Data collection method and tools

For the purpose of this research, in depth interviews were conducted. In depth interviews are personal and semi-structured interviews that aim to identify participant’s emotions, feelings, and opinions regarding a particular

research matter. Semi-structured interviews allow the interviewer to ask questions freely and explore deeper at any point necessary (Hoepfl, 1997). The main

advantage of personal interviews is that they involve personal and direct contact between interviewers and interviewees while eliminating non-response rates, but interviewers require the necessary skills to successfully carry out

such interviews (Fisher, 2005; Wilson, 2003). As Hoepfl (1997) suggests theoretical sensitivity is one of the essential qualities for qualitative research interviewers which in short means the insight and awareness that an interviewer should have in terms of

his/her understanding of the data and research. Barriball & While (1994) suggest two key qualities for qualitative interviewers, that an interviewer should be able to

establish “competent use and understanding” of the interview and the research and should have the “awareness of the errors or bias” that may arise during the interview and should be able to overcome any such difficulties.

Moreover, semi-structured interviews offer flexibility in terms of the flow of the

interview, leaving room for the generation of conclusions that were not initially meant to be derived. However, there is always a crucial risk that the interview may deviate from the original aims and objectives of the study (Gill & Johnson, 2002).

As far as data collection tools were concerned, the interviews involved the use of semi-structured questionnaire, which was used as an interview

guide. Key questions in the form of interview guide were prepared to guide the interview towards the satisfaction of research objectives, but additional

questions were included during the interviews whenever necessary. An interview guide can thus help ensure that the interviews stay focussed around the main phenomenon of the research (Hoepfl, 1997).

A questionnaire divided into two parts was developed, in order to collect the data from two main groups in the study - the political leaders and the voters (the supply side and demand side of this study). The two sections were: Questions for the political leaders and social media strategists and questions for the general voting age public from rural and urban India. In any electoral process, it is the political parties and leaders who try to understand the electorate’s expectations and base their campaign around those expectations. By using social media for campaign

purposes, the political parties and leaders were trying to reach out to the voters providing them with the information about their plans and objectives and other information they might find relevant. The voters, want to participate in the electoral process and expect information and interaction which political leaders aim to provide via social media. If one political leader does not engage in fulfilling these needs, then they risk losing ground to their opponents. Overall, therefore, it was important for this research to understand both sides of the phenomenon and assess whether voter expectations matched party strategies.

The questions were structured as open-ended to allow the flow of discussion and crucial information which the researcher might have missed and could later include in the analysis. Interview questions were semi-structured and open ended. The questions were developed with the purpose of understanding and verifying whether a personality centred campaign has had any positive or negative impact over the voting choices. Another consideration was to understand whether the use of social media and Twitter, in particular, has had any impact in positively driving personality centric campaign as observed in several recent election studies.

The questionnaire used for the semi structured interviews included the following main questions:

Part one- Campaign strategists and political leaders

1. What is the need for personalisation? Why do politicians post about their personal or private life on Twitter? (objectives?).

2. Who is the audience that politicians want to target on social media and why? How much do they know about this audience? Do they monitor who follows them and why? (agenda/strategy?).

3. How has communication strategy with voters changed over last electoral cycle (in view of social media uses) and why? (change).

4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of communicating on social media? (journalistic immunity, more freedom, trolls?).

5. Who in your opinion has used social media successfully during the elections and why? (success comparison).

6. Does the possibility of two-way communication on social media allow leaders to individualise the party message? (individualisation and privatisation). 7. How is political personalisation on social media different from television and

newspapers and is social media a bigger and more efficient enabler of personalisation or does it hinder personalisation?

Part Two- Voters

1. How do they evaluate the leaders when they decide which party to vote for in the election?

2. Does social media presence of political leader increase their likability and trustworthiness and how important are personal likability and

trustworthiness as criteria to differentiate between politicians? (the factors are assumed to be parts of personalisation).

3. Is social media presence of politicians making their communication

entertaining for voters? Should politics be entertaining? (aim- to understand whether SM personalised campaigning helps in reaching out to wider

electorate and making politics more accessible for people who are generally not interested in politics).

4. Are politicians distracting attention from questions of principles and policies through personalisation in campaigning? How?

5. Has ideology been abandoned in politics and is it less about clashes of great ideas and more about personal charisma of leaders?

6. What are their expectations from political leaders on social media? Do they think that politicians should use social media and if so, what should they be doing?