Interest groups on social media: Four forms of networked advocacy

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2012
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Nanna Alida Fredheim,Tine Ustad Figenschou
• Date: 01 May 2020

ACADEMIC PAPER

Interest groups on social media: Four forms of networked

advocacy

Tine Ustad Figenschou

1

| Nanna Alida Fredheim

2

1

Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

2

Centre for Social Research, Oslo, Norway

Correspondence

Tine Ustad Figenschou, Oslo Metropolitan

University, Oslo, Norway.

Email: tineuf@oslomet.no

Funding information

Norges Forskningsråd, Grant/Award Number:

10161

The affordances of social media both constrain and enable new forms of political

advocacy. The present study identifies four forms of networked advocacy and ana-

lyses these with emphasis on constituencies, platforms, activities, and aims. Based on

over 40 semistructured elite interviews with interest group leaders and heads of

communication, it first finds that interviewees distinguish between social media plat-

forms, tailoring content and genre, to target intended audiences. Second, it finds that

social media affordances make awareness-raising and community-building more effi-

cient and purposeful for all groups. At the same time, only large organizations with

bigger budgets, credibility, technical knowhow, and political relations, systematically

engage in networked mobilization and lobbying. Third, interviewees representing

these resourceful organizations underline that Twitter represents a new efficient

form of middle-stage lobbying. The study contributes empirical insights into the aims

and strategies behind networked advocacy among different groups within one policy

field in a local, non-American context. Theoretically, it combines insights from

networked media logics, social affordances, and interest group advocacy to concep-

tualize how networked media can afford a new form of lobbying conducted as real-

time, semi-private direct communication with decision makers.

1|INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the digital mobilization of new forms of advocacy net-

works, and how these can redefine interest group operations and

power, has caught both popular and scholarly attention (e.g., Bennet &

Segerberg, 2013; Heimanns & Timms, 2018, Vromen, 2016). Such

nonhierarchical, cause-specific, digital native movements both inspire

and challenge centralized, established interest groups.

For all interest groups, being noticed by those in power is impera-

tive; hence, interest groups employ a number of strategies to promote

their interests vis-à-vis government agencies, parliaments, and the

public. Social media strategies are often highlighted as an open, low-

cost opportunity to provide information, mobilize supporters, raise

funds, interact with multiple constituencies and attract attention to

issues otherwise ignored within the public debate (Lovejoy, Waters, &

Saxton, 2012). The potential of new technology for pursuing organiza-

tional goals has been widely recognized (see Hackler & Saxton, 2007,

for an overview). New digital technologies potentially enable interest

groups to bypass the legacy media organizations and communicate

directly with the public and political authorities. The networked media

platforms, thus, represent an important channel for organized inter-

ests aiming to influence policy-making processes and political priori-

ties, and what the present paper thus asks: What motivates

established interest groups to employ social media as part of their lob-

bying and advocacy campaigns?

The rapidly changing media landscape has transformed from a

media system controlled by professional media organizations

(Waisbord, 2013) into a hybrid system where networked media and

established news media interact and compete (Chadwick, 2013).

These developments have opened up new opportunities and

Received: 18 November 2018 Revised: 24 April 2019 Accepted: 19 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2012

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Public Affairs published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

J Public Affairs. 2019;e2012. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of8

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2012

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Public Affairs published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e2012. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of8

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2012