Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:11:07.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The potential of online sampling for studying political activists around the world and across time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

Kai Jäger
Kai Jäger*
Affiliation:
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES) and Department of Political Science, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany. Email: [email protected]
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parties and social movements play an important role in many theories of political science. Yet, the study of intraparty politics remains underdeveloped as random samples are difficult to conduct among political activists. This paper proposes a novel procedure to sample different parties over time and space by utilizing the advertising option of the social media webpage Facebook. As this method allows for quotas and the collection of large samples at relatively low cost, it becomes possible to improve the representativeness through poststratification and subsample robustness checks. Three examples illustrate these advantages of Facebook sampling: First, a Facebook sample approximated intraparty decisions and the outcome of a leadership contest of the Alternative for Germany. Second, a weighted Facebook sample achieved similar estimates as a representative local leader survey of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Third, by evaluating subgroups of key demographics for parties with unknown population parameters, two Facebook samples show that the color-coded conflict in Thailand was driven by different concepts of regime type, but not by a left–right divide on economic policy-making. Facebook sampling appears to be the best and cheapest method to conduct time-series cross-sectional studies for political activists.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 329 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author’s note: I would like to thank Ron Lehrer, Nikolay Marinov, Adam Scharpf, and Daniel Weitzel for helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Marlis Benze, Jens Meiners, and Pittaya Petchmark for survey collaboration. The ethics commission of the University of Mannheim decided that it has no general objection against the Facebook-based sampling procedure of the study. The replication materials are available on the Harvard Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/346Y30. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis website.

