is from Ghana and came to The Netherlands in 1998 (Defence for Children 2017b). Dorrity went to elementary school during the period of analysis and had many friends. Doritty is very ambitious, later she wants to become a lawyer. Every Sunday, Dorrity goes to church with her mother and sister Anna, and they get a lot of support. The case of Doritty is still under consideration by the government. The parents of Tri are Vietnamese. In 2001, they fled to the Netherlands and applied for asylum (Defence for Children 2017c. Tri was born in the Netherlands and lived the first years of his life in an asylum seekers center. Tri grew up in Wageningen and was still living in this city in the period of analysis. He was attending group seven of elementary school and performing well. In 2016, Tri and his family received a residence permit to stay in the Netherlands; therefore indicating an exception on the policy was made. At the age of ten, Wime came to the Netherlands by himself (Defence for Children 2017d). Born in Angola, Wime grew up in the Netherlands. At the time of the analysis, Wime was 22 years old, and waiting for his verdict in jail. An exception was made for Wime on the policy, leading to him staying in the Netherlands.

These subcases will be further analyzed in chapter 6 by comparing online discussions, petitions, hashtags and collective frames, and the results of the efforts of people.

26

5. Methodology

In this chapter, a theoretical discussion on the conditions of media-hypes on social media that lead to a reaction from politicians will be presented. The insights from this section will be used to construct several hypotheses and variables that I will test in in the analysis in chapter 6. First, I will elaborate on the data and case study choices that I made. The third paragraph elaborates on the process of data gathering. The fourth paragraph identifies the population in the empirical dataset. The fifth paragraph introduces the dependent and independent variables once more, and concretely state how these will be measured. The final paragraph in this methodology is about ethical considerations.

5.1 Data In defending this form of social media analysis as academically relevant, it is sensible to justify the data first. It can be argued that academic research in the social sciences related to topics like these, often lean towards a quantitative approach. However, online discussions occurring on social networking platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, can be extended beyond its “intended” use as data by linking the available information from people’s profiles or the content they actually post to the case study.

For this study, I employ a case study method, which is well suited for ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions of complex social phenomena, which are best understood in real-life contexts (Gerring 2007; Agarwal et al. 2016: 329). This case with its subcases is chosen because Kinderpardon can illustrate the mentioned conditions and give insights on different types of online mobilizations and the outcomes. The subcases are relevant in this mobilization, because they exemplify the border cases of the newly adopted policy, which means cases of children that along the margins of the policy. This means that some children are not eligible for Kinderpardon, because they do not fit the bureaucratic rules that the IND set for Kinderpardon. Given the qualitative character of this study, it has to be taken into account that results are not generalizable into every context imaginable. The results however are of utmost importance for understanding how online discussions are exercising pressure on politicians in democracies, and what kind of reactions can be expected. In the following section, background information on Defence for Children will be provided, with a focus on their communication and publications. Next, the specific contexts of

27 Kinderpardon in the period of analysis will be explored. Finally, social media analysis as the main data collection method applied in this thesis will be explained and discussed.

5.2 Research design For this thesis, I selected three sub-cases in the main case of Kinderpardon. The similar sub-cases are consisting of three children who were initially rejected Kinderpardon during the period of analysis. Doritty (Ghana), Tri (Vietnam) and Wime (Angola) allow me to capture and describe the different processes behind different cases within the same perimeters in greater detail than considering the entire period of analysis as a single unit, and compare the different outcomes (as elaborated in chapter 4) with the observed measurements.

I test if communication on political party platforms is a suitable measurement by checking if there are perceived relationships between the discussion on social networking platforms and reaction by politicians (agenda setting and handing in bills for example). By looking at secondary data on the attitude of politicians towards social media, pages from political parties on Kinderpardon and a semi-structured interview with Linda Voortman, I can control for an interrelationship when comparing these with the dataset and the trends in the different periods of time.

The hashtags of Kinderpardon and the cases analyzed in the online discussion will be dealt with by looking into which Twitter accounts started the discussion in the early beginning of the time frame and the hashtags that are being used. What are the tweets saying?

Social capital in this thesis is analyzed by looking if relationships between petitions, traditional media and the outcomes of the subcases can be perceived. The semi- structured interview with Linda Voortman will be used in this paragraph once more to identify and understand what is perceived.

5.3 Data collection The analysis in this thesis is based on data that has been collected in two ways. First, a qualitative social media content analysis of Twitter and the web and weblogs of Defence for Children and Kinderpardon is conducted in order to enable insights on

28 how individuals and organizations use the Internet to discuss their issues or concerns online. Content analyses are conceptualized as “careful, detailed, systematic examinations and interpretations of particular bodies of material in an effort to identify patterns, themes, biases, and meanings.” (Berg and Lune 2012: 349). While some researchers in the social sciences differentiate between qualitative and quantitative research methods, Berg and Lune categorize content analysis in the mixed methods section, stating that it can be both – qualitative and quantitative – at the same time (ibid: 354).

The first step in formulating the categories of analysis is by consulting the theoretical framework in chapter 3. Table 2 shows the categories based on the theoretical expectations as drivers of online discussions and mobilizations, based on the literature and the relevant theories mentioned in this thesis: civic engagement, media-hypes and collective behavior.

29 Political attitudes Media-hypes Social capital (online and offline) Websites • Updates on • Online petitions political agenda • Online • Motion and bill informational request in the videos Second Chamber • News publications

Twitter • Discussion in the • Messages that • Messages that link form of comments contain strong to information on and arguments on emotion topics, actions and the topic • Powerful hashtags petitions • Retweeting and • Personal action mentioning frames

Table 2: Categories of the social media analysis

Besides the qualitative social media content analysis, this study draws on secondary sources to give more guidance to the collected data. Interpretation of the content can say what is perceived, but not why. Surveys would have been suitable and complementary to this data and analysis; however, the cases go back to 2013. This is why I made the decision to analyze online petitions and their trend lines with the trend lines perceived in the social media analysis. A Dutch research agency (Weber Shandwick) conducted in 2013, the same period of the analysis, a general research on the attitude of Dutch politicians towards social networking platforms in their daily work. These results are also used to give depth to the social media analysis and to provide a better understanding of underlying motivations of politicians to engage with individuals and organizations on Twitter and in online discussions. Besides the secondary data from Weber Shandwick, I requested three raw data sets from petities.nl, each containing data on when individuals signed petitions for the three children under review in this thesis. Minor data cleaning was necessary in the data sets containing petition data; I manually summed up petition numbers per day (as every signature was separately recorded) and I switched columns in order to make graphical representations of the data.

30 For the same reason, I conducted two semi-structured interview, one with the owner of petities.nl and the other one with Linda Voortman, a Dutch politician in the Groenlinks party. The interviews have been conducted in April and June 2017, and were carried out face-to-face.

