• No results found

POLITICIANS AND USERS’ ENGAGEMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS DURING THE ECONOMICO-POLITICAL CRISIS IN GREECE

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "POLITICIANS AND USERS’ ENGAGEMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS DURING THE ECONOMICO-POLITICAL CRISIS IN GREECE"

Copied!
83
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

POLITICIANS AND USERS’ ENGAGEMENT

ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE ROLE OF

JOURNALISTS DURING THE

ECONOMICO-POLITICAL CRISIS IN GREECE

A Thesis Submitted to the MA Programme «New Media & Digital Culture» of

University of Amsterdam

Supervisor

Thomas Poell

Second Reader

Lonneke van der Velden

(2)

Table of Contents

Abstract Key Words

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Problem discussion and research objective

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Promises about two way political communication of social media platforms 2.2 Politicians and social media platforms

2.3 The use of social media by citizens 2.4 Journalists and social media platforms 2.5 Conclusion

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Methodology design

1. Semi-structured interviews

2. Identifying characteristics of Interviewees 3. Data collection through Netvizz

Chapter 4: Politicians

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The importance of social media platforms for politicians 4.3 Limitations and facilitations of social media platforms 4.4 Provoking feedback: Social Media for reactive politics 4.5 Social media during a period of a crisis

4.6 The problematic use of social media by Greek politicians

Chapter 5: Users 5.1 Introduction

(3)

5.2 Social media and the crisis

5.3 Users’ engagement with politicians’ accounts

5.4 The online model of political communication in Greece and the reasons affecting interactivity on social media.

Chapter 6: Journalists 6.1 Introduction

6.2 Increasing use of social media by journalists in response to crisis 6.3 The role of Greek journalists in the context of social media platforms 6.4 Journalists’ viewpoint over the online interaction between politicians and

citizens

Chapter 7: Conclusions

References Notes Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample of interviews

(4)

Abstract

This thesis examines the engagement of politicians with citizens on social media in the context of the Greek crisis; this engagement constitutes the foundation and cornerstone of a modern political environment. In the context of this new online environment where all the different groups acquire new roles, the role of journalists is thoroughly analyzed.

The economic crisis has afflicted the democratic institutions and therefore has affected politics and mainstream media. The relationships of citizens with politicians have become worse with the crisis and simultaneously mainstream media have lost their renown, while on the other hand, social media have turned out to be a useful tool for political communication. The investigation examines the viewpoint of some Greek politicians, citizens and journalists, who actively participate in social media. Moreover data from politicians’ online accounts are analyzed, providing a more global estimation of the existing situation. The investigation concludes that the existing economic, political and institutional crisis brings about challenges in the online interaction between politicians and citizens, while it affects significantly the online role of journalists.

Keywords: Mainstream media, Social Media Platforms, Economico-Political Crisis,

(5)

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem discussion and research objective

In December 2009, the issue of the ‘Greek debt crisis’ made its appearance and started dominating media and politics, both domestically and internationally (Nikolopoulos, 2009). However, even before the outbreak of this crisis, the financial and social conditions of the country had already begun to create distrust towards national institutions (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). Subsequently, during the escalation and the peak of the economic crisis, institutional distrust became even more intense, affecting and involving many sectors of the society; the political system and the mainstream media were certainly two of these.

To begin, it is of note that the Greek political landscape is characterized by political cynicism1 and a disapproval of the civilian staff, which are seen as corrupted by the Greeks (Marantzidis, 2016). As time progresses, the prolonged recession and non-static stances of politicians governing the country during the economic crisis, increase this cynicism (Marantzidis, 2016). A current research shows that feelings like anger, dislike, and emotional detachment toward politicians are prevalent in Greek society (Marantzidis, 2016). Almost 55% of Greek citizens feel anger and oppose the members of the parliament, while only 11% respect them (Marantzidis, 2016).

Meanwhile, mainstream media had to face two major problems: the economic downturn and the mistrust of their once loyal audience (Pleios, 2013). More specifically, the number of TV channels, newspapers and radio stations was reduced due to the economic problems of the entire country, followed by the crisis of the national advertising sector. The expenses on advertising, which used to be the principal stabilizer of the mainstream media in general and television channels specifically, decreased by 1.525.387.000 euros between 2008 and 2012 (Sideris, 2013). The decrease in revenue led to staff reductions; which in turns led to a limitation of the newspapers’ content and television/radio programs. The shutdown of one of the biggest Greek newspapers “Eleftheros Tipos” and of the radio station “City 99.5”, marked the beginning of this decrease (Sideris, 2013). This was followed by the shutdown of fourteen newspapers based in the two largest Greek cities, Athens and Thessaloniki, the shutdown of one TV channel, two magazines with great brand awareness and four radio stations. At the same time, the dependence of mainstream media on the financial system and political Greek authority reached its peak after the outbreak of the crisis (Pleios, 2013). Additionally, mainstream media’s

(6)

pro-government stance and their support to the economic elites created a huge gap between their content and the real needs of the Greek society (Marantzidis, 2016). As a consequence, Greek citizens opposed mainstream media; this led to a significant reduction in the amount of impact media held, as well as an arousal of dispute over their credibility (Sideris, 2013). More specifically, Greek citizens express 80% mistrust in Greek television (Europe’s average is 47%), 65% mistrust in Greek newspapers (Europe’s average is 50%) and 61% mistrust in Greek radio (Europe’s average is 36%) (Kassimi, 2016). It is notable that the average mistrust towards mainstream media is higher than in any other European country.

These developments have substantially contributed to a transformation in the dynamics of Greek political communication. A large portion of the Greek population turned away from the ‘impaired’ mainstream media and embraced Internet and social media; these seem to incorporate all forms of mainstream media (web radio, web TV, online newspapers) while at the same time allow real time communication (Ausserhofer and Maireder, 2013, 292). The use of social media platforms by Greek politicians, journalists and citizens is also increasing rapidly (ELSTAT2 qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). Politicians started using them extensively and for many different reasons; to support their electoral campaign, to communicate, to promote themselves, to spread information and generally as part of their political marketing strategies (Danou, 2016). Given that mainstream media have lost their prestige, politicians are trying to find different ways to reach out voters (Pleios qtd. by Kalyviotou, 2013). As social media platforms have managed to gather people from many different demographics, they could be recognized as the ideal forum for contact. The intense use of social platforms by politicians, journalists, and citizens, in the light of the economic and political crisis, raises questions regarding the changing nature of political communication and the character of interaction between the three types of actors.

