Mobile media and political participation: Defining and developing an emerging field

Abstract

Mobile media have become increasingly popular and important in recent years as a means of accessing political information and participating in politics and elections worldwide. However, the emergent field of mobile-focused political participation research requires further definition and development to more clearly address why and how mobile media are producing distinct consequences for political participation. To address this problem, this article uses interdisciplinary insights and a critical review of relevant literature to identify research opportunities that stand to advance mobile political communication theory. Contributions and limitations of studies focused on ICTs and political participation are reviewed and discussed. Analysis of studies focused on the political participation outcomes of mobile media use is synthesized with theory from user-focused mobile communication literature to highlight the unique qualities that distinguish mobile media and the implications of those distinguishing features for studying political participation. Recommendations are made for research directions that would further investigate the association of mobile media’s distinctive features with online and offline forms of political participation. This analysis indicates opportunities for scholars to unpack mobile media’s unique features in ways that potentially redefine political participation, and, accordingly, further the development of research questions and theories that investigate the relationship of mobile media and political participation. It is concluded that research is needed that explains mobile media use in finer detail, accounts for shifting conceptualizations of political participation, and contributes to the development of cross-cultural comparative frameworks.

Keywords

Media effects mobile communication mobile devices mobile media mobile phones political communication political participation politics

In recent years, mobile media have become increasingly significant and popular as a means of accessing political information and participating in politics in many countries (Hermanns, 2008; Kohut & Keeter, 2008; Rainie & Smith, 2010). For example, in the United States, about a quarter of the population of registered voters used mobile media to monitor news in the 2012 presidential election cycle, and their activities expanded into social networking site exchanges, verifying news, and texting about politics (Smith & Duggan, 2012). Meanwhile, news organizations, candidates, interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations around the world have developed popular mobile websites, leveraged social media for campaign-related mobile use, and created politically oriented mobile applications (Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011). Therefore, research about how citizens use mobile media to engage with politics has clear significance for explaining important changes in public life and clarifying how individuals use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to participate in politics (Kwak, Campbell, Choi, & Bae, 2011)

Mobile media and political participation studies also have implications for mobile communication theory. Some scholars see ICTs as conduits to information to stimulate participation in politics that can fill the gaps left by the decrease in political news coverage by mainstream media (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). Others suggest that lowered costs of use associated with technologies such as mobile media offer avenues of participating in politics for more people (Bimber, Stohl, & Flanagin, 2009; Gil de Zuñiga, Puig-I-Abril, & Rojas, 2009). Still others contend that content available from ICTs makes politics more accessible through interactivity and the introduction of new information channels (Bucy & Gregson, 2001; McClurg, 2003).

Notwithstanding mobile media’s increasingly important role in politics, research focused on mobile media and political participation is relatively sparse and inconclusive, even when considering studies of ICTs that have included mobile media (Gil de Zuñiga et al., 2009; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009). In fact, despite mobile communication’s significance as the fastest diffusing medium in history (Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu, & Sey, 2007), we still know very little about mobile media’s political effects (Gergen, 2008). This dilemma is situated within the broader scholarly problem of a general lack of theoretical depth and structure within mobile communication studies (Taipale & Fortunati, 2013).

Therefore, this article contributes to the development of mobile political participation research by using interdisciplinary insights and a critical review of relevant literature to identify research opportunities that advance mobile political communication theory. Lessons from the limitations of studies of ICTs and political participation are discussed. A review of the few studies focused on the political effects of mobile media is synthesized with insights from user-focused mobile communication literature to highlight the unique qualities that distinguish mobile media and their implications for studying political participation. And recommendations are made for research directions that would unpack the association of mobile’s unique features with emerging forms of political participation.

Defining mobile political participation

Mobile media are devices and services that support “mediated social connectivity while the user is in physical motion” (Campbell, 2013, p. 9). Whereas some other portable ICTs, such as laptops and tablets, are migratory in the sense that they are carried from one location to another, mobile media enable communication and connectivity while users move about, within, and across space (Campbell, 2013). Many mobile media also support information exchange by voice, text, SMS, audio, or video; multimedia content; media consumption; location awareness; and other services not directly related to human interaction, either directly or through social networks or services. The clearest conceptual definitions of mobile media focus on the mobility of the user and the perceived elements of ubiquity and persistent contact when engaged with the device (Jensen, 2013). And while most literature analyzed in this article has focused on mobile phones, future mobile devices may provide the connectivity and related mobile functionality that fulfills the definition of mobile media yet does not include voice calling capability.

In terms of mobile media outcomes, political participation generally has been measured as online and offline behaviors related to electoral participation, political activism, or other nonelectoral forms of democratic participation (Gil de Zuñiga, Veenstra, Vraga, & Shah, 2010; Xenos & Moy, 2007). Offline political discussion and deliberation with social contacts is generally not grouped into participation analysis; however, online-mediated communication exchanges with social contacts, through text and social media, are generally treated as online participation (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010).

The argument is made in the following sections for consistent but flexible interpretations of definitions of mobile media and political participation that account for not only the dynamic nature of communication technology developments and their relationship with societal infrastructures, but also the wide range of applications of both terms across the world. Mobile media interfaces and what it means to participate in politics have strikingly divergent meanings depending on a host of factors based on the location of the user, and research should reflect sensitivity to these differences to produce richer, more holistic explanations of how mobile media is related to political behaviors.

Lessons from ICT political participation literature

This section reviews literature and outlines what is known about the relationship of ICTs and political participation. Scholars have recommended that making sense of political communication in emerging fields requires the evolution of theoretical mechanisms that have proven fruitful and awareness of areas where previous paradigms have been limited (Garrett et al., 2012). Therefore, this analysis provides a starting point for distinguishing mobile political participation research by capitalizing on ICT research’s strengths and using interdisciplinary insights to improve upon its limitations. Electronic database searches produced 65 studies focused on ICTs and political participation that were qualitatively analyzed for theoretical framework, methodological approaches, and findings regarding the significance, strength, and direction of the key relationship.

Overall, analysis revealed a paradigm situated in the political and mass communication perspective that was characterized by cross-sectional quantitative surveys, self-reported use of ICTs, and criterion measures of political participatory behaviors replicated from related studies. However, this research has lagged in producing evidence of mobile media’s association with political participation. More often, mobile media have been bundled into studies of blunt measures of Internet or social media use, which have found generally positive, weak-to-moderate significant associations with traditional offline electoral participation. Longitudinal or panel data are scarce. Qualitative inquiries have yielded richer findings, but analyses have been limited to case studies without comparative frameworks. In general, studies with more refined measures of ICT use have been more likely to find significant positive relationships when paired with targeted participation measures.

