Understanding social movement structures is important for political decision-makers to enable them to recognise the various motivating factors behind these movements. The Fridays for Future movement characterises a political group that has a majority of young people, frequently using social media to organise actions. By conducting a social network analysis on hashtags, this study contributes to the understanding of the global Fridays for Future movement. Particularly, we focus on the use and connection of hashtags on Instagram. We collected 59,112 posts tagged with #fridaysforfuture and analysed 91,172 hashtags used therein. Subsequently, the 140 most used hashtags were divided into 11 clusters, which provide not only information about the organisation of the social movement via social media, but also insights into lifestyle-related aspects. The clusters include the topics: climate; nutrition, lifestyle and health; memes; cycling; art; sustainable consumption and the Earth Day. The article shows that the motives of the Fridays for Future movement are broad. We can demonstrate that Fridays for Future is connected to other social movements and gain insights into the everyday life of the Fridays for Future stakeholders.
HagedornGKalmusPMannM, et al. Concerns of young protesters are justified. Science2019; 364(6436): 139–140.
3.
BrünkerFDeitelhoffFMirbabaieM. Collective identity formation on Instagram – investigating the social movement Fridays for Future. In: Proceedings of the 30th Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS), Fremantle, WA, Australia, 9–11 December 2019, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.05123v1
4.
DianiM. The concept of social movement. Sociol Rev1992; 40(1): 1–25.
5.
Van StekelenburgJKlandermansB. The social psychology of protest. Curr Sociol2013; 61(5–6): 886–905.
6.
PoellT. Social media, temporality, and the legitimacy of protest. Soc Movement Stud2020; 19(5–6): 609–624.
7.
DaudIItaiH. A social networks approach to online social movement: social mediators and mediated content in #FreeAJStaff Twitter network. Soc Media Soc. Epub ahead of print 1 March 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2056305118760807.
8.
HwangHKimKO. Social media as a tool for social movements: the effect of social media use and social capital on intention to participate in social movements. Int J Consum Stud2015; 39(5): 478–488.
9.
PickardS. Young environmental activists are doing it themselves. Polit Insight2019; 10(4): 4–7.
10.
YangG. Narrative agency in hashtag activism: the case of #BlackLivesMatter. Media Comm2016; 4(4): 13–17.
HalavaisA. Structure of Twitter: social and technical. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJ, et al. (eds) Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang, 2014, pp. 29–41.
13.
IngwersenP. Cognitive perspectives of document representation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on conceptions of library and information science (CoLIS 4), Seattle, WA, 21–25 July 2002, pp. 285–300. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
PetersI. Folksonomies. Indexing and retrieval in web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2009.
17.
HeydTPuschmannC. Hashtagging and functional shift: adaptation and appropriation of the #. J Pragmatics2017; 116: 51–63.
18.
RecueroRZagoGBastosMT, et al. Hashtags functions in the protests across Brazil. SAGE Open. Epub ahead of print 11 May 2015. DOI: 10.1177/2158244015586000.
19.
JakobsonR.Linguistics and poetics. In: SebeokT (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350–377.
20.
DorschI. Content description on a mobile image sharing service: hashtags on Instagram. J Inf Sci Theor Pract2018; 6(2): 46–61.
21.
PetersIStockWG. Folksonomy and information retrieval. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2007; 44(1): 1–28.
22.
KippMEI. @toread and cool: tagging for time, task and emotion. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual ASIS&T SIG/CR classification research workshop, Austin, TX, 4 November 2006.
23.
KippMEICampbellDG. Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: an examination of tagging practices. In: Proceedings of the 69th annual meeting of the American Society for information science and technology, Austin, TX, 3–8 November 2006.
24.
DennisBM. Foragr: collaborative tagged photographs and social information visualisation. In: Proceedings of the collaborative web tagging workshop at WWW 2006, Edinburgh, 22–26 May 2006.
25.
AustinJL. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
26.
DianiM. Social movement networks virtual and real. Inform Commun Soc2000; 3(3): 386–401.
27.
PangNLawPW. Retweeting #WorldEnvironmentDay: a study of content features and visual rhetoric in an environmental movement. Comput Hum Behav2017; 69: 54–61.
