Representational Style Across National and Constituency Contexts: Members of Parliament in Australia,Canada,New Zealand and the United Kingdom

Abstract

In this study, we ask how and why do Members of Parliament adopt different representational styles? Looking at MPs in four Westminster-style democracies, we identify differences between MPs and inductively explore influences on representational styles by first using participant observation to gain deep insights into the activities of a small sample of MPs and then by using semi-structured interviews from a larger sample to elucidate findings from the observations across states. Our primary focus is the method of connection between representative and citizen, as fostered by the representative while present in the constituency. Despite similar institutional and electoral contexts across countries, we find a significant variation that is influenced by both country-level and constituency-level factors. Findings suggest a continuum from highly service-oriented to highly symbolic-oriented styles, where MPs from the UK illustrate the former, and MPs from Canada illustrate the latter, though with further variation at the constituency level that is based, in part, upon both geography and demographics.

Introduction

Representation as practiced by Members of Parliament (MPs) is increasingly recognized by scholars as both varied and multidimensional (e.g., Wolkenstein and Wratil 2021), with MPs’ “representational styles”—defined simply as the patterns of representational activities MPs engage in—differing in myriad ways. This raises two questions: how do MPs differ in the representational styles they construct and why do they differ in these respects?

Scholars have previously addressed how MPs (and other representatives) adapt their representational styles to the characteristics of their geographic constituencies as well as the perceived needs and preferences of their constituents (e.g., Mayhew 1974). The result of these individual decisions by MPs is dyadic representation, and this is true even in Westminster systems where political parties are strong (e.g., Blidook 2012; Hanretty, Lauderdale, and Vivyan, 2017; Soroka, Penner, and Blidook, 2009). But studies of such constituency effects often suffer from three shortcomings. First, they typically focus on representatives from a single state, potentially introducing bias as any national-level influences on representational style cannot be effectively accounted for. ¹ Second, these studies are typically deductive in nature, with most employing surveys as a single data source to explore the factors that shape representational styles. This precludes the theory-generating or explanatory power of inductive and multi-method approaches. Third, such studies tend to focus on responsiveness as the primary measure of democratic quality (Disch 2012; Sabl 2015), eschewing the range of activities that link representatives and citizens, and which ultimately define the constituency’s expression and mobilization in a democratic context. These shortcomings can limit the explanatory potential of such studies.

In contrast, we explore influences on representational styles using a multi-method, cross-national comparative study of MPs, in which our primary focus is the method of connection between representative and constituent, as fostered by the representative while present in the constituency. MPs’ representational styles are explored and assessed using two complementary research methods: participant observation and interviews. We collected data in four comparable parliamentary democracies that employ single-member constituencies of election and representation: Australia, Canada, New Zealand (NZ), and the United Kingdom (UK). This study is inductive in nature, drawing broad conclusions from collected data that can then be used to theorize differences across cases and produce testable hypotheses. We believe these comparative approaches produce rich findings that overcome traditional limitations associated with single-country, single-method studies.

Our results indicate intriguing patterns that are suggestive of causal hypotheses regarding constituency make-up and representative actions. Further, this research matters because it elucidates potential factors affecting representational styles and potential influences on behaviors. While we cannot cover all potential dimensions of style, our findings clearly indicate that some representatives prioritize service and therefore tend to connect to constituents through their requests for help, which in turn suggests that constituents tend to view their MPs in these terms. MPs who prioritize symbolic interactions with constituents through local events inevitably connect in a different manner, and constituent satisfaction with MPs will likely prioritize representative presence over aid. These interactions inevitably shape not only how representation is understood by the MP but may also in turn affect how MPs represent on matters of policy.

We seek to understand how and why representatives present themselves differently within different settings, and we do so in parliamentary systems where “home style” (Fenno 1978) is not typically considered significant due to both party strength and limited MP independence (Huber 1996). We build on previous knowledge by (a) comparing representational connections by MPs across countries that differ in terms of their national norms of representation and (b) identifying differences and nuances in constituency representational behavior that have to date not been studied. We argue that exploring representational styles with a focus on activities rather than outcomes produces a dimension that ranges between service representation—when MPs work to assist constituents with problems—and symbolic representation--when MPs work to be present and seen in their constituencies in order to construct resilient psychological connections with them. MPs can be placed on this conceptual continuum, with some strongly service-oriented, some strongly symbolism-oriented, and others including elements of both approaches in their overall representational styles. MPs develop their own representational styles, we find, in response to both national-level influences that differ between the four countries studied, as well as local influences that differ based upon constituency context.

We find remarkable differences in representational styles both among MPs, as well as across the countries studied. This is despite electoral systems and party strength in these countries being highly similar. While representational styles certainly differ within countries, we also identify clear trends in representational styles between countries. MPs in the UK tend to be heavily service-oriented, using surgeries to facilitate connections with constituents. Canadian MPs lean more toward symbolic-connection building. MPs in Australia and NZ, in contrast, tend to show innovative methods that straddle both connection types. We show how these connection-building efforts—from highly service-oriented to highly symbolic-oriented—reflect patterns that are common within but not across the countries studied. Further, we find that specific styles remain, in part, adaptations to constituency factors. These distinctively local institutions of engagement shape the nature of MP interactions, with some community settings clearly facilitating—or demanding—service while others just as clearly push representatives towards symbolic connection building activities.

