PhD Proposal Leonard Makombe - 15852938

Promoter - Dr. G.J. Botma Title From the screen to the street? A critical analysis of Facebook and Twitter discourse and how it influenced public political participation in Zimbabwe during the 2013 elections

B.1 Preliminary study and rationale .the internet is the most democratising innovation ever seen Joe Trippi (quoted in Hindman, 2009: 2). International debate on social medias potential to influence political participation was evident from the 1990s onwards (Breindl, 2010:43; Atton, 2004) with Trippis sentiments underscoring optimism in new technologies. However, criticism against unqualified optimism gathered momentum after the 2009 post-elections protests in Iran and Moldova as well as the so-called Arab Spring1 (Starbird & Palen, 2012; Shirky, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi & Munteanu, 2009;). Some studies confirm social medias2 catalysing role in revolts, also termed Twitter Revolutions (Shirky, 2011), claiming that Facebook provided tools to facilitate interaction and responses to questions they (activists) would have found difficult to answer offline (Aouragh & Alexander, 2011:349). Moreover, social media technologies, of which Facebook and Twitter are part, represent an important instrumental resource (Eltantawy & Wiest, 2011:1212) to bridge participatory gaps, empowering and mobilising citizens to participate both online and offline. Critics, however, contend that social media bring inconsequential change as protests could still have occurred without them (Gladwell, 2011; Morozov, 2011; Alterman, 2011). Gladwell (2011) emphasises the historical role of the word of mouth as more important than Facebook and Twitter.

I am inclined to subscribe to the optimists because as Shirky (2011) and Starbid and Palen (2012) argue, social media have altered political participation and in Zimbabwe Facebook
1

Popular protests that started as what was termed the Jasmine Revolution in late 2010 in Tunisia resulting in the change of government before spreading to Egypt then other Arab, North African and Sub-Saharan countries. 2 Social media refers to a group of internet based applications that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content. Social media takes various forms like social networks, blogs, weblogs and video. Social media tools which have been highly emphasised include Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). 1

and Twitter offer new platforms for citizen engagement. Social media allow for the sharing of information, discussion of political topics and mobilisation for offline political activities including voting, attending political rallies or participating in a demonstration.

Active political participation started to decline after independence in 1980 as Zimbabwe developed into an authoritarian regime rather than a liberal democracy with less credible elections and low voter turnout (Sithole, 2001). A rapid legislated closure of political space since 2000 (Freedom House, 2012) coiniciding with steep economic decline and negatively impacted political participation as the focus of the electorate was on survival, not politics (Schlee, 2011:1). The stifling of political space hindered mainstream medias role as watchdogs and custodians of the public good and active citizens (Moyo, 2011:2), arguably giving momentum to emerging alternative media platforms. Faced with a restrictive legal environment, activists and grassroot organisations initiated innovative strategies to broadcast content (Windeck, 2010; Moyo, 2012:484), including shortwave radio stations, roadcasting (distributing pre-recorded audio materials), podcasting, mass short message services (mass SMS) and interactive voice responses. Roadcasting contravened the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (2001) (Moyo, 2012:485), as distribution of audio materials required registration with the Media and Information Commission. Mass SMS could be monitored under the Interception of Communications Act (2006), while shortwave broadcasts were interfered with by the state using equipment bought in China (Mavhunga, 2008:2). The internet, and especially social media, thus emerged as a popular site for citizens seeking alternative information (Kelly & Cook, 2011; Zaffiro, 2001). This trend gave rise to new reform based emergent alternative media narrative that encourage, articulate and stimulate public participation (Mutsvairo & Columbus, 2012:8) and a platform to distribute content as well as an avenue to discuss a taboo subject without fear of being reprimanded by the secretive and authoritarian state (Mpofu, 2011:1). New information communication technologies (ICTs) altered the media landscape allowing alternative voices to proliferate (Zaffiro, 2001:114) and despite signals weakening relative to distance from urban centres, internet access through mobile phones has spread across the country (See annex C). Adopting Internet based platforms ties in with cyber optimists (see Starbird & Palen, 2012; Shirky, 2011; Diamond, 2010) proposition that social media can be leveraged for political participation within repressive environments.