The first contribution from the literature is that a detailed and conditional explanation of how and why people choose to use mobile media is needed. Research has demonstrated that individual factors preceding ICT use such as personal background, motivation, personality traits, and efficacy are among the key individual predictors of political participation (Correa, Hinsley, & Gil de Zuñiga, 2010; Gordon, Baldwin-Philippi, & Balestra, 2013; Ross et al., 2009; Shah, Rojas, & Cho, 2009), but these antecedent conditions have not often been examined for mobile media. Notably, respondents with higher levels of socioeconomic standing, Internet skill, and political interest are more likely to use ICTs for political purposes (Best & Krueger, 2005; Min, 2010). Measures of skill and experience also tend to predict not only who is more likely to use ICTs, but also what they choose or are able to do with them (Hargittai, 2002; Lee & Ma, 2012). Women, older respondents, the economically disadvantaged, and the less educated are more likely to use ICTs for a very limited set of applications, which in turn constrains their variety and frequency of political participation (Wei, 2012). It remains to be demonstrated precisely whether or how mobile media differ from related ICTs in these areas.

Secondly, in terms of criterion variables, ICT-related political participation studies have tended to measure the likelihood or frequency of traditional offline electoral activities such as attending political meetings, rallies, or speeches; circulating or signing petitions for a candidate or issue; promoting candidates or causes through physical materials such as yard signs, bumper stickers, or buttons; and contacting public officials or political parties (Xenos & Moy, 2007). However, the proliferation of ICTs has created recent consideration for additional participatory activities as a distinct form of online political participation, such as sending or forwarding political messages through email, instant messages, or social networking sites; email mobilization; online expression and political discussion; subscribing or participating in political email lists or message boards; political blogging; writing emails to politicians; and making campaign contributions online (Gil de Zuñiga, Jung, & Valenzuela, 2012; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; Quintelier & Vissers, 2008). More recent studies have refined measures of online expression and social networking site use for political purposes, including examination of behaviors such as reading political blogs; writing texts or posts related to news or politics; following politicians or parties on social media services like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube; and discussing news and politics on social networking sites (Dimitrova, Shehata, Stromback, & Nord, 2011; Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). Therefore, there is momentum for considering new and expanded measures of participation related to mobile media use.

Furthermore, findings from studies from a range of countries are mixed about the effects of ICTs on online and offline political participation. For example, in the 2008 US presidential election, no significant association was found for offline political participation with using blogs, social networking sites, online video sites, and interactive campaign websites (Groshek & Dimitrova, 2011). And in the Netherlands, studies found that social media did not have a significant influence on voting behavior during local elections in 2010 and 2011 (Effing, van Hillegersberg, & Huibers, 2011). On the other hand, informational uses of blogs have been found to be related to expressive online political participation in Colombia, and indirectly led to using social and mobile media to mobilize offline political participation (Rojas & Puig-I-Abril, 2009). And a survey of Malaysians found that online media use significantly predicted both online and offline political participation (Willnat, Wong, Tamam, & Aw, 2013). Additionally, two representative panel surveys of voters in the 2010 Swedish election found that social media use predicted offline campaign participation (Dimitrova et al., 2011). One explanation for these contradictory findings comes from the differences in the analytical approaches. Studies finding a mobilizing political role of ICTs tend to focus on specific cases linking media use and participation within a situation or election campaign, while studies that find a normalizing role of digital media in politics tend to rely on assessments of general use and hypothetical participation (Hirzalla, van Zoonen, & de Ridder, 2011).

Another lesson from the ICT literature is that researchers should be more sensitive in drawing distinctions about how mobile media are related to online and offline participation as distinct outcomes. While research has shown that online political participation tends to predict offline political participation (Moy, Manosevitch, Stamm, & Dunsmore, 2005), those behaviors are generally treated as separate criterion variables, which means that opportunities exist for researchers to investigate how the mobility of media plays a discrete and perhaps interactive role in political participation online and offline. This point is particularly important considering that online political participation often links Internet and mobile phone use with offline participation (Rojas & Puig-I-Abril, 2009). Researchers focused on the role of mobile media in politics should continue to conceptually distinguish online and offline participation and also investigate the ways that mobile media, online behavior, and offline behavior interact in a variety of contexts (Rojas & Puig-I-Abril, 2009; Willnat et al., 2013). Such research also would strengthen the ability to explain, for example, the relationship of cross-platform social media use and location-based mobile use that creates fluid outcomes of online and offline participation.

A related lesson comes from the limitations of the literature’s core directional assumption. By focusing almost exclusively on ICT use as a predictor of political participation, the literature confines the complexities of ICT behavior to a purposive or instrumentalist position in relation to political outcomes. There is much room in mobile-focused research to reconsider multidirectional models of this relationship and to account for a wider variety of participatory behaviors, including the informal ways that individuals engage with politics within their social networks. As mobile media and other ICTs transform experiences in the social sphere, they also alter conditional opportunities and means for participation in public life (Gordon et al., 2013). These insights indicate the opportunity to draw expanded boundaries for mobile research.

Finally, despite the fact that mobile media have been identified as intriguing tools for sending and receiving information, mobilizing activists, and building networks (Hermanns, 2008), research also has been limited in explaining how social networks interact with ICT use for political purposes (Törenli, Kıyan, & Yüksel, 2012). Studies of ICTs and networks often have focused exclusively on the macrosocietal levels, sometimes setting aside the investigation of the individual level, which has resulted in a lack of application of social network theory. However, research focusing on social contacts in networks and nonpolitical forms of democratic participation offers an example for how mobile research could address this shortcoming (Hampton, 2011). Studies of ICT for development also highlight several possible approaches that would produce a richer understanding of how ICTs are used for political participatory purposes in establishing or refashioning identity; creating informal communicative and political networks; participating in informal political relationships or activities; promoting individual, organizational, and community empowerment; and understanding methods of passive participation and even strategic nonparticipation that help individuals transgress norms (Gordon et al., 2013; Wasserman, 2011).

Identifying mobile media’s unique qualities

Relatively few studies have directly analyzed the mobile media’s role in political participation. Yet mobile media have become essential, interconnected components of political communication that produce distinct social consequences (Ling, 2004). To further clarify mobile media’s importance in political participation research, mobile communication studies were analyzed to identify distinguishing qualities. In particular, drawing on research that explains how and why people use mobile media provides valuable perspective for building mobile political participation theory through the identification of mobile media’s role in political behaviors, mobile media’s unique set of communication features, and mobile media’s constraints relative to barriers to participation.

Mobile media’s role in offline political participation

One way to develop theory is to produce evidence of how mobile media’s effects align with and differ from other ICTs (Campbell, 2013). Overall, the relatively limited body of research on mobile media and politics demonstrates a modest but consistently positive influence on traditional measures of offline political participation, such as voting and participating in election campaigns.

Results from three national survey studies in the US and South Korea illuminate much of what is known about the positive effects of mobile media on offline civic and political participation. A survey of Americans found that mobile media competence moderated the positive association of mobile information exchange and offline participation (Campbell & Kwak, 2010). Citizens with higher levels of comfort with mobile phones and using mobile media for information exchange were more likely to participate. Another US study found that size and heterogeneity of network moderated the positive relationship between mobile-based discourse and offline political participation (Campbell & Kwak, 2011b). Effects increased for respondents with larger networks of like-minded individuals, but declined for respondents with smaller and more homogenous networks.