Thus, this paper’s main contributions include (a) providing conceptual clarity, using empirical evidence, of variation in representational styles across and within Westminster systems with strong parties, (b) offering a non-exhaustive continuum of connection style types as responses to varying contextual considerations, and (c) theorizing independent variables that are both logical and apparent from our observations which clarify the nature of national and local influences on representational styles, and which can subsequently be studied quantitatively to assess the generalizability of the relationships identified here.

Review and Theoretical Development

The study of political representation is often focused upon outcomes that can be identified as being “representative” of a collective (e.g., Pitkin 1967). However, representation can be understood not only in terms of the outcome of an action but rather as existing due to taking action itself (Rehfeld 2017). Effective representation includes establishing a relationship in which the claim or purpose of representation is present. Representation therefore usually entails a representative both learning about the interests or needs of constituents and communicating their representative accomplishments back to those constituents (Jewell 1982). Representatives engage in actions to build their reputations as responsive to constituents (Eulau and Karps 1977) but perhaps more importantly aim to construct trust relationships through the “home style” that they adopt and present (Fenno 1978; Grimmer 2013; Weinberg forthcoming).

One goal in studying representation is therefore to understand how certain activities shape the representational relationship, something in which both constituents and elected representatives play a key role (Disch 2012). In short, representation is more complex than empirical assessments of it have typically accounted for (Wolkenstein and Wratil 2021). Indeed, we feel one means of better understanding representation in empirical form is to return to Fenno’s approach (1978): spending time observing how representatives connect and build relationships with constituents. In considering both distinctive national contexts and local constituencies, this exploration informs how the structure of the objective constituency plays a role in the shaping and understanding of subjective constituencies (James 2015).

Arter’s comprehensive review demonstrates how a range of institutional, party-organizational, competitive, and ecological characteristics of polities shape both how and which MPs engage in constituency service (2018; also see André, Depauw, and Deschouwer, 2016). Recent research demonstrates how institutional characteristics of democracies such as district magnitude and other characteristics of the electoral system (André and Depauw 2013a 2013b; Costa and Poyet 2016) and district size (Frederick 2008) shape MPs’ representational and service behaviors. Non-institutional incentives, including sociological, economic, and geographic characteristics of the district, are also crucial in this respect (Arter 2018, 12). Eagles, Koop, and Loat (2014) and Koop, Bastedo, and Blidook (2018), for example, respectively, draw on interviews and participant observation with Canadian MPs in their constituencies to show that constituency context, along with MPs’ own goals and experience, result in different approaches to local connection-building. ² Where such studies fall short is in effectively showing a clear variation between connection types and the factors that cause such variation.

We more fully develop this robust conception of representation, in which representation is not simply focused upon outcomes but also upon relationships that create an ongoing representational dynamic involving communication, action, and trust-building. Fenno (1978) explores how Members of Congress present themselves to their constituents to build public trust and enhance re-election prospects. Similarly, MPs focus attention on building relationships among constituents in the hope of not only promoting themselves and their party but also securing a personal vote (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina, 1987; Stevens et al., 2019). Searing further suggests that MPs adopt roles as “welfare officers” and “local promoters” largely due to personal preference and constituency demand (1994). ³

Fenno’s conception of representation—developed most fully in his ethnographic study of Black representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives (2003)—includes ongoing development and nurturing of connections between representatives and citizens. Fenno understood home activity (and some activity in the capital) as consisting of connection-building activity with individual constituents and different groups of constituents. Shaking hands at local events, working to address constituents’ problems, and tending to the myriad other tasks constituency representatives face are, in Fenno’s framework, all activities aimed at building new connections or tending to old connections with constituents. Fenno distinguished between different types of connections: policy connections, for example, are built through engaging with and advocating for constituents on the basis of their policy concerns and needs; service connections are built by listening to constituents about their problems and working to address them; and symbolic connections are built by attending and being present in the life of the constituents, thereby building a psychological bond between representative and constituent. MPs emphasize different connection types based on a range of influences, with the resulting insight that representation can be practiced successfully by MPs in a range of ways. Whereas Pitkin’s famous “Cycle of Representation” theorizes an identical circular process that MPs follow to engage in representation, Fenno’s model more resembles a path that quickly branches off into several trails, which can have quite different scenic views, but all of which ultimately bring MPs to the destination of successful representation. While Fenno’s framework was derived from observation of U.S. elected officials, the model has both inspired and been adapted through application to single-member Westminster contexts including Canada (Koop, Bastedo, and Blidook, 2018) and Australia (Blidook and Koop 2022; Petter 2023).

