Proposal 2013F- Edited

7/27/2019 Proposal 2013F- Edited

1/20

1

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

1Popular 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. Socialmedia tools which have been highly emphasised include Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (Kaplan & Haenlein,

2010).


2/20

2

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 informationcommunication 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.


3/20

3

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

evident during theconstitution making process recently. For example, Parliamentary

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

3Facebook 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 200million users per month. Source: http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2012/12/18/twitter-now-has-200-million-

monthly-active-users-up-60-million-in-9-months
https://www.facebook.com/groups/parlymonitorhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/parlymonitorhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/parlymonitorhttp://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Factshttp://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Factshttp://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Factshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/parlymonitor


4/20

4

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 amore 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 offeran 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 theirpotential 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


5/20

5

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 asindividuals 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 governmentaction 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.


6/20

6

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 communityduring 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:


7/20

7

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 ofcommunication (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


8/20

8

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 namely(#zimelections,

#zimdecides2013, #zimelection, #zimvote and #zimdecides.)5 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

A hash tag, which also functions as a search string, connects a tweet to larger themes6 The collection and archiving of the tweets has already started. The period was selected as it best describes

voting period.


9/20

9

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 thecommuniations, 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


10/20


11/20

11

References

Alterman, J. (2011). The Revolution will not be tweeted. Washington Quarterly Vol 34Number 4, 103-116.

Aouragh, M., & Alexander, A. (2011). The Egyptian experience:Sense and nonsense of theInternet 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, fromhttp://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 researchin online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 39, 61-72.

Lilleker, D., & Jackson, N. (2008). Politicians and Web 2.0: the current bandwagon orchanging the mindset? Web 2.0: an International Conference. London: University ofLondon.

Lockyer, S. (2004). Coding Qualitative Data. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao, TheSage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 137 - 138). ThousandOaks: Sage

Luoma-aho, V. (2011). Is new media killing our theories. A paper presented at ViestinnnTutkimuksen 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


12/20

12

Corporation (ZBC): an analytical study.Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy (Journalism) University ofStellenbosch.

Mavhunga, C. (2008). The glass fortress: Zimbabwe's cyber guerilla warfare. ConcernedAfrican Scholars (Bulleting No 8), 21 - 27 .

Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: The dark side of internet freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.

Moyo, D. (2012). Mediating crisis realigning media policy and deployment of propaganda inZimbabwe, 2000 - 2008. In S. Chiumbu, & M. Musemwa, The Multiple Dimensions ofthe Zimbabwe Crisis (pp. 176 - 198). Cape Town: HRSC Press.

Moyo, L. (2011). Blogging down a dictatorship: Human rights, citizen journalists and the rightto communicate in Zimbabwe. Journalism Vol 12:, 745-760.

Moyo, L. (2012). Participation, citizenship, and pirate radio as empowerment:The case ofRadio Dialogue in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Communication Vol 6, 484500.

Mpofu, S. (2011). The power of citizen journalism in Zimbabwe. Retrieved November 13,2012, from fesmedia: http://www.fesmedia-

africa.org/uploads/media/The_power_of_citizen_journalism_in_Zimbabwe2_01.pdfMungiu-Pippidi, A., & Munteanu, I. (2009). Moldova's "Twitter Revolution". Journal ofDemocracy Vol 20 Number 3, 136-142.

Mutambo, C. (2011, august 5). TechZimbabwe. Retrieved september 9, 2012, fromTechZimbabwe: http://www.techzim.co.zw/2011/08/zimbabwe-is-africa%E2%80%99s-biggest-growth-market/

Mutsvairo, B., & Columbus, S. (2012). Emerging patterns and trends in citizen journalism inAfrica: A case of Zimbabwe. Central European Journal of Communication Vol 5Number 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 whatthe 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 andRenewal in Southern Africa (pp. 99 - 122). Colorado: International AcademicPublisher.


13/20

13

Annex A. Survey Questionnaire

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. City/Tow/Area Located:

1. City

2. Town 3. Growth Point

4. Rural Area

2. Sex:

1.Male

2.Female

3. Age: ___

4. Education:

1. Primary School

2. Secondary School

3. Tertiary Education

4. First Degree

5. Graduate Degree

5. Occupation:__________________________

6 Monthly Salary: US$____________

II. FACEBOOK USAGE

7. 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

8. How did you get to know about Facebook?

1. Through Family Member

2. Through Friends

3. Others, specify _________

9. Where do you access Facebook? (check as many as appropriate)

1. Home

2. Office


14/20

14

3. School

4. Internet Caf

5. Cellphone

6. Others, Specify ___________

10. 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

11. 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




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


15/20

15

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


16/20

16

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


17/20

17

2. No

32. If you answered yes to 31 above, please explain what role Facebook played


18/20

18

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 Facebook6) 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?


19/20

19

Annex C

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


20/20

20

Annex D

username

localdate

status location

kwiriray

i

7/6/2

01311:46

MDC, ZAPU Form Political Alliance http://t.co/X2gZs9Uebp

#3mobzw #twimbos #zimelections

Zimbabwe

zapu 7/6/201313:26

Stage is set at Stanley Square #zapu #wozekhaya#zimelections http://t.co/NwpyLce9Fq

Zimbabwe

Oldschoolvalue1

7/6/201316:26

25days to go #zimElections. Make sure you are registered! 263

Dewamavhinga

7/6/201316:30

Victory for #ZANU-PF at the July 31 #ZimElections must notbe less than 90%, - President #Mugabe, 89 #263chat#twimbos

Cambridge, UnitedKingdom

zapu 7/6/2

01319:06

Iqhude selikubonile ukuthi ukukhala akusizi #zapu

#zimelections #WozEkhaya http://t.co/axx2ti4E2J

Zimbabwe

zapu 7/6/201319:10

That's the only straw available for them now...drowning lot#zapu #zimelections #WozEkhaya http://t.co/HmEIqnti3O

Zimbabwe

ndiMunyahWacho

7/6/201319:13

#Zanu has just stepped up the gear, i have received acampaign txt.... 'Viva Zanu kugara musango taneta...'#ZimElections

Bulawayo,Zimbabwe

KanhemaPhoto

7/6/20139:43

RT @LanceGuma: Power must be addictive. #Mugabe 33years in power and he still wants another 5 years?#ZimElections #ZimbabweDecides

SanFrancisco,CA

LanceGuma

7/6/201317:45

#Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabwe out of SADC showsyou HE thinks the country belongs to HIM. #ZimElections#ZimbabweDecides

UnitedKingdom

JayNeale

7/6/201317:47

RT @LanceGuma: #Mugabe threatening to pull #Zimbabweout of SADC shows you HE thinks the country belongs toHIM. #ZimElections #ZimbabweDec

Putney,London

mynassah

7/6/20139:49


Horn ofAfrica

zapu 7/6/201320:32

What goes round comes around #zimelectionshttp://t.co/DRj2Cviqe6

Zimbabwe

Tings2008

7/6/201318:35


Pretoria.SouthAfrica

ndixman

7/6/201318:44


Manchester

lmakombe

7/6/201320:59

we are headed for an exciting cyber war of information andthe opposite #zimelections

Zimbabwe

CyberWarID

7/6/201319:02

RT @lmakombe: we are headed for an exciting cyber war ofinformation and the opposite #zimelections

Documents

Proposal 2013F- Edited