Who Leads and Who Echoes? Tracing Message Similarity Network of #ClimateChange Advocacy on Twitter

Abstract

How do nonprofits advocate and shape climate conversations on Twitter? We answer this question by combining computational analyses with thick descriptions of discursive data to analyze message diffusion on Twitter. We first map a temporal message similarity network comprising 298,073 unique tweets sent by climate action and obstruction nonprofits. We then identify four leading nonprofits and trace their message similarity to 2,479 accounts over 2 weeks. Our results suggest that while climate obstruction nonprofits might not be frequent tweeters, their voices are highly reciprocal in the Twitterverse. We also find that messages of either side are most echoed by the public rather than elite audiences. Although diffusion to policymakers is almost absent, we uncover high semantic similarities between messages from climate obstruction nonprofits and bot-like accounts. Our analyses contribute to new theoretical and empirical insights into the roles of nonprofit conversation leaders and their potential message diffusion in climate discourse.

Keywords

climate change nonprofit advocacy computational text analysis network analysis Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agostino

Arnaboldi

(2016). A measurement framework for assessing the contribution of social media to public engagement: An empirical analysis on Facebook. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1289–1307.

Almiron

Boykoff

Narberhaus

Heras

(2020). Dominant counter-frames in influential climate contrarian European think tanks. Climatic Change, 162(4), 2003–2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-020-02820-4

Anderson

A. A.

Huntington

H. E.

(2017). How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113

Ausserhofer

Maireder

(2013). National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050

Bruns

Highfield

(2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. In Bruns

Enli

Skogerbø

Larsson

A. O.

Christensen

(Eds.) The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 56–73). Routledge.

Bail

C. A.

(2016). Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11823–11828. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607151113

Barberá

Casas

Nagler

Egan

P. J.

Bonneau

Jost

J. T.

Tucker

J. A.

(2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113, 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000352

Benkler

Roberts

Faris

(2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Media and Journalism, 19(34), 329–331. https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-5462_34_24

Bennett

W. L.

Segerberg

(2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

10.

Borgatti

S. P.

Mehra

Brass

D. J.

Labianca

(2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. http://science.sciencemag.org/

11.

Bourdieu

(1989). Social space and symbolic power. Source: Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.

12.

Brulle

R. J.

(2014). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

13.

Brulle

R. J.

(2018). The climate lobby: A sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change, 149(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10584-018-2241-Z

14.

Brulle

R. J.

Carmichael

Jenkins

J. C.

Brulle

R. J.

Carmichael

Jenkins

J. C.

(2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114, 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y

15.

Brulle

R. J.

Hall

Loy

Schell-Smith

(2021). Obstructing action: Foundation funding and U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 166(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03117-w

16.

Cann

H. W.

Raymond

(2018). Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1439353

17.

Chinn

Hart

P. S.

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290

18.

Citizens Climate Lobby. (2021). https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

19.

Climate Social Science Network. (2021). CSSN research report 2021:2: The Mises Institute network and climate policy. 9 Findings. https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CSSN-Mises-Research-Report.pdf

20.

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. (2021). https://www.cfact.org/

21.

Daily Caller News Foundation. (2022). https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/

22.

Elgin

D. J.

Weible

C. M.

(2013). A stakeholder analysis of Colorado climate and energy issues using policy analytical capacity and the advocacy coalition framework. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/ROPR.12005

23.

Farrell

(2015). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2875

24.

Farrell

(2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(1), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112

25.

Feezell

J. T.

(2018). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital era. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895

26.

Freelon

(2018). Computational research in the post-API age. Political Communication, 35(4), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.31235/OSF.IO/56F4Q

27.

Freelon

Marwick

Kreiss

(2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197–1201. http://science.sciencemag.org/

28.

J. S.

Shumate

(2016). Hyperlinks as institutionalized connective public goods for collective action online. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 21(1), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12161

29.

Finn

Maher

J. K.

Forster

(2006). Indicators of information and communication technology adoption in the nonprofit sector: Changes between 2000 and 2004. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(3), 277–295.

30.

Gibbs

Meese

Arnold

Carter

(2015). #Funerals and Instagram: Death, social media and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.987152

31.

Giglietto

Righetti

Rossi

Marino

(2020). It takes a village to manipulate the media: Coordinated link sharing behavior during 2018 and 2019 Italian elections. Information, Communication & Society, 23(6), 867–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1739732

32.

Grimmer

Stewart

B. M.

(2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028

33.

Guo

Saxton

G. D.

(2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.

34.

Guo

Saxton

G. D.

(2018). Speaking and being heard: How nonprofit advocacy organizations gain attention on social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017713724

35.

Guo

Saxton

G. D.

(2020). The quest for attention: Nonprofit advocacy in a social media age. Stanford University Press.

36.

Gupta

Ripberger

Wehde

(2018). Advocacy group messaging on social media: Using the narrative policy framework to study Twitter messages about nuclear energy policy in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 46(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12176

37.

Halpin

D. R.

Fraussen

Ackland

(2021). Which audiences engage with advocacy groups on twitter? Explaining the online engagement of elite, peer, and mass audiences with advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50, 842–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020979818

38.