Since our study was focused less on responsiveness and more on the connection-building activity MPs engage in while in their constituencies, policy connections did not factor as significantly as in other studies. Instead, we found during our research that MPs’ representational styles could best be theorized as existing on a conceptual continuum that ranges between strong service-oriented styles on one hand and strong symbolism-oriented styles on the other. This distinction, which was inductively derived from our research findings, helped to structure the subsequent data collection efforts and provides a good example of the ongoing “conversation” between data and theory that takes place over the course of qualitative research projects.

Service connections are constructed by MPs addressing personal and local problems brought by constituents—the “redress of grievance” function described by Searing (1994, 122). This focus includes a broad range of service issues including immigration, employment insurance, and other social benefits. Casework is an effective way for MPs to gain a reputation for service responsiveness (Parker 2021). In the UK, constituency service has long revolved around the constituency surgery—or advice surgery—in which MPs (and staff) meet with constituents to learn service needs (Hofstetter and Stokoe 2018).

Symbolic connections include how MPs present themselves to constituents (and media) for constructing resilient psychological connections with constituents (Eulau and Karps 1977, 246; Jewell 1982, 20). Symbolic connections typically include presence, and so attendance at events is a means for constructing such connections. As Koop, Bastedo, and Blidook (2018, 22) argue, “Symbolic responsiveness is…manifest in the communication approaches as well as in the ways representatives present themselves as similar—and thus empathetic—to the needs, concerns, and experiences of their constituents.”

Some MPs employ both service and symbolic connections in their overall representational styles, while others tend to one side or the other of this conceptual continuum. Theorizing these two approaches as existing on a continuum rather than in discrete categories recognizes that some of the representational activities MPs engage in are useful to building both types and that MPs may in some cases be building both types of connections simultaneously. It is therefore not accurate to always assign MPs to one or the other approach. But service and symbolic-focused activities are qualitatively different from one another, and their usage by MPs produces very different overall understandings of their constituencies and constituents.

This raises our second research question: why do MPs differ in the representational styles they construct? Many influences may be discernible through comparison of representational style across countries, and these may be institutional, party-organizational, social-cultural, or even geographic. Importantly, the concept of constituency is widely used across Western democratic systems. Even in systems where a defined territory is not explicit in the electoral structure, representatives often have unofficial links with given territories or are seen as standing for differentiated sections of society (Steed, 1990; Latner and McGann 2005). However, territory is an explicit organizing principle in these Westminster-derived structures. The single-member constituency, unlike various other forms, includes no overlap. ⁴ Electorally, each citizen is represented by a single member, based on the geographic location of their residence. ⁵

As Rehfeld (2005) notes, primary elements of the geographic constituency include assumptions about how citizens should be represented. Territorial constituencies may facilitate democratic learning via interactions and localized competition in choosing a representative. Geographically defined constituencies may also assume common interests among residents, though there is a notable variation in both demographic make-up and boundary stability. Indeed, connection-building is partly a matter of identifying common elements within a constituency, and mediating differences in interests or identities. Further, the constituency provides the context within which MPs develop their representational styles, and single-member constituencies are recognized as generating a strong focus on local preferences (Heitshusen, Young, and Wood, 2005). For this reason, we would not necessarily expect our findings to generalize beyond democracies that employ single-member, geographically defined units of representation.

Methodology and Case Selection

We employ a multi-method approach to studying MP representational styles and their influences, consisting first of participant observation with MPs, then of semi-structured interviews. Like other multi-method designs, this approach leverages the strengths of both methods employed (e.g., Creswell 2003). It is particularly appropriate here because, with some exceptions, the phenomenon of individual representational styles and their influences is somewhat under-theorized from a comparative perspective: participant observation allowed us to generate theory about MPs and representation, while subsequent interviews allowed us to elucidate and clarify those findings with nuanced data across a wider selection of MPs. The result was a varied “conversation” between theory and data over the course of the data collection and preliminary analysis phases of this project.

Our analysis first briefly recounts 3 MPs whom we observed. ⁶ These multi-day observations are crucial to understanding what it is that MPs do while in the constituency. Approximately 4 consecutive days were spent with each MP we observed while they were in their constituencies between 2017 and 2019. ⁷ Our means of observation was mainly that of “moderate participants” (DeWalt, DeWalt, and Wayland 1998: 262) or what Spradley (1980) refers to as passive observational research, which is the method employed by Fenno in his studies of U.S. politicians (e.g., 1978). In this process, the researcher shadowed the MP and took extensive notes during and after observation, participated or spoke as needed during activities, and engaged with or asked questions to the MP as opportunities arose. ⁸ The observation process provides an opportunity to gather data without specific questions guiding what was collected and does not require recollection by participants. Whereas interviews can create bias as a result of selective, incomplete, or self-interested recall on the part of interviewees, participant observation allows for the collection of reasonably complete and accurate data, though observer and participant biases still exist.