Contributing Editor: R. Michael Alvarez

References

AfD. 2014. Bundesweite Mitgliederbefragung zur Europawahl—Auswertungen. https://www.alternativefuer.de/2014/03/05/bundesweite-mitgliederbefragung-zur-europawahl-auswertungen.Google Scholar
AfD. 2015. Ein repräsentativer Mitgliederparteitag—der Blick auf die Statistik. AfD Kompakt11/15: 4.Google Scholar
Alemán, J., and Yang, D. D.. 2011. A duration analysis of democratic transitions and authoritarian backslides. Comparative Political Studies 44(9):1123–1151.Google Scholar
Anek, L. 1996. A tale of two democracies: Conflicting perceptions of elections and democracy in Thailand. In The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia , ed. Taylor, R. H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–233.Google Scholar
Arzheimer, K. 2015. The AfD: Finally a successful right-wing populist Eurosceptic party for Germany? West European Politics 38(3):535–556.Google Scholar
Asia Foundation. 2011. 2010 National survey of the Thai electorate: Exploring national consensus and color polarization . Bangkok: Asia Foundation.Google Scholar
Batterham, P. J. 2014. Recruitment of mental health survey participants using internet advertising: Content, characteristics and cost effectiveness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 23(2):184–191.Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., and Lenz, G. S.. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3):351–368.Google Scholar
Bhutta, C. B. 2012. Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociological Methods & Research 41(1):57–88.Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E., and Green, D. P.. 2014. Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior 36(2):263–289.Google Scholar
Conroy, M., Feezell, J. T., and Guerrero, M.. 2012. Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior 28(5):1535–1546.Google Scholar
Diamond, L. 2002. Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy 13(2):21–35.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., and Parkin, M.. 2007. The technological development of congressional candidate web sites how and why candidates use web innovations. Social Science Computer Review 25(4):425–442.Google Scholar
Giles, U. 2007. A coup for the rich. Thailand’s political crisis . Bangkok: Workers Democracy Publishing.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C., Kypri, K., and Bourke, J.. 2014. Social networking versus facebook advertising to recruit survey respondents: A quasi-experimental study. JMIR Research Protocols 3(3):e48.Google Scholar
Goel, S., and Salganik, M. J.. 2010. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(15):6743–6747.Google Scholar
Hicken, A. 2013. Late to the party: The development of partisanship in thailand. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and-National Studies of Southeast Asia 1(2):199–213.Google Scholar
Jäger, K. 2012. Why did Thailand’s middle class turn against a democratically elected government? The information-gap hypothesis. Democratization 19(6):1138–1165.Google Scholar
Jäger, K.2017. Replication data for: The potential of online sampling for studying political activists around the world and across time. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/346Y30, Harvard Dataverse.Google Scholar
Jäger, K., and Weitzel, D.. 2017. The non-democratic consequences of party democracy: The SPD referendum a century after Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy. University of Mannheim. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Jankowski, M., Schneider, S., and Tepe, M.. Forthcoming. Ideological alternative? Analyzing Alternative für Deutschland candidates’ ideal points via black box scaling. Party Politics.Google Scholar
Kapp, J. M., Peters, C., and Oliver, D. P.. 2013. Research recruitment using Facebook advertising: Big potential, big challenges. Journal of Cancer Education 28(1):134–137.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. 2012. Parties and political intermediation. In The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology , ed. Nash, K. and Scott, A.. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 149–162.Google Scholar
Klandermans, B., and Smith, J.. 2002. Methods of Social Movement Research , ed. Klandermans, B. and Staggenborg, S.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
Kurlantzick, J. 2013. Democracy in retreat: The revolt of the middle class and the worldwide decline of representative government . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Larsson, A. O. 2016. Online, all the time? A quantitative assessment of the permanent campaign on Facebook. New Media & Society 18(2):274–292.Google Scholar
Leber, F.2015. Für die AfD geht es jetzt um alles. Der Tagesspiegel, July 3. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/parteitag-in-essen-fuer-die-afd-geht-es-jetzt-um-alles/12002460.html.Google Scholar
Mair, P. 1990. Introduction. In The West European Party System , ed. Mair, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Malhotra, N., and Krosnick, J. A.. 2007. The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis 15(3):286–323.Google Scholar
Maestas, C. D., Buttice, M. K., and Stone, W. J.. 2014. Extracting wisdom from experts and small crowds: Strategies for improving informant-based measures of political concepts. Political Analysis 22(3):354–373.Google Scholar
McCargo, D. 2009. Thai Politics as Reality TV. Journal of Asian Studies 68(1):7–19.Google Scholar
Naruemon, T., and McCargo, D.. 2011. Urbanized villagers in the 2010 Thai Redshirt Protests. Asian Survey 51(6):993–1018.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. J., Hughes, J., Oakes, J. M., Pankow, J. S., and Kulasingam, S. L.. 2014. Estimation of geographic variation in human papillomavirus vaccine uptake in men and women: An online survey using facebook recruitment. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16(9):e198.Google Scholar
Niedermayer, O. 2014. Parteimitglieder in Deutschland: Version 2014. Arbeitshefte aus dem Otto–Stammer–Zentrum, Nr. 21 . Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Phongpaichit, P., and Baker, C.. 2008. Thaksin’s Populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1):62–83.Google Scholar
Pye, O., and Schaffar, W.. 2008. The 2006 Anti-Thaksin movement in Thailand: An analysis. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(1):38–61.Google Scholar
Ramo, D. E., and Prochaska, J. J.. 2012. Broad reach and targeted recruitment using Facebook for an online survey of young adult substance use. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14(1):e28.Google Scholar
Rife, S. C., Cate, K. L., Kosinski, M., and Stillwell, D.. 2016. Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: The role of personality factors. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19(1):69–83.Google Scholar
Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., and Medina, R.. 2010. Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 US presidential election. Information Polity 15(1):11–31.Google Scholar
Ryan, T. J. 2012. What makes us click? Demonstrating incentives for angry discourse with digital-age field experiments. Journal of Politics 74(4):1138–1152.Google Scholar
Ryan, T. J., and Brader, T.. Forthcoming. Gaffe Appeal. A field experiment on partisan selective exposure to election messages. Political Science Research and Methods.Google Scholar
Samuels, D. J., and Zucco, C.. 2013. Using Facebook as a subject recruitment tool for survey-experimental research. University of Minnesota. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Samuels, D. J., and Zucco, C.. 2014. The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science 58(1):212–225.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government: American Government in Action . New York: Rinehart and Co.Google Scholar
Steffen, T., and Jacobsen, L.. 2015. Ring frei fürs AfD-Finale. Die Zeit, July 3. http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-07/afd-parteitag-essen-bernd-lucke-frauke-petry.Google Scholar
Stern. 2015. Stern-Umfrage unter AfD-Anhängern: Mehrheit für Lucke, nur 23 Prozent für Petry. Stern, July 2. http://www.presseportal.de/pm/6329/3062271.Google Scholar
Tagesschau. 2013. Umfragen Wahlentscheidende Themen. https://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2013-09-22-BT-DE/umfrage-wahlentscheidend.shtml.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. 2005. Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. R. 2007. The dialectic of good governance and democracy in southeast asia: Globalized discourse and local response. Globality Studies 10:1–21.Google Scholar
Tufekci, Z., and Wilson, C.. 2012. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication 62(2):363–379.Google Scholar
Van Laer, J. 2010. Activists online and offline: The internet as an information channel for protest demonstrations. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 15(3):347–366.Google Scholar
Vissers, S., and Stolle, D.. 2014. Spill-over effects between Facebook and on/offline political participation? Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11(3):259–275.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Bennett, W. L., Van Laer, J., and Breunig, C.. 2011. Multiple engagements and network bridging in contentious politics: Digital media use of protest participants. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 16(3):325–349.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., and Verhulst, J.. 2011. Selection and response bias in protest surveys. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 16(2):203–222.Google Scholar
Wang, W., Rothschild, D., Goel, S., and Gelman, A.. 2015. Forecasting elections with non-representative polls. International Journal of Forecasting 31(3):980–991.Google Scholar
Zakaria, F. 1997. The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs 76(6):22–43.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jäger supplementary material

Jäger supplementary material 1

Download Jäger supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 MB