5.4 Population and sample I obtained the 43,881 tweets analyzed in the thesis through Coosto from Twitter. These tweets include all public postings between September 1, 2013 and November 1, 2014, matching at least one of the keywords in the query and have not been deleted as of June 14, 2017. Tweets of deleted profiles or retweets from deleted tweets are included in this dataset.

The population at display in this thesis is people living in the Netherlands, Dutch natives, living in local districts. Therefore, only Dutch people or people living in the Netherlands and communicating in Dutch are included in this dataset. By checking the IP address individuals used to send tweets, I tracked their location. The dataset consists of 12,169 unique authors. I applied a spam and location filter to ensure that all accounts in this dataset are in fact Dutch (speaking) citizens located in the

Netherlands2.

5.5 Measurement instruments In order to answer the questions raised in the former chapters and test the hypotheses and to analyze the impact of drivers of the amount of attention on social networking platforms, the three dimensions (political party platforms, hashtags and social capital) need to be operationalized. These variables are selected on the basis of the theoretical framework in Chapter 3.

5.5.1 Dependent variable Attention for a specific case on social networking platforms: The dependent variable of this thesis is ‘attention on social networking platforms’. As I mentioned before, this study is researching three subcases, so this dependent variable is case specific. I measure the amount of attention by capturing all of the tweets sent in the period of analysis.

2 To be more specific, I only considered users with at least 25 followers.

31 5.5.2 Independent variables Political party platforms: to measure how political party platforms are contributing to an increasing amount of attention for topics on Twitter, I look at the political party affiliation in the form of memberships of society. By acknowledging a relationship between political parties and their members, I will measure social capital by indicating what political parties say on their pages regarding Kinderpardon and how (or if) they act on the policy, how people respond to this content on Twitter and if correlations between these activities can be indicated in the empirical data. This is also measured by a semi-structured interview with Linda Voortman (Groenlinks), of the politicians engaging with the conversation on Kinderpardon on Twitter.

Hashtags: The independent variable “strong hashtags” was measured by indicating if a hashtag followed the next principles, based on the theoretical framework: clear, short, transparent, and related to a campaign or an individual.

Social capital: I will measure social capital by looking at the number of online petitions being signed, and if there are correlations between the signatures per day and the online discussions. Besides this, I will check if offline activities (such as charity events) influence the amount of attention on Twitter.

5.6 Ethical considerations Besides these steps, I realize that some users may object to their username or tweets being used in this thesis. I take full responsibility for any objections in relation to including them in this research. My ethical choices are therefore seeking for a balance between the rights of all individuals participating in the online conversation and the right of the public and scholars to explore how movements rise to prominence on social networking platforms. I treated the information at hand with respect and discretion. However, if anyone whose name or content is referenced to in this thesis is experiencing harm or objections, I encourage them to contact me so I can reduce or eliminate the reference.

32 6. Analysis

This chapter shows the different data sources used to analyze the relationship between the dynamics between political mobilization and the amount of attention on social networking platforms. Firstly, a broad overview of the entire empirical dataset will be presented and elaborated. Secondly, the three independent variables will be analyzed. First, I look at political party platforms by comparing the secondary dataset, conducted in the period of analysis, showing data on how Dutch politicians perceive the use of media in relation to their work. Also, the interview with Linda Voortman will be used for an interpretation of the perceived results. Next, the hashtags will be analyzed and connected to clusters of tweets. Thirdly, social capital will be measured by connecting offline events to online trends, the amount of petitions signed and parts of the interview with Voortman. This chapter ends with an overview of the results and analysis of what is perceived.

6.1 Empirical data on Kinderpardon Before I begin analyzing the online discussion on Twitter, I present an overview of the entire dataset. I harvested all public tweets from Twitter in the 15-month period between September 1, 2013 and November 1, 2014, containing at least 45 characters related to Kinderpardon. The resulting dataset contains 55,841 messages in the online discussion, of which 43,881 tweets contributed by 12,169 unique users.

First, I would like to shed some light on the emergence of Kinderpardon and how the #Kinderpardon became the movements personal action frame on social networking platforms and how this contributed to the awareness among the public. As with most issues, attention to Kinderpardon on Twitter is episodic. Figure 3 shows the number of tweets posted on each day. It shows that the sustained attention spikes after traditional media pays attention to the topic of Kinderpardon. The online discussion continues after an episode of a late night tv-show for example. The event that yielded the timeframe’s highest total number of tweets on a single day – 5,094, is related to political participation in signing a petition, which will be analyzed more in depth in the next paragraphs. During this ‘episode’ of increased attention in the online discussion, with a length of 4 days (May 7 2014 until May 10 2014), a total of 17,055 messages were posted. After this episode, the daily tweet count rarely exceeds 1000 tweets per day, though there are several smaller spikes

33 observed on June 4 (initiative bill by Linda Voortman and Sharon Gesthuizen), June 25 (protest in The Hague) and July 2 (lawsuit against State Secretary Teeven). A broader overview of the increased attention spikes on Twitter is illustrated in table 3.

Some of the analyses to follow in the next sections rely on connections between Twitter users formed by retweeting and mentioning. Retweets act as a form of endorsement, allowing individuals to rebroadcast content posted by other users, and thereby raising the visibility of the content (Conover et al. 2011: 90). Mentions function directly, allowing someone to directly address a specific user through the public feed (ibid). Therefore, it is worth noting here that a large majority of the tweets in this dataset (insert number) are retweets. On the contrary, only a small amount of tweets (insert number) contain mentions outside of a retweet context.

Activity of #Kinderpardon

Figure 3: Number of tweets in dataset mentioning Kinderpardon by day (period of analysis: September 1st 2013 to November 1st 2014)

The dataset of messages that I use in this thesis consists of all messages in the online discussion sent by the public and Dutch politicians on the topic Kinderpardon since September 1st, 2013 until November 1st, 2014.

34 Looking at figure 3, it can be argued that multiple striking time frames are taking place in the period of analysis. The most striking time frame takes place between May 7, 2014 and May 10, 2014. A total of 17,055 tweets are posted in this time frame, almost 40% of the amount of tweets in the entire dataset. Besides this spike in the trend line, other trends can also be noted. A context analysis of these events will be conducted in the next paragraphs. In the table 3, an overview of the discussed trends can be found.