It has been suggested that rise of social media, changes the model of political communication (Bruns 2008, Jenkins 2005, Shirky 2008). The idea is that political communication has turned from one-way traffic through mainstream media, to two-way communication between politicians and citizens through social media. This is what this thesis aims to research and critically examine: this new model of political communication and its effectiveness.

(7)

In addition, the use of social media platforms by politicians and citizens creates new sources of information for journalists. This information can then be examined to determine how journalists in mainstream media are coping with this transition in the media landscape, and how they are relating to the interaction between politicians and citizens. Journalists’ opinions regarding the interaction between politicians and citizens on social media are crucial, because they are professional intermediaries between the political sphere and the average civilian.

In general, social media are really widespread in Greece (ELSTAT qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). The typical use of them appears to not differ from the other European countries (Sidebar monitor, 2016). Nonetheless, Greece is currently the country with the most important economic problems in the Euro zone, and as a consequence, seems to face more difficulties that affect politicians, users, journalists and the way they interact with one another. Pleios (qtd by HuffPost Greece, 2016) claims that neoliberal social policy along with the crisis cause harm to mainstream media while increasing the use of social media. He also argues that the Internet benefits from the crisis since it provides people with ‘substitutes’ (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016). These ‘consuming substitutes products’ are allies of the social state, against the crisis (Pleios qtd. by HuffPost Greece, 2016).

Questions in this field have become prevalent because they are rather understudied. Most of the research on social media and political communication has focused on ‘normal electoral politics’, so relatively little is known about how the dynamic of political communication changes when a political system is in crisis. As the discussion on the Greek crisis already indicated, in times of crisis there appears to be an additional incentive to take up social media for political communication. For that reason, this research will pose the research question: How do Greek politicians interact

with citizens through social media platforms during the economic and political crisis and how has this influenced the role of journalists? This will be answered, in part, by analyzing

the use of social media platforms by politicians, citizens and journalists. Interviews with these three types of actors and data from politicians’ accounts will help to provide further insight into the evolving social media practices and routines of politicians, citizens, and journalists. Ultimately, the aim is to contribute to a better understanding of political communication on social media during periods of economic and political crisis.

(8)

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Promises about two way political communication of social media platforms

Over the past years, a lot of research has been done on the relationship between politicians, citizens, and journalists on social platforms. The following figure, which visualizes the two core models of political communication, depicts how scholars have examined and reflected on these relations.

Figure 1

Models of political communication

Complied by the author

Research show that mainstream media very much shaped political communication throughout the 20th century (Newton, 2006, 211-213). Before the appearance of social media, politicians informed citizens through mainstream journalists and to a smaller extent the other way around (Newton, 2006, 211-213). As it can be seen in model 1 (Figure 1), there is a one-way channel of communication; either the message comes from politicians, or from citizens. The traditional way that the message was transferred changed in the beginning of the 2000’s as Web 2.0 appeared leading to the emergence of social media (O’Reilly, 2005). According to Schwartz (2015), social media platforms became highly political spaces (2). In those platforms politicians, journalists and citizens are both ‘media actors’ and ‘media sources’ communicating political messages, and mainstream journalists no longer have a monopoly over public information (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 3).

As it is depicted in Figure 1, online communication seems to follow a different logic from the traditional offline political communication. Social media platforms

(9)

potentially provide all actors (politicians, journalists/professionals, citizens) with a two-way channel of communication (individuals can both distribute and receive political messages). Consequently, that forms an interaction in a variety of exchanges and ties (Papacharissi qtd. by Sormanen & Dutton, 2015, 208). Also, Nilsson and Carlsson (2013) maintain that “nowadays people are not passive consumers of traditional media” since their participation on online platforms makes them more active citizens (656). But, are citizens really becoming active as participants in political communication and if so, does this mean that they are in active debate with politicians? Also, how this would apply in the Greek context?

Social media give equal opportunities to all social groups (from a member of the State, to citizens) to communicate their message directly. Besides this, the engagement of the users could be accomplished without the addition of mediators (Schwartz, 2015, 1). Sander Schwartz (2015) insists that online platforms are a way to avoid the mainstream media gatekeepers (1). These claims show that social media probably work differently; instead of being only the mediator of the discussion, like journalists on mainstream media, they could be part of the interaction, helping the production of a discussion. All these traits potentially distinguish how social and traditional media work. There are researches which confirm that social media “engage citizen-users in new forms of multi-communication practices relating to both news journalists and politicians” (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 11); and also prove that there is an interaction between citizens and politicians (Vaccari et al., 2015, 222). On the contrary, there are several researches that refuse this engagement and this two-way communication in general, for a variety of reasons (Golbeck et al. 2010; Waters and Williams 2011; Vergeer et al. 2011). For instance, one reason is because politicians use social media to ‘’broadcast’’ their message more than engage with the other users (Waters and Williams, 2011, 354). Thus, even if social media platforms provide the opportunity of interaction, it is under review whether users take advantage of this ability.

Finally, according to scholars the appearance of social media also influences mainstream media journalism in a variety of ways. For example, since information is often transferred from mainstream media to social media and vice versa, the interconnection between politicians and journalists is extraordinarily complex (Ekmas and Widholm, 2014, 1). Ekmas and Widholm (2014) claim that mainstream journalists must adapt their professional practice through including social media in their communications (1). This is because social media are an easy source for

(10)

mainstream media to gather political statements and public opinion (Schwartz, 2015, 1). But are these statements applicable to the Greek case? In what way social media are used by Greek actors and how social media could influence the problematic mainstream media? All these aspects will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

Meanwhile, George Pleios (HuffPost Greece, 2016) maintains that social media’s facilitation of asynchronous communication, and its global reach, occasionally make online platforms more popular tools than mainstream media. It should be clarified that the mainstream media model is still used by many people, however with the addition of the social media model there is a perceivable difference between the importance and usage of the social media model and the traditional model of communication. Ekmas and Widholm (2014) confirm this state, characterizing social media as dynamic and ever-evolving tools that remain very different from the mainstream media (4). In any case, it could be interesting to investigate in what way the new online model of political communication operates under a specific context. As a first step, the approaches of several researchers regarding the use of online platforms by politicians will be discussed.

