议会对电子请愿书的辩论是否加强了公众对议会的参与？Twitter对话分析

IF 4.1 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2019-01-08 DOI:10.1002/POI3.194

Molly Asher, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, V. Spaiser

{"title":"议会对电子请愿书的辩论是否加强了公众对议会的参与？Twitter对话分析","authors":"Molly Asher, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, V. Spaiser","doi":"10.1002/POI3.194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The U.K. Parliament introduced an e‐petitions system in 2015 with the aim of significantly enhancing its relationship with the public. We explore whether this aim is being met through the analysis of Twitter data from conversations on e‐petitions debated in parliament. We use natural language processing, machine learning, and social network analysis of Twitter data to explore what it shows about the extent of people's engagement, the contents of Twitter e‐petition conversations, who is taking part, and how they interact. Our findings provide interesting insights into how people perceive the e‐petition procedures in terms of fairness and responsiveness, suggesting that petition parliamentary debates should be more inclusive of the original petitions’ aims. The results also point to homophily tendencies present in the Twitter e‐petition discussions.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.194","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Parliamentary Debates of e-Petitions Enhance Public Engagement With Parliament? An Analysis of Twitter Conversations\",\"authors\":\"Molly Asher, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, V. Spaiser\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/POI3.194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The U.K. Parliament introduced an e‐petitions system in 2015 with the aim of significantly enhancing its relationship with the public. We explore whether this aim is being met through the analysis of Twitter data from conversations on e‐petitions debated in parliament. We use natural language processing, machine learning, and social network analysis of Twitter data to explore what it shows about the extent of people's engagement, the contents of Twitter e‐petition conversations, who is taking part, and how they interact. Our findings provide interesting insights into how people perceive the e‐petition procedures in terms of fairness and responsiveness, suggesting that petition parliamentary debates should be more inclusive of the original petitions’ aims. The results also point to homophily tendencies present in the Twitter e‐petition discussions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.194\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Internet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.194\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.194","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 22

摘要

英国议会于2015年引入了电子请愿制度，旨在大幅加强与公众的关系。我们通过分析议会辩论的电子请愿书对话中的推特数据来探讨这一目标是否得到了实现。我们使用自然语言处理、机器学习和社交网络对推特数据的分析，来探索它显示了人们的参与程度、推特请愿对话的内容、谁在参与以及他们如何互动。我们的研究结果为人们如何从公平性和响应性的角度看待电子请愿程序提供了有趣的见解，表明请愿议会辩论应该更包容原始请愿的目标。研究结果还指出了推特请愿书讨论中存在的同性恋倾向。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Do Parliamentary Debates of e-Petitions Enhance Public Engagement With Parliament? An Analysis of Twitter Conversations

The U.K. Parliament introduced an e‐petitions system in 2015 with the aim of significantly enhancing its relationship with the public. We explore whether this aim is being met through the analysis of Twitter data from conversations on e‐petitions debated in parliament. We use natural language processing, machine learning, and social network analysis of Twitter data to explore what it shows about the extent of people's engagement, the contents of Twitter e‐petition conversations, who is taking part, and how they interact. Our findings provide interesting insights into how people perceive the e‐petition procedures in terms of fairness and responsiveness, suggesting that petition parliamentary debates should be more inclusive of the original petitions’ aims. The results also point to homophily tendencies present in the Twitter e‐petition discussions.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Policy and Internet Multiple-

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

10.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Understanding public policy in the age of the Internet requires understanding how individuals, organizations, governments and networks behave, and what motivates them in this new environment. Technological innovation and internet-mediated interaction raise both challenges and opportunities for public policy: whether in areas that have received much work already (e.g. digital divides, digital government, and privacy) or newer areas, like regulation of data-intensive technologies and platforms, the rise of precarious labour, and regulatory responses to misinformation and hate speech. We welcome innovative research in areas where the Internet already impacts public policy, where it raises new challenges or dilemmas, or provides opportunities for policy that is smart and equitable. While we welcome perspectives from any academic discipline, we look particularly for insight that can feed into social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, sociology, and communication. We welcome articles that introduce methodological innovation, theoretical development, or rigorous data analysis concerning a particular question or problem of public policy.