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

From AcaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: Rong Wang, Kar-Hai Chu (2017) Networked publics and the organizing of collective action on Twitter: Examining the. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1177/1354856517703974
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1177/1354856517703974
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1177/1354856517703974
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Networked publics and the organizing of collective action on Twitter: Examining the
Wikidata (metadata): Q35179980
Tagged:

Summary

Analyzes homophily and strategic selection mechanisms for explaining patterns of communication networks using '#freebassel' tweets (3636) from 29 June 2012 to 20 March 2013, crawled using Twitter Archiving Google Spreadsheet (TAGS). Hypotheses and research question (quotes):

  • H1a: Online collective action participants are more likely to share information with other participants from the same geographic region.
  • H1b: Influential participants of online collective action are more likely to connect with other influential participants.
  • H2a: More influential Twitter accounts tend to receive more information sharing ties than less influential accounts.
  • H2b: More active Twitter accounts tend to receive more information sharing ties than less active accounts.
  • RQ1: How are Twitter accounts of advocacy organizations and news media organizations mobilized for information sharing to obtain legitimacy during online collective action?

Accounts (1881) scored by: influence (twitter followers/following), geolocation (12 regions), activity (total tweets posted), degree centrality (in- and out-). Most degree central accounts used to examine RQ1, and these were categorized as mainstream media organizations, citizen media organizations, advocacy organizations, and public figures based on their profile information.

H1a was supported, H1b was not: "participants of similar levels of community influence were less likely to communicate with each other."

H2a was supported, H2b was not.

RQ1 found that participating twitter accounts did share with advocacy organizations to bring attention to the public, but less so with mainstream media accounts.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

Quote:

Future work will look into the time stamps of the network data and further model the network change over time. Superficially, network attachment logics will be tested on a longitudinal basis. Some overarching questions guiding the future research agenda are what endogenous (i.e. factors that are internal to network structures) and exogenous variables (i.e. factors that are external to networks such as actor attributes) can explain the achievement of legitimacy in an online advocacy campaign? How is the structure of online information sharing network related to the outcome of an online advocacy campaign over time? What role does Twitter play in the success or failure of such campaigns?

Also, what is the importance of advocacy organizations or their lack (ie organization-less organizing)?

Retrieved from "https://acawiki.org/index.php?title=Networked_publics_and_the_organizing_of_collective_action_on_Twitter:_Examining_the&oldid=11147"