In Korea, informational mobile phone use was positively related to the likelihood of offline civic and political participation, while mobile use for relational and social recreation did not produce effects (Kwak et al., 2011). Mobile communication supported trends already in place in which the greatest benefits went to those who were already involved in public affairs instead of facilitating an entry into offline political participation for those who were less likely to participate. And a study of a 2007 Philippine election demonstrated how one party used mobile phones to reach voters as part of a holistic political communication network, and also produced comparative evidence that mobile media were more effective as part of the political network than Internet-based forms of campaigning (Karan, Gimeno, & Tandoc, 2009).

These studies reflect two intriguing potential research directions for research focused on mobile and offline political participation: one line of inquiry that isolates mobile media’s mediating or moderating effects and another that situates mobile media use within the broader context of traditional and ICT political communication tools used during election campaigns. Further investigation of mediation or moderation related to variables such as education, income, and mobile media competency would assist in a richer understanding of the conditionality of mobile media’s association with offline participation (Campbell & Kwak, 2010; Kwak et al., 2011). And evidence of mobile media’s efficacy within the broader campaign context suggests the need for a more qualified understanding of the complementary nature of media, including the possibility of emerging avenues to participation and new sources of motivation to participate (Hermanns, 2008).

Mobile media’s role in online political participation

ICTs also have expanded how citizens experience politics and the virtual spaces for political participation, and recent studies have begun to examine mobile media and new forms of online participation in traditional political processes. For example, Korean political parties have invited participation in preelection nominations through mobile phone voting (Kim, 2007). And in South Africa’s 2009 elections, where most citizens accessed online political information through mobile phones, mobile social architecture facilitated and constrained online political participation (Walton & Donner, 2011). Competing parties embraced mobile media’s role in the elections and mobile social networks offered fleeting opportunities for political talk; however, access was based on socioeconomic privilege, the mobile networks did not lead to sustained action, and interest in mobile media’s role in politics disappeared after the election. Another series of studies in Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore found that mobile phone use produced conditional, moderate positive associations with several forms of online political participation, although the effects were mostly limited to online opinion and video sharing (David, 2013; Ilavarasan, 2013; J. B. Lim, 2013; Ullah, 2013; Zhang, 2013).

Monetary contributions also have been examined as a form of mobile public participation. Diversity of mobile phone use and frequency of relational mobile media use have been found to be positively associated with mobile donation to charitable causes (Chen & Givens, 2013). Using mobile phones for social media and text messaging about news events also has been found to amplify the positive effects of news attention in predicting charitable donations (Martin, 2013). Expanding analysis to political outcomes would be a natural extension.

Overall, mobile political participation research needs more attention to continued developments in online participation and closer appreciation for the nuances in how online and offline forms of participation are related. Closer consideration of the fluid nature of participation online and offline would contribute to a more holistic explanation for mobile media’s role.

Researchers investigating online participation also should consider how mobile media possess the potential to accelerate rates of online participation and contribute to the development of new forms of online participation. For instance, some scholars have pointed to mobile media applications (“apps”) as a “new cultural platform,” but these software and services have not yet been examined in a political context (Goggin, 2011, p. 149). And as countries continue to experiment with e-voting, SMS elections, and digital referenda (Hermanns, 2008; Srivastava, 2005), mobile political participation requires further analysis of these developments.

Mobile media’s role in place-based political participation

Mobile media alter how users relate to physical space and time and thus enable the mutual influence of physical locations and digital networks in a way that mediates geographic places (Campbell & Ling, 2008; Gordon et al., 2013). This relationship is perhaps most salient for political behavior in the form of place-based participation, which offers opportunities to analyze a direct connection between ICTs and participatory behaviors and to explore the complex ways that online and offline participatory behaviors are related.

Place-based participation often reflects the dual nature of mobile media’s role in political participation, which occurs as a dynamic flow between both the online and offline worlds as individuals and groups communicate and mobilize around political action. Mobile media have been found to directly motivate participation in mass action: first, by receiving and further spreading the message through social networks via mobile phones and, second, by participating in a protest (Campbell & Ling, 2008).

Investigating individual differences in how and why citizens use mobile media at political events for communication and coordination would yield a richer and more conditional understanding of the factors affecting that relationship, and studies in the United States, Spain, and the Netherlands have begun to examine this association in terms of public conversations, voting advice applications, voter turnout, flash demonstrations, and voter mobilization (Campbell & Kwak, 2011a; Hirzalla et al., 2011; Suarez, 2006).

However, perhaps the most revelatory analyses of place-based participation come from studies focused on political protests and related unrest. For people who belong to social movements and political groups, social networking tends to help build relationships and provide the platform for encountering mobilizing information and linking the online and offline participatory worlds (Gil de Zuñiga & Valenzuela, 2011). Recent studies have found support for this relationship in a variety of locations for numerous discrete public events, from formal protests to “smart” mobs of coordination for social and political causes (Rheingold, 2002; Sayed, 2011).

Perhaps most prominently, events in the “Arab Spring” of 2011 demonstrated mobile media’s role in place-based participation. Internet and mobile phone use helped facilitate democratic change over time in Egypt in complicated ways that leveraged political participation and mobile communications as components of a larger system of sociopolitical instability (Groshek, 2012). Rather than a simplistic explanation based on a single social networking platform, protestors in Tahrir Square relied on a complex organizational infrastructure, of which social and mobile media was a crucial part (Tufekci & Wilson, 2012). Protestors used Facebook, Twitter, and blogs along with mobile phone contact and face-to-face conversation to spread information. The importance of social and technological contexts also emerged in research comparing the cultural and ICT factors in the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings in 2010–2011. The application of social media, text messaging, and mobile devices was found to be consistently highlighted in the news narrative because those countries were among the region’s most wired and had populaces with the right combination of education, urban locations, activism, and technical aptitude (Howard & Hussain, 2011). Digital media, of which mobile phones were an important part, were “singularly powerful” in spreading political messages, drawing broadcast new coverage, connecting interested citizens, and facilitating shared political action through offline participation (Howard & Hussain, 2011, p. 41).

These findings are supported by related research on social media and political participation in Egypt prior to 2011. Activists who used mobile social networking for political information and discussion were more likely to participate in politics online and offline (Sayed, 2011). And a study of online activism across 2004–2011 in Egypt found that the most successful movements, such as Kefaya, the April 6th Youth, and We Are All Khaled Said, were the ones that used social media through the Internet and mobile phones to build and support networks of interested Egyptians and enhance the resources and appeal of opposition leaders (M. Lim, 2012). Thus, political activists during this period used mobile devices as part of a set of mobilization tools to establish and augment traditional social networks.

Similar conditional effects of mobile media’s direct and indirect influence on place-based participation have been found in Colombia, Chile, the Philippines, and Singapore (Rheingold, 2002; Rojas & Puig-I-Abril, 2009; Skoric & Poor, 2013; Valenzuela, Arriagada, & Scherman, 2012). These studies reveal the complicated ways that ICTs and social networks interact to influence place-based participation, and they also point to the influential role that mobile devices play as a means of connecting networks with the online and offline political worlds. Therefore, mobile-focused research offers the opportunity to transform conventional ideas about political participation and transcend limitations of measuring participation.