We intentionally sequenced the data collection so that themes derived from our observations could be addressed and refined in semi-structured interviews involving a larger and more diverse selection of MPs. While broadly open-ended questions would have yielded deeper detail and nuance, this was seen to be redundant given the depth of our observations. Instead, we designed interview questions to ensure comparable data was collected, while also allowing MPs to expand on responses and take the interviews in new directions not anticipated by us (Small 2009). ⁹ This interview data—collected from 14 to 16 MPs per country in 4 countries (59 in total, see Appendix for party and gender details of sample)—significantly complements the observation data. We analyzed both our observation notes and interview transcripts to identify broad themes in the nature of representation as practiced by MPs as well as to detect influences on representational styles.

We employed thematic analysis to better understand our observation notes and interview transcripts. We followed a standard thematic approach to content analysis: familiarization, coding, and generating and reviewing themes across all our notes and transcripts (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). ¹⁰

Three Case Studies of Representational Style

We first present three case studies of MPs in separate countries to illustrate differences in representational styles and suggest how these differences are shaped by both national and local factors. These profiles are not intended to be exhaustive accounts of MPs’ representational styles; however, we have selected cases that offer a notable variation on the outcome of interest (Htun and Jensenius 2021).

Stephen Timms: East Ham, the United Kingdom

Stephen Timms ¹¹ —Labour MP for East Ham ¹² , UK—uses various locations in his urban constituency to have scheduled face-to-face meetings with constituents. Timms, like most U.K. MPs, meets with individuals, local interest groups, and businesses. He also regularly accepts invitations to be present at events in the community. And the community that Timms represents is an archetypal urban, London constituency: busy, dense, geographically small and very diverse, with significant demands for service generated locally and directed at the MP.

One key component of Timms’ constituency connection work that stands out for comparison is his robust method of both listening to and acting upon constituent concerns. Timms’ process ensures that each constituent meeting identifies a problem or concern and results in a letter being sent to the government official that is most qualified to act on the concern. Timms (and each of his staff) is equipped with a laptop and software package designed for documenting and generating communication for constituent cases. Timms has developed a standard service practice, as observed during multiple constituent meetings including a surgery and several meetings in a local coffee shop. This includes listening to constituent concerns, taking notes, and ultimately drafting a detailed letter by the end of each constituent meeting. The letter is read back to the constituent to ensure the message is correct and is then sent to the official and copied to the constituent.

This process allows Timms to manage many constituent cases and generate solutions. The process is also engaging and often deals with significant issues such as immigration/deportation and housing. It conveys a sense of bureaucratic efficiency, but Timms and his staff also convey care and empathy. Timms does much of this casework directly; indeed, the work performed by Timms himself was largely identical to that of the staff member observed during the surgery, with the main difference being that many appointments would be scheduled with Timms in advance, and he would conduct these meetings nearby the surgery location. Timms’ caseload is among the highest of UK MPs, at approximately 2300 in a single year (Crewe 2015, 91). ¹³ Notably, while Timms typically attends the three-hour Friday afternoon surgery at the town hall, 2 staff members also took appointments at a nearby church that morning, essentially conducting a “surgery” without Timms.

Timms claims his process ensures constituents feel heard and that tangible action has been taken. While not every problem will be solved, the process ensures the matter is taken beyond the MP—whose office functions as a mediator—and prompts a response.

At a national level, Timms’ surgery process is exemplary of most UK MPs, but MPs vary both in the overall number of cases addressed and in terms of how surgeries are conducted. It is nevertheless largely consistent with what MPs in the UK describe as a means of in-person connection and engaging service requests. This process differs from MPs in other countries studied, where most constituent interactions, while they may produce a file, do not have this efficient and precise manner of (a) providing the constituent with an immediate say in the specific communication tool and (b) ensuring that a government office will be prompted to respond.

On a constituency level, such a highly urban constituency appears to both lead to greater demand for service and makes it possible to regularly use centralized locations to meet constituents. Timms allocates his own time and his staff’s time in order to accommodate and prioritize a high number of constituent service requests.

Arnold Viersen, Peace River—Westlock, Canada

Arnold Viersen ¹⁴ —Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock ¹⁵ in Alberta, Canada—has a constituency office located in Barrhead, Alberta, ¹⁶ where he also lives. This office is approximately an 8-h drive from the most far-reaching parts of Viersen’s constituency. Rather than try to manage multiple offices as some MPs in large Canadian constituencies do, Viersen claims “I have a car. I can come meet you.” So, unlike Timms, Viersen drove for the weekend to meet his constituents in-person. Viersen describes his constituency as consisting of 3 words: “farming, forestry, and fracking.” He also notes the constituency includes approximately 25 municipal councils and 14 Indigenous groups, making it both a geographically large and multifaceted area, though the majority population is far more homogeneous than East Ham. Leaving on the Friday morning of a parliamentary break in February, Viersen traveled 400 km on day 1 to the French-speaking town of Saint Isidore. ¹⁷

There were 2 stops along the way that involved meeting constituents. One of these was a chance encounter in a McDonald’s restaurant, drinking coffee and chatting with 5 men whom Viersen has met previously but didn’t know each by name. The discussion was about climate change, fracking, oil, and frustration with the Liberal government; all important themes within the constituency. Viersen said afterward that some of these men were essentially forced into retirement due to deteriorated economic conditions in the region. A second meeting—approximately an hour—was planned and policy related. Viersen visited the home of a man who described concerns about the Woodland Caribou in a nearby area and how best to accommodate the herd alongside forestry practices. Viersen already had an interest in this topic and had met the man previously, and indicated he would address the matter.