28.
BoulianneSLalancetteMIlkiwD. ‘School strike 4 climate’: social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media Comm2020; 8(2): 208–218.
29.
HodgesHEStockingG. A pipeline of tweets: environmental movements’ use of Twitter in response to the Keystone XL pipeline. Environ Polit2015; 25(2): 223–247.
RauschnabelPASheldonPHerzfeldtE. What motivates users to hashtag on social media?Psychol Market2019; 36(5): 473–488.
32.
TiggemannMZaccardoM. ‘Strong is the new skinny’: a content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. J Health Psychol2018; 23(8): 1003–1011.
33.
LeeCChauD. Language as pride, love, and hate: archiving emotions through multilingual Instagram hashtags. Discourse Context Me2018; 22: 21–29.
34.
McCarthyJDZaldMN. Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. Am J Sociol1977; 82(6): 1212–1241.
35.
OppKD. Grievances and participation in social movements. Am Sociol Rev1988; 53(6): 853–864.
36.
Van ZomerenMPostmesTSpearsR. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol Bull2008; 134(4): 504–535.
37.
CalhounC. ‘New social movements’ of the early nineteenth century. Soc Sci Hist1993; 17(3): 385–427.
38.
MertigAGDunlapRE. Environmentalism, new social movements, and the new class: a cross-national investigation. Rural Sociol2001; 66(1): 113–136.
39.
JoppkeC. Social movements during cycles of issue attention: the decline of the anti-nuclear energy movements in West Germany and the USA. Br J Sociol1991; 42(1): 43–60.
40.
LeFebvreRKArmstrongC. Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media Soc2018; 20(1): 8–28.
41.
GalkinaTYangM. Bringing Nordic Slush to Asia: entrepreneurial internationalization of an NGO as a social movement. Int Bus Rev2020; 29: 101749.
42.
PollettaFJasperJM. Collective identity and social movements. Annu Rev Sociol2001; 27(1): 283–305.
43.
HollandDFoxGDaroV. Social movements and collective identity: a decentered, dialogic view. Anthropol Quart2008; 81(1): 95–126.
44.
JenkinsJC. Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annu Rev Sociol1983; 9(1): 527–553.
45.
BennettW. Communicating global activism. Inform Commun Soc2003; 6(2): 143–168.
46.
KavadaA. Creating the collective: social media, the occupy movement and its constitution as a collective actor. Inform Commun Soc2015; 18(8): 872–886.
47.
KiddDMcIntoshK. Social media and social movements. Sociol Compass2016; 10(9): 785–794.
48.
ZaldMNAshR. Social movement organizations: growth, decay and change. Soc Forces1966; 44(3): 327–341.
49.
BracciniAMSæbøØFedericiT. From the blogosphere into the parliament: the role of digital technologies in organizing social movements. Inf Organ2019; 29(3): 100250.
50.
DavisGFMcAdamDRichardW, et al. Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
51.
RootesC. Environmental movements: from the local to the global. Environ Polit1999; 8(1): 1–12.
52.
KitscheltHP. Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. Br J Polit Sci1986; 16(1): 57–85.
53.
Van der HeijdenHA. Globalization, environmental movements, and international political opportunity structures. Organ Environ2006; 19(1): 28–45.
54.
BergmannZOssewaardeR. Youth climate activists meet environmental governance: ageist depictions of the FFF movement and Greta Thunberg in German newspaper coverage. J Multicult Discour2020; 15(3): 267–290.
55.
O’BrienKSelboeEHaywardBM. Exploring youth activism on climate change: dutiful, disruptive, and dangerous dissent. Ecol Soc2018; 23(3): 42.
56.
HanHAhnSW. Youth mobilization to stop global climate change: narratives and impact. Sustainability2020; 12(10): 4127.
57.
MurthyD. Introduction to social media, activism, and organizations. Soc Media Soc. Epub ahead of print 1 February 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2056305117750716.
58.
MilanS. From social movements to cloud protesting: the evolution of collective identity. Inform Commun Soc2015; 18(8): 887–900.
59.