Mobile media’s ubiquity feature

Perhaps mobile media’s most salient unique characteristic is ubiquity, a term that encompasses omnipresence; immediacy, continuity, and simultaneity of connectivity; portability; and use while in physical transition from one location to another that all contribute to the “anytime, anywhere” understanding of mobile usage (Okazaki & Mendez, 2013). Jensen (2013) has argued that mobile media should be studied foremost in terms of this ubiquity as communication and information resources across physical space. Scholars have begun to examine the social ramifications of mobile media’s ubiquity, including the effects of the presumption and availability of ubiquitous information and data that diverge from other ICTs (Goggin, 2011).

The political implications of the ubiquity of information through mobile media are related to this expectation of always-on, on-the-go availability. Political journalism and the sharing of public opinion through mobile media rely on ubiquity. Political organization and mobilization using mobile devices also require constant connection. Research investigating ubiquity as a factor in campaigning and canvassing has clear application for mobile political participation research.

And ubiquity also raises broader questions about the consequences of “always connected” assumptions for political identity, efficacy, and capital of individuals and groups. Some scholars have argued that ubiquity leads to a convergence of communication, mobility, and physical and virtual space (Wilken, 2008), which could transform how people engage in online and offline political participation. Long term, there also is the potential for restructuring theoretical explanations of democratic participation and political processes, especially regarding ubiquity’s potential role in the acceleration of opinion and attitude formation and what that means for political deliberation.

Mobile media’s perpetual contact feature

Perpetual contact describes the feature of mobile media in social interaction in which network ties are actively or potentially accessible (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). Therefore, perpetual contact allows users to heighten social coordination and engage in mediated interpersonal exchanges that create a sense of connected copresence, constant connection to social contacts, individual addressability of recipients, and microcoordination through voice, text, SNS, or mobile Internet (Ling & Horst, 2011; Wei, 2013). Perpetual contact is not without its negative ramifications, including the potential for addiction, careless disclosure of private information, and other antisocial behaviors (Kisekka, Bagchi-Sen, & Rao, 2013; Salehan & Negahban, 2013); however, research also has shown that connectivity within public spaces afforded by perpetual contact contributes to higher levels of civic participation (Hampton, Livio, & Goulet, 2010).

The political implications of perpetual contact center on analysis of mobile media’s influence on network ties and whether they become strengthened, expanded, constrained, or overly configured in ways that effect dialogue about public issues (Campbell & Ling, 2008). Perpetual contact may influence political outcomes related to social connectivity, such as construction of identity, fostering and changing group and network relations, displaying membership, sharing political opinions and information, dialogic disruption, political attachment or detachment, and coordinating online and offline activities (Campbell & Kwak, 2011c). Research indicating the positive association of mobile media and social capital indicates the need for further examination of mobile media’s effects on political capital (Hampton, 2011). And Gergen (2008) posits that mobile media use for political purposes may even transform conceptions of the democratic process by producing a convergence of private thought and public deliberation.

Mobile media’s instant information feature

Mobile media allow for users to control the stream of information from news and social contacts and to subsume it into daily life in real time in ways that accelerate political information consumption, production, and exchange (Gordon et al., 2013). Scholars have begun to demonstrate how mobile media alter the traditional flow of news and information related to public life in ways distinct from other ICTs by providing unprecedented levels of instant interactivity and social connectedness in physical space (Campbell & Kwak, 2011a). These developments have clear underexamined consequences for how people use the mobile Internet and mobile media to distribute, receive, and interact with information in real time (Hjorth, 2009; Humphreys, von Pape, & Karnowski, 2013). Therefore, inquiries are needed that focus on the many ways that mobile devices alter traditional contexts of political message construction, dissemination, and reception.

As cocreators of mobile media, citizens can actively generate content by broadcasting political news, information, and opinion in real time, archiving that content, and incorporating political news and discussion into their networked interactions (Campbell & Ling, 2008; Hermanns, 2008). The rise of user-generated mobile political content has not been examined empirically, but a focus on which factors make it more likely for a person to participate in real-time recording and transmission of political events using mobile media is needed.

Research that situates user-generated mobile content within the larger flow of digital news and information also is required, both in terms of horizontal flow of political information and opinion across social contacts through voice and text and vertical flow of content with news providers, websites, and SNS (Gergen, 2008). The increased production and flow of instant information also raises questions about the effects of media literacy and content verification that have not yet been investigated. Such research also would have implications for how mobile media streaming of audio and video contribute to political discussion and related outcomes associated with political participation (Garrett et al., 2012).

Mobile media also are being employed in how governments, political parties, and politicians reach citizens through sending information via text and multimedia messaging services, mobile Internet, mobile applications, and mobile advertising (Cook, 2010). Mobile devices provide the potential for study as a means for sharing and measuring public opinion and informal participation (Hermanns, 2008). Already, political marketers in places like the United States, Brazil, and Uganda have conducted text-messaging information campaigns in support of ballot measures, and a variety of e-government services that distribute information and solicit citizen input, but findings remain mixed about whether these mobile distribution options encourage participation across social strata or whether obstacles exist similar to those of other ICTs (Garcia, Vivacqua, & Tavares, 2011; Hall & Owens, 2011; Hellström & Karefelt, 2012).

Mobile media’s location-based services feature

Location-based services exist at the intersection of mobility, technology, and location with the capability of pinpointing geographic locations, reporting these locations continuously, and relaying that information in real time (Maguire, 2009). Mobile devices provide options for political participation via location-based software and applications that use location-tracking services, through which other parties track the user’s location, and position-aware services, which use the device’s knowledge of its own location (Barkhuus & Dey, 2003). As a result, mobile media have a distinctive public function in everyday public behavior when used as locative media (Campbell, 2013). Such location-based services are increasingly popular for obtaining news and political information based on geo-location, and news organizations continue to invest resources in developing mobile sites and applications to harness location tracking and position awareness (Weiss, 2013).

Therefore, mobile political participation scholarship should focus more attention on the growing number of political uses of location-based services. For instance, applications in many locations worldwide have been developed related to everyday interactions with government and civic life including accessing physical information for polling places and city services; monitoring corruption; making informed voting choices and accessing virtual ballots; and participating in public safety efforts (Long, Lovitskii, Thrasher, & Traynor, 2009). And research has shown that location-based services are transforming how citizens view physical space through social and semantic cues with consequences for how users perceive others and the world around them (Evans, 2011).

Research on individual-level factors associated with engaging with applications that initiate these location-based political behaviors through mobile devices also would improve the explanatory ability of mobile political participation theories. Studies also have shown that location-based services mediate conceptualizations of space and geography, which leads to suggestions of investigating the potentially mutually influential relationship of mobile devices and physical locations (Gordon et al., 2013). Mobile information-seeking activities in public spaces also have been found to contribute to broadened democratic participation (Hampton et al., 2010).