A preliminary study has shown that there is growing use of Facebook and Twitter in Zimbabwe as politicians, political parties, activists, interest groups and ordinary citizens use both for political information, discussion and feedback. Facebook and Twitter use was Parliamentary

evident during theconstitution making process recently. For example, Monitor,

a Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/parlymonitor), used the

platform to disseminate copies of the draft constitution as well as information on location of polling stations and voting regulations during the referendum. Twitter was used to post opinions, links and news during the constitution making process and to update results of the referendum. Facebook and Twitter allowed debates and discussions, thus widened the debate on the constitution.

Despite a growing body of literature on the use of social media in Zimbabwe (see Mutsvairo & Columbus, 2012; Moyo, 2011; Kelly & Cook, 2011; Masuku, 2011;), no netnographical studies have focused specifically on how social media influences political participation during elections. Examining how social media influences political participation in Zimbabwe will yield important insights on claims by cyber-optimists that social media offer alternative, affordable and cost effective platforms for political participation within repressive societies (see Starbird & Palen, 2012; Shirky, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi & Munteanu, 2009).

B.2 Problem statement and focus Zimbabwe is considered a repressive and not free country (Freedom House, 2012) with decreasing active political participation, for example voting in national elections (Sithole, 2001) and a muzzled media (Moyo, 2011). The repressive political environment and muzzled media opened opportunities for use of social media for political information, discussion and mobilisation. Facebook3 and Twitter4 are dominant social media platforms in Zimbabwe with .(Facebook) accounts already opened by virtually all sectors (Mutsvairo &

Columbus, 2012:1). This research looks at how Facebook and Twitter are used as instruments to mobilise the Zimbabweans to participate during the 2013 elections as was the

Facebook is the largest and most ubiquitous social networking website on the Internet. Developed in 2003, Facebook has since expanded significantly; the company opened its international headquarters in 2008 with an active user base of 100 million, and now boasts a user base of more than 1 billion. Source: http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts (accessed 25 March 2012). 4 Twitter, launched in 2006, is a popular social networking and micro-blogging service by which users can send and receive text-based posts of up to 140 characters, known informally as tweets. While it was launched several years ago, Twitter has expanded most rapidly in recent months; As of December 2012, Twitter had 200 million users per month. Source: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/12/18/twitter-now-has-200-millionmonthly-active-users-up-60-million-in-9-months 3

case in the mass protests in Moldova, Iran, Egypt and Tunisia (Starbird & Palen, 2012; Shirky, 2011; Mungiu-Pippidi & Munteanu, 2009). B. 3 Theoretical points of departure, research questions and hypotheses Theorising mass media remains problematic as the field is characterised by fragmentation and insufficient coherence (Dahlgren, 2005). Chaffee and Metzger (2001:374) question the validity, applicability and relevance of mass communication theories assuming a centralised mass media system in a decentralised and demassified environment. With social media, including Facebook and Twitter, content becomes more diversified, there are more world views and no clearly identifiable mainstream rendering some mass media theories irrelevant. These media platforms provide new opportunities to various groups and give power to people whose agendas would not have been reported in major mass media (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Social media eliminates induced hegemony (Chaffee & Metzger; 2001) by moving power from elites to a greater proportion of media users.

Castells (1996; 2009) and van Dijk (1999) have shown how various networks emerged with social media use. Social media differs from unidirectional traditional media by allowing the sending and receiving of messages thus enabling mass self communication (Castells, 2009:56) which is a more horizontal style of communication without a hierarchy (Lilleker & Jackson 2008: 6). Horizontal communication allows forging of weak ties with strangers to establish networks where social characteristics are less influential in framing or even blocking communications (Castells, 1996: 388). These social networks offer an interactive system which features feedback effects and communications from anywhere to anywhere within the network (Castells, 2009: 7) and anyone with the right technology can publish opinions in real time to mass audiences (Luoma-aho, 2011:3). The strength of the weak ties according to Granovetter (1973:1361) lies in their potential for diffusion, social mobility, political organisation and social cohesion in general.

