Transnational online public spheres : EU tweets, AU retweets

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Communication

Master Thesis

Thesis title:

Transnational Online Public Spheres: EU tweets, AU retweets

Submitted by: Demba Kandeh, 110181899

Supervisor

:

Table of Contents

Abstract………..1

Introduction………...2

The Concept of Public Spheres………4

Playing politics on Twitter….………..7

Two-way Communications on Digital Media………8

Transparency in Digital Communications………11

Image and Trust Building……….……….……….13

Methods……….……….……….………..15 Results……….……….……….……..…..19 Discussion……….……….……….………...23 Conclusion……….……….……….………..28 References……….……….……….………...30 Appendix……….……….………..………...42

Dedication

In the loving memory of my beloved parents (RIP). You sacrificed your comfort and were willing to pay the ultimate price to see me through. You lived life well by acting upon high moral and spiritual values. You assisted relatives, friends and total strangers. I am an heir to your benevolent lives in this world. THANK YOU.

Acknowledgement

My sincere thanks and appreciations go to Professor Penny Sheets Thibaut for being the best thesis supervisor. Your insightful comments and timely feedback helped in immeasurable ways. The

Mundus Journalism family, thank you for being a family away from family.

I must acknowledge the kindness of my very good friends: Dr Baboucarr AS Sowe of the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital, Mr Yankuba Sinayoko of Humanity First The Gambia, Mr Bubacarr Singhateh of the University of The Gambia, Mr Khalilu Bah and Mr Momodou O Jallow of the Central Bank of The Gambia.

Last but by no means the least I am grateful to Dr Izabela Witkowska, Publishing Editor at Springer Nature for your words of wisdom.

1

Abstract

Using the Habermasian model of public spheres, this study examined the similarities and differences in Twitter use by the African and European Unions. It scrutinised the official Twitter handles of the AU and EU commissions on their interactivity, engagement and transparency with followers as well as image and trust building. By using a content analysis of tweets (N=1783) collected from a three-month sample period, this project investigated the existences of public spheres, and their composition in the context of the AU and EU

Twittersphere. The EU is slightly more interactive than the AU, but neither organisation is significantly interactive or engaged. However, both organisations are transparent in their Twitter use. While both transnational organisations use Twitter to boost their public outlook, the AU significantly outpaces the EU on trust building. Because more people are going online and the use of social media is increasing, regional integration organisations should work toward creating more interactive and engaged communications to enhance the output of their Twitter use. The findings of this project add to our understanding of how these

transnational organisations are using social media but also underline the reasons as to why their respective communities may still feel under-engaged.

2

Introduction

The African and European unions are the two biggest transnational organisations with a similar objective of integrating their respective peoples economically and politically

(Cameron, 2010; Vanheukelom & Scott, 2016). Over the years, the European Union (EU) has received formidable scholarly attention, examining various aspects of this economic and political integration project. From public opinion studies to media framing of the EU (Peter, 2004; Schuck, 2006; Boomgaarden, Schuck, Elenbaas & de Vreese, 2011), European Parliament elections (Schuck, Xezonakis, Elenbaas, Banducci & de Vreese, 2011; Crum & Fossum, 2009) to EU referendums, studies of the EU identify what has been referred to as a “democratic deficit” of the union (Follesdal & Hix, 2006). The democratic deficit notion posits that the union is largely dismissed as undemocratic due to the fact that it is

disconnected from the very people it claims to serve (Follesdal & Hix, 2006). Except for EU parliamentary elections, citizens have few or no significant roles in the governance process of their union. The African Union (AU), on the other hand, has comparatively received much less scholarly attention. Researchers on the regional organisation have largely focused on security issues (Omeje, 2015; Geldenhuys, 2014), probably owing to the fact that for a long time the continent has been engulfed in conflict. Some have also found that the AU and its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) are labeled by critics as a “dictators’ club” (Kimenyi, 2015; Feldman, 2008) pointing to the sheer influence of autocratic African leaders in these organisations.

Despite these substantial critiques, both organisations have a common goal to engage in active communications with stakeholders and ordinary citizens (AU Commission, 2014; EU Commission, 2016). These organisations are also adapting to modern communication technologies to reach broader and larger publics within their target audience. Both the African and European Unions maintain a noticeable presence on social media. A cursory

3

glance on the websites of both institutions shows that over the years, they are increasingly utilising social media platforms to enhance their communications agenda. As transnational organisations focused on integrating their peoples and bridging divides, communication tools such as social media platforms are invaluable for their work, especially with the increasing popularity of these platforms among citizens1 (Kies, 2010). Politically, a significant number of individuals as well as groups use social media to express their views and opinions on public issues that are important to them (Kahne & Middaugh, 2012). From the so-called “Twitter revolution” in North Africa and the Middle East to presidential elections in the United States and condemnation of terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere, social media has become a useful tool for ordinary citizens (the general public) to express their views and opinions.

The negative democratic critiques levied at both the AU and EU raise the question of how each organisation’s use of social media may be helping or exacerbating these critiques. The overarching question guiding this project is, then: do transnational organisations use social media in ways that might enhance democratic participation? In principle, through the use of communication strategies on social media, these organisations should create and participate in online public spheres—online public spaces where individuals and groups partake in meaningful discussions of issues relevant to them. Active online public spheres would be advantageous for these communities because, as research shows, the Internet and digital technologies in general have the potential to enhance political participation

(Papacharissi, 2002). Little research to date, however, has examined the communication strategies of the AU and EU on their social media presence and use. A study on the role of e-participation and social media in the construction and diffusion of a European identity found a communication gap between the EU and its citizens largely due to the platforms used at the

1 _{Statistics show that the number of people using social media in Africa is growing fast to catch up with the rest}

4

time (Karantzeni & Gouscos, 2013). An earlier study that focused primarily on

e-participation, targeting an EU initiative on online discussions called VoicE found that it is hard to attract and motivate citizens to participate (Scherer & Wimmer, 2010). There have been no studies on the AU’s social media communications. There is a clear need to revisit the EU’s social media communications, and it is also clearly time that someone examined those of the AU. In order to fill these gaps, I conducted a content analysis of the Twitter pages of both organisations, examining a total of 1666 tweets over a three-month period to gauge the level of engagement, interactivity and transparency—features that have been shown to be essential to successful online public spheres (Karantzeni & Gouscos, 2013; Scherer &

Wimmer, 2010; Gerhards & Schafer, 2010). Before reviewing my findings, I first lay out the theoretical foundations for the study and then explain my methods.