Arriving in Saint Isidore in the early evening, Viersen attended a French winter festival. For Viersen—who was first elected 3.5 years earlier—this was his first time visiting this community. He gave a very short (English) speech in which he greeted everyone on behalf of his party and leader and also apologized for his lack of French. When able, during the main event, Viersen circulated in the community hall and did so again later in the large tent where a band played and guests mingled. While he knew several other dignitaries (usually municipal council members), he also circulated and introduced himself and started conversations with those he didn’t know.

The next morning, Viersen drove approximately 340 km to La Crête ¹⁸ to attend a Chamber of Commerce dinner. One stop along the way included coffee in McDonald’s again. This was a planned visit with a member of the National Firearms Association who voiced concerns about the Liberal government’s policies. While they discussed policy themes, the apparent intent of this meeting was for Viersen to maintain symbolic connections with a local figure who represented a wider community of constituents and organized interests in his rural seat, namely, gun owners.

At the dinner in La Crête, Viersen sat at a head table with the former premier of Alberta. Viersen made a similarly short speech in which he promoted his party for the coming election. A few attendees (seated at the same table as the researcher) commented that Viersen visits more often than his predecessor, suggesting his efforts at symbolic connection are noted. If much of Timms’ connections are about providing help, it seems much of Viersen’s connections are about ensuring people feel recognized.

On Sunday morning, Viersen attended church in La Crête. Viersen stayed afterward to meet people, many of whom recognize him. Some made quick introductions while others started conversations. Viersen noted afterward that some of the people thanked him for his work on anti-people-trafficking legislation in Ottawa.

Like Timms, Viersen’s schedule included events with brief speeches to audiences. But, unlike Timms, Viersen’s 3 days on the road did not include making service connections. The trip was almost entirely one of symbolic connection building, in which Viersen made his presence as the MP known to as many people as possible, and heard some policy input. ¹⁹ When asked if constituents sometimes request his help with service matters, Viersen responded that he typically tells constituents to call Service Canada, but his constituency office also processes service cases. Overall, Viersen presents himself as heavily prioritizing symbolic over service connections, though—like Timms—his activities are not exclusive to one of these connection types. Viersen’s perspective as MP differs from that of Timms in the sense that, during his travels, Viersen experiences the constituency beyond the idiosyncratic service needs of individual constituents.

Clare Curran: Dunedin South, New Zealand

Clare Curran ²⁰ —Labour MP for Dunedin South, ²¹ NZ until 2020—brings together these two styles of connecting across urban/rural lines because while Dunedin is an urban city with a university, the constituency is partly rural. It also has employment and housing issues that are similar to concerns voiced by Timm’s constituents and less apparent in Viersen’s constituency. Curran, therefore, extends her service connection role by traveling with a small camping trailer to the rural locations in Dunedin South. ²² Advertisements are posted in advance of her planned presence, and she then drives her trailer to those locations and conducts meetings that are similar to those conducted by Timms and his staff.

Curran arrived in Macandrew Bay with her trailer and parked in a lot near the boating club. She then opened her door and constituents stopped in to discuss concerns. These were not scheduled meetings like the surgeries Timms conducted. There were no time limits and meetings were with Curran alone, not with staff. Meanwhile volunteers used the time to knock on doors to tell constituents that she was in the community and to solicit feedback.

Like Viersen, Curran confronted the challenge of meeting personally with constituents by traveling. Macandrew Bay was about a 20-min drive from her constituency office and likely much longer by public transit, a limitation on constituents instead coming to her. She clearly feels that simply attending events in the area to engage in a primarily symbolic fashion is insufficient. Curran’s method gives her visibility in a rural part of her constituency and allows her to meet with constituents that would be less likely to otherwise meet in person.

At the same time, Curran did not need to leave home for the weekend to reach out to constituents, as was the case with Viersen. She parked her “mobile office” in an advertised location for 1.5 hours, met with 3 constituents (she said that she has had as many as 9, and rarely has zero), opened case files when necessary, and drove back to the Labour Party building for a meeting later that afternoon. Only one constituent brought an immediate service concern, while the others were more general, discussing problems with existing policies or areas of concern. Curran did not have an organized form of letter writing such as that used by Timms, but her overall representational style incorporated service connections far more than Viersen. Curran’s approach strikes a balance between (a) providing service and (b) ensuring people feel recognized by establishing a symbolic presence, as well as listening to policy concerns.

While no MP’s style is exclusively service- or symbolic-oriented, Curran illustrates a mixed connection method that is a combination of both approaches. Interestingly, the specific method is not known to be employed in Canada or the UK, and it is also designed to accommodate the rural component of her constituency. Curran’s case illustrates why representational styles should be understood on a conceptual continuum ranging between service and symbolic-oriented activities, rather than in discrete categories. The distinctiveness of her mixed overall style, which is shared by other MPs, is explicated further in subsequent sections.