Date Amount of tweets Context 14/04/2014 1,336 Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) adopt Kinderpardon as official arrangement for 676 children. 07/05/2014 – 10/05/2014 17,055 Members council PvdA internally adopts motion Kinderpardon 04/06/2014 1,126 Initiative bill by Linda Voortman (Groenlinks) and Sharon Gesthuizen (SP) 25/06/2014 1,020 Protest The Hague

02/07/2014 1,279 Lawsuit against State Secretary Teeven

24/09/2014 906 State Secretary Teeven allows 50 more families to stay due to Kinderpardon

Table 3: Overview of spikes in the amount of tweets mentioning Kinderpardon (period of analysis: September 1, 2013 to November 1, 2014)

6.2 Political party platforms In this paragraph, the hypothesis political party platforms will increase civic engagement on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to a higher amount of individuals participating in the online discussion, will be tested by looking at the attitude of Dutch politicians towards social networking platforms. I will measure this by looking at a secondary data source, surveys conducted by Weber Shandwick in 2013. Also, an interview with Linda Voortman has been conducted to deepen the understanding of attitudes of politicians towards Twitter in their daily work. Besides these data sources, a closer look at the content of the webpages of political parties as Groenlinks and PvdA will be introduced, as these parties were closely affiliated with Kinderpardon during the period of analysis.

35 Twitter use by members of the Dutch government has been increasing over the past few years. However, the majority of legislators are not active on Twitter (apart from election campaigns). In 2013, over 15% of the Members of the Cabinet consider social media as the most important medium when doing their daily work (figure 4). The majority of politicians consider traditional newspapers (42,4%) - and digital editions of newspapers (15,3%) – as the most important medium. Television (6.8%) and radio (1,7%) are significantly lower in popularity.

Most important media for Dutch politicians

50% 42% 40%

30% 19% 20% 15% 15%

10% 7% 2% Dutch politicians 0%

Figure 4: Most important media for Dutch politicians in 2013 (source: Weber Shandwick 2013).

Accordingly, of all Members of the Dutch Parliament, 86% considers Twitter as being the most important social networking platform with regards to their daily work (figure 5). It is interesting to see that more recent social networking platforms, such as Instagram, are barely used by Dutch politicians. The social media behavior of Dutch politicians is, however, behind on the latest trends of the international society; politicians in the U.S. make far more use of this platform, such as the former President Obama and President Trump, but also the former governor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Members of Congress (Weber Shandwick 2013: 9; Barberá et al. 2014: 4).

36 Most important social networking platforms

100% 90% 86% 80% 70% 60% 50% Dutch politicians 40% 30% 20% 9% 10% 2% 3% 0% Twier Facebook Google+ Other

Figure 5: Most important social networking platforms for Dutch politicians in 2013 (source: Weber Shandwick 2013).

A direct quote from Marith Rebel-Volp (PvdA) in the Weber Shandwick research document is illustrative for the attitude of politicians towards Twitter.

“Twitter is the most important medium for politicians for various reasons. It is an extremely fast medium. In addition, you can find specific information based on a targeted selection of followers. People can also share their problems/concerns/suggestions in a low-key way with us, as their public representatives. So, Twitter has a signaling function.” Marith Rebel-Volp (Weber Shandwick 2013: 13).

A high percentage of the daily Twitter users in the Netherlands are ‘political news junkies’ and show an interest in news and politics that is above average (ibid). However, besides political news junkies, public representatives seem to increasingly use Twitter more and more by measures since the start of this platform (D’heer & Verdegem 2013; Weber Shandwick 2013: 8). Of all the Members of the Cabinet, around 93% of the members (139 of 150) have active Twitter accounts (Weber Shandwick 2013: 8).

37 Politician Twitter alias Number of followers People following 1. Geert Wilders (PVV) @geertwilderspvv 822,794 1 @MinPres (minister 0 2. Mark Rutte (VVD) 780,160 president) 3. Alexander Pechtold 594 @APechtold 618,638 (D66) 4. Lodewijk Asscher 1,397 @LodewijkA 221,644 (PvdA) 5. Emile Roemer (SP) @emileroemer 174,870 721 6. Jeroen Dijsselbloem 413 @J_Dijsselbloem 103,609 (PvdA) 7. Jesse Klaver 524 @jesseklaver 85,021 (GroenLinks) 8. Marianne Thieme 3,454 @mariannethieme 69,948 (PvdD) 9. Sybrand Buma 327 @sybrandbuma 69,049 (CDA) 10. Ronald Plasterk 266 @RPlasterk 68,078 (PvdA) 11. Jeanine Hennis 3,436 @JeanineHennis 66,008 (VVD) 12. Kees van der Staaij 1,782 @keesvdstaaij 50,222 (SGP) 13. Pieter Omtzigt 1,626 @PieterOmtzigt 43,469 (CDA) 14. Ahmed Marcouch 1,577 @ahmedmarcouch 33,216 (PvdA) 15. Mona Keijzer 695 @MonaKeijzer 31,024 (CDA) 16. Klaas Dijkhoff 5,735 @dijkhoff 30,176 (VVD) 17. Tunahan Kuzu 68 @tunahankuzu 29,591 (Denk) 18. Pia Dijkstra (D66) @piadijkstra 28,900 1,156 19. Halbe Zijlstra 111 @HalbeZijlstra 28,150 (VVD) 20. Sharon Dijksma 623 @sharon_dijksma 27,471 (PvdA) 21. Martijn van Dam 344 @martijnvdam 27,279 (PvdA) 22. Sander Dekker 511 @SanderDekker 26,172 (VVD) 23. Ard van der Steur 513 @ArdvanderSteur 25,859 (VVD) 24. Martin van Rijn 118 @mjrijn 21,646 (PvdA) 25. Linda Voortman 2,100 @lindavoortman 20,159 (Groenlinks) 26. Han ten Broeke 5,567 @HanTenBroeke 19,411 (VVD) 27. Kees Verhoeven 432 @KeesVee 19,113 (D66) 28. Elbert Dijkgraaf 946 @elbertdijkgraaf 18,983 (SGP) 29. Stientje van 697 @SvVeldhoven 18,922 Veldhoven (D66) 30. Esther Ouwehand 1,087 @estherouwehand 18,712 (PvdD)

38 Table 4: Top 30 of Dutch politicians* on Twitter (source: Twitter; date of issue 01/05/2017). *Members of the demissionary Parliament are still considered as public representatives, even though their new positions remain unknown at this date of issue.