Additionally, more attention to how mobile location-based services and information are used for political purposes also would allow for a better accounting of the potential negative democratic ramifications of such interactions, such as text-mining and surveillance usage of user data by governments, parties, and candidates (Barkhuus & Dey, 2003; Evangelopoulos & Visinescu, 2012). As location-based services become more popular and pervasive, concerns have been raised about personal safety, privacy, identity, control over public spaces, and data security when locative media data is made available to governments, corporations, and other third parties (De Souza e Silva & Frith, 2010; Hjorth, 2012; Singh, 2011). The further political ramifications of such negative connotations, including tracking and reprisals against citizens, have obvious important appeal to mobile political participation research.

Mobile media’s personalization feature

Mobile media represent an evolution in the role of ICTs in networked society based on heightened personalization and customization in displaying and using the devices (Campbell & Park, 2008). Mobile personalization affords users with a sense of control over mediated social interactions (Madell & Muncer, 2007). In many cases, the mobile devices are private and not shared; however, even in areas of the global south in which mobile phones are shared, users have found ways to personalize and customize their experiences (Rangaswamy & Singh, 2009; Steenson & Donner, 2009).

Due to the personalization feature, users associate their mobile communications with privacy, and perceive their communications as confidential even when they are not (Häkkilä & Chatfield, 2005). This personalization-privacy paradox (Sutanto, Palme, Tan, & Phang, 2013) has important social ramifications, perhaps chiefly with how mobile media’s personalization feature influences cultural and political identity and interactions with authorities (Srivastava, 2005). There also is some indication that Internet and mobile phone use contributes to political individualization, in which citizens are less strongly connected to traditional communities and instead shift from formal political involvement to dynamic connections with issue networks (Calenda & Meijer, 2011). Other political implications include the effects of customization in terms of filtering news and opinion also raises research questions about willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints (Wei, 2013) and the potential for the personalization of government services (Millard, 2011).

Barriers to mobile political participation

Along with features that distinguish mobile media in political participation, there are three main areas of potential barriers to participation that deserve closer research attention: cost of entry, infrastructure, and geographic constraints.

First, any ICT by nature creates a barrier to participation through economic and opportunity cost. However, many mobile media make information available through relatively inexpensive devices and provide a means of online social and informational connectivity, especially for citizens who cannot afford other more expensive digital devices but have identified the need for such media (Akiyoshi & Ono, 2008; Pearce & Rice, 2013; Sey, 2011). Mobile media also may offer a lower opportunity cost of entry and more equitable access through user-focused, intuitive interfaces, such as touch screens and other formats that bypass the need for complex knowledge (Gordon et al., 2013). However, existing literature reveals few concrete conclusions about the use of mobile media for political purposes by the economically disadvantaged in any location, whether that is wealthy or developing nations, or urban or rural locations (Pearce, 2013).

Therefore, scholars should pay specific attention to investigating inequalities in access, skill, and efficacy in using mobile media to engage with public life (Pearce & Rice, 2013). Further barriers emerge based on technological divides, characterized by hardware and software access, and content divides, which encompasses limitations on the breadth of activities in which users engage and thus constrains benefits they may receive (van Dijk, 2005). It remains to be seen whether mobile media possess qualities that maneuver around economic and competency barriers, but research on the political utility of mobile devices with sensitivity to these issues would better address those research questions.

Secondly, the political and economic dimensions of infrastructures present barriers to mobile political participation (Horst, 2013). These barriers include technical restrictions, such as bandwidth or signal blocking by authorities or private entities; sociopolitical and related regulatory barriers; and security and access concerns at both the levels of access to signal and personal access to mobile devices (Singh, 2011). For example, several similar studies in Australia, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Turkey, and the United States have demonstrated a correlation between government endorsement and use of the Internet and social media and increased political participation by citizens (Bridges, Appel, & Grossklags, 2012; Macnamara & Kenning, 2011; Saglie & Vabo, 2009; Sandoval-Almazan & Gutierrez-Alonzo, 2011; Saylan, 2009).

A final barrier is geography and how location affects the ways in which different segments of the populace use mobile media for political participation. Despite mobile media’s potential for transcending place, mobile media remain instilled with the beliefs, ideologies, and social contexts of the environments in which they are used (Maguire, 2009). For example, research on mobile communications in urban spaces frequently focuses on tourist areas, popular public spaces in downtowns, business districts, or college campuses (Hampton et al., 2010). However, research questions remain unanswered about how the urban poor might use mobile as a possible entry to political participation in less affluent areas. Similar questions also are important to ask about rural or underdeveloped areas in many countries where mobile devices offer unique opportunities for connecting people to each other and information (Wasserman, 2011). It has yet to be demonstrated whether mobile media are helping citizens and groups transcend geographic boundaries and limitations for political participation.

Mobile political participation: Further research opportunities

Scholars have identified the need for a more holistic view of mobile media’s role in politics that connects with other areas of research on ICTs and communication processes (Wei, 2013). This analysis indicates opportunities for scholars to unpack mobile media’s unique features in ways that potentially redefine political participation, and, accordingly, further the development of mobile political participation research. Research is needed that explains mobile media use in finer detail, accounts for shifting definitions of participation, and contributes to the development of comparative frameworks.

Explaining mobile media use

More nuanced conceptualizations of how and why people use mobile devices for political purposes would address research questions regarding revelatory dimensions of use, including motivations, intensity, passivity, activity, and competence (Bakke, 2010; Campbell & Kwak, 2010). A more sophisticated understanding of the factors preceding mobile device use could better address the conditional effects of the unique qualities identified in the previous section and other questions regarding the effects of interface, device used, activity selected, and intricacies of geography in location-based participation (Hirzalla et al., 2011). For example, a further explanation is required for how and why citizens use social media to participate in location-based politics versus more passive forms of online political participation (Humphreys, 2013).

More research also is needed regarding how mobile media are integrated into political communication systems with attention to the multidirectional ways that mobile devices complement other forms of political information and opinion exchange (Campbell, 2013). As mobile media transform interactions with social contacts and physical and virtual spaces, scholars need to better account for how these changes affect the broader landscape of political news and information. Such analysis addresses questions about how mobile media use is shaped by politics, society, and culture (Hermanns, 2008).

Finally, a major limitation of the ICT-related political participation literature has been reliance on self-report measures. This is acutely important for mobile research because respondents tend to overreport frequency of mobile device use, which may lead to overestimation of effects (Kobayashi & Boase, 2012). In order to improve validity, methodologists recommend using smartphone applications to collect real-time usage logs or constructing self-report measures based on a time reference of frequency of use in the previous seven days (Timotijevic, Barnett, Shepherd, & Senior, 2009). Such methodologies also would help unpack how mobile media are used for construction, maintenance, and revision of citizens’ public and private political identities (Wasserman, 2011).

Expanding definitions of political participation

Mobile media have altered our understanding of participation in public life (Gordon et al., 2013), which has direct bearing on how political participation is conceptualized. Incorporation of insights from studies about the multidirectional relationship of mobile devices and civic and social life allows mobile political participation to move beyond a relatively static model of adoption and effects.