2.2 Politicians and social media platforms

Scholars agree that the social media have revitalized political life based on various criteria, such as the accessibility of information on political issues, facilitation of the development of political debates, challenges to opponents, creation of social networks and provision of a space for political expression and participation. Gibson (2004) claims that social media platforms are spaces offering favorable conditions of contact and communication, as they enable direct dialogue between politicians and citizens, and horizontal two-way communication (98).

However, as time goes by it is becoming clear that even if the conditions online are suitable there are a number of factors that could possibly limit this contact. The aggressive language that citizens can use online, or the limited readiness of them, to create a productive dialogue with politicians are probably two of these restrictions. Also, according to Bruns and Highfield (2013) some politicians do not self-manage their accounts (672). This fact has two possible explanations: the first one is that politicians have no free time to regularly use their accounts, and the second one is that they do not use their accounts because they find it difficult to manage them. The

(11)

general problem, in the case that politicians do not control their accounts, is that the engagement between them and their followers/friends is not feasible. Politicians do not really engage with the other actors even if there is interaction on their accounts. The question arising is; whether the Greek politicians manage their own accounts or not, and in such case how this could affect their engagement with the other users. Is this practice actually restricting the participation and interaction through their accounts?

However, even if politicians are not the authors or publishers of their upload, according to Nilsson and Carlsson (2013), over the last years they have understood the importance of having a presence on online platforms. For example, they have realized that participation on online platforms has become a part of the political competition (Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013, 668). On the other hand, regarding Skovsgaard and Van Dalen’s idea (2013) there is one more explanation counter to this assertion. They claim that the regular use of social media platforms by politicians is not their highest priority since they are only a small part of a campaign (Skovsgaard and Van Dalen, 2013, 740). These different claims show that the strategy of each political actor regarding the use of social media probably differs and conforms to the circumstances. Schwartz (2015) in his article explains that politicians in most Western countries are facing a crisis of support. This fact highlights the necessity for political actors to follow new political marketing strategies in order to reconnect with citizens and increase their popularity (Schwartz, 2015, 1). Thus, in relation to Schwartz’s perception, politicians use politically active spaces such as Facebook and Twitter, trying to form an engagement between voters via critical public debates (Schwartz, 2015, 1). On the contrary, Ausserhofer and Maireder (2013) maintain that several research studies have shown that politicians use social media mainly for self-promotion, campaigning, dissemination of information, and do not pursue to communicate with the users (243). Grant et al. (2010) proved that both Australian and English politicians used Twitter for spreading messages without engaging in conversation, while Dutch politicians were more likely to interact and engage in debates on Twitter (602). The different appraisals regarding the way that politicians approach social media show that there is no common way that politicians act on social media. Their attitude probably contains various aspects like the political system, or the existing political situation of the country they live, potentially the relationship of politicians with citizens, or the intentions of politicians, and so on. In any case, it is intriguing to further examine in the following chapters, how

(12)

comparable these research results are to Greek politicians who have problematic relations with citizens and struggle to gain support through mainstream media. Lastly, Andrejevic (qtd. by Nilsson & Carlsson 2016) claims that politicians do not only use social media platforms to improve their marketing strategies, but they also use them in order to keep under surveillance their potential voters, collecting and monitoring data through the accounts (656). However, that intention requires an active participation by both politicians and users; otherwise the data collection or in other words the surveillance is not achievable. But do Greek politicians keep under surveillance their possible voters and if so, in what way this affects their attitude on social media platforms?

All these findings have inspired this research and have created concerns culminating in the development of the first sub-question: For what reason and in what way Greek

politicians use social media platforms?

As the issue under investigation in this thesis is multifaceted, it is important to examine the political use of social media and the interaction between voters and politicians from the side of citizens as well.

2.3 The use of social media by citizens

Vaccari et al. through their research found out that the ability of users to express political opinions and learn political news, makes online platforms welcoming environments to political actions (2015, 222). On the other hand many researchers have expressed the belief that social media made the voice of marginalized groups heard in a wider social context (Lanlois et al qtd. by Nilsson and Carlsson, 2013, 656). In recent years, only young people, urban and high-income groups used social media for politically-related reasons (Klinger, 2013, 719). However, the circumstances have changed and now social media have become widespread and regularly used by every sector of society (Klinger, 2013, 719). Despite this, the perception that social media are used by everyone is probably not widely known. In general, the sort of people who use social media may influence the way that politicians approach social media and consequently the interactivity that exists on the online environment. For instance, if politicians still believe that social media are platforms used mainly by young people, urban and high-income groups, it is reasonable to build their strategy conforming to that. It remains interesting to look at who uses social media in Greece

(13)

and if that affects the way politicians manage their online accounts and consequently the way citizens react.

Another interesting topic to be further discussed in the context of this research is the engagement of citizens with other online actors and the elements that influence this engagement. Schwartz (2015) states that Facebook has an interactive nature that allows citizens to engage with politicians (1). In addition, Ausserhofer and Maireder’s investigation concerning Twitter shows that even if this platform is used by established actors like politicians and journalists, it also facilitates interaction between them and ‘ordinary’ citizens (2013, 310). They highlight that Twitter gives citizens more chances to be involved in political discussions (Ausserhofer and Maireder’s, 2013, 310). Nevertheless, there are several researches which prove that the technical features of Twitter pose difficulties for sharing considerations and thoughts on a topic in a complete form (Bruns and Highfield, 2013, 671). The 140-character restrictions potentially limit the interaction, and in consequence, decrease the engagement (Bruns and Highfield, 2013, 671). At the same time, Ekmas and Hermida (2014) claim that the transparency of online communication between politicians and journalists contribute to a more active and permanent engagement of the audience (11). They explain that almost everything is visible to the people and for that reason they have the opportunity to contribute to the news’ production in new ways (Ekmas & Hermida’s, 2014, 11). However, this assertion arises doubts. Isn’t it possible that this high transparency will rise negative, unwanted results? Why, for example, does online contract between politicians and journalists facilitate people engagement rather than acting as a constraint? Does the content of the discussion affect the engagement of citizens or the features of the various platforms are the only determining factors? Studies show that it is also possible both the features and the content contribute to the development of a discussion. In relation to Nilsson and Carlsson’s concept the ‘bad’ language that citizens use does not encourage a deeper democratic conversation (2013, 656). This view is a realistic justification for the often-limited interaction. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the extended discussion and high levels of interaction can be justified by both the characteristics of the medium and the content of the topic of the discussion. A common reason that makes online platforms more popular among the people is their great speed. More specifically, a large number of comments on a tweet/post in a few seconds may alter the content of the debate while destroying the flow of the conversation. Also, according to Schwartz, many comments “fall into the category of verbal likes”;

(14)

typical examples of these type of comments are, “We believe in you.”, “Good luck with the campaign”(2015, 5). These comments aim more to express an approval or agreement with an action, rather than to encourage a discussion.