In addition to the horizontal nature of communications ushered in by social media including Facebook and Twitter, these platforms have a dialogical complexity lying in their flexibility that communicators often have with regard to where to post messages, who to engage with and the language to use during interaction (Rambe, 2012:297). Additionally, the two platforms are grounded in connectivism framework (Rambe, 2012:297) allowing

knowledge production that value connected networks, shared generation of content and use of complex, adaptive systems for knowledge generation (Rambe, 2012:297). To be able to fully analyse the networks, this research employs Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth
4

CDA), an approach that focusses on how social relations, identity, knowledge and power are constructed through written and spoken texts in communities, schools the media and the political arena (Fairclough, 1989:20).CDA is an analytic tool that can be used in the close readings of editorials, op-eds, columns, adverts and other public texts (Huckin, 2002:4). Other CDA scholars (Hacker & van Dijk, 2000) argue that social media allows for public discourse without limits of time, place or other physical conditions enabling citizens to seek to address socio-economic issues that matter to them.

A preliminary study has shown that network theory is applicable to the Zimbabwean context as there are networks which have emerged as a result of Facebook and Twitter use. While it is difficult to strictly apply traditional theories (like the four theories [Siebert, Peterson and Schramm: 1956]) to the Zimbabwean press, it is very easy to identify the horizontal communication (Lilleker & Kackson, 2008:6) and interactive systems which features feedback effects and communications (Castells, 2009:7) brought about by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook and Twitter are based on networks and interactivity and can be valuable for political participation in Zimbabwe like any other environment through the weak ties and anonymity they provide (Castells, 1996:388). Everyone now has the possibility to put out information, create knowledge and highlight relevant issues within these networks thus undercutting the power of the mainstream media. As Castells (2009:263 264) argues, one result of social media in repressive regimes is the emergence of insurgent communities as individuals perceiving an oppression transform their shared protest into a community of practice, their practice being resistance. This means that the networks of social media users in Zimbabwe can be used for resistance which comes in the form of protests, demonstrations or voting against perceived repressions.

Resultantly, the networks that have developed as a result of the use of Facebook and Twitter have a bearing on offline political participation. Verba, Scholzman & Brady (1995) define political participation as an activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action or selection of people who make policies. Political participation includes wearing party regalia, attending a rally, voting, buying a political party membership card, giving money to a candidate or demonstrating on the streets. It is the thrust of this research to acsertain how the Facebook and Twitter networks made by Zimbabweans influence offline political participation as defined above. Scholars (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Scholzman & Brady 1995) argue that people may not participate in politics because they do not want to, they cannot or nobody has asked them to.

This study uses network theory as propounded by Castells (2009) to investigate how Facebook and Twitter users employed the platforms for political discourse during elections in Zimbabwe in 2013. CDA as a powerful critical research tool is applied to analyse the contexts generated through the political discourse and their impact on informing, mobilising, explaining and describing the elections.

From the discussion above, two theoretical departure points can be formulated:

I.

CDA can be applied to analyse Facebook and Twitter discourse so as to gain insight on how these platforms of engagement transforms political participation especially voting.

II.

Facebook and Twitter provide citizens with a platform for public discourse to address socio-political issues or organise for greater attention of the issues, and the discourse can be analysed using CDA.

Research Questions

Flowing from the theoretical points of departure a general research question is formulated: In what way did social media, specifcally Facebook and Twitter, facilitate public participaton in the election of a new government in Zimbabwe in 2013. Following from the general research question are four specific research questions:

1) Who used Facebook and Twitter for political discourse during the 2013 elections in Zimbabwe? 2) Do the Facebook and Twitter users who conversed on elections in Zimbabwe in 2013 demonstrate key features of a network society? 3) What political discourse took place within the Facebook and Twitter community during the 2013 elections in Zimbabwe? 4) What was the impact of the discourse within the Facebook and Twitter community on public participation during the 2013 elections in Zimbabwe?

