Networked publics and the organizing of collective action on Twitter: Examining the #Freebassel campaign

Abstract

This study applied collective action theories and network theories to examine the information sharing patterns among Twitter users to obtain sociopolitical legitimacy of their collective goal. The role of Twitter in facilitating private–public boundary crossing was defined in relation to main challenges of collective action. The hypotheses and research question were examined using Twitter data collected from an online campaign, which was created to bring about the release of a detained Syrian activist. Network analysis results showed significant geographic homophily effect, that is, participants located in the same region tended to share information with each other. In addition, the results indicated that more influential Twitter users tended to connect with less influential users to help spread information on the movement. Further content analysis showed that to better mobilize potential collective action participants, Twitter users utilized strategies to draw attention from citizen news media organizations, nonprofit advocacy organizations, public figures, and corporations.

Keywords

Collective action ERGM freebassel online information sharing network analysis online campaign social media sociopolitcal legitimacy Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldrich

Reuf

(2006) Organizations Evolving. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Allagui

Kuebler

(2011) The Arab Spring and the role of ICTs. Editorial Introduction. International Journal of Communication 5: 1435–1442.

Abrams

Hogg

(1999) Social Identity and Social Cognition. Malden: Blackwell.

Barabási

(2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge: Perseus.

Benkler

(2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press

Bennet

Segerberg

(2012) The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 739–768.

Bimber

Flanagin

Stohl

(2005) Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory 15(4): 365–388.

Bimber

Flanagin

Stohl

(2012) Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York: Cambridge University Press

Brass

(1995) A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personal and Human Resources Management 13: 39–79.

10.

Bregman

Haythornthwaite

(2003) Radicals of presentation: visibility, relation, and co-presence in persistent conversation. New Media & Society 5(1): 117–140.

11.

Byrne

(1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

12.

Castells

(2009) Communication Power. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

13.

Castells

(2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. London: Polity Press.

14.

Dahlberg-Grundberg

(2016) Technology as movement: On hybrid organizational types and the mutual constitution of movement identity and technological infrastructure in digital activism. Convergence 22(5): 524–542.

15.

Donath

Karahalios

Viegas

(1999) Visualizing conversation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4). Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00107.x.

16.

Erickson

Kellogg

(2000) Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7: 59–83. DOI: 10.1145/344949.345004.

17.

Faraj

Azad

(2012) The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In: Nardi

Bonnie

Kallinikos

Jannis

Leonardi

Paul M

(eds) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Flanagin

Stohl

Bimber

(2006) Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs 73(1): 29–54.

19.

Fulk

Yuan

(2013) The adoption and usage of social networking tools to support knowledge sharing in contemporary organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19: 20–37.

20.

Gamson

Wolfsfeld

(1993) Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 114–125.

21.

Ganesh

Stohl

(2010) Qualifying engagement: A study of information and communication technology and the global social justice movement in Aotearoa New Zealand. Communication Monographs 77(1): 51–74.

22.

Kwak

Lee

Park

, et al. (2010) What is twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 26–30 April, pp. 591–600.

23.

Lotan

Graeff

Ananny

, et al. (2011) The revolutions were tweeted: information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. International Journal of Communication 5: 1375–1405.

24.

Majchrzak

Faraj

Kane

, et al. (2013) The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19: 38–55,

25.

McPherson

Smith–Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

26.

Mercea

Funk

(2016) The social media overture of the pan-European Stop-ACTA protest: An empirical examination of participatory coordination in connective action. Convergence 22(3): 287–312.

27.

Monge

Contractor

(2003) Theories of Communication Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

28.

Newsom

Lengel

(2012) Arab women, social media, and the arab spring: Applying the framework of digital reflexivity to analyze gender and online activism. Journal of International Women’s Studies 13(4): 31–45.

29.

Olson

(1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

30.

Papacharissi

Oliveira

(2012) Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication 62: 266–282.

31.

Powell

White

Koput

, et al. (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 111(5): 1463–1568.

32.

Robins

Pattison

Kalish

, et al. (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social networks 29(2): 173–191.

33.

Ruef

Aldrich

Carter

(2003) The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs, American Sociological Review 68(2): 195–222.

34.

Segerberg

Bennett

(2011) Social media and the organization of collective action: using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review 14: 197–215.

35.

Shaw

Hill

(2014) Laboratories of oligarchy? How the iron law extends to peer production. Journal of Communication 64(2): 215–238.

36.

Shen

Monge

(2011) Who connects with whom? A social network analysis of an online open source software community. First Monday 16(6). Retrieved April 4, 2017 Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3551/2991.

37.

Singh

Jain

(2010) Structural analysis of the emerging event web. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 26–30 April, pp. 1183–1184.

38.

Small

(2011) What the hashtag? A connect analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society 14(6): 872–895.

39.

Snijders

Pattison

Robins

, et al. (2006) New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological methodology 36(1): 99–153.

40.

Suchman

(1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

41.

Takhteyev

Gruzd

Wellman

(2012) Geography of twitter networks. Social Networks 34(1): 73–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.006.

42.

Treem

Leonardi

(2012) Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook 36: 143–189.

43.

Tufekci

(2013) “Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist 57(7): 848–870. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213479369.

44.

Turner

(1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: Self–categorization Theory. New York: Blackwell.

45.

von Krogh

(2002) The communal resource and information systems. Strategic Information Systems 11(2 ): 85–107.

46.

von Hipple

von Krogh

(2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Organization Science 14(2): 209–233.

47.

Wang

Liu

Gao

(2016) Hashtags and information virality in networked social movement: Examining hashtag co-occurrence patterns. Online Information Review 40(7): 850–866.

48.

Zorn

Grant

Henderson

(2012) Strengthening resource mobilization chains: Developing the social media competencies of community and voluntary organizations in New Zealand. International Society of Third-Sector Research 24: 666–687.