Overall, the assumption that follows the above beliefs is that the accomplishment of interactive communication and the creation of a stronger attachment between citizens and politicians depend on multiple actors and factors that are not necessarily related to user’s online attitude. In general, engagement seems to be related with the way that each person approaches and perceives social media, the reason of the use, as well as the characteristics of each platform. All these considerations develop the following two sub-questions which are: Do citizens use social media to communicate with

politicians in Greece? and How do the features of the platforms and the way that politicians use the platforms affect citizens’ reaction?

As it was mentioned above, after politicians and citizens, the third social group that is considered to play a significant role in the process of online political communication is journalists. In the next and last part of this chapter, their role in the online environment is presented through the analysis of the opinions of several researchers.

2.4 Journalists and social media platforms

It is a fact that information nowadays is not only provided through mainstream media, but also through social media. The public service of journalists has changed this course; this new tactic is evolving and turning into a completely new form of journalism (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 12). The main difference now is that journalists are not necessarily the mediators of the message on this online environment, as politicians and citizens convey their message directly to each other (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 14). Ekmas and Hermida (2014) argue that, nowadays, journalists are satisfied with “headlining and choice of angle” on social media rather than fact checking or investigative reposting (3). Although, there are several reasons that make journalists keep in touch with other participants on social media. For instance, since politicians use social media platforms as an official part of their political strategy, it makes sense that journalists follow them and take advantage of the information they provide online. As Ekman and Widholm (2014) claim, journalists ought to draw information about politicians from a multimodal communication environment and do not rely only on mainstream media (1).

(15)

Furthermore, Larsson and Moe (2012) claim that, politicians from their side try to keep a relationship with the new media professionals, with the purpose of influencing them (733) and communicating their agenda (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 2). In general, the relationship between politicians and journalists seems to remain close, even within the new political online space. It is inevitable, especially for political journalists, to be in close contact with politicians and political institutions since they remain the main source of their information (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 2). However, it is questionable what stance journalists should keep towards politicians’ on online platforms and if this position will eventually affect their work. As Ekmas and Hermida (2014) state, journalists should provide valid information, while keeping a distance and remaining independent from the individuals and affairs (4). Nevertheless, their investigation shows that the limits between the professional and personal updates, of journalists on Twitter accounts, are blurry and controversial (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 6). To reflect critically on this finding, it seems that the interactive character of social media platforms and the ability of journalists to participate actively (through comments, likes, shares, and so on) in environments that ‘host’ politicians, citizens and other journalists at the same time, sometimes confuses their work. According to Broersma and Graham, this confusion may also create further problems to journalists, injuring their relationships with their sources (for instance with politicians, business companies, non-governmental organizations and so on) (2013, 449). Ekmas and Hermida take as a fact that social media have altered the “dynamics between reporters and sources” (2014, 2). But in what way is this relationship formed or altered when politics are in a crisis?

Apart from the various results of journalists’ active presence in online platforms, the various reasons that make them use social media for professional reasons in the first place are also of great interest. One of the most common reasons is their effort to promote their personal work, or boost the publishers’/broadcasters’ image and profile (Ekmas and Hermida, 2014, 6). Also, the association of journalists with their sources seems to be one of the main reasons that journalists use the online platforms. Several researches show that journalists use social media to find and approach sources (Ahmad 2010; Hermida 2010; Broersma and Graham 2012). In relation to Marwick and Boyd’s opinion the interactive nature of social media platforms and the public debates that take place on them give to journalists the general interpretation of the issue that is discussed (2011, 142). Then journalists can get in touch with the relevant people, and either develop a further discussion with them or take their

(16)

statement and directly use it in an article (Broersma & Graham, 2013, 447). Although, what if there is no interaction or at least debates that provide useful information? How do journalists manage social media in that case?

In general, journalists’ role seems to have changed due to the appearance of social media in the landscape of political communication. Nowadays, they use social media as tools of their work, drawing on information and then promoting it both online and offline. It is interesting to examine what is their online position in a country where the institutions of mainstream media and politics face big problems. This train of thought has led to the development of the last sub-question that is: How do journalists

use social media messages of politicians and citizens’ in Greece, and how do they perceive the online behavior of these actors?

2.6 Conclusion

In recent years, a great majority of politicians, journalists, and citizens became active users of the social media platforms for a variety of reasons. Although there are plenty of investigations concerning the use of Web 2.0 and the interactions within it, Greece constitutes a special case because of its crisis and the difficulties of the current political climate. The discussion about the modern political communication landscape, and the four sub-questions that have been raised, assist to the development of a structured methodology that will provide the final results of this research.

(17)

METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction

Over the last few years, significant amount of research on social media and political communication has taken place. Some researchers focus on interaction, others on the debates between politicians and citizens and others on the communication between politicians and journalists. Also, some studies evaluate this relationship positively whilst others are more critical. However, almost all of these started from the assumption that social media are about interaction between politicians and citizens revolving around debates and exchanging messages. The aim of this study is to critically discuss that idea through an examination of Greece; an interesting case because it is a country in political crisis that is also experiencing a crisis in traditional media. The general assumptions that are prevalent in political and communication researches, should therefore also be seen in the Greek case. For this reason, four main steps will be followed: Firstly, exploration will be conducted into whether there is a real interaction between politicians and users on social media platforms. At this stage, the social media posts of politicians, citizens and journalists are an essential part of the research. Second is the examination of the ways in which politicians use their social media accounts to communicate with users. Thirdly, the research looks into the ways users respond to politicians. As a last step, this research investigates the journalists’ role in this new, complicated, online communicational landscape; it also focuses on their professional opinion about the role and the significance of each one of the key actors (politicians, citizens, journalists) in this online environment.

