A tale of three tribes: UK MPs, Twitter and the EU Referendum campaign

Inf. Polity Pub Date : 2019-09-29 DOI:10.3233/ip-190140
L. McLoughlin, Stephen Ward, Rachel Gibson, Rosalynd Southern
{"title":"A tale of three tribes: UK MPs, Twitter and the EU Referendum campaign","authors":"L. McLoughlin, Stephen Ward, Rachel Gibson, Rosalynd Southern","doi":"10.3233/ip-190140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the structure of Twitter communication networks between MPs during the 2016 EU Referendum campaign. In particular, the research examines the impact of Twitter in two dimensions: (1) how far social media might facilitate inter-party linkages thus eroding traditional partisan relations between MPs? This was given added potential by the supposedly cross-party nature of the Referendum campaign and, therefore, we specifically examined the collective communicative networks that formed around Leave and Remain amongst MPs; (2) Given the potential of social media to provide a platform for individual politicians to personalize campaigns, we asked how far social media might disrupt traditional formal intra-party hierarchies? Did, for example, backbench or relatively unknown figures come to the fore in the EU debate? Our results indicate that whilst there existed a high degree of partisanship, interestingly, Remainer MPs tended to adhere to party networks resulting in a divided remain network. By contrast, the Leave network was more unified but also more porous. Within the networks themselves, the centrality of individual MPs did not always reflect their formal status.","PeriodicalId":418875,"journal":{"name":"Inf. Polity","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inf. Polity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-190140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper examines the structure of Twitter communication networks between MPs during the 2016 EU Referendum campaign. In particular, the research examines the impact of Twitter in two dimensions: (1) how far social media might facilitate inter-party linkages thus eroding traditional partisan relations between MPs? This was given added potential by the supposedly cross-party nature of the Referendum campaign and, therefore, we specifically examined the collective communicative networks that formed around Leave and Remain amongst MPs; (2) Given the potential of social media to provide a platform for individual politicians to personalize campaigns, we asked how far social media might disrupt traditional formal intra-party hierarchies? Did, for example, backbench or relatively unknown figures come to the fore in the EU debate? Our results indicate that whilst there existed a high degree of partisanship, interestingly, Remainer MPs tended to adhere to party networks resulting in a divided remain network. By contrast, the Leave network was more unified but also more porous. Within the networks themselves, the centrality of individual MPs did not always reflect their formal status.
三个部落的故事:英国议员、Twitter和欧盟公投运动
本文考察了2016年欧盟公投期间国会议员之间的Twitter通信网络结构。特别是,该研究从两个维度考察了Twitter的影响:(1)社交媒体在多大程度上促进了党际联系,从而侵蚀了国会议员之间的传统党派关系?这被认为是公投运动的跨党派性质赋予了更大的潜力,因此,我们专门研究了议员之间围绕脱欧和留欧形成的集体沟通网络;(2)鉴于社交媒体有可能为个别政客提供个性化竞选的平台,我们的问题是,社交媒体可能在多大程度上破坏传统的正式党内等级制度?例如,是否有后座议员或相对不知名的人物在欧盟的辩论中脱颖而出?我们的结果表明,虽然存在高度的党派之争,但有趣的是,留欧派议员倾向于坚持政党网络,导致留欧派网络分裂。相比之下,脱欧派的网络更加统一,但也更加漏洞百出。在网络内部,个别议员的中心地位并不总是反映他们的正式地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信