Hoffman

A. J.

(2015). How culture shapes the climate change debate. Stanford University Press. http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/how_culture_shapes_the_climate_change_debateENVIRONMENT

39.

Jackson

S. J.

Bailey

Welles

B. F.

(2020). HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.

40.

Jackson

S. J.

Welles

B. F.

(2015). #Ferguson is everywhere: Initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1106571

41.

Jasny

Waggle

Fisher

D. R.

(2015). An empirical examination of echo chambers in U.S. climate policy networks. Nature Climate Change, 5, 782–786. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2666

42.

Jung

Valero

J. N.

(2016). Assessing the evolutionary structure of homeless network: Social media use, keywords, and influential stakeholders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.015

43.

Kirilenko

A. P.

Stepchenkova

S. O.

(2014). Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global Environmental Change Jo, 26(1), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.008

44.

Kim

Y. M.

Hsu

Neiman

Kou

Bankston

Kim

S. Y.

Heinrich

Baragwanath

Raskutti

(2018). The stealth media? Groups and targets behind divisive issue campaigns on Facebook. Political Communication, 35(4), 515–541.

45.

Littman

Wrubel

(2019). Climate change tweets ids. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5QCCUU , Harvard Dataverse, V1

46.

Lam

W. F.

Nie

(2020). Online or offline? Nonprofits’ choice and use of social media in Hong Kong. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00128-1

47.

Manovich

(2012). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In Gold

M. K.

(Ed.), Debates in the digital humanities (pp. 460–475). University of Minnesota Press. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Debates_in_the_Digital_Humanities/_6mo2tApzQQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=(Manovich+2012)+big+social+data&pg=PA460&printsec=frontcover

48.

Marlow

Miller

Roberts

J. T.

(2021). Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 21, 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870098

49.

Meraz

Papacharissi

(2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472

50.

Muchnik

Aral

Taylor

S. J.

(2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651.

51.

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2021). https://www.nrdc.org/

52.

Pearce

Holmberg

Hellsten

Nerlich

(2014). Climate change on twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLOS ONE, 9(4), Article 94785. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094785

53.

Pearce

Niederer

Özkula

S. M.

Sánchez Querubín

(2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(2), e569. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569

54.

Pond

Lewis

(2019). Riots and Twitter: Connective politics, social media and framing discourses in the digital public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 22(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1366539

55.

Saffer

A. J.

Yang

Morehouse

(2019). It takes a village: A social network approach to NGOs’ international public engagement. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(12), 1708–1727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219835265

56.

Saxton

G. D.

Guo

(2020). Social media capital: Conceptualizing the nature, acquisition, and expenditure of social media-based organizational resources. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 36, Article 100443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100443

57.

Schmidt

J.-H.

(2014). Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In Weller

Bruns

Burgess

Puschmann

Mahrt

(Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 3–14). Peter Lang.

58.

Shin

Jian

Driscoll

Bar

(2018). The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 278–287.

59.

Trzyna

T. C.

Didion

(2001). World directory of environmental organizations: A handbook of national and international organizations and programs, governmental and non-governmental, concerned with protecting the Earth’s resources. Routledge.

60.

Tucker

J. A.

Guess

Barberá

Vaccari

Siegel

Sanovich

Stukal

Nyhan

(2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. https://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf

61.

Turunen

Weinryb

(2020). Organizing service delivery on social media platforms? Loosely organized networks, co-optation, and the welfare state. Public Management Review, 22(6), 857–876.

62.

Tyson

Kennedy

(2020, June 23). Two-thirds of Americans think government should do more on climate. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

63.

Te’eni

Young

D. R.

(2003). The Changing Role of Nonprofits in the Network Economy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(3), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003254900

64.

H. T.

H. V.

Seo

Liu

(2019). Who leads the conversation on climate change? A study of a global network of NGOs on Twitter. Environmental Communication, 14(4), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1687099

65.

Wang

Yang

Thorson

(2019). Serial participants of social media climate discussion as a community of practice: A longitudinal network analysis. Information, Communication & Society, 24(7), 941–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1668457

66.

Welbers

van Atteveldt

Kleinnijenhuis

Ruigrok

(2018). A gatekeeper among gatekeepers: News agency influence in print and online newspapers in the Netherlands. Journalism Studies, 19, 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1190663

67.

Wetts

(2020). Models and morals: Elite-oriented and value-neutral discourse dominates American organizations’ framings of climate change. Social Forces, 98(3), 1339–1369. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz027

68.

Williams

H. T. P.

McMurray

J. R.

Kurz

Hugo Lambert

(2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2015.03.006

69.

Wojcik

Hughes

(2019). Sizing up Twitter users. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/

70.

Saxton

G. D.

(2019). Does stakeholder engagement pay off on social media? A social capital perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018791267

71.

Yang

Saffer

(2018). NGOs’ advocacy in the 2015 refugee crisis: A study of agenda building in the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759578

72.

Yang

Saffer

(2019). Embracing a network perspective in the network society: The dawn of a new paradigm in strategic public relations. Public Relations Review, 45(4), Article 101843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101843

73.

Yang

S. J.

González-Bailón

(2017). Semantic networks and applications in public opinion research. In Victor

Montgomery

Lubell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 327–353). Oxford University Press. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/533

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.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB