An overview of e-campaigning in practice and the literature

2.2.1 E-campaigning in practice

The debut of e-campaigning can be traced back to the 1992 US presidential election, when the first-time presidential candidate Clinton and his campaign team deployed a website containing some basic information of Clinton’s candidacy.

Although the website was static and simple, it started to attract public attention (Gibson, 2004; Owen & Davis, 2008).

By the end of the 1990s, the continuous development of e-campaigning in practice was observed, reflected in three main areas, namely, the increase in e-campaigning adoption; the increase in the breadth and depth of campaign information provided through e-campaigning; and the utilisation of e-mail technology for direct-mailing in order to reach and communicate with voters (D'Alessio, 2000; Gibson, 2004; Gibson et al., 2002).

From the year 2000 onwards, e-campaigning has significantly increased in prominence. This is reflected in three areas. First, e-campaigning has expanded beyond the US and eventuated in a widespread global phenomenon (e.g., Copeland

& Rommele, 2014; D. T. Hill, 2008; Kim & Park, 2007; Lilleker & Jackson, 2013; van Os, Hagemann, Voerman, & Jankowski, 2007). Second, e-campaigning is no longer associated with a single form of ICT, such as email or the World Wide Web; instead, it has become increasingly integrative of various ICTs and applications (Gibson,

2012; Gibson & Cantijoch, 2011; Gibson, Rommele, & Williamson, 2014; Vergeer, 2012). Third, e-campaigning is no longer confined to merely disseminating campaign information; rather, it has evolved from an information kiosk in cyberspace to a vehicle facilitating different electioneering practices as a supplement to, and overcoming barriers in, traditional election campaigning (Foot

& Schneider, 2006; Gibson et al., 2014; Lilleker et al., 2011). Also note that the development of e-campaigning has entered a new phase since the late 2000s with the advent of social media, such as YouTube (Ceron & d'Adda, 2015; Gibson, 2012;

Lilleker & Jackson, 2013; Macnamara & Kenning, 2014; Vergeer & Hermans, 2013).

It is clear that e-campaigning in practice has been undergoing a maturing process – from narrowly focusing on a single ICT and electioneering practice to seamlessly integrating a myriad of technologies and practices. This is largely expected from an IS perspective. On the basis of his empirical observations, Nolan (1979) identifies that IT utilisation within an organisation generally experiences a process of growth – from being isolated and ad hoc towards becoming organisation-wide, cross-functional, and highly standardised and integrated.

Nevertheless, e-campaigning utilisation across democracies is markedly uneven.

Most instances of advanced, creative e-campaigning utilisation are situated in the US (Ward, Owen, et al., 2008). Other democracies, including developed democracies – such as the UK, are found to be trailing far behind their US counterpart in e-campaigning utilisation (e.g., Anstead & Chadwick, 2009;

Bentivegna, 2008; Gibson & McAllister, 2008). Accordingly, e-campaigning in the US is considered to be the exception rather than the rule (Ward, Owen, et al., 2008).

It is also found that uneven e-campaigning utilisation occurs within the same election (e.g., Small, 2008). Furthermore, scholars observe that the full potential of e-campaigning is largely unfulfilled in practice (Gibson & McAllister, 2008;

Larsson, 2013). This is echoed by practitioners. For instance, Joe Trippi, a well-known US campaign consultant, claims that ‘the 2008 US presidential election is the first real [emphasis added] Internet campaign … [because] there are all these amazing ways for people [voters] to connect with a campaign, to follow it, or create their own mini-campaigns, things that didn’t exist or barely existed [emphasis added] last time.’ (as cited in Cone, 2007, para. 1) However, Trippi further asserts

that despite Obama’s remarkable campaign, in general, the practice of e-campaigning is still far from its pinnacle.

2.2.2 E-campaigning in the literature

Shortly after the inception of e-campaigning, scholarly research dedicated to the phenomenon began. Three major streams can be identified in present campaigning research. They pertain to assessing the consequences of e-campaigning, exploring the utilisation of e-e-campaigning, and explaining the utilisation of campaigning. Those streams focus on different aspects of e-campaigning but are interconnected. Also note that e-e-campaigning research is almost solely conducted by political scientists.

The first wave of e-campaigning research chiefly focuses on assessing as well as debating the consequences of e-campaigning or e-democracy in various aspects, notably, political parties or candidates themselves, democratic structures and processes, and civil society at large (e.g., Bimber, 1998, 2001; Gibson & Rommele, 2005; Norris, 2001; Sunstein, 2002). Two distinctive types of claim, optimistic and sceptical, are generated as a result.

Optimistic claims hold that the utilisation of ICTs in democratic activities, such as election campaigning, can yield positive impacts. And such impacts can be reflected on two levels: organisational and societal. For instance, at the organisational level, ICTs are regarded as a catalyst for the evolution of election campaigning. The technologies will provide political parties and candidates with a new platform to reach more or new voters, renew the interaction and engagement with voters, mobilise voter support and, for small parties and candidates in particular, increase exposure (Bimber, 1998; Gibson et al., 2004;

Gibson & Ward, 2000a). At the societal level, it is believed that e-campaigning is able to strengthen civic engagement and improve voters’ decision-making process, resulting in empowered and more informed voters (Bimber, 2001; Owen, 2006).