LewisKGrayKMeierhenrichJ. The structure of online activism. Sociol Sci2014; 1(1): 1–9.
60.
ParsloeSMHoltonAE. #Boycottautismspeaks: communicating a counternarrative through cyberactivism and connective action. Inform Commun Soc2018; 21(8): 1116–1133.
61.
CornetVPHallNKCafaroF, et al. How image-based social media websites support social movements. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA’17), Denver, CO, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 2473–2479. New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
62.
OtteERousseauR. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J Inf Sci2002; 28(6): 441–453.
63.
WetherellCPlakansAWellmanB. Social networks, kinship, and community in Eastern Europe. J Interdiscipl Hist1994; 24(4): 639–663.
64.
BorgattiSPMehraABrassDJ, et al. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science2009; 323(5916): 892–895.
65.
KaneGCAlaviMLabiancaG, et al. What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Quart2014; 38(1): 274–304.
66.
SegerbergABennettWL. Social media and the organization of collective action: using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. Commun Rev2011; 14(3): 197–215.
67.
NewmanM. Networks: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
68.
TukeyJW. Exploratory data analysis. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
69.
LukeD. A user’s guide to network analysis in R. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
70.
WassermanSFaustK. Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
71.
BavelasA. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J Acoust Soc Am1950; 22(6): 725–730.
72.
FreemanLC. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry1977; 40(1): 35–41.
73.
BonacichP. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. J Math Sociol1972; 2(1): 113–120.
74.
RuhnauB. Eigenvector-centrality – a node-centrality?Soc Networks2000; 22(4): 357–365.
75.
NewmanMEJ. Modularity and community structure in networks. P Natl Acad Sci USA2006; 103(23): 8577–8582.
76.
PonsPLatapyM.YolumPComputing communities in large networks using random walks. In: GüngörTGürgenF, et al. (eds) Computer and information sciences – ISCIS 2005. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2005, pp. 284–293.
77.
RaghavanUNAlbertRKumaraS. Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. Phys Rev E2007; 76(3): 036106.
78.
BrandesUDellingDGaertlerM, et al. On finding graph clusterings with maximum modularity. In: BrandstädtAKratschDMüllerH (eds) Graph-theoretic concepts in computer science. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2007, pp. 121–132.
79.
BlondelVDGuillaumeJLLambiotteR, et al. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory E2008; 2008(10): P10008.
80.
PilařLStanislavskáLKPitrováJ, et al. Twitter analysis of global communication in the field of sustainability. Sustainability2019; 11(24): 6958.
DavisonP. The language of Internet memes. In: MandibergM (ed.) The Social Media Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2012, pp. 120–134.
89.
DawkinsR. The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
90.
BlicksteinSHansonS. Critical mass: forging a politics of sustainable mobility in the information age. Transportation2001; 28: 347–362.
91.
JohanssonCLövenheimBSchantzP, et al. Impacts on air pollution and health by changing commuting from car to bicycle. Sci Total Environ2017; 584–585: 55–63.
#ArtistsForFuture. Artists for future – statement of artists concerning the protests for more climate and environmental protection, 2020, https://artistsforfuture.org/en/
KamenidouIStavrianeaABaraEZ. Generational differences toward organic food behavior: insights from five generational cohorts. Sustainability2020; 12(6): 2299.
100.
GarnettT. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?Food Policy2011; 36: S23–S32.
101.
GalNShifmanLKampfZ. ‘It gets better’: Internet memes and the construction of collective identity. New Media Soc2016; 18(8): 1698–1714.
102.
GuentherLRuhrmannGBischoffJ, et al. Strategic framing and social media engagement: analyzing memes posted by the German Identitarian Movement on Facebook. Soc Media Soc. Epub ahead of print 7 February 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2056305119898777.
KrippendorffK. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2012.
105.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM. Uses and gratifications research. Public Opin Quart1973; 37(4): 509–523.
106.
AmentaECarenNChiarelloE, et al. The political consequences of social movements. Annu Rev Sociol2010; 36(1): 287–307.
107.
KingBGPearceNA. The contentiousness of markets: politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annu Rev Sociol2010; 36(1): 249–267.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