While ICT political participation literature provides a solid foundation for investigating mobile media in relation to mediated political information exchange and traditional political participatory behaviors online and offline, the paradigm is less ready to inform mobile political participation on how to examine outcomes related to political discussion, political deliberation, and political behaviors within mediated social networks. Instead, more emphasis could be placed on the social contexts of mobile media use, how people make sense of mobile devices, how they use them to engage with politics, how they identify and signal their opinions and associations, how mobile media empower or influence political efficacy, and how mobile-mediated political interactions among citizens, issue publics, politicians, and governments produce distinct effects (Campbell & Ling, 2008; Donner, 2008). For example, mobile media have forced scholars to rethink public connectivity and the fluidity of social structures by creating new kinds of issue publics that assemble and dissolve quickly through mobile coordination (Sheller, 2004). Others have studied how lack of participation may serve as political comment in itself in some cultures (Wasserman, 2011).

In particular, the association of mobile media with informal online political communication rarely has been studied (Garrett et al., 2012; Wiklund, 2005). Scholars also have cited the need for a better understanding of what is unique about mobile media as a space of sharing political information and opinions (Campbell & Kwak, 2011c). Therefore, more research attention should be placed on informal political conversations in the form of voice, text, video, or some combination. In fact, it has been argued that the specific advantages of mobile devices applicable to public life are most noticeable outside traditional procedural politics (Hermanns, 2008).

And because mobile media use has been linked to both formal and informal dimensions of social capital (Campbell & Ling, 2008), researchers should look within network structures to test assumptions about political participation that delve into routine communication among social ties (Hampton, 2011; Wellman & Hampton, 1999). Accordingly, a focus is needed on the user-driven creation and development of democratic networks and spaces to understand how mobile users interact with each other and political entities to influence political processes and subvert traditional top-down flows of information (Friedland, Hove, & Rojas, 2006; Garrett et al., 2012). While research has demonstrated that ICTs offer the potential for alternative online spheres of discourse for marginalized populations, evidence specific to mobile media has not yet been produced.

Finally, there is a need for more theorizing regarding mobile media’s contributions to macrolevel participation in the form of large-scale socioeconomic or democratic development (Avgerou, 2010). While some scholars have found that mobile media have played a role in political organization, mobilization, and participation, these findings have been confined mostly to description rather than analysis (Howard & Hussain, 2011). More research is needed to account for how the widespread informal use of mobile media may develop pathways to reach disconnected citizens and encourage their participation in social movements (Loudon, 2010).

Developing comparative frameworks

Mobile political participation research also must better account for the complicated nature of international, global, and transnational communication (Pearce, 2013; Pearce & Rice, 2013; Shklovski, Vertesi, & Lindtner, 2014). Discrepancies in the findings of studies on the role of mobile-related ICTs across countries highlight the lack of conditional understanding on these issues and the need for more developed theorizing (Hermanns, 2008). Development of a comparative framework for mobile political participation would help reveal the contextual constraints around mobile media’s unique qualities.

Existing ICT-related political communication models are inherently tied to governance systems, which have the strength of allowing scholars to bridge analysis across individual and societal levels, but which also may be criticized for limiting generalization and creating parochial focus on certain approaches to participatory governance (Garrett et al., 2012). ICT development literature that has assessed different conceptualizations of political participation indicates there is strength in analyses with sociocultural specificity, but the development of mobile political participation as a field requires scholars to link these rich findings to one another. In fact, research has found that convergence outweighs divergence when analyzing mobile phones and ICTs in cross-cultural contexts (Schroeder, 2010).

Therefore, researchers should further examine how factors such as social context, access, geography, and infrastructure define and constrain research with attention to how technology and its uses are culturally located (Ito, Okabe, & Matsuda, 2005). This approach also would alleviate concerns about reducing mobile media to instrumentalist or purposive roles in politics. Mobile media present consistent properties for analysis that allow for comparison while accounting for differences in findings that may be highly contingent on social context. Cross-national and longitudinal research methodologies are required for building such analytical frameworks (Hermanns, 2008). Understanding how mobile devices enable global connections to political information and entities also is imperative in this regard (Wasserman, 2011). ICT-related research has demonstrated that mobile devices bolster social and economic ties that cut across geography (Shklovski et al., 2014), but more comparative work is required to explain the complicated nature of mobile media’s role in global politics.

Conclusion

Mobile media have gained importance as an element of political communication and as a topic of scholarly study; however, mobile political participation research requires further development to better explain these phenomena. Mobile media have the potential to contribute to fundamental changes in political participation, but researchers also should heed how existing political behaviors are adjusted and shaped in more subtle ways by mobile media use.

This article synthesized the contributions and limitations of ICT-related political participation literature with analysis of the unique qualities that distinguish mobile media as an important element of political communication and participation. As a result, it is argued that more research is needed that unpacks mobile media’s distinct contributions to politics through more careful consideration of the social context of mobile media use, an expanded conceptualization of political participation, and the development of comparative frameworks that account for cross-cultural understanding of these processes.

Footnotes

Funding

The author wishes to thank the Faculty Research and Development Program in the College of Communication at DePaul University for a grant that assisted in this research.

Author biography

Jason A. Martin, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the College of Communication at DePaul University, Chicago, USA. His research focuses on the political and civic effects of media and the ramifications of technological developments on journalism, society, law, and policy.

References

Akiyoshi

Ono

(2008). The diffusion of mobile Internet in Japan. The Information Society, 24(5), 292–303.

Avgerou

(2010). Discourses on ICT and development. Information Technologies & International Development, 6(3), 1–18.

Bakke

(2010). A model and measure of mobile communication competence. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 348–371.

Barkhuus

Dey

(2003). Location-based services for mobile telephony. In Proceedings of Interact 2003 (pp. 709–712). Berkeley, CA: ACM.

Best

S. J.

Krueger

B. S.

(2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183–216.

Bimber

Stohl

Flanagin

(2009). Technological change and the shifting nature of political organization. In Chadwick

Howard

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 72–85). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Bridges

Appel

Grossklags

(2012). Young adults’ online participation behaviors: An exploratory study of Web 2.0 use for political engagement. Information Polity, 17, 163–176.

Bucy

E. P.

Gregson

K. S.

(2001). Media participation: A legitimizing mechanism of mass democracy. New Media & Society, 3(3), 357–380.

Calenda

Meijer

(2011). Political individualization: New media as an escape from family control over political behavior. Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), 660–683.

10.

Campbell

S. W.

(2013). Mobile media and communication: A new field, or just a new journal? Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 8–13.

11.

Campbell

S. W.

Kwak

(2010). Mobile communication and civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political engagements. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 536–555.

12.

Campbell

S. W.

Kwak

(2011a). Mobile communication and civil society: Linking patterns and places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication Research, 37(2), 207–222.

13.

Campbell

S. W.

Kwak

(2011b). Political involvement in “mobilized” society: The interactive relationships among mobile communication, network characteristics, and political participation. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1005–1024.

14.