3.2 Methodology design 1. Semi-structured interviews

The main method that is used is semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted in Greece from 11th of March 2016 until the 25th of the same month. They were presented to three different key actors; politicians, citizens and journalists. The research includes twenty-eight interviews in total: seven politicians, six journalists and fifteen regular users. All the participants were selected due to their intense activity on their social media accounts. Key politicians from almost every political party of the Greek Parliament were interviewed to provide a thoroughly balanced data analysis. Politicians from the third elected far-right wing-party Golden Dawn could not be interviewed and the fifth elected communist wing-party KKE do not

(18)

participate on social media platforms at all3. In addition, the political convictions of the regular users who were interviewed are not taken into account since they were not able to be categorized.

It should be noted that interviews took place in a semi-structured form. Based on the research questions, specific sets of questions were developed for each type of actor but the interviews aimed to be open to new ideas and different approaches. In any interview, the research took into account the development of the conversation and the results of what the interviewees dictated. The interview schedule was designed to group questions thematically. The first seven questions were general questions while the remaining thirteen had more specific content. Each interview lasted 20-40 minutes and they were either face-to-face interviews or phone interviews that were dependant on the spare time of each interviewee. The language used during the interviews is the Greek language. Before launching the interviews it was important to test them on a small sample, in order to assure that the questions were correct and would provide reliable and valid data (Saunders et al., 2009). The results of the pilot test helped the researcher develop the final form of the questionnaire. For this reason two volunteers answered the three grouped categories of questions, providing feedback and making recommendations about both the structure and the content of the questions. The findings of these interviews are not included in this research. Lastly, the interviews were transcribed and the parts quoted in the research were translated. Interviews were the source of material for this research project.

2. Identifying characteristics of Interviewees

In this chapter, the name, the gender and the working position of politicians, users, and journalists will be determined as well as the age of regular users. Labeled below are the political parties that politicians are associated with. Regarding journalists’ working positions, their distinct political view is clearly stated through their professional work. In this research, journalists also act as the ‘observers’ of the existing interaction between various social media platforms; and their job title certifies the validity of the information they will give. The age of regular users crosses all age ranges in order to provide a more global point of view (2 users between 16-24 years old, 4 users between 25-34 years old, 2 users between 35-44, 3 users between 45-54 years old and 1 user between 65-75 years old).

(19)

To sum up, it should be mentioned that the twenty eight interviews were insightful and allowed useful information to be gathered for the purpose of this research. The interviewees seemed to keep an open mind regarding the questions asked during the one on one meetings in which the interviews were conducted.

The following subsections will include the full names, the job titles and gender of the seven politicians and six journalists as well as the full names, the job title and the gender of fifteen politically active users who participated in the interviews. The precise names and job titles will give a further understanding of the interviewees’ backgrounds. This particular aspect of the data will help to illustrate the implications of online communication between Greek politicians and users.

Politicians

Costas Zachariadis: Leader of the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA and member of

the Central Committee of SYRIZA, male

Dimitrios Papadimoulis: Vice-President of the European Parliament and member of

Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, male

George Kirtsos: Member of Group of the European People's Party (Christian

Democrats) in the European Parliament, Ex-director and editor of several newspapers,

male

Giannis Kallianos: Spokesman of the political party Enosis Kentroon in the Greek

Parliament, male

Giorgos Amiras: Athens B Electoral District and Spokesman of the political party

Potami in the Greek Parliament, male

Konstantinos Kyranakis: President, Youth of the European People's Party (EU

Commission). He has also worked as an advisor and speechwriter for the Minister of Interiors, and as a researcher in New Democracy’s Political Planning Department. He currently works as a Creative Partner in a New Media Agency focused on Digital Communication and Political Campaigning, male

Pavlos Christidis: Spokesman of the political party PASOK in Greek Parliament,

(20)

Politically active citizens

Avgi Voutsina: Manager of the sale’s section of a company, female Christos Karalias: Marketer and videographer of a web-magazine, male Christos Natsis: Candidate doctor of Sociology and editorial journalist, male Ellie Dilo: Law student, female

Giannis Kavakas: Hotel manager, male Ioannis Kakanis: Unemployed, male Kostas Anastassopoulos: Musician, male Manolis Eleftheriadis: Self-employed, male Mina Kostopoulou: Reporter, female Mixalis Kouvaras: Retiree, male

Natalia Katsimiga: Unemployed, female Sofia Labiki: Secondary school teacher, female Spiros Derveniotis: Comics artist, male

Valia Tsiblakaki: Musician, female Vasilis Klokotaras: Unemployed, male

Journalists

Giorgos Terzis: Political Editor at the newspaper I Kathimerini, male Kostas Arvanitis: Director of the Greek government’s radio station called

“KOKKINO”- a presenter of politically informative broadcasts at “KOKKINO”, male

Mitropoulou Marianna: Journalist for the print and online newspaper Patris, female Silas Serafim: Presenter of politically informative broadcasts at ERT S.A. HELLENIC

BROADCASTING CORPORATION, male

(21)

Vasilis Vasilopoulos: Web Content Manager at ERT S.A. HELLENIC

BROADCASTING CORPORATION and Teacher of Quality Assurance System at National Metsovio Polytechnic School, male

3. Data collection through Netvizz

The second part of the methodology which is a quantitative method4 was developed with the use of Netvizz. Netvizz is “a data collection and extraction application that allows researchers to export data in standard file formats from different sections of the Facebook social networking service” (Rieder, 2013, 346). It allows the researchers to analyze quantitative and qualitative data from groups, pages, and friendship networks (Rieder, 2013, 346). In this research Netvizz enables us to collect more specific data from the seven politicians that were interviewed. Since many of these politicians have more than one page on Facebook, I chose the account that is public or the account with most followers/friends, as these tend to host more interaction. The reason why data was collected from Facebook and not from another social media platforms, is the high percentage of Facebook use by Greek citizens (6.7 million accounts), while there are 650 thousand YouTube accounts, and 500 thousand Twitter accounts (Monitor5 qtd. by Kassimi, 2016). The fact that Facebook is the most commonly used platform by Greek citizens is not only proven by the percentages previously provided, but also from the answers of the politicians, regular users, and journalists that were interviewed. All of them claimed that the majority of the ‘ordinary’ citizens use Facebook as a platform of communication, whereas Twitter is a platform mainly used by politicians and journalists.