Hypotheses Drawing from the theoretical framework, it is assumed that citizens in repressive political systems may use Facebook and Twitter for political participation which correlates with offline action. As a result of this, the study seeks to test three hypotheses:
6

Hypothesis 1 Using Twitter and Facebook lowers threshold for participation by offering flexible platforms that are more effective in spreading information, mobilising supporters and making opinions. Hypothesis 2 The ties formed as a result of the use of Twitter and Facebook facilitate offline public political participation. Hypothesis 3 Facebook and Twitter networks create communities of practice, aimed at resisting hegemony. B.4 Research design and methods

Ethical considerations This research will be guided by the University of Stellenbosch ethics policy and the researcher will apply for ethical clearance prior to to its commencement. The researcher will make sure that participants in the survey and structured interviews (Annex A and B) sign an infomed consent form. Information gathered in this research will remain confidential and names of respondents shall also remain confidential.

Research design Both qualitative and quantitative methods shall be used to collect and analyse data to provide more comprehensive evidence for studying a research problem (Creswell & Clark, 2006:9). Content analysis, a systematic and replicable examination of symbols of communication (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2005), shall be used together with a survey.

Data Collection Adopting content analysis as a tool to collect and analyse Twitter and Facebook presents opportunities to work with huge data on human communication around a certain issue what Karpf (2012:10) calls siren song of abundant data. Karlson and Stromback (2010) point out that researchers may not be able to trap the streams of data as they happen as they go without being archived. Boyd and Crawford (2012:669) note that researchers working on Twitter are not getting the firehose of the complete content stream, but merely a gardenhose of very limited number of tweets. This means that this study has to come up with mechanisms to trap and archive the data and employ data collection methods that improve representativeness of sampled data.

Collection of Facebook data shall start with the identification of all searchable Facebook groups discussing Zimbabwe politics. These groups shall be identified through the use of a Facebook search engine, From this population 10 groups shall be randomly sampled, from a
7

population established by use of search engines (n). Facebook groups shall be arranged alphabetically in ascending order and have a number between 1 and n assigned to it in descending order. A random number generator shall be used to produce 10 numbers between 1 and n with each group with the corresponding number being included in the sample. Unlike Facebook, where data can be archived, Twitter keeps tweets (bursts of information of 140 characters or less) available to the public for at most 10 days(). This means that there should be a method of trapping the tweets as they are broadcast for future analysis. Additionally, there should also be a mechanism for selecting relevant tweets. In this regard, this research shall use the twitter hash tag (#) which is a used to highlight the relevance of a tweet to a trending topic to isolate tweets for collection. For the 2013 Zimbabwe elections, the researcher has identified five relevant hash tags
5

namely(#zimelections,

#zimdecides2013, #zimelection, #zimvote and #zimdecides.) This researcher shall use Tweet Archivist, a commercial light but powerful software that is used to collect tweets according to a hash tag and storing them as a Microsoft Excel document.(see annex D for a sample of what the archived tweets would look like) The archiving of tweets using this software can be over any period and for this research, the tweets will be collected over 51 days that is 25 days prior to voting and 25 days after with the actual voting on July 31 being the mid-point6. The collection of this data is unobtrusive.

The foregoing lay the basis for analysing data to determine whether participation was caused by tweets, content on Twitter and or Facebook. It is clear that the data collected for both Facebook and Twitter may give the research rich structured data. However, and the behaviours and activities online (RQ2, RQ3 and RQ4) but this may not explain why people do what they do online hence the need to use a survey. A preliminary study has shown that Facebook users do not disclose much demographic information, something which a questionnaire, considered more objective (Oppenheim, 1992) and able to produce generalisable results, will do. Respondents will be selected through convenient sampling, where the questionnaire is posted on several Facebook pages and direct invitation to Twitter users. This is a very obtrusive approach and the researcher shall openly say what the purpose of the survey is. In the event of limited responses, the researcher will resend the

5 6

A hash tag, which also functions as a search string, connects a tweet to larger themes The collection and archiving of the tweets has already started. The period was selected as it best describes voting period. 8

questionnaire. It has to be stated that the research and ethics policy of the Stellenbosch University shall be used as the guide.

