Political Advocacy on the Web: Issue Networks in Online Debate

353 Pages·2016·1.9 MB·English

by  Margot Leigh Emery

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TTeennnneesssseeee,, KKnnooxxvviillllee
TTRRAACCEE:: TTeennnneesssseeee RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd CCrreeaattiivvee
EExxcchhaannggee
Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
12-2006
PPoolliittiiccaall AAddvvooccaaccyy oonn tthhee WWeebb:: IIssssuuee NNeettwwoorrkkss iinn OOnnlliinnee DDeebbaattee
OOvveerr tthhee UUSSAA PPaattrriioott AAcctt
Margot Leigh Emery
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss
Part of the Library and Information Science Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Emery, Margot Leigh, "Political Advocacy on the Web: Issue Networks in Online Debate Over the USA
Patriot Act. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2006.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1933
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee
Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Margot Leigh Emery entitled "Political
Advocacy on the Web: Issue Networks in Online Debate Over the USA Patriot Act." I have
examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend
that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information.
Benjamin J. Bates, Major Professor
We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance:
William L. Seaver, Sally J. McMillan, Gretchen Whitney
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Margot Leigh Emery entitled “Political
Advocacy on the Web: Issue Networks in Online Debate Over the USA Patriot Act.” I
have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and
recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information.

Benjamin J. Bates
Major Professor

We have read this dissertation
and recommend its acceptance:

William L. Seaver

Sally J. McMillan

Gretchen Whitney

Accepted for the Council:

Linda Painter
Interim Dean of Graduate Studies

(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
Political Advocacy on the Web: Issue Networks
in Online Debate Over the USA Patriot Act

A Dissertation Presented for
the Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Margot Leigh Emery
December 2006
Copyright © 2006 by Margot Leigh Emery
All rights reserved.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I received assistance from many quarters to accomplish this project. In fact, the
adage, ‘It takes a whole village to raise a single child,’ remains in my mind as I reflect on
the support and generosity that has aided me as I worked toward the goal of completing
the degree. My family never wavered in their faith in me, and I received much support
from an extended network of friends and associates, among them Dr. Vince Pantalone,
David James, and Drs. James Foster, Martin Gebrow, and Barbara Haning.
Also supportive of my goals were my employers. First, Tennessee Technological
University, which allowed me to work a flex schedule while commuting for my studies,
and then the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and Institute of Agriculture at
the University of Tennessee, which gave me career opportunities that provided fee
waivers and income as I studied for the degree. I deeply appreciate their flexibility and
backing in enabling me to pursue my goal. In particular I’d like to acknowledge Dr. Tom
Klindt, who was also pivotal in assisting another doctoral graduate, Dr. Bonnie Riechert,
the former communications coordinator and my former supervisor at the Tennessee
Agricultural Experiment Station.
My academic mentors Drs. Benjamin J. Bates and M. Mark Miller have been
unstinting in their support, understanding, and enthusiasm for my growth and
development, and I appreciate the friendship I’ve had with them and with the fellow
doctoral students I’ve known, and worked with, during my course of study. Through
UT’s Intercollegiate Graduate Statistics Program (IGSP), I minored in statistics. I value
iii
my time in the Department of Statistics and, in particular, the opportunity to learn from
Dr. Bill Seaver. I appreciate the patience and enthusiasm for his discipline that he has
shown as he guided me, and his contributions as a member of my doctoral committee. I
also appreciate the support and guidance of my other committee members, Dr. Sally
McMillan and Dr. Gretchen Whitney. Each has contributed importantly to the quality of
this work and to my ability to complete it.
Finally, I’d like to express my appreciation to Dr. Richard Rogers and the
Govcom.org organization in Amsterdam, whose research theory and methods helped to
made this dissertation possible.

iv
ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines how people and organizations used the World Wide
Web to discuss and debate a public policy in 2005, at a point of time when the Internet
was viewed as a maturing medium for communication. Combining descriptive and
quantitative frame analyses with an issue network analysis, the study evaluated the
frames apparent in discourse concerning two key sections of the USA Patriot Act, while
the issue network analysis probed hypertext linkages among Web pages where discussion
was occurring. Sections 214 and 215 of the USA Patriot Act provided a contentious
national issue with multiple stakeholders presumed to be attempting to frame issues
connected to the two sections. The focus on two sections allowed frame and issue
network contrasts to be made.
The study sought evidence of an Internet effect to determine whether the Web,
through the way people were using it, was having a polarizing, synthesizing, or
fragmentizing effect on discussion and debate. Frame overlap and hypertext linkage
patterns among actors in the issue networks indicated an overall tendency toward
synthesis.
The study also probed the degree to which there is a joining, or symbiosis, of Web
content and structure, in part evidenced by whether patterns exist that like-minded groups
are coming together to form online community through hypertext linkages. Evidence was
found to support this conclusion among Web pages in several Internet domains, although
questions remain about linking patterns among blogs due to limitations of the software
used in the study.
v
Organizational Web sites on average used a similar number of frames compared
to other Web page types, including blogs. The organizational Web pages were found to
be briefer in how they discussed issues, however.
The study contributes to theory by offering the first known empirical study of
online community formation and issue advocacy on a matter of public policy and through
its finding of a linkage between Web content and Web structure. Methodologically, the
study presents a flexible mixed-methods model of descriptive and quantitative
approaches that appears excellently suited for Internet studies. The dissertation’s use of
fuzzy clustering and discriminant analysis offer important improvements over existing
approaches in factor-based frame analysis and frame mapping techniques.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I....................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
Objectives....................................................................................................................6
Summary.....................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER II...................................................................................................................9
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................9
Frame Analysis..........................................................................................................10
Origins and Development of Framing and Frame Analysis.....................................10
Criticism of Framing..............................................................................................16
Framing in Media Studies......................................................................................17
Framing in Internet Studies....................................................................................20
Framing in Issue Advocacy Studies........................................................................24
Methodological Considerations of Frame Analysis................................................26
Summary...............................................................................................................28
Social Network Analysis............................................................................................29
Origins and Development of Social Network Analysis...........................................29
Core Concepts of Social Network Analysis............................................................31
Linkage Analysis...................................................................................................35
Integration of Framing Analysis and Issue Network Analysis....................................39
CHAPTER III................................................................................................................41
THE PROBLEM...........................................................................................................41
Computers, the Internet, and Politics..........................................................................41
Introduction...........................................................................................................41
Political Communication on the Internet................................................................47
Social Activism on the Internet..............................................................................54
The Internet’s Evolving Use as a Political Channel of Communication..................64
Contemporary Interest Groups, Political Activism,....................................................65
and the USA Patriot Act............................................................................................65
Introduction...........................................................................................................65
The USA Patriot Act, its History, and Development...............................................68
Discussion of Research Questions..............................................................................79
Contributions of this Study....................................................................................82
CHAPTER IV...............................................................................................................84
METHODS...................................................................................................................84
Operationalization.....................................................................................................84
Target Population...................................................................................................86
Sampling Procedure...............................................................................................90
Coding, Measurement, and Observation Processes...............................................100
CHAPTER V...............................................................................................................119
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................119
Establishment of the Study’s Two Samples..............................................................119
Frames Applied to Sections 214 and 215..............................................................125
vii