It is also important to mention the period in which the data was collected. In order to understand in more detail what kind of interaction exists between politicians and users, the researcher focused on a period when there is a lot of user activity, so that most interaction can be expected. Firstly, the researcher collected data from two different periods: from 1st of September to 31st of October 2015 (where the elections took place) and from 1st of February to 31st of March 2016 (a time period without any specific, significant event). While it could be interesting to focus also on periods that did not involve political elections and thus politicians would not have any specific reason to attract citizens’ attention, this paper will analyze the pre and post electoral periods. Also, it is worth mentioning at this point that after observing the collected data, became clear that there is no particular difference between these two periods.

(22)

For that reason, the pre-electoral and the post electoral period have been chosen; since the Greek elections took place on 20th of September 2015, it will be investigated during the period from 1st of September 2015 until 31st of October 2015.

The data that was used for this research was the number of the posts the politicians made per day, the number of the comments/likes/shares of users on these posts, and the content of the original posts of all politicians through a systematic observation of the collected data. Also, Dimitrios Papadimoulis was chosen to analyze the content of citizens’ comments on his posts, during the period of these two months. The content of citizens’ comments from every interviewed politician was not analyzed due to the enormous quantity. Instead, Papadimoulis was chosen as he is the most actively interviewed politician on social media platforms. The quantitative data analysis developed as follows: Firstly, the amount of posts by each politician for these two months was collected and calculated as an average. The same collection and calculations were used for the amount of likes, comments and shares of users for the reference period. These averages were put in a column graph (with the use of Microsoft Office Excel 2007) and are presented in the chapter “Limitations and facilitations of social media platforms” and “The online model of political communication in Greece and the reasons affecting interactivity on social media respectively”. Meanwhile, there is also a detailed investigation of some of the most and the least popular posts (as regards the number of likes, comments, shares), which is analyzed in detail in the section “The importance of social media platforms for politicians”. The structure of these steps will provide a better view of how the interviewed politicians use their platforms and in what way the other users react on that.

Furthermore, the researcher looked into the content of politicians’ posts and also the content of the comments of users on politicians’ posts. In order to achieve a systematic analysis the content was coded regarding the personal estimation of the researcher. For the content of politicians’ posts, the coding manual is: 1.information, 2.conversation, 3.promotion, 4.opposition. The categories were defined in order to ensure depth of explanation. After coding all the data, the numbers were categorized and with the use of Microsoft Office Excel 2007 I created a ring chart that is presented in the chapter “Journalists’ viewpoint over the online interaction between politicians and citizens”.

(23)

TABLE 1

Categories of politicians’ posts

CATEGORY DEFINITION

INFORMATION

Status, link, video that provides general information.

CONVERSATIONAL

Status that expresses personal position and shows an intention to communicate with users.

PROMOTION

Link, video, or photo of an interview or speech that promotes his personal position or the position of the party he represents.

OPPOSITION

Status, link, or video that criticizes or is

against the political position or perspective the politician or political party represents

Complied by the author

For the content of citizens’ comments on Dimitrios Papadimoulis’ posts, the same tactic was followed. However, the comments received a different coding manual since the reasons that politicians post and citizens comment are different. The categories identified were as follows: 1. criticism, 2. profanity/irony, 3. commendation, 4. conversational (with politicians), 5. reacting to citizens and 6. indifferent comments. Once all the comments were coded, again the numbers were transferred to Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and were converted to a ring chart that is discussed in the chapter “Social media during a period of a crisis”.

TABLE 2

Categories of citizens’ comments on Dimitrios Papadimoulis’ posts

GATEGORY DEFINITION

CRITICISM Negative commendation of a post.

PROFANITY/IRONY

Swear words, aggressive expressions or ironic answer to a post.

(24)

COMMENDATION

Positive comment or praise to the politician’s post and position in general.

CONVERSATIONAL (WITH POLITICIANS)

Comments that were addressed directly to the politician.

REACTING TO CITIZENS

Comments that reveal the intention of citizens to communicate with other users.

INDIFFERENT

Comments or ‘verbal likes’ that do not encourage a deeper discussion.

Complied by the author

Finally, it should be noticed that these data was used as a second source to add depth to the analysis. The purpose is to look into the number and content of the posts of politicians and examine how frequently and for what reason they use social media. Furthermore, the form of citizens’ reaction and the content of their comments will be discussed in order to understand the character of their interaction with politicians in the online environment. In that way it will have provided a clearer view of how frequently politicians and users interact on social media platforms but also for what reasons and in what way they communicate.

(25)

POLITICIANS 4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the way that politicians use their online accounts and how that influences the interaction they have with citizens. For that reason this chapter examines the nature of the political communication in light of the general crisis and in discussion with the literature that previously reported on this subject. The economic crisis created a general crisis of the democratic institutions of Greece (Marantzidis, 2016). Aside from the governance crisis, there has also been a crisis of the mainstream media. Both of them have affected the relationship that Greek politicians have with the journalists and the citizens. More specifically, the interviews of seven Greek politicians will be presented, using data from their Facebook accounts it is possible to allow for a better general assessment. The findings of the interviewed politicians, combined with the primary data collection will answer the following sub-questions: “For what reason and in what way do Greek politicians use social media platforms?” and “How do the features of the platforms and the way that politicians use the platforms affect citizens’ reaction?” The chapter begins with a discussion of the reasons behind politicians’ use of online platforms, whilst addressing the difficulties that politicians face on social media accounts. The chapter will continue with a discussion about the use of social media under crisis conditions, concluding with a politicians’ self-reflection on their interactions within the online environment.