Data Analysis This survey will collect data to address RQ1, probing gender, age, level of education, profession, income, membership to online and offline organisations and political participation online and its effects offline. Numeric data collected shall be used to test all three hypotheses and the relevance of the network theory. Oppenheim (2002) identified faulty design, incoherent sampling and biased questionnaire design and wording as possible weaknesses when administering a survey. A pilot test, to ascertain consistency and correctness (Fink, 2009), will be used to minimise these weaknesses. SPSS version 17 (software the researcher has a working knowledge of) will be used to analyse survey data because it allows for in-depth data access and preparation, analytical reporting, graphics and modelling.

CDA and Content Analysis will also be used to analyse data. The procedure for CDA data analysis shall start with a random selection of texts (from both Twitter and Facebook) which is the sample frame identified above. The selected texts will then be critically examined to identify contexts (answering research questions 1 and 2). Finally, the researcher would then use CDA to consider the intentions of the text, that is, asking what the text wanted to achieve and in the process answer research questions 2, 3 and 4. CDA data analysis may not give a complete picture of all underlying meanings in the discourse especially regarding the frequency with which certain words, statements and tone, which may be critical in understanding the effects of the discourse on public political participation. This gap could easily be bridged by use of content analysis which is defined by Riffe, Lacy and Fico (2005) as a systemic and replicable analysis of symbols of communications. Content analysis allows for the analysis of relationships to describe the communiations, draw inferences about its or infer from the communication to its context, both of production and consumption (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2005). This study shall employ the stages of content analysis suggested by Riffe, Lacy and Fico (2005) which start with selecting a sample. Random samplinshall be used on the data collected as explain above. From the sample, categories are defined for coding, followed by the coding of data. The next step will be to assess the reliability of the coded data and the analysis as well as the interpretation of the results. Data coding, which is a systematic way in which to condense extensive data sets into smaller analysable units through the creation of categories and concepts derived from the data (Lockyer, 2004:1) makes information manageable and
9

sensible (Miles & Huberman, 1994:56). Coding of data shall be done manually with the content of tweets being broken down into seven categories. It is prudent to have a category for irrelevant data which is an inevitability since we are working with large amounts of data. The other categories shall be warning, announcement, incitement, an opinion, a question and tweets directed to other users, which are preceded by the @ sign. Categorising tweets into these categories will help answer RQ 2, 3 and 4.

B.5

Time framework and provisional chapter layout

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background (Four Months) Chapter 2 Literature Review (Six Months) Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework (Four Months) Chapter 4 Research Methodology (Eight Months) Chapter 5 Analysis of Findings (Four Months) Chapter 6 Conclusion (Four Months) B.6 Impact

This study joins the active discussions on how social media influences political participation by exploring individual level usage of Facebook and Twitter in Zimbabwe. This will give new insights regarding the extent of the influence of social media in political participation in Zimbabwe. B.7 Connection with the doctoral programme(s) of the department

This proposed research is on Media and Politics (specifically the media and Zimbabwe) a focus area for the Journalism Department. B.8 Budget Enough financial resources have been secured from personal savings for the successful completion of the research.

