Yu‐jui Chen and Pin‐yu Chu
monitor the procedure of planning application and public funds( Osimo, 2008);( 5) opening discussion forums: For instance,“ Nolitics” is an online discussion forum of Nigerian, which allows discussion of public affairs in bloggers( Chiluwa, 2011); and( 6) easy creation of pressure groups for specific causes: For instance, Meetup. com and change. org are platforms, where participants can find other people interested in the same causes, and also connect to politicians sharing their views( Osimo, 2008; Shirky, 2008).
Although governments provide many mechanisms to encourage e‐participation and discussions about policy and public problems are truly booming online, most participation and conversation is mainly“ about” government rather than“ with” government( Leighninger, 2011). No matter what the potential social media have, the improvement of democracy is limited without more effective feedback from citizens in public affairs. For this reason, how to improve the relationship between governments and citizens in the web environment is extremely important and worth exploring. A two way deliberative communication is the key factor to better governance in the development of democracy.
2.2 Strategies of public managers’ web 2.0 tools
Politicians and( elected) public administrators worldwide have adopted web 2.0 tools as an important approach to connect with citizens. However, many internet studies are concerned with technology but hardly comprehend the actual uses in a given political context( Danyi & Galacz, 2005). A few scholars classify different strategies of politicians and public administrators in different web 2.0 environments and dissimilar political systems. For example, Bichard( 2006), from the perspective of frames, examines election web sites and blogs during the 2004 US presidential election. The study proposes a framing mechanism to analyze candidates’ appeal strategies. Bichard classifies the web strategies used by George W. Bush and John Kerry into five categories:( 1) candidate ideology: the positions of candidate on specific issues and / or his agenda for America;( 2) campaign trail: focused on campaigning events / activities or discussions regarding strategy and poll data;( 3) supporters: recommends from specific supporters or groups of supporters, including official endorsements;( 4) call to action: appealing for voter participation, such as donation requests, volunteering, online interaction or voting, and( 5) opponent attack: the views of the opponent and criticisms regarding their flaws, inadequacies, or weaknesses. The findings indicate significant difference between candidates and their use of frames. Bush’ s key strategies are campaign tail( 41.1 %), supporters( 25.5 %), and opponent attack( 20 %). The main strategies of Kerry are opponent attack( 44.5 %), campaign tail( 22.4 %), and supporters( 17.8 %).
Carlson & Strandberg( 2005) investigate strategies use by different web actors in Finnish during 2004 European parliament election. They assort the main strategies used by information types( e. g., candidate’ s biography, a list of issue positions held by a candidate, image building for a candidate, etc.), and engagement types( e. g., contact information, online forum, invitation for donation, etc.). Trammell et al.( 2006) use the content analysis method to investigate the interactivity of the web sites and blogs of the ten Democratic presidential primary candidates in the 2004 election. They classify the strategies of candidates as voice for masses, calling for change, inviting participation, emphasizing hope for future, yearning for past, traditional values, party philosophical center, statistical support, expert support, identifying experiences with others, emphasis on political accomplishment, attack record of politician, and attack on politicians’ personal qualities.
Image building is an important strategy used by different candidates of different genders. Bystrom et al.( 2004) categorize several personality traits that are frequently emphasized by candidates, including ability, toughness, persistence, experiences, amiability, education, political philosophy, professionalism, youthfulness, appearance, moral values, and stylistic qualities.
Owing to the limited research relevant to online strategies in a non‐Western political context, Wang( 2009) investigates how Taiwan’ s 2008 general election campaign web sites and blogs differ in their strategies. Wang categorizes the strategies into six major items: calling for change, mobilization and participation, emphasis on the future, nostalgia for the past, moral appeal, and emphasis on personal characteristics. The analysis shows that the most used strategies are mobilization and participation, emphasis on personal characteristics, and calling for change.
114