Interviews: Representational Styles Across Four Democracies

The three observation cases illustrate (a) a significant variation in the types of representational styles employed and (b) different influences shaping those styles. Whereas Timms exemplifies a strongly service-oriented style, Viersen tends heavily towards symbolism. Curran, in contrast, has developed a representational style containing both service and symbolic elements. These cases include elements of both country difference and constituency difference affecting how MPs engage their representational role. Constituency shapes representational styles, but differences between countries refract and limit this influence.

While our observation data reveal these initial findings, we turn to our larger subsequent source of data—interviews conducted with 59 MPs—to further explore key elements of constituency focus among MPs between these countries. In particular, the larger number of interviews we conducted across the four democracies allows us to make preliminary generalizations about national-level influences on representational styles in each. We outline three methods of connection building that are adapted across constituencies to achieve similar goals but which tend to differ by national contexts: surgeries in the UK, mobile offices and clinics in Australia and NZ, and “being present/seen” in Canada.

Service and Surgeries in the United Kingdom

MPs in the UK have adopted a process that is distinct in our study. The surgery appears to be an innovation developed by an MP in the 1920s which had become widely adopted by the 1950s, and which has since become seemingly universal among UK MPs (Norton 1994; Seaward 2019). Virtually all MPs interviewed in the UK referred to the use of surgeries, regardless of constituency size or population, though factors such as size, income-and employment-level, and ethnic diversity appear to affect method and frequency. Surgeries are an important aspect of the national practice of representation in the UK; MPs therefore face a strong expectation that they will hold surgeries (Vivyan and Wagner 2015). MPs nevertheless use a variety of methods to adapt this representational practice in their unique constituency contexts.

MP Debbie Abrahams, for example, describes how she adapts her surgery schedule to the somewhat larger size of her constituency, which necessitates holding surgeries in various locations to ensure presence in the different communities:

I also have regular surgeries. What I tend to do is do two a fortnight, so I do one on a Friday night, one on Saturday morning and I do them peripatetic, so I would do them in different parts of the constituency so I have a presence.

MP David Linden further demonstrates how surgeries are an important part of his overall representational style in his urban constituency. But the sheer number of these meetings and the amount of time he commits to them illustrate how MPs differ in the emphasis they place on service connections with constituents.

Every single Friday probably for the whole of the morning I’ve just got constituents either on the phone or coming to my office by appointment or meeting them at public venues, and asking them what I can help them with. And so over the course of this week so far I’ve probably done about eight or nine surgeries already and I imagine I’ll do some more over the course of the week, but that probably takes up I would say 60 to 70 percent of my time ….

MP Hywel Williams is MP for the relatively large constituency of Arfon. ²³ He explains that while he holds regular surgeries, he also considers door-knocking to be part of his surgery process as well. As we see in other countries, Williams’ response suggests that as constituencies grow in size, MPs need to include other means of reaching out to constituents.

I hold constituency surgeries every week usually on a Friday, sometimes also take them out of the office and do village constituency surgeries. I do street surgeries where I and a group of people walk down the streets and we just knock on doors and ask people is there anything you want to talk to the MP about. And that’s to reach people who are harder to reach, obviously.

Surgeries in the UK appear to have developed and increased in scope/commitment by MPs as the constituent demand has grown. While MPs explain differing commitments and levels of caseloads, as well as varying methods of handling these caseloads, no UK MP appears to forego this form of connection with constituents. For this reason, UK MPs tend to appear highly service-oriented from a cross-national perspective, but within the UK they vary considerably.

Being Present/Seen: Symbolic Representation in Canada

In contrast to service connections, MPs may primarily foster symbolic connections with their constituents through their presence at local events. These may include community barbeques, concerts, and organizational gatherings. MPs may even build symbolic connections by popping into restaurants or coffee shops and introducing themselves. Symbolic connections are about being present and seen.

Viersen most clearly illustrates this form of connection among the observation cases. Indeed, this style appears much more common among Canadian MPs than among the MPs from the other countries studied. Canadian MP Candice Bergen, for example, refers to “making the tour,” by which she means attending community events and functions throughout her large rural constituency: “That’s my goal, that’s what I try to do is to at least once a year is basically make the tour. Certainly through the bigger areas I would get to at least twice a year, …kind of the bigger towns.”

Like Viersen, Bergen doesn’t typically take a direct role in service cases. “When someone will come to me with a specific issue, I hear the general story and I immediately refer them to the two staff members…because those staff are literally experts on who to go to.” Bergen, like many other MPs with large rural constituencies, does not focus on being directly involved with individual service cases and feels a symbolic approach is better suited to the conditions of her constituency.