10

References
Alterman, J. (2011). The Revolution will not be tweeted. Washington Quarterly Vol 34 Number 4, 103-116. Aouragh, M., & Alexander, A. (2011). The Egyptian experience:Sense and nonsense of the Internet revolution. International Journal of Communication Vol 5, 1344-1358. Atton, C. (2004). An alternative Internet; Radical media, politics and creativity. Eddinburgh: Eddinburgh University Press. Biggs, P. (. (2012). The state of broadband 2012: Achieving digital inclusion for all. New York: Broadband Report. Bogdan, R. S., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and. methods. New York: Pearson Education Group. Breindl, Y. (2010). Critique of the democratic potentialities of the Internet: A review of current theory and practice. Tripple C Vol 8 Number 1, 43 - 59. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (The information age: economy, society and culture, Volume 1). Malden: Blackwell. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chaffee, S., & Metzger, M. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication and Society Vol 4 Numbe r4, 365 - 379. Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, pubic shere and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication Number 22, 147 - 162. Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy Vol 21 Number 3, 70 -76. Dijk, J. V. (1999). The Network Society: Social aspects of the new media. London: Sage. Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, J. (2011). Social media in the egyptian revolution: reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication Vol 5, 1207 1224. Fink, A. (2009). Survey research, how to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. London: Sage Publications. Freedom House. (2012). World Freedom 2011. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/zimbabwe Gladwell, M. (2011, February 02). Does Egypt need twitter? New Yorker. New York. Hindman, M. (2009). The Myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kelly, S., & Cook, S. (2011). Freedom on the Net: A global assessment of Internet and global media. Freedom House. Kendal, L. (2008). The Conduct of qualitative interview: Research Questions and methodological issues and researching online. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Len, Handbook of reasearch in new literacies (pp. 137 - 149). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kozinets, R. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 39, 61-72. Lilleker, D., & Jackson, N. (2008). Politicians and Web 2.0: the current bandwagon or changing the mindset? Web 2.0: an International Conference. London: University of London. Lockyer, S. (2004). Coding Qualitative Data. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao, The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 137 - 138). Thousand Oaks: Sage Luoma-aho, V. (2011). Is new media killing our theories. A paper presented at Viestinnn Tutkimuksen Pivt (Communication Research Days). Mann, C., & Stewarts, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research - A handbook for researching online. London: Sage. Masuku, J. (2011). The public broadcaster model and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting
11

Corporation (ZBC): an analytical study. Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy (Journalism) University of Stellenbosch. Mavhunga, C. (2008). The glass fortress: Zimbabwe's cyber guerilla warfare. Concerned African Scholars (Bulleting No 8), 21 - 27 . Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: The dark side of internet freedom. New York: Public Affairs. Moyo, D. (2012). Mediating crisis realigning media policy and deployment of propaganda in Zimbabwe, 2000 - 2008. In S. Chiumbu, & M. Musemwa, The Multiple Dimensions of the Zimbabwe Crisis (pp. 176 - 198). Cape Town: HRSC Press. Moyo, L. (2011). Blogging down a dictatorship: Human rights, citizen journalists and the right to communicate in Zimbabwe. Journalism Vol 12:, 745-760. Moyo, L. (2012). Participation, citizenship, and pirate radio as empowerment:The case of Radio Dialogue in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Communication Vol 6 , 484 500. Mpofu, S. (2011). The power of citizen journalism in Zimbabwe. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from fesmedia: http://www.fesmediaafrica.org/uploads/media/The_power_of_citizen_journalism_in_Zimbabwe2_01.pdf Mungiu-Pippidi, A., & Munteanu, I. (2009). Moldova's "Twitter Revolution". Journal of Democracy Vol 20 Number 3, 136-142. Mutambo, C. (2011, august 5). TechZimbabwe. Retrieved september 9, 2012, from TechZimbabwe: http://www.techzim.co.zw/2011/08/zimbabwe-isafrica%E2%80%99s-biggest-growth-market/ Mutsvairo, B., & Columbus, S. (2012). Emerging patterns and trends in citizen journalism in Africa: A case of Zimbabwe. Central European Journal of Communication Vol 5 Number 8, 123 - 137. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing, and attitude measurement. New York City: St. Martin's Press. Potraz. (2012). Postal & telecommunications quarterly sector statistics report 2nd Quarter of 2012. Harare: Potraz. Schlee, B. (2011). Economic Crisis and Political Apathy in Zimbabwe:. ISPA-ECPR 2011,, (pp. 1 - 23). Sao Paulo. Shirky, C. (2011, January). Foreign Affairs, 1-12. Siebert, F., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four Theories of the Press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana: University Illnois Press. Sithole, M. (2001). Fighting Authoritarianism in Zimbabwe. Journal of Democracy, 162 - 163. Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2012). (How) Will the revolution be retweeted? Information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. CSCW'12 (pp. 1-10). Seattle: ACM. Stepanova, E. (2011, May). The role of information communication technologies in arab spring: Implications beyond the region. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo 159. PONARS. Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper Collis. Verba, S., Scholzman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. MA: Harvard University Press. Windeck, F. (2010). Political communication in Sub-Sahara Africa and the use of new media. Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung. Zaffiro, J. (2001). Mass media and democratisation of politics and society: Lessons from Zimbabwe 1990 - 2000 . In K. Tomaselli, & H. Dunn, Media, Democracy and Renewal in Southern Africa (pp. 99 - 122). Colorado: International Academic Publisher.

