Professionalisation of political campaigning
Rachel Gibson
Posted 12/6/2008 10:44 (#49)
Subject: Professionalisation of political campaigning


Member

Posts: 5

Professionalisation of Political Campaigning
I am currently working with a network of European scholars (based in Germany, Hungary and Sweden) to examine the changing nature of political campaigning and particularly its professionalization. Our focus is on measuring the use of the new tools and techniques associated with this shift in the first instance, but also on the likely consequences of this new form of voter outreach. We have published and have forthcoming a number of studies on this topic (Gibson and Rommele, 2001; 2008) Strombeck (2008) and are keen to expand the comparative focus of the data gathering. So far we have derived questions that could be asked of candidates in their use of the new tools and also of voters. The key question that seems to arise in the literature is whether new styles of more’hi-tech’ modes of campaigning are alienating voters by depersonalising contact and narrowing parties’ grassroots, by reducing their need for campaign workers. The questions we have developed are designed to test these ideas – although they are currently in draft form. We would like to submit them to the Piredeu project to see if there is any scope and interest for including them in the upcoming 09 voter and candidate studies.

Below I list the questions we are developing for candidates. These cover types of tools used, who supplied them and how far in advance of the election they were deployed. We are also interested in how much funding was used to support them.

1. In developing and running your campaign how often did you use any of the following services or engage in any of the following activities?

1. Overall campaign manager Used a lot/quite a bit/a little/did not use
2. General IT/computing services “ “ “
3. Voter database
4. Campaign website (personal site not party/parliament maintained)
6. Email subscription newsletter
7. Opinion polling/survey research
8. Opposition research
9. Personal media/PR advisor
10. TV/radio/newspaper adverts
11. Personal face-to-face contact/canvassing of voters
12. Distribution of printed materials, i.e.leaflets, posters
11. Event/meeting coordinators
12. Telemarketing
13. Direct Mailing

2. And were these services/activities undertaken/managed by you and your staff primarily, or were they supplied primarily by your party, or an external professional companies/consultants?

1. Overall campaign manager Own team/ Party/ Professional
2. General IT/computing services “ “ “
3. Voter database
4. Campaign website (personal site not party/parliament maintained)
6. Email subscription newsletter
7. Opinion polling/survey research
8. Opposition research
9. Personal media/PR advisor
10. TV/radio/newspaper adverts
11. Personal face-to-face contact/canvassing of voters
12. Distribution of printed materials, i.e.leaflets, posters
11. Event/meeting coordinators
12. Telemarketing
13. Direct Mailing

3. Did you engage in these activities specifically for the election campaign or had you been using them in advance? If you were using them in advance, how long before the campaign began had you been regularly making use of them?

Few weeks; Few months; at least 6 months; 6 mos-1 yr; more than 1 yr; since last elec

1. Overall campaign manager
2. General IT/computing services “ “ “
3. Voter database
4. Campaign website (personal site not party/parliament maintained)
6. Email subscription newsletter
7. Opinion polling/survey research
8. Opposition research
9. Personal media/PR advisor
10. TV/radio/newspaper adverts
11. Personal face-to-face contact/canvassing of voters
12. Distribution of printed materials, i.e.leaflets, posters
11. Event/meeting coordinators
12. Telemarketing
13. Direct Mailing


3. Overall how much of your campaign budget would you say you devoted to these activities?

% budget
1. Overall campaign manager
2. General IT/computing services “ “ “
3. Voter database
4. Campaign website (personal site not party/parliament maintained)
6. Email subscription newsletter
7. Opinion polling/survey research
8. Opposition research
9. Personal media/PR advisor
10. TV/radio/newspaper adverts
11. Personal face-to-face contact/canvassing of voters
12. Distribution of printed materials, i.e.leaflets, posters
11. Event/meeting coordinators
12. Telemarketing
13. Direct Mailing


Top of the page Bottom of the page
SaraHobolt
Posted 16/7/2008 17:30 (#112 - in reply to #49)
Subject: RE: Professionalisation of political campaigning




Posts: 26
25
Location: University of Oxford, UK
Dear Professor Gibson,

Thank you for submitting this proposal to the Open Forum. The PIREDEU Steering Committee met at the end of June to evaluate each of the proposals. We assessed them on the basis of whether they met the following criteria:

* An explicit argument about why the proposed question/coding category merited inclusion in one or more of the PIREDEU data components.

* An explicit argument about the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the question/coding category.

* An explicit case for how the question/coding category facilitates integration and linking of several data components. The PIREDEU Steering Committee preferred proposals that allowed for conceptual integration across the five data components (i.e. voter survey, candidate survey, media study, manifestos and contextual data).

* An explicit consideration of how the proposed question/coding category linked with questions/coding categories in past data collection efforts.

The PIREDEU Steering Committee favoured proposals that ensured over time and across instrument comparability. Moreover, given that the voter and candidate surveys can only contain a limited number of question items, priority was given to proposals with succinct question formats.

On this basis we ranked each question in the proposal as follows:

(1) The proposed item will be included in data collection instrument
(2) High priority proposal that will be included if space and time constraints permit
(3) Proposal can only be included if additional funding is secured
(4) Proposed item is not a priority

The item(s) from your proposal received the following ranking(s):

Instrument: Candidate Study

1. In developing and running your campaign how often did you use any of the following services or engage in any of the following activities?
3. Overall how much of your campaign budget would you say you devoted to these activities?
Ranking: 1

Rationale: A revised version of these items will appear on the candidate study.

2. And were these services/activities undertaken/managed by you and your staff primarily, or were they supplied primarily by your party, or an external professional companies/consultants?

3. Did you engage in these activities specifically for the election campaign or had you been using them in advance? If you were using them in advance, how long before the campaign began had you been regularly making use of them?
Ranking: 4

Rationale: These items were deemed to be too lengthy to be included in the candidate survey.

Thank you again for your participation in this process. We hope that you will continue to use the Open Forum to comment on the questionnaires/codebook that will be posted online on the Forum in the autumn.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Franklin
Chair of the PIREDEU Steering Committee

Sara Hobolt
Deputy Chair of the PIREDEU Steering Committee





Top of the page Bottom of the page