Looking at table 4, I review the 30 most followed Dutch politicians on Twitter. In this figure, the most active and followed politician is Geert Wilders (PVV). His party is located on the right side of the spectrum. While he may be the most followed politician on Twitter, the right wing Members of the Cabinet are in minority compared to left-wing politicians. In this figure, 17 politicians are left wing (PvdA, Groenlinks, D66, Denk, SP and PvdD), and 13 politicians are considered right wing (VVD, PVV, CDA, SGP). While it is difficult to make clear distinctions between left wing and right-wing in the Dutch political system - because some standpoints are progressive (left) while others are conservative (right) within the same political party

- , I made a distinction based on the most currently accepted grouping of parties. 3 Table 4 shows more than just the amount of followers; it also shows that politicians have significantly more followers than they generally follow back. So there is hardly any question of reciprocity. Some politicians do not even follow a single individual, making it clear that they merely use Twitter to send messages - and not to respond to the messages of others they follow. Former politician Rita Verdonk (@ritaverdonk) once formed an exception to this rule, consistently following every individual following her (Schäfer et al. 2012: 5). As a result, she quickly followed thousands of people – whereas one could wonder to what extent this reciprocity still has meaning, other than a symbolic function. Rita Verdonk is not working for the Dutch Parliament anymore, currently she follows less than 200 people (ibid). It is obvious that a distinction in Twitter behavior can be perceived; some politicians merely use Twitter to send information (such as Geert Wilders), while other politicians use Twitter to also receive information (i.e. Han ten Broeke follows 5,567 individuals). Linda Voortman, as a Dutch politician for political party Groenlinks, acknowledges this difference. She refers to her own standards when looking at her behavior on Twitter. Since there is no social media policy in her political party, she decided for herself that she wants to use Twitter for both receiving and sending information.4

3 https://www.parlement.com/id/vh8lnhrp8wsy/links_en_rechts 4 Linda Voortman, Groenlinks. Interviewed by author on June 21, 2017.

39

Figure 6: Classification of Dutch politicians following people on Twitter (source: Twitter; date of issue 01/05/2017).

Figure 6 visualizes the claim by Voortman, that Members of the Cabinet show different interest in using Twitter to communicate with the public; unlike other social networks like Facebook or (back then) Hyves, relationships on Twitter are not always reciprocal. A large-scale survey of billions of relationships on Twitter concludes that on Twitter a relatively low degree of reciprocity is perceivable in comparison with other social networks; only 22.1% of the full-grills follow both Twitter users each other (Kwak et al. 2010).

40 Use of Twier during daily duties by Dutch politicians

70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 50%

40% 36% 32% 32% 32% Weekly Twier user 30% Daily Twier user 20%

10%

0% To prepare for a As a reason for a As a reason to As a reason to political debate topic in the Second hand in a motion request a debate Chamber

Figure 7: Daily use of Twitter by Dutch politicians in 2013 (source: Weber Shandwick 2013).

The influence of Twitter on a daily basis and how Dutch politicians use the social networking platform is illustrated in figure 7. Most politicians use Twitter in different ways, according to Voortman.

“You can either actively or passively prepare for a debate. For example, I often take some time to talk to other policy makers or organizations in the country, but I also use social media in order to find information on public opinion with regards to a specific topic. This is an active form of using social media for my daily work. On the other hand, politicians also receive letters from lobbyists, which is information that I passively engage with. How politicians engage

with active and passive information is completely up to the individual.”5

Voortman contributed 101 tweets to the online discussion, thereby being number 39 on the total list of 12,169 users that engaged in the conversation on Twitter regarding Kinderpardon. When taking a closer look at her contribution to the online conversation, she engages in a diverse manner. A number of tweets are retweets from other users, indicating a passive contribution. However, she also actively engages with the conversation,

5 Linda Voortman, Groenlinks. Interviewed by author on June 21, 2017.

41 One of the first major moments in the growth of #Kinderpardon during the period of analysis was on April 14, 2014, the day that the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) adopts Kinderpardon as an official arrangement for 676 children. Some of the most active individuals on Twitter regarding this topic were using the hashtag frequently and were retweeted heavily. While the adoption of Kinderpardon can be considered as reaching a goal for the political mobilization on Twitter with regards to children’s rights, a lot of posts were negative on the exception of border cases of this policy, cases why they started supporting the emergence of Kinderpardon to begin with.

But the use of #Kinderpardon and the discussion around the topic reached heights that have not been reached in the period between May 7, 2014 until May 10, 2014. Mayors started to get involved in Kinderpardon by signing petitions and traditional news media started posting opinion articles on the tight “bureaucratic” policy Fred Teeven implemented. On the previous day (May 6, 2014) Kinderpardon was discussed in 326 tweets, leading me to the observation that this is the moment that Kinderpardon on social networking platforms first broke through from activists to the larger audience. The most retweeted users are (former) politicians (namely Diederik Samsom and Linda Voortman), media personalities, journalists and a few citizens. These tweets were mostly protesting against the tight rules and supporting children like the subcases in this thesis.

One additional usage spike relevant for this part of the analysis is on June 4, 2014. A debate took place in the Second Chamber, mainly focused on asylum as the recurring theme. Linda Voortman and Sharon Gesthuizen handed in an initiative bill. Voortman published this on Twitter, leading to positive reactions and a large amount of retweets, increasing the reach of one message throughout the networks of individuals. Voortman engaged with several individuals in discussions on the feasibility of changing the current Kinderpardon, on the consequences for the current Cabinet and on the implementation of new rules. Groenlinks published a webpage specifically designed for Kinderpardon as part of their mission to generate a tolerant society. They state:

“The final version of the Kinderpardon, rejected almost all applications (more than 92%). In most cases this happens because the IND concludes that the

42 child or its family has insufficiently contributed to the return to their home country. The IND applies very strict rules to when Kinderpardon as a policy is applied and when it is not applicable. These kind of bureaucratic rules ensure that one child is allowed to stay while the other child, who is just as strongly

rooted in this country, has to leave.”6

6.3 Hashtags and trending topics The 43,881 tweets in this dataset contain a massive accumulation of ideas that resists attempts to summarize comprehensively. Figure 8 shows the trending topics that are discussed on Twitter during the period of analysis. The bigger and darker the words are marked, the more they are used. This figure shows that burgemeester (mayor) and burgemeesters (mayors) are the most used words in tweets with a total of 12,040 tweets, indicating that a lot of people were talking about the mayors of their town who supported Kinderpardon by signing a petitie (petition).

Trending topics of #Kinderpardon

Figure 8: Trending topics regarding Kinderpardon in dataset (period of analysis: September 1st 2013 to November 1st 2014)

Most of the tweets in the dataset fit into one of three categories: supportive, opposed or unaligned (mostly news-based). The names of these categories are fairly self- explanatory, and most tweets fit nearly into one or another. Still, I found many

6 https://groenlinks.nl/standpunten/kinderpardon

43 different subtypes within the categories, which are demonstrated in the next paragraphs.