12

Annex A. Survey Questionnaire I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City/Tow/Area Located: 1. City 2. Town 3. Growth Point 4. Rural Area Sex: 1. Male 2. Female Age: ___ Education: 1. Primary School 2. Secondary School 3. Tertiary Education 4. First Degree 5. Graduate Degree Occupation:__________________________ Monthly Salary: US$____________

2.

3. 4.

5. 6

7.

8.

9.

II. FACEBOOK USAGE How long have you been using Facebook? 1. 5 years and above 2. 3-4 years 3. 1-2 years 4. 11 months and below How did you get to know about Facebook? 1. Through Family Member 2. Through Friends 3. Others, specify _________ Where do you access Facebook? (check as many as appropriate) 1. Home 2. Office
13

3. 4. 5. 6. 10.

School Internet Caf Cellphone Others, Specify ___________

11.

What time of the day do you usually access your Facebook account? 1. 12 midnight 6 am 2. 6 am -12 noon 3. 12 noon 6 pm 4. 6pm 12 midnight 5. I am online the whole day On average, how many hours do you spend on Facebook per day? 1. Less than 1 hour 2. 2 hours to 3 hours 3. 4 hours to 5 hours 4. More than 6 hours

12. How many days do you access Facebook in a week? 1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four 5. Five 6. Six 7. Seven 13. How many are your Facebook friends as of this survey? 1. < 100 2. Between 101 to 300 3. Between 301 to 600 4. Between 601 to 900 5. Between 901 to 1200 6. 1201 and above 14. What do you usually do when you log in to Facebook? Please rank according to priority (5 highest 1 lowest) ____Post and view pictures ____Post and view videos ____Read and comment on posts ____Post and share links ____Update My Status 15. Do you use Facebook to look for information on (please check as many as appropriate) 1. Politics 2. Education 3. Health 4. Artists
14

5. Jokes 6. Religion 7. Others, specify ____________________ 16. When you see an interesting political post or information (video, photo, wall post, link) do you immediately share it to your other friends? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes 17. If your answer to the above is Yes, what prompts you to share the information? 1. The information on the post is important and needs to be shared immediately 2. The post is funny 3. The post is emotionally touching 4. The post is disgusting and I want to freak my friends out 5. The post says something I believe in 18. If your answer to question # 16 is No, Why not? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ 19. Do you think Facebook and other Social networking sites are effective sources of political information? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Maybe 20. If you answered Yes to Question # 19, why? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 21. If you answered no to Question # 19, why not? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 22. Have you ever posted anything political on your Facebook wall or group you belong to? 1. Yes 2. No 23. What political topics are you interested to find on Facebook? 1. Basic Information / News 2. Updates by Politicians 3. Official Political Party Updates
15

4. Others, specify ______________________ 24. Rank the following as to the most valuable Facebook functionality that can be effective in sharing Political information (5 highest 1 lowest) _____Photo sharing _____Video sharing _____Notes _____Facebook pages _____Calendar 25. How often do you discuss political information on Facebook with others offline? 1. Often 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Never 26. How often do you use Facebook do influence others to follow a given political party or politician? 1. Often 2. Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Never 27. Have you ever attended a rally, protest, demonstration or sign a petition after you were invited through Facebook? 1. Yes 2. No 28. What do you think are the strengths of Facebook for use in sharing Political information? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ 29. What are its weaknesses? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ 30. Which election(s) did you vote in, if any? (Check all that apply.) 2000 (Parliamentary) 2002 (Presidential) 2005 (Parliamentary) 2005 (Senatorial) 2008 (Harmonised) 2008 (Presidential Run Off) 2013 Referendum 2013 Harmonised 31. Did Facebook play any role in your participation in the elections you voted? 1. Yes
16