Indeed, this approach is useful in vast rural seats, of which Canada has many. The difficulty of reaching rural areas, however, is not a uniquely Canadian issue—other MPs also highlighted how their time is allocated to such connection-building activities, with bigger populations understandably receiving more of their time. NZ MP Barbara Kuriger, for example, illustrates this:

It’s much easier for the larger communities and the ones that are on the state highway that runs through the centre of the electorate. So I probably have what I would call about six main towns. Then for the other ones – I mean there’s some that are really quite remote – and so I would get out there less frequently, maybe two or three times a year, whereas in my bigger places I would be there probably on a weekly or fortnightly basis.

But a style where MPs themselves largely eschew service and focus on symbolism seems a notably (rural) Canadian phenomenon, even if MPs in other countries may still be largely symbolism-oriented. And Canadian MPs appear to most often refer to activities to touch base with relatively large numbers of constituents, rather than holding service-specific events. Canadian MP Charlie Angus, for example, uses this strategy; further, he notes how the nature of his vast rural seat shapes how he approaches doing so:

There are some [community events] that are annual, like festivals that happen every year that I’m always at. I can’t be at everything … Unlike urban MPs who may go to six events in one night on a weekend depending on which ethnic or community hall they’re going to, I basically have to pick a town.

For Angus, the goal of being present and being seen means he must track annual events and festivals across towns and villages in his seat and plan his attendance accordingly to ensure he is visible.

Door-knocking, as mentioned above, is typically a more urban or suburban activity that allows for a range of personal interactions without necessarily having a direct service-oriented purpose. UK MP Hywel Williams, for example, noted above that he sees door-knocking as part of his surgery process; however, other MPs use door-knocking to speak to anyone who is interested and also typically leave promotional material showing they were present at their constituents’ homes. Canadian MP John Brassard, for example, frames door-knocking differently and suggests it can serve the development of both service and symbolic connections with his constituents:

Typically, in the summer … I would go door-to-door … It’s a good way to stay connected …. Some people will say “well as an MP you have staff”: people to deal with these things. Absolutely, they deal with a lot of Canada Revenue Agency issues, Service Canada, Immigration, Passport Canada. But oftentimes people in the community want to hear from their MP and they want to know and be assured that the MP is aware of their situation. So that is my number one priority and it’s something that I learned as a municipal councillor: being connected with the community.

Canadian MPs with higher caseloads and geographically challenging constituencies may instead use social media and virtual townhall-style events to connect to many constituents at once. These virtual events allow MPs to bundle constituents into groups to interact with and traverse vast distances. Canadian MP Ken Hardie, for example, is enthusiastic about the potential of social media for representational purposes. Hardie combines this approach with more traditional symbolic techniques in his suburban constituency:

We do it every day on social media because those lines are always open and people engage with us mainly on Twitter and Facebook. But we also hold monthly coffee sessions: we’ll stake out a coffee shop and anybody who wants to come in and sit down and talk to us about whatever they want to talk about has that opportunity. We buy the coffee and they tell us what they think.

Again, we note a clear variation in MPs’ activities that is related to both geography and population compared to their domestic counterparts. But the form of connection differs from what we would expect if this same MP were situated in Australia, NZ, or the UK as opposed to Canada.

Mobile Offices/Clinics in Australia and New Zealand

Mobile offices appear to be a “down under” cousin of the UK surgery, and the method is typically adopted in larger constituencies. ²⁴ MPs with geographically dispersed constituencies will tend to adopt these as a means of constructing and maintaining both service and symbolic connections with constituents. Mobile offices help establish presence in regions of the constituency and therefore develop a reputation for accessibility and responsiveness. NZ MP Chris Penk demonstrates the following:

A lot of MPs in NZ who have large areas tend to do effectively the same thing, with an old caravan converted from life taking your family on holidays around the country. In my case, it just happened to be a horse float.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ²⁵

Australian MP Helen Haines similarly states:

I have a rather cute little 1970s orange caravan that’s set up as an office and I’ll take that out and advertise ahead of time that I’m going to be in a place and people can come and make an appointment to come and see me or just drop in.

MPs in Canada and the UK, in contrast, do not appear to use mobile offices (or mobile forms of personal advertisement). In the UK, MPs may simply not feel the need to do so, as even rural constituencies tend to be relatively small in size comparatively. UK MPs tend to refer to using multiple locations when accommodating different geographic communities. Canadian MPs, in contrast, appear more often to adjust their constituency style to one of symbolism and presence when reaching out in rural areas. Mobile offices are largely an Australian and NZ innovation and are best understood as examples of how representational practice differs both between countries and between smaller and larger constituencies.

In fact, the expectation that MPs have a clear physical presence for service work is much more evident in NZ than it is in Canada. Various MPs also referred to holding “clinics” with descriptions that parallel the UK “surgery.” These clinics may be held in a central location such as a constituency office or in the mobile offices. “I would be holding what I call a constituent clinic in my office on Monday morning, and those would generally be 20-30 minute appointments with constituents who request assistance or want to share views with me,” reports NZ MP Simeon Brown.

Discussion: Representation in National and Constituency Contexts

In this paper, we develop and explicate a conceptual continuum that ranges between service- and symbolism-focused representational styles, and present evidence of both country and constituency influences upon MPs’ representational styles. Within highly similar electoral structures, MPs are guided by processes that have developed within their own national political cultures, as well as by factors specific to the constituencies themselves such as geography, density, and diversity.