The Concept of Public Spheres

Scholars have long recognised the importance of citizen participation in the process of democratic governance (Ostman, 2012; Michels & De Graaf, 2010). The participation of citizens in the decision making process of issues that are important to them is thus considered one of the essentials of democracy. The concept of public spheres as espoused by Habermas (1989) states that open and non-hierarchical public discussions offer citizens an opportunity to contribute to democratic governance. Perhaps the aspect of this concept that has received the most scholarly attention is its potential to enhance citizens’ participation in governance (Kellner, 2014). According to the Habermasian model, the basic tenets of public spheres include the right to propose themes (or intervene in existing ones), equal access to participation and participation by free will. Through the existence of public spheres, individuals and groups have the potential to influence public opinion and consequently express their needs and aspirations, thereby affecting a given political landscape (see

5

Habermas, 1989). This concept thus looks at an idealised version of the function of the expressions and interests of ordinary individuals in everyday life. These expressions, leading to quality discussions on issues relevant to them (citizens), help broaden public opinion and consequently enhance governance by serving to advise policy makers. Online public debates should therefore benefit the political process when individuals and groups are actively

engaged on sacrosanct aspects of governance such as human rights in Africa and referendums in the EU. Habermas, who originally focused on Western Europe, was criticized for his narrow and homogeneous approach but scholars have used the concept to indicate the commonality of European citizens (or lack of it), European integration, among others (see Sicakkan, 2013 for an overview).

Traditionally, public spheres have been studied in mainstream media, emphasising the importance of traditional media in the democratisation process (Dahlgren, 2005). The dawn of the Internet and social media communications have re-ignited scholarly interest in the concept of public spheres (Papacharissi, 2002; Dahlgren, 2005; Gerhards & Schafer, 2010), however, with an acknowledgment that relative ease of access to the internet might facilitate broader participation in (multiple) public spheres (Davis, 2009). Some scholars were

pessimistic of the Internet’s democratizing effects partly because it is approached by

consumers and private individuals instead of citizens (Rasmussen, 2014) but online political debates exist (Kies, 2010). The pessimism has not faded completely but over the years with the increased in communication and networking facilities as a result of the Internet there is hope for public spheres in the digital era.

Public Spheres in the Internet Age

Since the emergence of the Internet, scholars have hinted at the resurgence of a new communications era characterised by horizontal, rather than vertical/hierarchical, networks of

6

communications (Castells, 2007). The space of flows similar to the public spheres in traditional media link people in multidimensional, horizontal and vertical, symmetrical and asymmetrical forms (Castells, 2007).

Today, more than the printing press offered in the 1960s, the Internet hosts various platforms that have become channels for various aspects of citizens’ daily lives. The use of social media as a communication tool is well established. Some scholars argue that social media is now an integral part of our daily life (Loader, Vromen & Xenos, 2014; Mihailidis, 2014). It affects various aspects of living: social, economic and political. Socially, there are sections of society that use social media to keep in touch with members of their families, friends and social circles (Mihailidis, 2014). People also use social media as means for economic transactions (Bertot, Jaeger & Hansen, 2012). Similarly, commercial firms are increasingly using social media, among other communication channels, to target their customers in advertisings and marketing (Neijens & Hilde, 2015). For example, from the so-called “Twitter revolution” in North Africa and the Middle East to presidential elections in the United States and condemnation of terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere, the internet— and in particular social media—has become a useful tool for ordinary citizens (the general public) to express their views and opinions.

Even though Habermas is thought to have doubted the potential of the Internet’s democratizing potentials due to influence from large capitalist corporations (Papacharissi, 2010), there is extensive evidence to the contrary (Castells, 2008). Some scholars argue that computer mediated communications have heralded a new form of public spheres (Bohman, 2004) and for others the existence of freely available platforms such as chat rooms,

discussion portals, and others maintained and run by diverse groups supports the existence of online public spheres (Dahlgren, 2005). Similarly, the Internet is not just seen as creating public spheres but also enhancing them (Storsul, 2014). Scholarly work on the impact of the

7

Internet and communication technologies can be broadly summarised into two main camps: those who are pessimistic but acknowledge its potential (Gerhards & Schafer, 2010) and those who are optimistic. For instance, some researchers found face-to-face more useful than online deliberations for democratic processes such as election but noted that the two

complemented each other (Baek, Wojcieszak & Carpini, 2011). Coleman (2004) found evidence to show that online consultations provided a space for inclusive public deliberation but also recognised the need to promote public participation. Coleman’s study examined the use of the Internet to enhance representative democracy, focusing on online consultations by the British parliament for the period: 1998 to 2002. Earlier research on web 2.0 prophesied the increase in use of social media tools in politics (Conway et. al, 2013). Twitter and other social media research now constitute a great part of that web 2.0 since it allows two-way communications between and among users. Overall and across different sectors, the Internet and social media offer new opportunities in politics especially for citizen engagement (Kruikemeier, van Noort, Vliegenthart & de Vreese, 2013). Thus this study will investigate the creation of public spheres as a means of enhancing democracy through citizen

participation by the African and European unions for regional integration. First, I will look at the adoption of Twitter for political communications.

Playing politics on Twitter

The particular focus of this study is the online social media platform, Twitter. Over the years, then, scholars have hinted at the Internet as a significant tool for enhancing participatory democracy (Ikufor, 2011; Shirky, 2011; Kruikemeier, 2014). And more specifically, social media has also attracted a sizeable scholarly attention for many reasons; among them the potential for enhancing engagement in political communications (Gaffney, 2010; Park, 2013). Twitter is the largest micro-blogging service worldwide (Park, 2013).

8

Twitter is also recognised as one of the most widely used social media for political

communications worldwide (Bruns & Burgess, 2012). Critics dismiss Twitter as a platform for elites and professionals but data from Twitter Inc., (Twitter Inc., 2016) and other literature (Jungherr, Schoen, Posegga & Ju Rgens, 2016) indicates a growing popularity and stress the significant role of Twitter in modern political communications. Studies on the political use of Twitter so far have shown mixed results with some arguing that it increases political

involvement (Yang & DeHart, 2016; Kruikemeier, 2014) and others suggesting that it does little for engagement (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2008; Park, 2013). These studies however, have largely focused on campaigning and electioneering (Conway, Kenski & Wang 2013; Kruikemeier, 2014) as well as examining popular special #hashtags around activities,

occurrences, events, etc. (Bruns & Moe, 2014). From the San Diego bushfires in 2007, to the so-called Arab Spring, Chilean earthquake and the Australian floods, Twitter #hashtags have been studied extensively. Furthermore, studies on Twitter have examined the profiles of sample user-bases such as celebrities, politicians, (Grant, Moon & Grant, 2010; Golbeck, Grimes & Rogers, 2010; Hong & Nadler, 2011). However, despite the large number of research on social media in general and Twitter in particular, there has been little on some aspects. The use of social media by international organisations (including intergovernmental ones) is largely understudied (Bruns, 2014; Gurman & Ellenberger, 2015). The present study therefore seeks to fill that gap. I now turn to the discussion of a few specific aspects of online social media that will be the focus of this study.