Campbell

S. W.

Kwak

(2011c). Mobile communication and strong network ties: Shrinking or expanding spheres of public discourse? New Media & Society, 14(2), 262–280.

15.

Campbell

S. W.

Ling

R. S.

(2008). Effects of mobile communication. In Bryant

Oliver

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 592–606). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

16.

Campbell

S. W.

Park

(2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371–387.

17.

Castells

Fernandez-Ardevol

Qiu

Sey

(2007). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Chen

Givens

(2013). Mobile donation in America. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(2), 196–212.

19.

Cogburn

D. L.

Espinoza-Vasquez

F. K.

(2011). From networked nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213.

20.

Cook

(2010). Mobile marketing and political activities. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 5(1), 154–163.

21.

Correa

Hinsley

A. W.

Gil de Zuñiga

(2010). Who interacts on the web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247–253.

22.

David

C. C.

(2013). ICTs in political engagement among youth in the Philippines. International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 322–337.

23.

De Souza e Silva

Frith

(2010). Locational privacy in public spaces: Media discourses on location-aware mobile technologies. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(4), 503–525.

24.

Dimitrova

D. V.

Shehata

Stromback

Nord

L. W.

(2011). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95–118.

25.

Donner

(2008). Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: A review of the literature. The Information Society: An International Journal, 24(3), 140–159.

26.

Effing

van Hillegersberg

Huibers

(2011). Social media and political participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems? In Tambouris

Macintosh

de Bruijn

(Eds.), Electronic participation (pp. 25–35). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

27.

Evangelopoulos

Visinescu

(2012). Text-mining the voice of the people. Communications of the ACM, 55(2), 62–69.

28.

Evans

(2011). Location-based services: Transformation of the experience of space. Journal of Location Based Services, 5(3–4), 242–260.

29.

Friedland

L. A.

Hove

Rojas

(2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost-the Public, 13(4), 5–26.

30.

Garcia

A. C.

Vivacqua

A. S.

Tavares

T. C.

(2011). Enabling crowd participation in governmental decision-making. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(14), 1931–1950.

31.

Garrett

R. K.

Bimber

Gil de Zuñiga

Heinderyckx

Kelly

Smith

(2012). New ICTs and the study of political communication. International Journal of Communication, 6, 214–231.

32.

Gergen

K. J.

(2008). Mobile communication and the transformation of the democratic process. In Katz

(Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 297–310), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

33.

Gil de Zuñiga

Jung

Valenzuela

(2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336.

34.

Gil de Zuñiga

Puig-I-Abril

Rojas

(2009). Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society, 11(4), 553–574.

35.

Gil de Zuñiga

Valenzuela

(2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397–421.

36.

Gil de Zuñiga

Veenstra

Vraga

Shah

(2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 36–51.

37.

Goggin

(2011). Ubiquitous apps: Politics of openness in global mobile cultures. Digital Creativity, 22(3), 148–159.

38.

Gordon

Baldwin-Philippi

Balestra

(2013). Why we engage: How theories of human behavior contribute to our understanding of civic engagement in a digital era. Berkman Center Research Publication, 21, 1–29.

39.

Groshek

(2012). Forecasting and observing: A cross-methodological consideration of Internet and mobile phone diffusion in the Egyptian revolt. International Communication Gazette, 74(8), 750–768.

40.

Groshek

Dimitrova

D. V.

(2011). A cross-section of voter learning, campaign interest and intention to vote in the 2008 American election: Did Web 2.0 matter? Communication Studies Journal, 9, 355–375.

41.

Häkkilä

Chatfield

(2005). It’s like if you opened someone else’s letter: User perceived privacy and social practices with SMS communication. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (pp. 219–222). Salzburg, Austria: ACM.

42.

Hall

T. E.

Owens

(2011). The digital divide and e-government services. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 37–44). New York, NY: ACM.

43.

Hampton

K. N.

(2011). Comparing bonding and bridging ties for democratic engagement: Everyday use of communication technologies within social networks for civic and civil behaviors. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4), 510–528.

44.

Hampton

K. N.

Livio

Goulet

L. S.

(2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60, 701–722.

45.

Hargittai

(2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864

46.

Hellström

Karefelt

(2012). Participation through mobile phones: A study of SMS use during the Ugandan general elections 2011. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (pp. 249–258). Atlanta, GA: ACM.

47.

Hermanns

(2008). Mobile democracy: Mobile phones as democratic tools. Politics, 28(2), 74–82.

48.

Hirzalla

van Zoonen

de Ridder

(2011). Internet use and political participation: Reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. The Information Society, 27, 1–15.

49.

Hjorth

(2009). The big bang: An example of mobile media as new media. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 7(2), 1–13.

50.

Hjorth

(2012). Relocating the mobile: A case study of locative media in Seoul, South Korea. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 19(2), 237–249.

51.

Horst

H. A.

(2013). The infrastructures of mobile media: Towards a future research agenda. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 147–152.

52.

Howard

P. N.

Hussain

M. M.

(2011). The upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35–48.

53.

Humphreys

(2013). Mobile social media: Future challenges and opportunities. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 20–25.

54.

Humphreys

von Pape

Karnowski

(2013). Evolving mobile media: Uses and conceptualizations of the mobile Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 491–507.

55.

Ilavarasan

P. V.

(2013). Community work and limited online activism among India youth. The International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 284–299.

56.

Ito

Okabe

Matsuda

(2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

57.

Jensen

K. B.

(2013). What’s mobile in mobile communications? Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 26–31.

58.

Karan

Gimeno

J. D.

Tandoc

Jr. (2009). The Internet and mobile technologies in election campaigns: The GABRIELA Women’s Party during the 2007 Philippine elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3–4), 326–339.

59.

Katz

J. E.

Aakhus

M. A.

(2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Kim

(2007, October 9). Sohn leads in mobile phone voting. Korea Times. Retrieved from http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/10/116_11575.html

61.

Kisekka

Bagchi-Sen

Rao

H. R.

(2013). Extent of private information disclosure on online social networks: An exploration of Facebook mobile phone users. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2722–2729.

62.

Kobayashi

Boase

(2012). No such effect? The implications of measurement error in self-report measures of mobile communication use. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 126–143.

63.

Kohut

Keeter

(2008). Social networking and online videos take off. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/384.pdf

64.

Kushin

M. J.

Yamamoto

(2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608–630.

65.

Kwak

Campbell

S. W.

Choi

Bae

S. Y.

(2011). Mobile communication and public affairs engagement in Korea: An examination of non-linear relationships between mobile phone use and engagement across age groups. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(5), 485–503.

66.

Lee

C. S.

(2012). News sharing social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331–339.

67.

Lim

J. B.

(2013). Video blogging and youth activism in Malaysia. The International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 300–321.

68.

Lim

(2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 231–248.

69.

Ling

(2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

70.

Ling

Horst

H. A.

(2011). Mobile communication in the global south. New Media & Society, 13(3), 363–374.

71.

Long

Lovitskii

Thrasher

Traynor

(2009). Mobile election. In Information science and computing (pp. 19–28). Varna, Bulgaria: ACM.

72.