To begin, general information about the seven politicians’ accounts on social media platforms will be presented, and their preferences will be analyzed. The politicians that were interviewed have accounts on various social media platforms. All the politicians have at least one account on both Facebook and Twitter, whilst only two politicians have an Instagram account. Five of them have two accounts on Facebook, either due to their popularity, or because they require a second account for personal use. Five of them manage their accounts by themselves, while one politician (who has two accounts on Facebook) is assisted by his colleagues. Moreover, three of them indicated they prefer Facebook over other social media platforms, while two of them prefer Twitter. Two politicians remain neutral, using Facebook and Twitter with the same frequency. The reasons of these preferences differ. The politicians that prefer Facebook claim that it is the most popular platform to Greek citizens because it better facilitates conversation. Giannis Kallianos states that interaction between politicians

(26)

and citizens is better achieved in comparison to other platforms. He argues that “it is even more difficult to approach followers on Twitter as it is used for professional reasons and not by ordinary citizens. Also, maybe it takes years to approach the same number followers on Twitter in comparison with Facebook. In general, communication on Twitter is much more difficult”6. On the other hand, the two politicians that prefer Twitter insist the platform more vivid, and a quicker tool for communicating and gathering information. Nevertheless, Giorgos Amiras argues that even if he prefers Twitter, updates to his Facebook account take precedence over his Twitter account. He states that the message on Facebook gives more opportunities, explaining that Facebook has a greater influence on Greek citizens. Costas Zahariadis who has no preference among the platforms, explains that “I use the quickest means of our time that addresses mainly to power groups and journalists: Twitter. I also use Facebook; but Facebook is mainly used to inform a group of people who believe in you and follow you; voters or supporters of the political party you belong. Twitter is extremely fast at news reproduction. When I post a tweet, I also post it on Facebook. I adjust the needs of Facebook based on Twitter” 7.

From these initial results, it becomes clear that interviewed politicians use Facebook as a platform of communication to their existing followers and Twitter as a platform to spread messages beyond the reach of supporters, or to gather information in real-time. In general, it seems that they feel compelled to use these platforms in the first place. Also, politicians’ platform preferences and intentions to contact citizens using social media, do not clarify that they are actually engaging with them through these emergent mediums; this will be discussed in more detail below.

4.2 The importance of social media platforms for politicians

Subsequent to these initial findings, based on the information collected from the interviews with politicians, as well as data collected from the observation of their accounts, the reasons why politicians use social media will be analyzed.

Dimitrios Papadimoulis states that “Politicians use social media to make their ideas known. Also, using social media they can avoid the economic cost of any other advertisement” encapsulates the opinion of the majority of the interviewees. Politicians argue that they use social media platforms to promote their ideas or to express the position of the political party they belong to. They provide a direct and

(27)

instantaneous way to talk to the voters, but also a relatively economical way to promote themselves8. However, there is another approach concerning the financial aspect of this statement. According to Konstantinos Kyranakis the cost depends on the number of users that politicians want to target each time. It is a fact that social media can be used as an advertising tool with little cost. Nonetheless, Kyranakis argues that if you do not use paid advertisement on social media, results will not be the same, since the message will reach fewer users. He admits that promotion on social media platforms, whether organized or not, merits more than a non-targeted advertising like, for instance, election posters. These claims prove that politicians indeed use social media to promote themselves not only because social media provide a fortunate environment for direct contact, but also because the cost of self promotion is for the most part, significantly lower than traditional methods. Politicians, in reality, have the choice to build a promotional campaign on online platforms while also targeting the exact number of users they want to influence. One more advantage of social media is the immediacy of politicians’ message. Zahariadis9 says that“…social media give you the opportunity to communicate your message any time you want to; they completely liberate you. Social media are free from all the constraints that mainstream media have”. The interesting point here is social media’s ability to free users from the constraints of mainstream media, through the asynchronous communication they offer. According to Hopmann et all during a period of elections, mainstream media skewer toward politicians in power or the most potential to win the election (2011, 268). Furthermore, it is more difficult for the less popular candidates to reach voters through mainstream media, since access to the mainstream media is not constant (Skovsgaard, 2013, 740). The same issue applies to Greek politicians, but not only during an electoral period. In general, all Greek politicians have the opportunity to inform citizens via mainstream media. However, the mainstream media on a global level, have more interest in politicians that play an important role in the country’s governance (Bennett et al. 2007, 54-55). Thus, politicians with less political influence cannot express their opinions on mainstream media whenever they want. Giannis Kallianos, the spokesman of Enosis Kentroon, the political party with the fewest seats in the Greek Parliament, states that social media give him the opportunity to develop his position and oppose to government’s decisions on a daily basis, quickly and directly. Social media effectively allows politicians to construct the preferred publics, while simultaneously accelerating communication. Nevertheless, these thoughts lead to reflect that

(28)

politicians use social media platforms with a different rationale, even if the aim of this use remains the same as mainstream media; to make their ideas well-known and influence citizens. This different rationale could reflect the interaction of politicians with these platforms. For example, it is more common for a politician of a less popular party, that does not have immediate access to mainstream media, to use social media platforms to a greater extend. This is not confirmed, however, by Figure 5, where Kallianos (from the political party Enosis Kentroon - 3.43% election result) uploads less than one post per day, while Amiras (from the political party Potami - 4.09% election result) upload almost 2,5 posts per day, with the maximum number of posts per day from the other politicians is almost 3,5. Thus, the frequency of use seems to be a more personal choice or political strategy than a consequence of the mainstream media’s constraints. Consequently, it is possible that social media take mainstream media’s place for some politicians, but that does not necessarily affect the frequency they use them.

Moving forward to another issue, Konstantinos Kyranakis notes that the immediacy and in general the use of social media make politicians look more forward thinking, modern and approachable. George Kirtsos claims that the lack of presence in the social media can be an important drawback in a politician’s communicational strategy. In addition, Amiras, Kallianos, and Kyranakis concur that social media play a key role in politicians’ popularity. That is also agreed by Pavlos Christidis who claims that the use of social media subsequently helps politicians attain a presence in the mainstream media. That statement is also confirmed by Broersma & Graham’s (2012) who argue that “social media can also be used … as means to gain visibility in the mainstream media” (417). “An interesting post or tweet that becomes viral could be easily discussed on TV offering recognition and even potential voters to politicians”10. These claims show that politicians are conversant with the opportunity they have to transfer their message from social media to mainstream media and the other way around aiming to gain more visibility in both online and offline environment. Furthermore, it could be an efficient way for them to disrupt or intervene the news’ agendas and political decision-making, a well-established phenomenon according to Lester & Hutchins (2009, 591). Thus, the assertion of Schwartz that social media are a source of information for mainstream media (2015, 1) and Skovsgaard’s opinion that social media’s usage influences mainstream media and vice versa (2013, 742), applies similarly in the case of Greece even if mainstream media face a big crisis.