Two-way Communications on Digital Media

One of the hallmarks of social media, in particular, is that they allow two-way communications between and among users. This is also one of the features that lend social media such potential to facilitate public spheres. Two-way communication is simply a

9

2014). Scholars have examined two-way communications through two central concepts: interactivity (Strauss et al., 2015) and engagement (Kruikemeier, 2014). I will explain each concept in turn.

Political Interactivity on Twitter

Different scholars have defined interactivity differently. However, it has been largely conceptualised as connectedness, responsiveness and eliciting participation and speed in communication (Rafaeli & Ariel, 2007). And more recently, some scholars have argued that interactivity is “an attribute of the process of communication itself,” (Ariel & Avidar, 2015, p.24). Interactivity on social media should be studied such that one can determine whether or not the communication is: interactive (where two or more people take on a conversation beyond basic exchanges), non-interactive (when a conversation is only one-directional, emanating from a sender to a receiver without eliciting any response) and or reactive (two or more people only responding to specific and basic exchanges) (Ariel & Avidar, 2015). Twitter engagement and interactivity has been studied in the light of emergency situations such as natural disasters in tracking breaking news and useful information (Mendoza, Poblete & Castillo, 2010; Gaffney, 2010; Bruns & Burgess, 2014). Researchers have linked positive evaluation of politicians to online interactivity with users on platforms such as Twitter (Kruikemeier, Van Noort, Vliegenthart, & De Vreese, 2013). While some research indicates that politicians and non-profit organisations opt for one-way information sharing with their Twitter followers (Golbeck et., al, 2010; Graham et., al, 2013), other studies show that some political actors—e.g., U.S. government agencies (Mergel, 2013), some U.S. politicians (Graham et al., 2013)—have engaged in more interactive, two-way communication. And more importantly, research has also shown that Twitter interactivity has a positive effect on

10

the relationship between organisations and the public (Saffer et al., 2013 as cited in Conway et al., 2013).

It is therefore important to measure the level of interactivity between the AU and EU and their followers. Recalling the substantial critiques levied at both organisations in terms of their democratic deficits, this study seeks to examine the level of interactivity and

engagement displayed by each organisation through its Twitter account. I therefore pose my first research question:

RQ1: To what extent do the AU and EU interact with citizens on Twitter?

Political Engagement on Twitter

I now turn to political engagement on Twitter. The involvement of different sections of society in the various political and governance process is a cornerstone for modern societies (Patemen, 1970). The thought of including as many voices as possible in the political process have long occupied the thought of political philosophers. The development of mass media and the independent press is seen by some as a response to such thinking. The emergence of the World Wide Web was seen as heralding new opportunities for increased political

participation (Papacharissi, 2002). This line of thinking has especially intensified with the proliferation of new and digital media, which has advanced communications in general. Political engagement, defined as a form of participation in politics (Cantijoch, Cutts & Gibson, 2015) has also been examined in relation to digital media. So far research on this aspect of the Internet and politics has also seen mixed results but there is a general consensus on the potential of social media in enhancing political participation. The use of online

communications such as e-news and e-discussions is seen as instrumental in increasing political engagement (Cantijoch, Cutts & Gibson, 2015). But some researchers have also found that social networking and social media do not necessarily increase political

11

engagement (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008). In their survey of young adults (18-24 years old), Baumgartner and Morris (2008) acknowledged the popular use of social media tools but noted that it did little to increase political participation. Notwithstanding, this does not

diminish the overall importance of the Internet and online discussions for their potential in mobilising people for mass participation in politics. With the increased popularity of social networking sites and eventually social media, some scholars have investigated the potentials of these tools to increase political participation (Park, 2013; Kruikemeier, 2014; Strauss et al., 2015). The low engagement of people in politics, especially the youth has been a concern yet others see the emergence of new technologies (highly adopted by young people) as helpful in this regard (Storsul, 2014). Some scholars argue that the open nature of the Internet is

arguably identical to young people’s attitude of non-formal, anti-authoritarian approach to politics (Livingstone, 2009). The discussion on the power of social media to influence and enhance political participation is still ongoing (Tufekci, 2014). This project will also contribute to the discussion by investigating the use of social media by transnational

organisations. Again, while recalling the criticisms levied at the AU and EU, I examine how these regional organisations use social media to enhance political engagement. Thus the question:

RQ2: To what extent do the AU and EU engage with citizens on Twitter?

Transparency in Digital Communications

Transparency, another key concept in social media communications, is defined in various ways by various scholars. It is seen by some as openness and providing relevant public information (Baker, 2008), which builds trust and credibility. Transparency

International, a global coalition against corruption, defines transparency as: “knowing why, how, what, and how much,” (TI, 2016). This definition, like other definitions, stresses the

12

accountability aspect of the concept. The development of communication strategies on social media has had to benefit from user feedback, especially in marketing and advertising

communications (Cho et al., 2014). Thus the way or ways in which users communicate on these platforms have influenced the development of the platforms (Cho et al., 2014; Ngai, Moon, Lam, Chin & Tao, 2015) leading to regular updates. The literature on transparency indicates a consensus that digital media presents an opportunity for transparency (Relly & Sabharwal, 2009) and helps in anti-corruption campaigns. Information and communication technology initiatives globally have been seen to help improve transparency by exposing corrupt practices, especially in government. The Wikileaks and Snowden leaks – all largely aided by digital technology – are considered the biggest cases for transparency in the digital era (Zizek, 2013).

Some researchers contend that social media enhances transparency (Ngai et al., 2015). The existence of social media platforms and the possibility of public backlash is one reason for organisations to maintain open and transparent online communications. The theory of technology acceptance model advanced by Davis (Park, Nam & Cha, 2011) focuses on people’s perceptions of the ease and usefulness of new technologies as reasons to adopt these tools. Applied in the case of social media, one will not fail to see that ease and usefulness are also related to transparency in online communications. Governments around the world have claimed that digital transparency through e-governance has helped in improving transparency and promoting efficiency (Shim & Eom, 2008). Transparency of information sharing has for long been considered a key element in the decision-making process (Philips & Costa, 2007). In all organisations, information availability and timely response and openness are seen to have improved transparency (Philips & Costa, 2007). In their article on how to design a transparency policy for society so as to enhance corporate social responsibility (CSR), Dubbink, Graafland and Liedekerke (2008) stressed the need for organisations to take

13

responsibility. They also noted the need to provide enough information for the public to hold them accountable to their stated objectives (Dubbink, Graafland & Liedekerke, 2008). Meanwhile in the run up to the 2011 presidential elections in Nigeria, social media was said to have played a crucial role in ensuring transparent elections (Ikufor, 2011). Tech-savvy Nigerians were said to monitor the elections through Facebook, Twitter among other platforms in a civic-journalism style. All these point to the centrality of social media for transparent communications.