2. No 32. If you answered yes to 31 above, please explain what role Facebook played

17

Annex B Semi Structured Interview Questions 1) How often do you use Facebook? Probe: The times of day Probe: The gadgets used 2) Since when have you been using Facebook? 3) How many friends do you have on Facebook? Would you say the number is growing? Probe: What type of friends they have Probe: What Facebook groups they belong to 4) How do you use Facebook? 5) What about your friends, how do they use Facebook 6) What are the features of Facebook that are most beneficial to you? 7) What are the advantages of sharing political information through Facebook 8) What political issues do you use Facebook for? Probe: What do you think constitutes political issues? 9) How often do you post political contents on Facebook? Probe: If this is posted on their wall or on groups they belong to? 10) What do you do with political content posted by others on Facebook? 11) Do you use Facebook to organise online protests, petitions or discussion on political issues? Probe: How they do this Probe: How often they do so. 12) Why do you use Facebook for posting and discussion political issues? 13) From your experience, has the use of Facebook been effective for online participation? 14) How effective has been the use of Facebook for offline participation?

18

Annex C

Internet coverage Zimbabwe. Source: https://www.econet.co.zw/services/coverage-maps

19

Annex D userna me kwiriray i zapu local date 7/6/2 013 11:46 7/6/2 013 13:26 7/6/2 013 16:26 7/6/2 013 16:30 7/6/2 013 19:06 7/6/2 013 19:10 7/6/2 013 19:13 7/6/2 013 9:43 7/6/2 013 17:45 7/6/2 013 17:47 7/6/2 013 9:49 7/6/2 013 20:32 7/6/2 013 18:35 7/6/2 013 18:44 7/6/2 013 20:59 7/6/2 013 19:02 status MDC, ZAPU Form Political Alliance http://t.co/X2gZs9Uebp #3mobzw #twimbos #zimelections Stage is set at Stanley Square #zapu #wozekhaya #zimelections http://t.co/NwpyLce9Fq 25days to go #zimElections. Make sure you are registered! location Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe

Oldsch oolvalu e1 Dewam avhing a zapu

263

Victory for #ZANU-PF at the July 31 #ZimElections must not be less than 90%, - President #Mugabe, 89 #263chat #twimbos Iqhude selikubonile ukuthi ukukhala akusizi #zapu #zimelections #WozEkhaya http://t.co/axx2ti4E2J That's the only straw available for them now...drowning lot #zapu #zimelections #WozEkhaya http://t.co/HmEIqnti3O #Zanu has just stepped up the gear, i have received a campaign txt.... 'Viva Zanu kugara musango taneta...' #ZimElections RT @LanceGuma: Power must be addictive. #Mugabe 33 years in power and he still wants another 5 years? #ZimElections #ZimbabweDecides #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDecides RT @LanceGuma: #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDec RT @LanceGuma: #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDec What goes round comes around #zimelections http://t.co/DRj2Cviqe6 RT @LanceGuma: #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDec RT @LanceGuma: #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDec we are headed for an exciting cyber war of information and the opposite #zimelections RT @lmakombe: we are headed for an exciting cyber war of information and the opposite #zimelections

Cambridg e, United Kingdom Zimbabwe

zapu

Zimbabwe

ndiMun yahWa cho Kanhe maPhot o Lance Guma JayNea le mynass ah zapu

Bulawayo , Zimbabwe San Francisco, CA United Kingdom Putney, London Horn of Africa Zimbabwe

Tings2 008 ndixma n lmako mbe Cyber WarID

Pretoria. South Africa Manchest er Zimbabwe

20