Sceptical claims, on the other hand, argue that utilising ICTs in democratic activities will lead to potentially chaotic political and social environments, reinforce the current political structures and practices, or create a digital divide

within society. More specifically, the Internet environment is highly unregulated, any person is able to circulate rumours and conduct smear campaigns, thereby leading to potentially chaotic political and social environments (Sunstein, 2002, 2007). Also, e-campaigning increasingly requires a considerable amount of scarce resources, small parties or candidates are inevitably disadvantaged compared to their large counterparts. As a result, the current political structures and practices, and the divide concerning resources between small and large parties or candidates will be reinforced; in other words, ‘politics as usual’ (Greer & LaPointe, 2004; Margolis et al., 2003). Besides, e-campaigning requires voters to have access to technologies, such as the Internet or mobile phones. This means that those without access to the required technologies will be neglected. Consequently, a divide between those with access to ICTs and those without will be created and likely deepen as e-campaigning becomes more prominent (Norris, 2001; van Dijk, 2009). Further, compared to the technologies in traditional democratic activities, such as radio or television, new ICTs, particularly the Internet and mobile phones, provide people with greater power of information personalisation; in other words, retrieving information that is only in consensus with one’s own ideology and establishing relationships only with the like-minded. This therefore will mainly result in preaching to the converted (Norris, 2003; Norris & Curtice, 2006) and group polarisation in cyberspace (Sunstein, 2002, 2007) respectively.

Amid the assessment and debates of the consequences of campaigning or e-democracy, Norris (2002, p. 143) contends that e-campaigning or election campaigning in general is not to blame for ‘more deep-rooted ills of the body politic’. Also, it is increasingly pointed out that the consequences of e-campaigning are highly complex, contextual, and often not immediately observable, it is therefore rather simplistic to assess or debate them primarily based on speculation with limited empirical evidence (Farrell & Schmitt-Beck, 2002; Gibson, Nixon, et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2004; Gibson & Ward, 2012; Schmitt-Beck, 2004).

It is further suggested that the potential impacts of e-campaigning are contingent on how it is utilised (Smith, 1998). Another stream of e-campaigning research has since commenced while assessing and debating the consequences of e-campaigning continues in the literature (e.g., Gibson & McAllister, 2014; Gibson &

Rommele, 2005). This research stream pertains to exploring, analysing, and comparing e-campaigning utilisation within an election or across democracies (e.g., Anstead & Chadwick, 2009; Bentivegna, 2008; Bimber, 2014; Gibson, Margolis, et al., 2003; Kluver, Jankowski, Foot, & Schneider, 2007). It is currently prominent in the literature. Seven characteristics are noteworthy. First, national or federal is the most common level of elections being studied (e.g., Bimber, 2014;

Boas, 2008; Dezelan et al., 2014; Gibson & Cantijoch, 2011; Gibson & McAllister, 2008; Macnamara & Kenning, 2014; Small et al., 2008; Ward, Gibson, et al., 2008).

Second, most studies are based on a single election (e.g., Dezelan et al., 2014;

Vergeer & Hermans, 2013; Ward, Gibson, et al., 2008). Third, almost all studies focus on e-campaigning conducted by political parties or candidates as opposed to citizens (e.g., Gibson & McAllister, 2008; Hooghe & Vissers, 2008; Macnamara &

Kenning, 2014; Small et al., 2008; Ward, Gibson, et al., 2008). Fourth, the narrow and geographical concentration is apparent; more specifically, many studies exploring e-campaigning utilisation are situated in the US and Europe (Ward, Owen, et al., 2008). Fifth, political parties’ or candidates’ official campaign websites are the primary empirical object of investigation (Dougherty & Foot, 2007; Gibson & Ward, 2000b; Lilleker & Vedel, 2013). Sixth, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are employed (Gibson & Rommele, 2005; Lilleker & Vedel, 2013), Gibson and Rommele favour a qualitative approach in particular. And last, web content analysis is the main method of data analysis (Dougherty & Foot, 2007;

Lilleker & Vedel, 2013).

It is noted that knowledge relating to political parties’ or candidates’ e-campaigning utilisation is limited, despite a strong focus on this area in the literature at present. Three main factors are considered to be attributable (Ward, Owen, et al., 2008): first, the quickening pace of technological advancement;

second, ‘political parties, interest groups, and of course citizens are still learning, experimenting and innovating;’ (Ward, Owen, et al., 2008, p. x) and third, the narrow and geographical concentration in many e-campaigning studies. It can also be contended that restricted access to the e-campaigning phenomenon forms another salient factor. More specifically, e-campaigning is contingent on elections.

They occur only periodically with a considerably wide interval in between. For

instance, US presidential elections occur every four years and in the UK, the interval between general elections is set at five years.

From observing and comparing political parties’ or candidates’ e-campaigning utilisation within elections or across democracies, it is found that e-campaigning utilisation varies markedly despite the underlying technologies and applications being largely similar (e.g., Gibson, Margolis, et al., 2003; Jankowski et al., 2005;

Small, 2008; Ward, Owen, et al., 2008). Further, the potential of e-campaigning technologies and applications has not been fully exploited (Gibson & McAllister, 2008; Larsson, 2013). These have collectively prompted a new research stream that pertains to explaining political parties’ or candidates’ e-campaigning utilisation by identifying factors that influence e-campaigning utilisation (e.g., Anstead & Chadwick, 2009; Metag & Marcinkowski, 2012; Tkach-Kawasaki, 2007;

Ward, Owen, et al., 2008). This research steam is still in its infancy and primarily theoretically-based only.

In short, e-campaigning research is evolutionary. It presently comprises three different yet interrelated research streams. Each of them consists of knowledge gaps. Two streams are reflected in this study: one pertains to exploring the utilisation of e-campaigning and the other explaining e-campaigning utilisation.