Thus transparency is a very important component of effective communication strategies. Transparent online communication enhances both engagement and interactivity among users (Goodman, 2015; Shaefer, 2012). Consequently, noting the importance of transparency in communications to enhance participatory democratic governance, I ask the question:

RQ3: How transparent are the African and European Unions’ communications on Twitter?

Image and Trust Building on Twitter

Now, I will move to the twin concepts of image and trust building. A favourable public outlook of an organisation is essential for its overall success, especially in the business world (Seitz, 2014). For this reason among others, big companies and organisations spend a huge portion of their budgets on polishing their public outlook through corporate social responsibility (Smith, 2014). Image building is defined as the sum total of a person’s experience of a company or organisation and what one has heard or read about the

organisation or company (American Psychological Association [APA], n.d.). Image building is thus a very important aspect of communications by organisations. In business

communications, image building could be equated to branding: an effort to establish and harness a favourable public perception of a business, company, product and or service

14

(Heaton, 2011). Fan (2010) who argues for a distinction between nation branding and nation image management proposes the latter to solve the problems of public scepticism associated with the former. In the face of stiff competitions, businesses are under intense pressure not just to generate new customers but also to retain these customers and thus the need to harness and maintain a good public image ˗ not unlike transnational organisations such as the AU and EU in their communications with citizens and stakeholders.

Closely related to the concept of image building is trust building–convincing relevant actors to rely on you especially during risky conditions (Bachmann & Inkpen, 2013), indicating acceptance of vulnerability but with positive expectations (Chang, Cheung & Tang, 2013). Institutional or organisational trust is thus the institutional arrangements and organisational environment and mechanisms that cater for stakeholders of organisation (Bachmann & Inkpen, 2013). The need for positive public opinion by businesses and other organisations is also arguably shared by transnational organisations, at least to the extent that they purport to serve the public and consequently public interest. In this regard, these regional organisations depending on prevailing issues in their respective regions are under intense pressure to make themselves more presentable and dependable to their citizens and stakeholders. Trust is also built on and developed through communications either by face-to-face or other interactive means. A sure way to establishing, expanding and maintaining good public ratings is thus through communications. One place where these communications now take place is via social media. Organisations are said to be branding themselves through social media and use such platforms for promoting their work and enhancing their two-way communication (Kaur, 2013). Finally, image and trust building are but components of communications with the potential to prompt engagement and interactivity—two integral aspects of online public spheres. Previous studies have not looked at image and trust building of transnational organisations on Twitter and this study will fill in this gap. The innovation will deepen our

15

understanding of how regional organisations present themselves online but will also add to the developing framework on social media studies, which should be carried on by future researchers. So I ask the question:

RQ4: To what extend do the AU and EU differ on image and trust building in their Twitter communications?

Methods

Case selection

The AU and EU are among the world’s largest regional integration organisations (Levitt, 2009) with similar structures, aims and objectives—regional integration. It is not uncommon that in the field of international politics, peace and security these two organisations are studied together (Aris & Wenger, 2014; Wulf & Debiel, 2009). Both transnational organisations have a noticeable presence on social media, constantly sharing information through various channels. Whereas there are up to 20 active Twitter accounts associated with the AU, there are over five hundred (500) Twitter accounts associated with the EU. These accounts include the organisations’ sub organs and agencies, ambassadors and delegations around the world, spokespersons, initiatives, etc. Both unions’ commissions alongside other key organs and agencies are all present on Twitter. Because I could not assess all the Twitter accounts associated with both organisations due to time and resource constraints, I chose to look at the AU and EU Commissions’ accounts, because they serve as the secretariat and have the primary political responsibility of implementing their organisational objectives in their regions (AU Constitutive Act, 2000; EU Commission, 2015). Thus, both commissions are either directly or indirectly involved in organisational-wide communications in both unions.

16

Data collection

In order to answer my research questions, I conducted a content analysis of tweets by the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU). A sampling period of three months (20th January to 20th April, 2016), most recent three-month period yielded a total of 1666 tweets from the @_AfricanUnion (498 tweets) and @EU_Commission (1168 tweets). This was a period without any emergencies for both organisations that may otherwise skew established regular tweeting patterns where they existed. Scholars note that given the fast pace at which social media evolves, it is essential that research into the subject is not focused in the distant past (Bruns & Moe, 2014). A three-month period provided enough room to observe reasonable trends where they exist. The tweets were collected using a premium account on the website: “www.discovertweets.com”. The DiscoverText platform makes it possible to capture, map and deconstruct data from a variety of online sources including Twitter, Facebook, among others. This tool has been used and recommended by previous Twitter researchers (Borra & Rieder , 2014). Its flexibility allows users to customize their search for data. For example, with a premium account one can search for data for a specific period from multiple Twitter accounts. DiscoverText through Gnip, Twitter’s enterprise API (application programming interface, a programme that allows applications to access data from another application, operating system, etc) platform has unlimited access to Twitter data allowing tweet harvesters access to the 3200 most recent tweets threshold by Twitter. Out of the total (1666) tweets for both organisations that I harvested, 83 were in foreign languages (languages other than English) 27 tweets for the AU and 56 tweets for the EU. All tweets in foreign languages were deleted from the sample and therefore not included in the analysis.

17

Measurement

The measurement of interactivity in communication is still debated (Avidar, 2013). The number of followers and followees on Twitter is necessary but not a sufficient condition for interactivity. The use of #hashtags, favourites/likes, reply, mention and retweet all count as interactivity tools between users on the platform (Mergel, 2013) because they indicate an intention to elicit responses from other users or contribute to an ongoing conversion. Previous studies have measured interactivity by counting the number of replies, mentions and retweets (Saffer et al., 2013; Strauss et al., 2015). Other researchers have measured interactivity by checking sustained @replies and responses through @mentions, retweets, hashtags (Bruns et. al, 2013, Kruikemeier et al., 2013; Strauss et al., 2015). Similarly, in this project, interactivity was measured through replies, mentions, retweets and the use of hashtags. On the other hand, the level of engagement with users on Twitter is examined through requests for feedback and calls to action issued (Mergel, 2013; Kang, 2014). In this project, I measured engagement by the number of requests for feedback within a tweet and calls to action. Furthermore, I also measure engagement through the number of list each organisation is subscribed to and the number of tweets it favourites/likes (see appendix 1).