Loudon

(2010). ICTs as an opportunity structure in southern social movements: A case study of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1069–1098.

73.

Macnamara

Kenning

(2011). E-electioneering 2010: Trends in social media use in Australian political communication. Media International Australia, 139, 7–22.

74.

Madell

D. E.

Muncer

S. J.

(2007). Control over social interactions: An important reason for young people’s use of the Internet and mobile phones for communication? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 137–140.

75.

Maguire

(2009, May). Managing mobility: Location-based services and the politics of mobile spaces. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Mobile Pre-Conference Workshop, Chicago, IL.

76.

Martin

J. A.

(2013). Closing gaps in international knowledge and participation: News attention, online expression, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Mass Communication & Society, 16(3), 417–440.

77.

McClurg

S. D.

(2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449–464.

78.

Millard

(2011). Are you being served?: Transforming e-government through service personalisation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 7(4), 1–18.

79.

Min

(2010). From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 22–35.

80.

Mossberger

Tolbert

C. J.

McNeal

R. S.

(2008). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

81.

Moy

Manosevitch

Stamm

Dunsmore

(2005). Linking dimensions of Internet use and civic engagement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(3), 571–586.

82.

Okazaki

Mendez

(2013). Perceived ubiquity in mobile services. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 98–111.

83.

Park

Kee

Valenzuela

(2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(6), 729–733.

84.

Pearce

K. E.

(2013). Phoning it in: Theory in mobile media and communication in developing countries. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 76–82.

85.

Pearce

K. E.

Rice

R. E.

(2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721–744. doi:10.1111/jcom.12045

86.

Quintelier

Vissers

(2008). The effect of Internet use on political participation: An analysis of survey results for 16-year-olds in Belgium. Social Science Computer Review, 26(4), 411–427.

87.

Rainie

Smith

(2010). Politics goes mobile. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Politics.aspx

88.

Rangaswamy

Singh

(2009). Personalizing the shared mobile phone. In Aykin

(Ed.), Internationalization, design and global development (pp. 395–403). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-02767-3_44

89.

Rheingold

(2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York, NY: Basic Books.

90.

Rojas

Puig-I-Abril

(2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 902–927.

91.

Ross

Orr

E. S.

Sisic

Arsenault

J. M.

Simmering

M. G.

Orr

R. R.

(2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586.

92.

Saglie

Vabo

S. I.

(2009). Size and e-democracy: Online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382–401.

93.

Sandoval-Almazan

Gutierrez-Alonzo

M. A.

(2011). Empowering people using Twitter: The case of Mexico’s Internet tax. In Manoharan

Holzer

(Eds.), E-governance and civic engagement: Factors and determinants of e-democracy. Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/empowering-people-using-twitter/60093

94.

Salehan

Negahban

(2013). Social networking on smartphones: When mobile phones become addictive. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2632–2639.

95.

Sayed

(2011). Towards the Egyptian revolution: Activists’ perceptions of social media for mobilization. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 4(2–3), 273–298.

96.

Saylan

(2009). Internet: A gateway to democracy? A comparative analysis of Turkish and Italian e-government experiences. Amme Idaresi Dergisi, 42(3), 141–162.

97.

Schroeder

(2010). Mobile phones and the inexorable advance of multimodal connectedness. New Media & Society, 12(1), 75–90.

98.

Sey

(2011). “We use it different, different”: Making sense of trends in mobile phone use in Ghana. New Media & Society, 13(3), 375–390.

99.

Shah

D. V.

Cho

Eveland

W. P.

Jr. Kwak

(2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565.

100.

Shah

D. V.

Rojas

Cho

(2009). Media and civic participation: On understanding and misunderstanding communication effects. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 207–227). New York, NY: Routledge.

101.

Sheller

(2004). Mobile publics: Beyond the network perspective. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 39–52.

102.

Shklovski

Vertesi

Lindtner

(2014). Introduction to this Special Issue on transnational HCI. Human-Computer Interaction, 29(1), 1–21.

103.

Singh

(2011). Identity privacy in mobile: Issues, challenges, and solutions. The IUP Journal of Information Technology, 7(4), 31–39.

104.

Skoric

M. M.

Poor

(2013). Youth engagement in Singapore: The interplay of social and traditional media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 187–204.

105.

Smith

Duggan

(2012). The state of the 2012 election – Mobile politics. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Election-2012-Mobile.aspx

106.

Srivastava

(2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2), 111–129.

107.

Steenson

M. W.

Donner

(2009). Beyond the personal and private: Modes of mobile phone sharing in urban India. The Reconstruction of Space and Time: Mobile Communication Practices, 1, 231–250.

108.

Suarez

S. L.

(2006). Mobile democracy: Text messages, voter turnout and the 2004 Spanish general election. Representation, 42(2), 117–127.

109.

Sutanto

Palme

Tan

Phang

C. W.

(2013). Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1141–1164.

110.

Taipale

Fortunati

(2013). Capturing methodological trends in mobile communication studies. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.862562

111.

Timotijevic

Barnett

Shepherd

Senior

(2009). Factors influencing self-report of mobile phone use: The role of response prompt, time reference and mobile phone use in recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 664–683.

112.

Tolbert

C. J.

McNeal

R. S.

(2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185.

113.

Törenli

Kıyan

Yüksel

(2012). Mobile democracy discourse in a Turkish experiment. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 5(1), 50–62.

114.

Tufekci

Wilson

(2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379.

115.

Ullah

M. S.

(2013). ICTs changing youths’ political attitudes and behaviors in Bangladesh. The International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 271–283.

116.

Valenzuela

Arriagada

Scherman

(2012). The social media basis of youth protest behavior: The case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 299–314.

117.

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

118.

Walton

Donner

(2011). Read-write-erase: Mobile-mediated publics in South Africa’s 2009 elections. In Katz

J. E.

(Ed.), Mobile communication: Dimension of social policy (pp. 117–132). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

119.

Wasserman

(2011). Mobile phones, popular media, and everyday African democracy: Transmissions and transgressions. Popular Communication, 9(2), 146–158.

120.

Wei

(2012). Number matters: The multimodality of Internet use as an indicator of digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 303–318.

121.

Wei

(2013). Mobile media: Coming of age with a big splash. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 50–56.

122.

Weiss

A. S.

(2013). Exploring news apps and location-based services on the smartphone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(3), 435–456.

123.

Wellman

Hampton

(1999). Living networked on and offline. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 648–654.

124.

Wiklund

(2005). A Habermasian analysis of the deliberative democratic potential of ICT-enabled services in Swedish municipalities. New Media & Society, 7(5), 701–723.

125.

Wilken

(2008). Mobilizing place: Mobile media, peripatetics, and the renegotiation of urban spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 15(3), 39–55.

126.

Willnat

Wong

W. J.

Tamam

(2013). Online media and political participation: The case of Malaysia. Mass Communication & Society, 16(4), 557–585.

127.

Xenos

Moy

(2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 704–718.

128.

Zhang

(2013). Redefining youth activism through digital technology in Singapore. The International Communication Gazette, 75(3), 253–270.