The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians' use of the Social Network Tool Twitter
Open accessAbstract
The recent emergence of online social media has had a significant effect on the contemporary political landscape, yet our understanding of this remains less than complete. This article adds to current understanding of the online engagement between politicians and the public by presenting the first quantitative analysis of the utilisation of the social network tool Twitter by Australian politicians. The analysis suggests that politicians are attempting to use Twitter for political engagement, though some are more successful in this than others. Politicians are noisier than Australians in general on Twitter, though this is due more to broadcasting than conversing. Those who use Twitter to converse appear to gain more political benefit from the platform than others. Though politicians cluster by party, a relatively ‘small world’ network is evident in the Australian political discussion on Twitter.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017 · Cited by 4,793
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
Whose space? differences among users and non-users of social network sites
Hargittai, E. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x · Cited by 1,286
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Bartlett A., 2009, Andrewbartlett.com
- Boyd d., Digital Race Anthology
- Bridges S., 2010, ABC Unleased
- Canning S., 2009, The Australian
- Daniel, A., Flew, T. and Spurgeon, C. ‘User Behaviours and Intentions with Digital News Media in Australia’. Paper presented to 2009 Communication and Media Research Institute Conference: Transforming Audiences 2. 3–4 September2009. URL: <http://eprints.qut. edu.au/27376/> Consulted 20 January 2010
- 10.1080/10361140701842540 · DOI
- Farrell H., 2009, The Times Higher Education Supplement
- 10.1007/s11127-007-9198-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Flew T., 2008, Media International Australia, 126
- 10.1080/10361140701842607 · DOI
- 10.1080/13689880600950527 · DOI
- 10.1080/10361140701851939 · doi:10.1080/10361140701851939
- Howell G., 2010, Public Communication Review, 1, 27, 10.5130/pcr.v1i1.1288 · doi:10.5130/pcr.v1i1.1288
- Keane B., 2009, Crikey
- Keane B., 2009, Crikey
- 10.1093/pa/gsm028 · DOI · Paper page
- Leavitt A., 2009, Web Ecology Project, 4
- Macnamara, J. ‘E-Electioneering: Use of New Media in the 2007 Australian Federal Election’. Paper presented to ANZCA08 Conference: Power and Place. July2008, Wellington. URL: <http://pep.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Macnamara_ANZCA 08.pdf> Consulted 3 February 2010
- 10.1080/10361141003736141 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1178418 · DOI
- Miller C. C., 2009, The New York Times
- 10.1057/9781403920126 · doi:10.1057/9781403920126
- 2009, Pew Internet and American Life Project
- Poguntke, T. ‘The Presidentialization of Parliamentary Democracies: A Contradiction in Terms?’. Paper presented to ECPR Workshop ‘The Presidentialization of Parliamentary Democracies?’. April2008, Copenhagen.
- Porter J., 2009, Bokardo
- Posetti J., 2010, Mediashift
- Rainie L., 2008, Pew Internet and American Life Project Report
- Stewart-Weeks M., 2009, Government 2.0 Taskforce
- Sunstein C. R., 2007, Republic.com 2.0
- Twitter.com. 2010. “‘Frontpage and “About Us”.’”. URL: <http://twitter.com/> Consulted 20 January 2010 · DOI
- Ward I., 2007, Old and New Media: Blogs in the Third Age of Political Communication
- 10.1038/30918 · DOI · Paper page
- Westling M., 2007, Expanding the Public Sphere: The Impact of Facebook on Political Communication
Cited by
Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.782330 · Cited by 709
Bossetta, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699018763307 · Cited by 689
Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12124 · Cited by 395
Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & van 't Haar, G. (2013) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.785581 · Cited by 363
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12259 · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Busby Grant, J.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 579-604
- ISSN
- 0032-3268 (ISSN-L)
- 1036-1146
- 1363-030X
- OpenAlex
- W2068407456
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 34.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians' use of the Social Network Tool Twitter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
- The paper
- Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Busby Grant, J. (2010). Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians' use of the Social Network Tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