Moving on to transparency, it is worthy of note that Twitter has two main categories of accounts for all users: verified and unverified accounts. A verified Twitter account is a user account that has been authenticated by Twitter to be legitimate and bearing true identity information of the claimant (Twitter Inc., 2016). Account verification thus increases transparency and reduces online impersonation and identity theft. According to Twitter, currently verification is only available to governments, organisations, journalists, among others. Thus the AU and EU are by all standards qualified for verified account status. Earlier studies on Twitter have measured transparency on the availability of basic information such as a link to the official website, indications of the presence of social media team among

18

others (Strauss et al., 2015). So on the question on transparency, I assessed basic information on the Twitter pages selected, examining details such as: account verification,

acknowledgement of a social media team, linking to the official website of the organisation and use of official logos/images of the organisation.

On a general comparison between the two organisations, I looked at their tweets as image building (tweets which emphasized the positive work of the organisation, through expressions such as: “#EFSI is helping SMEs – over 150 agreements with financing of

€3.4bn are approved,” “We have presented measures to modernise #VAT in the EU,” tweeted the EU), and trust building (tweets which emphasized the core values of the organisation, such as; “inclusive development on the continent,” “deepen and entrench a culture of human rights in #Africa,” tweeted the @_AfricanUnion). Thus whereas image building tweets focused more on what the organisation is doing, trust building tweets outlined what the organisation believes—both concepts are considered important for public engagement (Kang, 2014).

Inter-coder Reliability

Four coders were trained to establish a reliability measurement for the coding of all measurements for the tweets. To test the reliability of interactivity, engagement and transparency, at least 10 % of the tweets were coded by two coders. In all cases, the threshold for inter-coder reliability (ICR) was .70, which was passed on first calculation in all cases except one. The ICR for one of the variables (image building) was only achieved after a second round of discussion and a recoding with the corresponding coder. Specifically, the Krippendorf alpha values for the variables coded were: regular tweets (Kalpha = .83), retweets (Kalpha = .96), reply (Kalpha = .94), mentions (Kalpha = .96), requests for feedback within a tweet (Kalpha = 1), calls to action (Kalpha = .91), image building (Kalpha = .71), trust building (Kaplha = .71) and the presence of hashtags (Kalpha = .93).

19

Results

My first research question was about the interactivity level in both the AU and EU Commission’s tweets. I compared each organisation’s use of the reply function, the

mentioning of other users, the use of hashtags, and the use of re-tweets. Both the AU (1.1%) and the EU (10.4%) rarely use the reply function on Twitter, indicating low interactivity. But their difference in use of replies was statistically significant (χ2(1)= 41.149, p<.001).

Similarly, the organisations do differ in their use of the mention tool—mentioning other users in their tweets—with AU using the tool in 30.6 % of their tweets while the EU is at 36.3 %. This difference, though not particularly large, was statistically significant (χ2

(1)= 4.846,

p<.05). Both organisations use hashtags extensively throughout their tweets. The results

show that EU has more controlled use of hashtags with up to 44.5 % using only one hashtag per tweet while the AU is at 31.5 %. The difference was statistically significant (χ2(3)= 56.881, p<.001). This means that the EU has a more organised use of hashtags, focusing on one issue per tweet. Given the short nature of tweets (140 characters), organised tweets have better potentials to produce maximum output. Finally, over 60 % of the AU tweets are actually retweets from other users connected to the organisation, indicating that the AU retweets are not necessarily interactive on their own as compared to retweeting ordinary followers who are not connected to the organisation. The EU on the other hand has a significantly lower retweet rate at 38.6% and the difference was statistically significant (χ2

(1) = 129.659, p<.001). Thus, overall on the level of interactivity, it is evident from the results that both organisations do not interact significantly with their followers (via replies,

mentions, hashtags, or retweets [see Table 1]), but the EU is slightly more interactive than the AU.

I now move onto the question on engagement. The AU (22.9 %) tends to call its followers to action more often than the EU (17.9 %). Their difference on the issue of calls to

20 action was statistically significant (χ2

(1)= 5.364, p<.05). Conversely, on their request for feedback, the EU (4.6 %) is more active than the AU (1.7 %) with a statistically significant difference (χ2

(1)= 7.690, p<.05). This means that the EU more often requested for feedback from its followers than the AU did—although the percentage of tweets that did this was very minor—less than 5% (see Table 1). Another element of engagement is the use of Twitter lists and likes/favourites. The EU is subscribed to 20 lists and has close to four thousand

likes/favourites (3921) while the AU is subscribed to 4 lists and has about two thousand likes/favourites (1921). This difference could indicate that the users find the EU more engaged with them than AU. It is worthy of note that each organisations focused on some level of engagement differently: call to action (for the AU) and request for feedback (for the EU) but the overall engagement is not high. The EU at 1.3% is relatively more engaging than its counterpart, the AU at 0.6% however, the difference in level of engagement (as a

summative variable for call to action and request for feedback) between the two organisations is statistically not significant (χ2(2)=3.331, p=.189).

Turning to the third research question, I examined the relative transparency of each organisation’s Twitter page. Both organisations maintained active links to their official websites and use images identical to their official images/logos. However, the AU’s use of a non-verified Twitter account shows it is prone to identity theft and impersonation.

Furthermore, the AU did not indicate the existence (or non-existence) of a social media team even though it notes that tweets by the chairperson of the commission are signed by the initials of her name. The EU commission’s Twitter handle on the other hand is verified and the profile write-up notes the existence of a social media team. It also notes that tweets by the commission president are signed with the initials of his name. Evidently, the EU is more transparent in its social media communications than the AU.