Support Support is expressed in the analyzed tweets in many different ways over time. One of the most popular and simple ways to express support in tweets is by criticizing the current policy. The first form I identified based on the empirical dataset, is this form of supportive tweets that can be characterized by the senders: highly influential people with a large network of followers. One example of this is a tweet sent by Peter R. de Vries, a Dutch crime journalist, who shows support by saying how he detests the current system and the rules attached to it. His influential level is high (155,3 influence, based on an algorithm from the Coosto software, that crosses engagement from this particular message in the online discussion with the amount of followers an individual has and how many followers are being reached directly and indirectly), indicating that the author is either a friend or active member of the movement, or someone whose information can be trusted and whose opinion is valuable to a lot of people. Tweets by influentials present the opinion of the author, but this opinion can also be presented as retweets, indicating second- or third hand messages. Two individuals (@Jan_Bennink and @Monterebotte) are highly politically engaged on Twitter, and are therefore well known by politicians and other political news junkies on Twitter, used Twitter to support the mobilization and address politicians (like Linda Voortman) directly by saying: “Dear @lindavoortman, go with full force through the Chamber7! Your enthusiasm and knowledge in debates with topics like health care and Kinderpardon is still necessary!” and “RT 8 @TiltrudeTvdB: Heartbreaking images and statements on children that will be evicted! Oldest child gets #kinderpardon, while younger sisters are not eligible #whatarewedoing9”.

Supportive tweets also call for mobilization. One type of a supportive tweet refers to debates in the Second Chamber with a clear movement-supporting goal. Freelon et al. (2016) refer to these types of tweets as “activist head-lines” (26). Individuals and organizations, based in the same network, call for physical mobilization or a more passive form of activism by signing online petitions. These tweets directly call to

7 The Second Chamber of the Government 8 RT means retweet 9 Original hashtag: #waarzijnwemeebezig

44 action by saying (directly translated): “Already signed for a fair Kinderpardon? If not, you can by clicking on this link […]” or “Great that mayors care less about their political color than Kinderpardon. 283 mayors signed already. Who follows?”. Organization Defence for Children uses the personal action frame Eerlijk Kinderpardon on Twitter to get attention by calling for action and redirecting to petitions.

Negative reactions and complaints about Members of the Dutch parliament, and Fred Teeven in particular, were also common among the supportive tweets. Many of these tweets scornfully noted the lack of empathy by state-secretary Teeven, whom is in charge of Kinderpardon. Also other parties, as the PvdA (labour party) are criticized. Tweets as “#Teeven appeals against the ruling on an expansion of Kinderpardon. What a complete bastard is this guy!!” and “RT @patrickvanthaar: Astonishing how far #PvdA has drifted from out society. From #kinderpardon to #kitchengarden to #graders and #twisters. #Alienated.”

The mentioned categories certainly do not exhaust the variety of supportive content posted throughout the period of analysis, but they do offer a sense of the most common ways in which individuals expressed support in the online discussion. Additional supportive categories that are not discussed in this paragraph will appear in the deeper analysis of events in the period of analysis.

Opposition Opposing positions to the movement and opinions on Kinderpardon began building its counter-narrative during the period of analysis. While the opposing movement is significantly smaller than the supporting group of individuals, there are people who are supporting opposing politicians. Examples of opposing tweets are: “D66 and CU: The Netherlands needs to be crowded and damaged. Kinderpardon is a political game.” and “Kinderpardon turned out to be a sham and the hunt for illegals is continued. Good work by @diederiksamsom.” Many of the opposing individuals seemed to be right wing. While the political affiliation of opposing individuals is not explicitly stated in their Twitter profile, the expressed statements and references to external links show a clear affiliation with the right side of the political spectrum. The main claim protesters make in the online discussion is mainly that the government is already spending too much money on

45 refugees. Kinderpardon would stimulate refugees to have children whilst waiting for asylum, if the policy changes “illegals” would not have to leave the country anymore (see figure 11).

The opposition did not always disagree with the supporting movement; many of them viewed the deportation of children that were born and raised in the Netherlands as unjust indeed. However, their reactions are discussed in line with what a policy change would mean and what the future implications could be in a negative way.

Unaligned parties The term unaligned is used in this analysis to refer to individuals and organizations that are neutral in the online discussion. They are not necessarily advocating for or rooting against Kinderpardon. The term neutral is avoided to emphasize that the individuals or organizations are not politically unaffiliated. Most of these individuals belong to mainstream news organizations. The news headlines are usually unaligned to avoid any political bias and emphasize objectivity. The sampled headlines in figure 12 may seem familiar to anyone who has ever-short news items on social networking platforms, but I offer a few examples nonetheless.

Besides news organizations, few individuals remain unaligned in the online discussion, indicating that the public looks for information and is not ashamed to give their opinion on the topic. I did find some people who remain unaligned, which are mostly in this category because of their objective opinion on the matter.

In this section, however, we will zoom in on three subcases (as introduced in the chapter 4) to analyze the direct variables on the impact of the online discussion on politicians. Surprisingly, when I looked into the data for the separate subcases, little was being said in the online discussion on Kinderpardon about the actual children. Figure 9 shows the amount of tweets for the cases of Doritty (blue), Tri (orange) and Wime (green).

46

Figure 9: Amount of attention for Wime (green), Doritty (blue) and Tri (orange) in dataset (period of analysis: September 1st 2013 to November 1st 2014)

As can be seen in figure 3 (in chapter 6.1), multiple spikes in the amount of attention on the topic can be perceived in the period of analysis. The content that was posted within (or in the vicinity) of an event taking place outside of the online environment proved to be significantly more popular than content posted outside of these events. The context behind these spikes is relevant for this analysis, because it explains whether offline activities are influencing the amount of attention, leading towards trending topics.

By zooming in on different children, we can speak of topic differentiation of issue aggregation in this media-hype. By changing the topic in different waves, renewed interest by the public and the media is raised, which makes the media-hype extend longer and maintains the online discussion throughout the year. By issue aggregation, Kinderpardon is reconnected to other issues than merely the discussion whether children of asylum seekers deserve a residence permit.

By inserting external links in the tweets related to Doritty, Tri and Wime, people supporting the online mobilization could gather more attention for their individual cases. A subjective view on the content of these messages shows that they consist of emotional messages. The content often refers to the poor situations of their home country, showing profiles of these children with their future hopes and dreams, ambitions and the current activities they pursue.

47 Multiple hashtags were used over the course of the online discussion. General hashtags as “#eerlijkerkinderpardon” (more honest Children’s excuse), but also case specific hashtags as “#wimemoetblijven” (Wime has to stay) and “#wime” are perceived in the dataset. Wime is one of the rare cases that got a personal hashtag, consisting of only his name. The hashtag can be considered in this research as strong, because the message of the hashtag is clear to the individuals contributing to the conversation. #Wime is related to the subcase of Wime and everything related to this individual. By looking at figure 9, Wime (green) was the topic of conversation in the beginning of the period of analysis. His case was exemplary for other children, as his case was one of the first cases identified as a ‘border case’. The rules of Kinderpardon were slightly too tight, leading to an unfair eviction according to the public. #Kinderpardon is considered the strongest hashtag, as it appears in most tweets. This observation is consistent with the theory on media-hypes, which persists that successful political mobilizations on the web often fare well with powerful hashtags.

Case specific hashtags contain more emotion. While the sentiment trend line (the lower trend line) in figure 9 barely shows sentiment, a closer content analysis shows that tweets related to Doritty, Wime and Tri are in fact containing emotion (even the tweets by politician Linda Voortman, see figure 10), which became tweets that exercised a lot of influence on the network and the amount of retweets and mentions following this movement.

Figure 10: Examples of tweets by Dutch politician Linda Voortman on the case of Wime (period of analysis: September 1st 2013 to November 1st 2014)

6.4 Social capital Defence for Children, as one of the biggest organizations supporting children that did not qualify for Kinderpardon, ran one of the most trending campaigns for

48 children like Doritty, Tri and Wime. The campaign was called “Eerlijk Kinderpardon!” (Honest Children’s Excuse), and they hosted several activities to increase the attention for the children.

On June 25th, Defence for Children hosted a soccer match in The Hague in order to get attention for the children. In figure 3, a spike in the online conversation can be perceived, which indicates that the attention on Twitter for this topic was increased. Voortman indicates that the backbone of an individual case plays a role in the success or failure of a political mobilization.

“When a child with their whole class, community and even the mayor of the city shows up in The Hague, it makes a big impression on politicians, an even bigger impression than social media can make. Seeing strong social ties, reading the emotion on people’s faces, increases the engagement by

politicians. As if these children are your own.”10

Voortman furthermore states that while social media is an important instrument in democracies to get engaged with the public and the public opinion, it can never fully replace face-to-face contact with citizens. Social ties are clearly visualized in offline gatherings, as she mentions in the quote.

In the next figures, the number of signed petitions for Doritty, Tri and Wime are mapped and time stamped. These figures are relevant because they visualize the connection between the online discussions on Twitter with more concrete actions, contributing to the collective goal of the community.

Signatures petition Doritty

3000

2250

1500 Signatures petition Doritty

750

0

6/2/146/4/146/6/146/9/146/11/14 7/2/14 11/1/1411/3/1411/5/1411/7/1411/9/14 5/19/14 6/13/146/16/146/18/146/20/14 7/13/147/17/147/26/1410/16/1410/24/14 11/11/1411/13/1411/15/1411/17/1411/23/1411/28/1412/11/14 Figure 11: Number of petitions signed for Doritty during the period of analysis (source: petities.nl)

10 Linda Voortman, Groenlinks. Interviewed by author on June 21, 2017.

49

Signatures for Tri

300

225

150 Signatures for Tri 75

0

10/4/13 10/5/13 10/6/13 10/7/13 10/8/13 10/9/13 10/10/13 10/11/13 10/12/13 10/13/13 10/14/13 10/15/13

Figure 12: Number of petitions signed for Tri during the period of analysis (source: petities.nl)

Signatures petition Wime

600

450

300 Signatures petition Wime

150

0

10-09-1312-09-1314-09-1316-09-1318-09-1320-09-1322-09-1324-09-1326-09-1328-09-1330-09-1302-10-1304-10-1306-10-1308-10-1310-10-1312-10-1316-10-1320-10-1323-10-1330-10-1301-11-1321-11-13 Figure 13: Number of petitions signed for Wime during the period of analysis (source: petities.nl)

The total number of signatures on the petition for Doritty on petities.nl is 4727 (figure 11), with Wime following closely with a total number of signatures of 4551 (figure 13). In contrast, the total number of signatures for the petition of Tri on petities.nl is 1421 (figure 12). These figures visualize the theory on how the Internet has changed the activist landscape, allowing more activists, such as concerned citizens and close friends, than formal activist groups to tap into the online mass of potential support. It is perceivable that the amount of petitions signed for Wime was spread over a longer period of time, contrasting with the short but high peaks of attention for Doritty. When comparing the amount of signatures for Wime over time, a relationship with other non-social media related activities can be found. Multiple talkshows on television, such as RTL Late night, Hart van Nederland and EenVandaag paid attention to his case between September 18 2013, and October 2, 2013. Tri and Doritty

50 got significantly less attention on these forms of traditional media; Doritty’s case was mentioned in one talkshow, while Wime’s case was mentioned in 10 talkshows.

Tri got attention on another level; the mayor of his hometown Wageningen, Geert van Rumond, recited a poem written by the city poet Martijn Adelmund on March 11, 2015. While this happened outside of the frame of analysis, comparing this with the conceptions of Linda Voortman in the interview, it probably contributed to the end result of the campaigning for Tri: in April 2016 he and his family received a residence permit to stay in the Netherlands.

7. Conclusion

Figure 3 (chapter 6.1) suggests that Kinderpardon and children’s rights only sporadically become an issue, at least on Twitter. When major events occur, such as a petition for a child that needs to leave the country, the conversation surges very quickly but decreases after a couple of days. More often, the data reveals a steady, low-volume conversation among those closely following the issue.

7.1 Discussion The aim of this study was to review existing empirical research on civic mobilizations and political engagement, and to expand the research with respect to the diversity of social media by providing a more robust conclusion on the variation and transformation of roles and relations in social media and political engagement. This objective is framed as the following research questions: “Within a single topic, why do some cases get more attention than others on social networking platforms?”, “How does the use of social networking platforms by the public lead to increased citizen engagement?” and “Does the increased citizen engagement on social networking platforms increase the level of interest/engagement by politicians?”

I examined these questions by selecting three subcases within the main case Kinderpardon. These cases share the same period of analysis, so I could assume that the individuals discussing these topics maintained the same attitude towards Twitter. The empirical data was gathered by using a social media-scraping tool, secondary data sources were requested at the direct source and in addition, semi- structured interviews were conducted to enrich the data and analysis.

51 Different studies were selected in the literature review to understand the environment in which online discussions are taking place, and how these contribute to political engagement by citizens. From the reviewed studies, three assumptions derived as explanations for citizen engagement and increased attention for topics on social networking platforms: political party platforms, hashtags and social capital. In line with the theory on political and civic engagement, I argue that raising awareness and sharing information on political party platforms increases the civic engagement of individuals mobilized on social networking platforms. This could in turn lead to a grassroots mobilization with a higher amount of individuals participating in the online discussion. The hypothesis “political party platforms will increase civic engagement on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to a higher amount of individuals participating in the online discussion” is not rejected based on the interview with Linda Voortman, the secondary data from Weber Shandwick and a closer look at webpages from political parties. There was no indication that political party platforms were discouraging individuals from engaging with topics on social networking platforms, on the contrary, I perceived a positive relationship between politicians and individuals, as well on a supporting side as on opposing sides of the spectrum; discussions lead according to Voortman to a better grasp of the topic at hand. In this study, given the analyzed data, this hypothesis is plausible.

Media-hypes as a variable state that strong hashtags and messages containing emotion increase the attention and visibility of topics on social networking platforms by turning them into trending topics, leading to an increase of the general amount of attention in online discussions. The hypotheses “messages that contain strong hashtags increase the amount of individuals discussing topics on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to trending topics with a higher amount of attention in the online discussion” and “messages that contain strong emotion in the network increase the visibility of topics on social networking platforms, which in turn will lead to trending topics with a higher amount of attention in the online discussion” are not rejected. Individuals, organizations and politicians used a variety of hashtags that varied in the perceived degree of strength. However, more hashtags related to Wime are found in the empirical dataset, in comparison with Doritty and Tri. While this does not imply a direct relation, it does offer insight into the influence strong hashtags and tweets that contain emotion may have on the outcomes in the subcases.

52 Another conclusion of this thesis is that the effect of the distribution of messages in the online discussion indeed seems to be connected to offline circumstances, such as the community supporting a child. While considering theories on large communities and social capital, the last argument I make in this thesis is that a higher size of the online and offline community will lead to increasing attention for a particular child in the case of Kinderpardon. The hypothesis “offline and online communities with strong ties will lead to a higher amount of attention in online discussions” derived from this argument, and has not been rejected by this study. When comparing the online petitions per subcase, there is not much difference between the amount of petitions signed between Doritty and Wime; they both received an equal amount of signatures. However, a large difference between the amount of attention on Twitter between Wime and the other two subcases was perceived, and a connection could be made with offline activities related to the subcase of Wime. This observation adds plausibility to earlier made observations in other studies when it comes down to the relation between strong social ties and political engagement.

There was in some areas a hope that some sort of “Habermasian” public sphere would be reinvented on Twitter and lead to a form of deliberative democracy that we have never seen before. However, social media or the Internet may not be the best tools to achieve deliberation. In the end, it is about the numbers on social media. What can be perceived are these tiny acts that represent potentially important sources of data about democracy – what is working, what is not, what people want, prefer, need, and how they behave. There is a lot of information in this data rich world that could make our democracy better if we can work out how to harness this new willingness to participate. In short, this study did not perceive a radical change in the relation between citizens and politicians, but it rather works as a valuable addition to the current literature.

7.2 Limitations As the most important trends in the empirical dataset are analyzed, it is equally important to consider what relevant people, organizations and events are underrepresented or entirely absent in this thesis. The first limitation is the absence of survey data within the period of analysis or focus groups with individuals participating in the online discussions to analyze their take on mobilizations and the progression of Kinderpardon in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is difficult to make

53 convincing causal relations based on the data used for this study. To increase the reliability of the interpretation by the researcher and to overcome this limitation in the future, adding focus groups or surveys among participants would improve the legitimization of the research. As a lot of participants were unable to reach due to anonymized Twitter profiles or unavailability, I would suggest a time gap between the period of analysis and the research that is less big.

This research also shows that attempts to coordinate mobilization action were rare among the top tweets. This means information indicating when and where protests would be held, discussions on what kind of actions to be held and where to volunteer were not the most popular messages shared across the platform. This implies that most individuals were more interested in participating in the mobilization online rather than offline. Referring back to the lowering end of the ladder of participation (as mentioned in the introduction), this is not much of a surprise.

The third limitation of this study is related to the limitations of Coosto as data scraping tool. While the data, analysis and visualizations were conducted through the use of Coosto, the subscription did not allow me to export the tweets to Excel, SPSS or Giphy. This limited the analyses possible with social media data. Besides this data scraping methods, other methods are available. I used several available Python scripts to extract data from Twitter older than 2 weeks11. Unfortunately, without the Coosto license, the data cap repeatedly limited the extraction of the full dataset. The variety of analyses that I intended to run on the dataset is therefore not conducted yet.

During the analysis of the empirical dataset, I discovered that a small amount of tweets disappeared. It should be an objective for the researcher to acquire two datasets, collected on different dates. A comparison between the tweets collected in the beginning of April and tweets collected at the beginning of June, show a data loss of 2.4%. Analysis shows that the reason behind this data decay is that some users are either banned from the platform or delete their tweets before deactivating their profile. While the data loss for content, retweets, and favourites were respectively

11 Twitter only offers free tweets up to two weeks after they are initially posted on the platform.

54 low, still, considering aspects as data durability and data decay should be considered an important task when studying a still-operational platform such as Twitter.

In this study, it cannot be ruled out that policy changes occur due to other factors (such as traditional media) than merely an online discussion on Twitter. However, this thesis assumes that, as politics is about “who gets what, when and how” (Lasswell 1936), the question of success in achieving policy changes is key to researching the role of social networking platforms in the making of public policy in democracies.

7.3 Future research This thesis is not intended to be a final word on the subject matter – on the contrary, I hope it will serve as a starting point for future research on how online activism and movements on social networking platforms have used and continue to use new media technologies to pursue their causes. Accordingly, I invite anyone who has specific questions that could be answered with this data to contact me and let me know.

List of references

Agarwal, S.D., Barthel, M.L., Rost, C., Borning, A., Bennett, W.L., & Johnson, C.N. (2013). “Grassroots organizing in the digital age: considering values and technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.” Information, Communication & Society, 17(3): 326 – 341. Ahn, J. (2010). “The influence of social networking sites on high school students’ social and academic development.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Ahn, J. (2012). “Teenagers’ experiences with social network sites: relationships to bridging and bonding social capital.” The Information Society, 28(2): 99–109. Almond, G.A., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture revisited. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Alexa.com. Top 500 websites. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites [Accessed on May 17, 2017].

55 Anstead, N. (2014). “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics by W.Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(3): 345 – 347. Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Egan, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. (2014). “Leaders or Followers? Measuring Political Responsiveness in the U.S. Congress Using Social Media Data.” Becker, T.L. and Slaton, C.D. (2000). The future of teledemocracy. Praeger: Westport. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bennett, W.L., and Segerberg, A. (2012). “The Logic of Connective Action.” Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): 739 – 768. Bennett, L., and Margetts, H. (2013). “Collective Action On-line: Theories and Methods.” Available at: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/archive/downloads/events/2013/ECPR_Worksho p_2013.pdf [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Beraldo, D, & Galan-Paez, J. (2013). “The #OCCUPY network on Twitter and the challenges to social movements theory and research.” Int. J. Electronic Governance, 6(4): 319 – 341. Berg, B.L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A.J., & Stohl, C. (2005). “Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment.” Communication Theory, 15(5): 365 – 388. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A.J., & Stohl, C. (2013). Collective Action in Organization: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishin Ltd. Chadwick, A. (2008). “Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of E-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance.” A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41. Chun, S.A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., and Hovy, E. (2010). “Government 2.0: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government.” Information Polity, 15: 1–9. Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. (2011). “Political Polarization on Twitter.” Available at:

56 https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/ 2847/3275.pdf [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Defence for Children (2017a). “Over ons.” Available at: https://www.defenceforchildren.nl/over-ons [Accessed June 23, 2017]. Defence for Children (2017b). “Doritty.” Available at: https://www.defenceforchildren.nl/p/396/3567/mo544-cg376/doritty [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Defence for Children (2017c). “Tri.” Available at: https://www.defenceforchildren.nl/p/396/3738/mo544-cg376/tri [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Defence for Children (2017d). “Wime is vrij!” Available at: https://www.defenceforchildren.nl/p/140/3314/wime-is-vrij%21 [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Defence for Children (2017e). “Kinderpardon.” Available at: https://www.defenceforchildren.nl/p/375/2748/mo430- cg%7C88=1%7C89=1%7C102=migratierecht[2]/mo429- cg%7C88=1%7C89=2%7C102=migratierecht[2]/mo481-cg326/mo480- cg326/kinderpardon [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge: MIT Press. Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., and McIver, J.P. (1993). Statehouse democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ezrow, L., de Vries, C., Steenbergen, M., and Edwards, E. (2011). “Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?” Party Politics, 17(3): 275 – 301. Freelon, D., Mcilwain, C.D., & Clark, M.D. (2016). “Beyond the Hashtags.” Available at: http://cmsimpact.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/beyond_the_hashtags_2016.pdf [Accessed on June 8, 2017]. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties.” The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360 – 1380. Gerring, J. (2007). “Techniques for Choosing Cases.” In Case Study Research. Cambridge: Boston University. 86 – 150.

57 Gustafsson, N. (2010). “New Hopes for Democracy or a Pirated Elite? Swedish Social Media Users and Political Mobilisation.” Habermas, J. (1990). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Halpern, D. and Gibbs, J. (2013). “Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and Youtube for political expression.” Computers in Human Behavior, 29: 1159 – 1168. Hindman, M. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hughes, B. (1997). Continuity and Change in World Politics: Competing Perspectives,

(3rd ed), Prentice-Hall International: London. Internet Live Stats. Number of Internet Users. Available at: http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet- users/ [Accessed May 27, 2017]. Jenkins, H., (2006). Convergence: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Joyce, M. (2007). “Civic Engagement and the Internet: Online Volunteers.”Internet and Democracy Blog. Available at: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2007/11/18/civic-engagement-andthe- internet-online-volunteers/ [Accessed on May 16, 2017]. Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B. (2005). “Community networks: where offline communities meet online.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Kruikemeier, S., van Noort, G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). “Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication.” European Journal of Communication, 28(1): 53-66. Kwak, H., Lee, C. Park, H., and Moon, S. (2010). “What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media.” Available at: https://an.kaist.ac.kr/~haewoon/papers/2010-www-twitter.pdf [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: Whittlesey House. Lax, J.R., and Philips, J.H. (2012). “The democratic deficit in the states.” American Journal of Political Science, 56: 148 – 166. Leyenaar, M., van Wijngaarden, E., and Fraanje, R. (2012). Kansen van sociale media voor de representatieve democratie. Available at: http://www.rob-

58 rfv.nl/documenten/artikel_in_beleid_en_maatschappij_over_sociale_media.p df [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Lilleker, D.G., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2016). “What Drives Political Participation? Motivations and Mobilization in a Digital Age.” Political Communication, 34(1): 21–43. Margetts, H. (2015). “Dr. Helen Margetts Shares Findings on How Social Media Is Transforming Politics.” Available at: http://www.ceu.edu/article/2015-02- 16/dr-helen-margetts-shares-findings-how-social-media-transforming-politics [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., and Yasseri, T. (2016). Political Turbulence. How social media shape collective action. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Mayhew, C. (2007). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: University Press. Münker, S. (2008). Emergenz der digitalen Öffentlichkeiten. Die Sozialen Medien im Web 2.0. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Parmelee, J.H., and Bichard, S.L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter Revolution. How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. New York: Lexington Books. Pew Research Center (2014). Section 5: Political Engagement and Activism. The ‘U-Shape’ of Political Activism; Higher at Ideological Extremes, Lower in Center. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-5-political-engagement- and-activism/ [Accessed June 23, 2017]. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J.M. (2001). “Collective identity and social movements.” Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 283 – 305. Rasmussen, A., Mäder, L.K., and Reher, S. (2017). “With a Little Help From The People? The Role of Public Opinion in Advocacy Success.” Comparative Political Studies: 1 – 26. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press. Robinson, P. (2008). “The Role of Media and Public Opinion”. in Smith, S., Hadfield, A. and Dunne, T. (eds). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford University Press: Oxford: 137-154.

59 Sarno, D. (2009). “Twitter creator Jack Dorsey illuminates the site’s founding document. Los Angeles Times. Available at: http://latimesblog.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/twitter-creator.html [Accessed on April 29, 2017]. Schäfer, M.T., Overheul, N., and Boeschoten, T. (2012). Politieke communicatie in 140 tekens. Available at: http://mtschaefer.net/media/uploads/docs/Politieke- Communicatie-in-140-tekens.pdf. [Accessed June 22, 2017.] Shah, D.V., Kwak, N., and Holbert, R. (2001). ““Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: patterns of internet use and the production of social capital.” Political Communication, 18(2): 141–162 Shapiro, R.Y. (2011). “Public Opinion and American Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 75: 982 – 1017. Skoric, M.M., Zhu, Q., Goh, D. and Pang, N. (2016). “Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review. New Media & Society, 18(9): 1817–1839. Tatu, M. (1984). Public Opinion as both Means and Ends for Policy-Makers’, in The Conduct of East-West Relations in the 1980s: Part III: Papers from the IISS

25th Annual Conference, International Institute of Strategic Studies: London: 26- 32. Teorell, J. (2003). “Linking Social Capital to Political Participation: Voluntary Associations and Networks of Recruitment in Sweden.” Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(1): 49 – 66. Twitter (2017). About. Available at: https://about.twitter.com/nl/company [Accessed on June 23, 2017]. Vasterman, P. (2004). Mediahype. Amsterdam: Aksant. Van Dijk, J. (1999). The Network Society. London: Sage Publications. Van de Donk, W.B.H.J., Snellen, I. Th. M., Tops, P.W. (eds) (1995). Orwell in Athens. A perspective on informatization and democracy. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Lehman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in Americam Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weber Shandwick (2013). Twitter en de Tweede Kamer. Available at: http://webershandwick.nl/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Twitter-en-de- Tweede-Kamer.-Weber-Shandwick.pdf. [Accessed June 23, 2017]

60