(29)

At this point, it would be more interesting to investigate how this relation affects interactivity on social media platforms. Giorgos Amiras claims that many Greek politicians use social media in order to secure their win on the elections. “They have a great influence. Of course, that influence depends on the quality and the content of the message”11. Most of the interviewees mention that the content of politicians’ posts or tweets is something that affects the interactivity with users. For that reason, the content of the post is a part of the political strategy. Kyranakis for instance, who organized the electoral campaign of the leader of the largest opposition party says that “if a politician posts only announcements that do not put a question, do not respond to something, or at least do not create a dialogue with users, then there is no influence”12. For Christidis the influence of the post/tweet depends on a number of reasons. How provocative the message is or how provocatively it is promoted, are the two main factors. Also, according to Christidis the level of influence depends on the general circumstances and even to the personal characteristics of the users that politicians are addressed to. Analyzing the data that was collected through Netvizz, these opinions are proved correct. Looking into the posts with the most users’ comments, it is clear that people interact only when the content is aggressive or provocative. This is illustrated by the following examples:

(30)

In Figure 1, Konstantinos Kyranakis is opposed to the government, prior to the elections. He specifically says that “Due to capital controls imposed by the government, 16.658 people from the private sector lost their jobs. Greece will move forward only if on 20th of September, the Prime Minister loses his job as well” 13. On this pre-electoral post there are 4,000 likes, 1,235 shares, 294 comments, 260 replies to comments, and 955 comments that have been liked It is worth mentioning that the majority of the comments are in opposition to his opinion. The positive reaction comes through the huge number of likes. Although, it is interesting that the positive reactions are expressed through likes and not through comments. Supportive or positive comments do not exist. In general, this post created not only the ‘supportive like’ as a reaction, but also ‘a controversial debate’ through comments. On the contrary, in Figure 2, where Kyranakis is presenting a broad overview of the first YEPP council, there are 317 likes, 2 shares and no comments. Similar reactions appeared on the posts of the other 6 politicians. A greater reaction, with many likes, comments and shares appears when the content is not merely informative or neutral, but emotive.

Figure 3 Figure 4

It would be interesting to observe one more paradigm. In Figure 3, Papadimoulis is opposed to the largest opposition party, asking “Could New Democracy14 explain why they accept adding VAT to food and bills and refuse adding VAT to private

(31)

education?” This post has 263 likes, 22 shares, 76 comments, 28 replies to comments and 125 comments that have been liked. Again, the majority of the comments are negative, but there is a greater interaction due to the aggressive nature of the post. In contrast, in Figure 4, Papadimoulis informs his followers that the leader of the democratic socialist political party of Italy, Sinistra Ecologia Liberta supports the Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras. On this post there are 68 likes, 1 share and no comments. This does not indicate that every aggressive post provokes a reaction. However, as is demonstrated, only aggressive or emotive posts reach this kind of reaction. Whenever a politician posts information-based content, like seen in figure 2 and 4, there is usually barely any reaction. But whenever a politician is opposed, or criticizes another political party or politician, there is usually a massive reaction. In addition, it should be noted that whenever there is a big reaction such as this, the comments are negative, while whenever politicians are positive or supportive the number of the comments is limited. Although only two examples have been discussed, this is a finding that reoccurs throughout almost all the other politicians’ posts. These two examples clearly prove that the content of posts is an important element regarding user interactivity. The question that arises then, is why politicians continue to upload aggressive posts that consistently return negative comments. The rational explanation is that this strategy is considered as a part of the political ‘game’. Whatever the outcome of an upload is, they are trying to gain an additional group of voters. Also, politicians may not post for the objective of receiving comments, but maybe, for example, simply to acquire likes. Another reason includes the critical feedback that politicians collect, allowing for personal improvement which will be discussed further below. Additionally, as Schwartz mentions in his article, “turning the other cheek by welcoming criticism can also earn the respect of the audience” (2015, 6). A confident politician that encourages any kind of criticism tends to make a good impression; this fact may explain their stance and provoke attitudes on the social media platforms. Moreover, given the above-mentioned special, negative characteristics of the relationship in the relationship between politicians and citizens in Greece, negative comments are a usual reaction that politicians may be getting used to, thus they do not react anymore. This fact will be further analyzed in the following chapters.

Going back to the reasons that politicians use social media platforms, it is important to mention the intention of politicians to contact users. 4 of the interviewed politicians mention that they use them in order to contact the citizens directly. Also,

(32)

they answered that they reply to users’ comments and they try to develop a democratic dialogue with them. The following rig chart shows the intentions of interviewed politicians through posting. The sample comes from politicians’ Facebook accounts that were interviewed.

Figure 5

Content of politicians’ posts

Complied by the author

As it is apparent, politicians’ posts have 49% promotional character. It seems that the purpose of his uploads is to make well-known their opinions and the position of the political party they belong to. Moreover, politicians express their disagreement with their political opponents by 28%; that it can potentially lead to the development of an online discussion with the other politicians, journalists and even with citizens. Also, they upload 10% informative posts that can have either an informative or a conversational character. The clear intention to engage with citizens is depicted through 13% of their posts that have conversational character. Although, according to the collected data from Netvizz during the period September - October 2015, they almost never replied to the citizens’ comments and there are two potential explanations for this fact. Firstly, it could either mean that the politicians cannot use social media effectively in order to engage users, or that the data collected during this short period of two months is not representative of their overall strategy.

The main finding is that during the mentioned period, the politicians communicated their messages, but they did not engage with those receiving the messages. This is

75 / 10% 92 / 13% 356 / 49% 206 / 28% INFORMATION CONVERSATION PROMOTION OPPOSITION

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

To research the changes in shopping routines related to grocery shopping and the change in sense of place of the elderly inhabitants as a result of the closure of the

Beck (1992; 2009) voegt hier het concept van de ‘risicomaatschappij’ aan toe waarin complexiteit toeneemt als gevolg van globalisering, technologische

To obtain reliable results for the distance- dependent dissipation in the confinement, we employ the thermal noise approach, which provides a resolution of approximately 50 Hz

Moreover, this work examines the moderating effects of technological cooperation and home country governmental subsidies on the underlying relationship between

By having, in regression one, the dependent variable regressed on the independent market proxy variables it can be seen how the excess return of the specific sector

I expect that if a company has more institutional shareholders, there will be more cost stickiness than when shareholders are merely interested in a company’s

This research presents influences of solid particles on the loading capacity and the temperature rise of water film in ultra-high speed hybrid bearings, the research

This description of the workings of containment and their enmeshment within the normative order is fitting with the role of boundaries in both films: they are