21

Table 1

Descriptive of transnational organisations tweeting of public spheres, chi-square comparison Organisation AU (N = 471) EU (N = 1112) Chi-Squares Regular yes (N) 142 677 (%) 30.1** 60.9** χ2 (1)=125.150, p<.001 Retweets yes (N) 329 429 (%) 69.9** 38.6** χ2 (1)=129.659,p<.001 Reply yes (N) 5 116 (%) 1.1** 10.4** χ2 (1)=41.149, p<.001 Mention yes (N) 144 404 (%) 30.6* 36.3* χ2 (1)=4.846, p<.05 Feedback yes (N) 8 51 (%) 1.7* 4.6* χ2 (1)=7.690, p<.05

Call to Action yes (N) 108 199

(%) 22.9* 17.9* χ2 (1)=5.364, p<.05

Image Building yes (N) 171 372

(%) 36.3 33.5 χ2

(1)=1.195, p>.05

Trust Building yes (N) 194 165

(%) 41.2** 14.8** χ2 (1)=131.014, p<.001

Hashtags one hashtag

(N) 146 497 (%) 31.0** 44.7** χ2 (3)=56.881, p<.001 2 hashtags (N) 86 258 (%) 18.3 23.2

more than 2 hashtags (N) 94 178

(%) 20.0 16.0

Note: Scores with a double asterisk (**) connote a stronger significant level of p≤.01 while

22

Finally, on the question of image and trust building, these two organisations differed on one of the two other ways they used Twitter: image building and trust building. Both the AU (36.3%) and EU (33.5%) used their Twitter communications to emphasise what they doing and its importance (image building), without any statistically significant difference (χ2(1) =1.195, p=.274). But on the issue of what ideals they value most (trust building) the AU (at 41.2 %) significantly outpaced the EU (at 14.8 %; χ2(1) = 131.014, p<.001). The AU tweeted more on its ideals and values (trust building) than its counterpart did.

Finally, on a week by week comparison basis, these organisations apparently have different tweeting patterns in terms of volume of tweets (see table 2). The EU has a fairly regular weekly tweeting pattern averaging at about 80 tweets per week. The AU on the other hand has no regular pattern. In its second week, the AU has over 270 tweets while in the last four weeks, it sent out no tweet between 7 and 31st March (both dates included) and less than 50 tweets between 1st and 20th April (at 1200gmt). It is not clear as to why but this is attributable to a number of factors such as the lack of a specialised social media team, restructuring, infrastructural challenges, such as low Internet penetration across Africa.

23

Discussion

The Internet is seen as a catalyst for enhancing political participation in democratic dispensations such as elections (Ikufor, 2011; Shirky, 2011; Kruikemeier, 2014). Social media tools such as Twitter are increasingly being studied for their potential to enhance political engagement (Gaffney, 2010; Park, 2013). From the literature, there is evidence that social media communications enhance popular participation in politics. It has been noted, however, that non-profit organisations used Twitter as one-way communication (Golbeck et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2013) primarily pushing information to their followers. So far the little research to date conducted on organisations use of social media (Twitter), have mostly focused on not-for-profit, nongovernmental organisations (Mendoza, Poblete & Castillo, 2010; Gaffney, 2010). And fewer studies have looked at transnational, regional organisations such the EU and AU in this respect. My project sought to fill this gap by empirically

examining the AU and AU communications on Twitter through a content analysis.

Transnational organisations such as the AU and EU, which are concerned with deeper and broader integration of their respective peoples, could certainly use social media successfully to that effect by creating online public spheres. Through interactivity, engagement and transparent communications these organisations can create and participate in substantial online discussions with their citizens and thereby enhance their democracy. This study took the first step toward examining the extent to which these organisations do engage in

interactive, engaging and transparent online communication on their Twitter pages.

Through a content analysis of tweets from AU and EU commissions, I examined the presence of these elements in their Twitter communications. The results were somewhat mixed. For example, while these organisations used Twitter’s interactive tools (use of replies, mentions, retweets and hashtags), their overall interactivity was low (less than 40 % of tweets). The level of engagement was even much lower. The organisations did not seem to

24

pose many questions/discussions, requests for feedback or calls to action. Based on the content analysed, it is safe to say that these organisations use Twitter more like a one-way communication channel, sending out information on their activities rather than engaging and interacting with their followers. This is similar to previous findings on non-profit

organisations’ and politicians’ use of Twitter (Strauss et al., 2015; Golbeck et., al, 2010; Graham et., al, 2013).

On the other hand, both organisations are relatively transparent in their Twitter communications (although the AU is comparatively less transparent). The maintenance of a brief bio, existence of a logo and live link to the official websites for both organisations and a verified Twitter account and the presence of a social media team for the EU is sufficient information for open and authentic communications (Strauss et al., 2015; Twitter Inc., 2016). Thus this finding corresponds to previous results that found Western embassies in the Gulf Cooperation Council are transparent in their communications on Twitter (Strauss et al., 2015).

On image building, I found that both organisations use Twitter to boost their public image. The use of communications for image building known as branding in corporate communications is a common phenomenon (Gwinner & Eaton, 2013). Given that these organisations represent their respective regions globally and present themselves to their citizens, it is essential that they polish their images for favourable public evaluation. Similarly, on trust building both organisations tend to build the publics’ trust in them and what they stand for. It seems that these tactics are emphasized more clearly by both organisations than interactivity, engagement and transparency. From the results the AU is more focused on trust building than the EU. This is probably because the AU is still in its formation stage and constitutes a number of fragile states. The AU also deal with more conflict-related issues given that some of its members are still in conflict or have emerged

25

from conflict recently. Unfortunately, it is not easy to compare this finding to previous research since this is among the earliest studies in this regard. Thus this project has added new dimensions to researching transnational organisations use of Twitter and challenges future researchers to substantiate or refute the findings and build on the theoretical framework used.

The low level of interactivity and engagement with users on Twitter can be

interpreted as lack of priority on the side of these organisations. This is in line with the notion that interacting on social media is a waste of resources for businesses by some analysts (Cespedes, 2015), who would rather invest more in traditional one-way communications. Lack of time, ignorance of the value of engagement and interactivity, inability and or general reluctance to fully utilise communications on social media (Lovejoy et al., 2012) are all part of the bulk of reasons for low interactivity and engagement on social media. Public opinion is recognised as key in democratic and good governance (Bauhr, Charron & Nasiritousi, 2013). In the European Union, public opinion studies have shown that the mainstream media affect public opinion (Lecheler & de Vreese, 2012), public attitudes toward EU enlargement are influenced by exposure to mass media (Maier & Rittberger, 2008). Popular opinion in the EU has declined over the years with an increase in the perception that things are headed “in the wrong direction” (Eurobarometer, 2015, p.83). This probably explains why the EU is focusing more on image building rather than trust building. As for the AU there is

considerable public trust in the continental organisation among the youth (Dhlamini, 2015). Support for the AU is mostly based on its success in peace-keeping and conflict resolution around the continent but critics dismiss it for lack of progress over democratic governance, human rights, interstate trade and free movement of goods and service (Mannak, 2016). This connects to my finding that the AU is more concerned about cementing trust in the

26

EU but neither is significantly engaging or interactive in their social media communications in online public spheres. Thus, whereas both organisations interact with their followers and engage but to a lesser extent, there is no evidence that they successfully created and

participated in online public spheres.