Constituency and national characteristics shape representational behavior in various ways that are sometimes difficult to separate from one another. For example, MPs typically aim to meet their constituents, but large constituency MPs simply cannot provide direct contact in the same manner as small constituency MPs and so must be innovative in various ways. As another example, immigrant populations—a significant source of demand for service—tend to be larger within sub/urban settings. But constituency size and cultures of representation also differ by country. In the UK, for example, comparably small constituencies facilitate an intimate, service-oriented approach of which the constituency surgery is the centerpiece of MPs’ representational styles. The use of surgeries, which is much more extensive in the UK than in the other countries studied, appears to have grown steadily in the UK since the mid-1900s, though how—and how often—they are used appears to vary by constituency.

Other variables beyond these affect the nature and degree of connection-building activity by MPs. Factors such as income/employment and ethnic heterogeneity affect the demand for service (and service type), and thus how MPs must respond. This is because demands around Employment Insurance, Immigration, and Housing tend to be the more significant service demands that arise for members. MPs (or their offices) do not necessarily need to be the ones that address each of these demands, but it should be expected that as demand for such assistance rises, demands directly to MPs will also rise. Further, entrepreneurial politicians will adapt their representational styles to these conditions by using them as opportunities to build connections—and thus a re-election constituency—with local voters.

In contrast, other factors did not seem to exercise causal influence on MPs’ styles. With respect to party, we expected that service demand—and thus MPs adopting service-oriented styles—would be higher in urban constituencies where left-leaning parties are typically more successful. While our findings are suggestive, we cannot demonstrate a causal relationship between party affiliation and representational style. Similarly, women and members of traditionally marginalized groups often engage in representational activities in distinct ways (e.g., Caiazza 2004; Herrick 2009), but we cannot demonstrate conclusively that these characteristics of MPs cause them to adopt certain representational styles.

Immediate circumstances also have implications for short-term representational connections and may have longer-term effects through changing representational focus or innovation. Curran’s assistant, for example, noted that service demands tripled following floods in Dunedin in 2015. Related service for housing problems continued into 2017, illustrating how immediate circumstances affect representational style. This was also evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where MPs in various countries not only shifted their representational focus toward service but also learned of new methods and technologies for connecting with constituents (e.g., Koop, Blidook, and Fuga, 2020; Piscopo and Franceschet 2022). MPs clearly adapt their representational styles to changing circumstances.

In this paper, we’ve developed a conceptual continuum that ranges from highly service-engaged styles to styles characterized by significant emphasis on symbolic connections, with a range of possibilities in between. We tended to see service-oriented approaches employed most often by urban MPs from the UK and symbolic connections most often employed by rural Canadian MPs. This may be an indication that Canadian democracy is less service-oriented than is the case in Australia, NZ, or certainly the UK. But there are also institutional factors that vary between these countries that may help to explain these patterns. Canada’s federal system, for example, may result in citizens simply not having the same quantity of demands for service from their federal representatives than from provincial and municipal representatives (e.g., Loewen and MacKenzie 2019). Australia and NZ exhibit more of a balance in this respect, each being generally more rural than most parts of the UK, and being federal and unitary states, respectively. Our findings are suggestive of a range of distinct institutional influences between countries that should be examined further.

We have addressed representational activities with the intention of connecting relevant concepts in electoral and representational studies. Connection-building activities engaged in by all MPs contribute not only to their own re-election chances but also to the broader nature of representation. The actions of elected politicians may, in almost any circumstance, be seen as electioneering where constituents are involved (e.g., Mayhew 1974; Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina, 1987; Kellerman 2016). However, the nature of electoral democracy is never one-sided. While the specific activities may differ, fostering connections should not be seen as simply a vote-getting exercise by MPs. Rather, these activities should be viewed as forms of communication and trust-building that may hold benefits not only for MPs but for citizens as well. A responsive, democratic form of government is enhanced by such activities.

We may finally consider how the variation we observed affects the broader manner of representation that occurs. Citizens understand and experience representation in different ways, meaning that their expectations of the representational relationship differ. Similarly, MPs engage in representation in various ways, and the ways in which they do so affect their own perceptions of what their constituents both want and need. Some MPs explain that the information received from constituents informs how they engage on policy matters in the capital; for example, some MPs suggest that service request trends help them understand shortcomings of existing policies and how to amend them. On the other hand, symbolic connection-building activities impact how MPs view their constituency from a different perspective; in these cases, MPs could better understand what their constituents care about when they are not directly asking for service help.

Understanding how both national and local factors shape connection-building activities is important in its own right. But variation in how MPs engage in this activity—and thus how their constituents experience representation and local democracy as a whole—also leads to a deeper understanding of representation and its various forms.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Representational Style Across National and Constituency Contexts: Members of Parliament in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

Supplemental Material for Representational Style Across National and Constituency Contexts: Members of Parliament in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom by Kelly Blidook and Royce Koop in Political Research Quarterly.