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.
AgostinoD.ArnaboldiM. (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.
2.
AlmironN.BoykoffM.NarberhausM.HerasF. (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
3.
AndersonA. A.HuntingtonH. E. (2017). How Twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication, 39(5), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735113
4.
AusserhoferJ.MairederA. (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
5.
BrunsA.HighfieldT. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social media and the public sphere. In BrunsA.EnliG.SkogerbøE.LarssonA. O.ChristensenC. (Eds.) The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 56–73). Routledge.
6.
BailC. 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
7.
BarberáP.CasasA.NaglerJ.EganP. J.BonneauR.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. 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
8.
BenklerY.RobertsH.FarisR. (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
9.
BennettW. L.SegerbergA. (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.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. http://science.sciencemag.org/
11.
BourdieuP. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Source: Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25.
12.
BrulleR. 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.
BrulleR. 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.
BrulleR. J.CarmichaelJ.JenkinsJ. C.BrulleR. J.CarmichaelJ.JenkinsJ. 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.
BrulleR. J.HallG.LoyL.Schell-SmithK. (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.
CannH. W.RaymondL. (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.
ChinnS.HartP. S.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290
ElginD. J.WeibleC. 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.
FarrellJ. (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.
FarrellJ. (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.
FeezellJ. 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
FreelonD.MarwickA.KreissD. (2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197–1201. http://science.sciencemag.org/
28.
FuJ. S.ShumateM. (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.
FinnS.MaherJ. K.ForsterJ. (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.
GibbsM.MeeseJ.ArnoldM.CarterM. (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.
GigliettoF.RighettiN.RossiL.MarinoG. (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.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. 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.
GuoC.SaxtonG. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.
34.
GuoC.SaxtonG. 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.
GuoC.SaxtonG. D. (2020). The quest for attention: Nonprofit advocacy in a social media age. Stanford University Press.
36.
GuptaK.RipbergerJ.WehdeW. (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.
HalpinD. R.FraussenB.AcklandR. (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
JacksonS. J.BaileyM.WellesB. F. (2020). HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.
40.
JacksonS. J.WellesB. 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.
JasnyL.WaggleJ.FisherD. 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.
JungK.ValeroJ. 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.
KirilenkoA. P.StepchenkovaS. 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.
KimY. M.HsuJ.NeimanD.KouC.BankstonL.KimS. Y.HeinrichR.BaragwanathR.RaskuttiG. (2018). The stealth media? Groups and targets behind divisive issue campaigns on Facebook. Political Communication, 35(4), 515–541.
LamW. F.NieL. (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
MarlowT.MillerS.RobertsJ. 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.
MerazS.PapacharissiZ. (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.
MuchnikL.AralS.TaylorS. J. (2013). Social influence bias: A randomized experiment. Science, 341(6146), 647–651.
PearceW.HolmbergK.HellstenI.NerlichB. (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.
PearceW.NiedererS.ÖzkulaS. M.Sánchez QuerubínN. (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.
PondP.LewisJ. (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.
SafferA. J.YangA.MorehouseJ.QuY. (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.
SaxtonG. D.GuoC. (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.
SchmidtJ.-H. (2014). Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In WellerK.BrunsA.BurgessJ.PuschmannC.MahrtM. (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 3–14). Peter Lang.
58.
ShinJ.JianL.DriscollK.BarF. (2018). The diffusion of misinformation on social media: Temporal pattern, message, and source. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 278–287.
59.
TrzynaT. C.DidionJ. (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.
TurunenJ.WeinrybN. (2020). Organizing service delivery on social media platforms? Loosely organized networks, co-optation, and the welfare state. Public Management Review, 22(6), 857–876.
Te’eniD.YoungD. 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.
VuH. T.DoH. V.SeoH.LiuY. (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.
WangL.YangA.ThorsonK. (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.
WelbersK.van AtteveldtW.KleinnijenhuisJ.RuigrokN. (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.
WettsR. (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.
WilliamsH. T. P.McMurrayJ. R.KurzT.Hugo LambertF. (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
XuW.SaxtonG. 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.
YangA.SafferA. (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.
YangA.SafferA. (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.
YangS. J.González-BailónS. (2017). Semantic networks and applications in public opinion research. In VictorJ.MontgomeryA.LubellM. (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.