The two organisations thus use Twitter at varied levels and apparently in different styles. The AU handle, opened in May 2010 is a month older than the EU’s, which was opened in June 2010. However, at the time of my data collection, (20th April 2016) the EU has accumulated over (500,000 followers and 20,000 tweets) 5 times the number of followers and tweets of the AU a little over (150,000 followers and 5,000 tweets). The EU handle also follows up to 1075 other users, is subscribed to 20 lists and has favourites of up to 3921 tweets while the AU handle only follows about 30 other users, is subscribed to 4 lists and has favourites of up to 1921 tweets. It is apparent therefore that the EU activities on Twitter outpace that of the AU even though the former joined the platform a month later than the latter. These differences can be attributed to the presence and absence of social media teams running these Twitter handles. The EU explicitly states on its handle’s page that it has a social media team while the AU is totally silent on the issue. Furthermore these organisations exist and operate in different cultural environments. For instance, majority of member states of the AU are former colonies of a number of member states of the EU. Significant funding gaps as well as infrastructural differences exist in both regions—about 70 % of the AU’s operational budget is donor funded. Similarly, Internet penetration in Africa (28.6%) is below the global average (46.4%) and significantly lower than it is in Europe (73.5%)2.

Both organisations should increase their level of interactivity and engagement with users to enhance their use of Twitter. Studies have shown that the use of interactive and engaging communications on social media leads to positive evaluation of organisations and

2

Internet usage and world population statistics as of November 30th 2015, available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/

27

politicians (Graham et al., 2013; Strauss et al., 2015). Thus effective engagement and

interactivity is essential for their image building. The AU on the other hand should also work toward the verification of its Twitter account and fix other transparency related issues, such as the absence or presence of a social media team.

Although this project has many insights and provided a number of nuances, it is not without limitations. The study examined only two Twitter accounts (one for the AU and another for the EU) despite the presence of a relatively large number of Twitter accounts associated with these organisations. These two accounts are run by the commissions of the organisations, and can arguably be highly reflective of what other organs/institutions and officials of the organisations are doing on Twitter. But future researchers should include as many Twitter accounts as possible from both organisations so as to provide more insights into the general use of Twitter by these transnational organisations based on the same or similar theoretical framework established by this project.

Second, since this study focused on the selected organisations’ Twitter use to create public spheres, it did not account for the response of the followers to these efforts. Similarly, as a result of the exploratory and descriptive nature of the project, it did not take into account the consequence of social media use by these transnational organisations. The project only described (comparatively) these organisations’ use of social media (Twitter) in creating and participating in online public spheres. And since the successful creation of an online public sphere is also dependent on the willingness of other users to participate, it will be wise to examine large user-based networks to assess patterns of interaction and engagement where they exist. Furthermore, such a study can examine the attitudes of other users to these transnational organisations’ use of Twitter.

Third, this project’s conclusions are based on data collected from a three-month period without any emergency experienced by either organisation, thereby skewing regular

28

tweeting patterns where they existed. This has its advantages, but this period may have been influenced by other factors that I could not establish (i.e. internal politics at the organisational level; cost restructuring, staffing and other administrative issues). Therefore, I will

recommend a replication of this project using a different timeframe.

Conclusion

It is now an established fact that social media are becoming an integral part of our regular communication systems. In fact the substantial presence of the AU and EU on Twitter is a silent testimony to the increasing use of social media as serious channels of

communications. As shown in this study, the EU is a more avid and a better user of Twitter than the AU, by the standards of interactivity, engagement and transparency. Both

organisations however, have not fully harnessed the potentials of social media

communications. There is clearly the need to focus more on two-way communications in order to complement the traditional one-way messaging style.

Transnational organisations (AU and EU) should realise that establishing and

maintaining engagement and interactive communications on social media has the potential to enhance their democratic credentials and decision making process. The findings of this project are encouraging in the sense that these organisations are making efforts, albeit at a relatively low-level, to interact with and engage their users. It is desirable that these organisations strengthen this in order to fully harness the potential of their Twitter communications for online public spheres.

The AU and EU are key players in international politics with up to two members of the EU as part of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Both organisations are also actively involved in conflict resolution around the world. Their choices and decisions can and do impact the lives of people within and outside their regions. This

29

makes their democratic engagement all the more relevant. And in a situation where

mainstream media is so divided, the use of popular social media tools such as Twitter is one sure way of reaching larger and possibly more diverse populations.

30

Reference

Alam, L., & Lucas, R. (2011). Tweeting Government: A Case of Australian Government Use of Twitter. 2011 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and

Secure Computing.

Ariel, Y., & Avidar, R. (2015, February). Information, Interactivity, and Social Media. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 19-30.

doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.972404

Aris, S., & Wenger, A. (Eds.). (2014). Regional Organisations and Security: Conceptions

and practices (1st ed.). London/New York, NYC: Routledge.

Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. C. (2011). Understanding Institutional-based Trust Building Processes in Inter-organizational Relationships. Organization Studies,32(2), 281-301. doi:10.1177/0170840610397477

Baek, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Carpini, M. X. (2011). Online versus face-to-face

deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society, 14(3), 363-383. doi:10.1177/1461444811413191

Bauhr, M., Charron, N., & Nasiritousi, N. (2013). Does Corruption Cause Aid Fatigue? Public Opinion and the Aid-Corruption Paradox 1. Int Stud Q International Studies

Quarterly, 57(3), 568-579. doi:10.1111/isqu.12025

Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2011). The 2008 Presidential Primaries and Differential Effects of ‘The Daily Show’ and ‘The Colbert Report’ on Young Adults.Midsouth Political

Science Review, 12, 87-102.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly,

31

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 Bohman, J. (2004). Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy. The Sociological Review, 52, 131-155. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2004.00477.x

Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R., Elenbaas, M., & Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European

Union Politics, 12(2), 241-266. doi:10.1177/1465116510395411

Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Info Mgmt Aslib Journal of Information

Management, 66(3), 262-278. doi:10.1108/ajim-09-2013-0094

Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2013). The Arab Spring and Social Media Audiences: English and Arabic Twitter Users and Their Networks. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 871-898.

Bruns, A. (2012). How Long Is A Tweet? Mapping Dynamic Conversation Networks On Twitter Using Gawk And Gephi. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1323-1351. Bruns, A., (2012) Journalists and Twitter : how Australian news organisations adapt to a new

medium. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 144, 97-107.

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2012) Notes towards the Scientific Study of Public Communication on Twitter. Keynote presented at the Conference on Science and the Internet, Düsseldorf, 4 Aug. 2012.

Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Twitter and Society (Vol. 89, Peter Lang Media and Communication, pp. 15-28). New York, 10005: Peter Lang.

32

Cameron, F. (2010, September). The European Union as a Model for Regional Integration.

Council on Foreign Relations.

doi:http://www.cfr.org/world/european-union-model-regional-integration/p22935

Cantijoch, M., Cutts, D., & Gibson, R. (2015). Moving Slowly up the Ladder of Political Engagement: A ‘Spill-over’ Model of Internet Participation. The British Journal of Politics &

International Relations, 1-23. doi:10.1111/1467-856x.12067

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.

International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.

Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication

Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 616(1), 78-93. doi:10.1177/0002716207311877

Chang, M. K., Cheung, W., & Tang, M. (2013). Building trust online: Interactions among trust building mechanisms. Information & Management, 50(7), 439-445.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.06.003

Cho, S. E., & Park, H. W. (2011). Government organizations’ innovative use of the Internet: The case of the Twitter activity of South Korea’s Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Scientometrics, 90(1), 9-23.

Coleman, S. (2004). Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet.Information,

Communication & Society, 7(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/1369118042000208870

Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2013). Twitter Use by Presidential Primary Candidates During the 2012 Campaign. American Behavioral Scientist,57(11), 1596-1610.

Crum, B., & Fossum, J. E. (2009). The Multilevel Parliamentary Field: A framework for theorizing representative democracy in the EU. Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev. European Political

33

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.

doi:10.1080/10584600590933160

Davis, A. (2009). Evaluating Communication in the British Parliamentary Public Sphere.

British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11(2), 280-297.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-856x.2008.00344.x

Dhlamini, P. H. (2015, September). Public Opinion Poll: Youth & The African Union (Rep.). Retrieved http://www.ityafrica.net/2015/10/public-opinion-poll-youth-african-union.html Dubbink, W., Graafland, J., & Liedekerke, L. V. (2008). CSR, Transparency and the Role of Intermediate Organisations. J Bus Ethics Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 391-406.

doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9893-y

Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and

Public Diplomacy Place Branding, 6(2), 97-103. doi:10.1057/pb.2010.16

Feldman, M. R. (2008). Problems Plaguing the African Union Peacekeeping Forces. Defense

& Security Analysis, 24(3), 267-279. doi:10.1080/14751790802321388

Follesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies JCMS: J Common

Market Studies, 44(3), 533-562. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.x

Gaffney, D. (2010, March). Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line. InProceedings of the

WebSci10. Retrieved January, 2016, from http://journal.webscience.org/

Geldenhuys, D. (2014). The African Union, Responsible Sovereignty and Contested States.

Global Responsibility to Protect, 6(3), 350-374. doi:10.1163/1875984x-00603005

Gerhards, J., & Schafer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143-160.

34

Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. J. Am.

Soc. Inf. Sci. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8),

1612-1621. doi:10.1002/asi.21344

Goodman, K. (2014). How Transparency is Becoming the New Currency in Business. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from http://www.findtheedge.com/marketing/how-transparency-is-becoming-the-new-currency-in-business

Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians' use of the Social Network Tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579-604. doi:10.1080/10361146.2010.517176

Gurman, T. A., & Ellenberger, N. (2015). Reaching the Global Community During Disasters: Findings From a Content Analysis of the Organizational Use of Twitter After the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Journal of Health Communication,20(6), 687-696.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a

category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heaton, J. (2011, November 20). The Difference Between Marketing and Branding. Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://www.tronviggroup.com/the-difference-between-marketing-and-branding/

Hong, S., & Nadler, D. (2011). Does the early bird move the polls? Proceedings of the 12th

Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times - Dg.o '11.

Huberman, B., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1).

Ikufor, P. (2011). “Elections” or “Selections”? Blogging and Twittering the Nigerian 2007 General Elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 398-414.

35

Jungherr, A., Schoen, H., Posegga, O., & Ju Rgens, P. (2016). Digital Trace Data in the Study of Public Opinion: An Indicator of Attention Toward Politics Rather Than Political

Support. Social Science Computer Review. doi:10.1177/0894439316631043

Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2012). Digital Media Shapes Youth Participation in Politics. Phi

Delta Kappan, 94(3), 52-56. doi:10.1177/003172171209400312

Karantzeni, D., & Gouscos, D. G. (2013). EParticipation in the EU. Transforming

Government Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(4), 477-500.

doi:10.1108/tg-01-2013-0003

Kaur, T. (2013, February). ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN BUILDING IMAGE OF AN ORGANIZATION AS A GREAT PLACE TO WORK. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las

Vegas, 20(1), 546-553.

Kellner, D. (2014). Habermas, The Public Sphere, and Democracy. Re-Imagining Public

Space, 1-17. doi:10.1057/9781137373311.0005

Kies, R. (2010). Promises and limits of Web-deliberation (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kimenyi, M. S. (2015). AN AFRICAN UNION FOR AN EMERGING CONTINENT:

REFORMS TO INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS [Scholarly project]. In The Brookings Institution. Retrieved March, 2016, from

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/01/foresight africa/foresight africa full report FINAL.pdf#page=30

Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131-139.

Kruikemeier, S., Noort, G. V., Vliegenthart, R., & Vreese, C. H. (2013). Unraveling the effects of active and passive forms of political Internet use: Does it affect citizens' political involvement? New Media & Society, 16(6), 903-920. doi:10.1177/1461444813495163

36

Lecheler, S., & Vreese, C. H. (2012). News Framing and Public Opinion: A Mediation Analysis of Framing Effects on Political Attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly, 89(2), 185-204. doi:10.1177/1077699011430064

Lee, E., & Kim, Y. W. (2014). How social is Twitter use? Affiliative tendency and communication competence as predictors. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 296-305. Levitt, J. I. (2009). Conflict Prevention, Management, and Resolution: Africa — Regional Strategies for the Prevention of Displacement and Protection of Displaced Persons: The Cases of the OAU, ECOWAS, SADC, and IGAD. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal.

Livingstone, S. (2009) Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society,

17(2), 143-150. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.871571

Mangala, J. (2013). Africa and the European Union: A strategic partnership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maier, J., & Rittberger, B. (2008). Shifting Europe's Boundaries: Mass Media, Public Opinion and the Enlargement of the EU. European Union Politics, 9(2), 243-267. doi:10.1177/1465116508089087

Mannak, M. (2016, February 10). News & comment on global public financial management. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from

http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/feature/2016/02/african-union-turns-15-what-has-it-meant-continent

Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C. (2010). Twitter under crisis. Proceedings of the

First Workshop on Social Media Analytics - SOMA '10. doi:10.1145/1964858.1964869

Mergel, I. (2013). Social media in the public sector: A guide to participation, collaboration,