Introduction -- Empirical shortcomings: Why do we know so little about non White networks? -- The composition and determinants of political discussion networks -- Discussion networks, political trust, and political efficacy -- Political discussion networks and information ... Political discussion networks and political engagement -- Conclusion.
Summary:
""Conversation theory tells us that individuals arrive at meaning through conversation (Pask 1980). Conversation is defined as "the kind of speech that happens informally, symmetrically, and for the purposes of establishing and maintaining social ties" (Thornbury and Slade 2006: 25). In this book we explore the importance of engaging in political conversation and talk within political discussion networks for developing connections that foster political engagement. Importantly, this refers to informal discussion "of politics and current events that occurs within a social network of peers: friends, colleagues, family members, and other individuals who are present in our social environment" (Klosftad 2011: 9). We understand intuitively that people might find themselves in conversations about politics or current events. We discuss what is happening in the world with friends. We discuss the latest news with colleagues in the workplace. Growing up, we depend upon our family members, teachers, and others to educate us, through conversation, about how the political system works and what our role is within it. What is so critical about these informal conversations, and one of the reasons why they are so powerful, is that they are casual and impromptu - they are typically the byproducts of people going about their daily activities and routines (Downs 1957; Walsh 2004, Klofstad et al. 2009). Yet we also know that these conversations are happening within very different community contexts; people's social environments are not all the same, particularly along the lines of ethnorace , gender, and partisanship. As the opening quote from a formerly incarcerated Latino male canvasser from the South Los Angeles organization Community Coalition indicates, the types of conversations he has within his community members, and the knowledge he gains from them, matter, and are mediated by his life experiences and those of his community. It is important to remember that the political opportunity structures that exist within those social environments vary in important ways (Meyer and Minkoff 2004). This is especially true in areas with high levels of ethnoracial segregation, which has increased in the United States, particularly among Whites (Frey 2015). This ethnoracial segregation may be correlated with partisan segregation. Because White racial identity is highly associated with Republican party identification (Jardina 2019), predominantly White communities are also likely to be predominantly Republican. Similarly, African Americans almost exclusively identify with the Democratic Party (Frymer 2010), meaning that African American communities are likely to be strongly Democratic. Thus, community composition can have political consequences in terms of determining the types of individuals with whom a person may be in conversation (e.g. Huckfeldt and Sprague 1988, p. 470; Djupe and Sokhey 2014). Beyond potential geographic homogeneity based on the correlation between ethnorace and partisanship, we know that political discussion networks are largely homogeneous in terms of partisanship (Huckfeldt et al. 2004; Mutz 2006). Political discussion networks are a subset of one's broader social network, which includes the people with whom one discusses politics (Sinclair 2012). While we know that in general Democrats tend to talk about politics with other Democrats and Republicans tend to discuss politics with other Republicans, we know less about the ethnoracial makeup of these political discussion networks. Because few studies exploring political discussion networks include diverse samples, we know even less about how the partisan composition of political discussion networks varies across non-white groups, with the exception of some pioneering work by Leighley and Matsubayashi (2009). It is important to consider whether the presumed benefits of political discussion networks are afforded to all groups in the same ways. For instance, research has found that one of the main benefits of political discussion networks is that individuals are exposed to information about politics. When discussion networks are homogeneous, however, individuals are likely to be exposed to information from only one perspective. Being embedded in a political echo chamber can affect how individuals interpret political information. Studies have shown that party identification can affect individuals' willingness to believe certain claims, what Bolsen et al. (2013) call partisan motivated reasoning. Research suggests that social media may be exacerbating these trends, with the result that people tend to be connected to, and receive information from, those that share their interests (Bisgin et al. 2010; but see Settle 2018; Garrett 2009a, 2009b; Stroud 2008). ""-- Provided by publisher.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.