Skip to main content

Introduction: The Importance of Method in the Study of the ‘Political Internet’

  • Chapter
Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks

Abstract

In this introduction, we outline our understanding of the ‘political Internet’ and present the methodologically focused approach that we take to the topic in this volume. We then discuss the growing social and political relevance of the Internet and examine the characteristics of the contemporary ‘Web 2.0’ Internet, before outlining the general methodological challenges and opportunities that it presents for researchers. We argue that three key characteristics of online political information in the Web 2.0 era shape and constrain any study of the political Internet. These characteristics are (1) extremely large volume, (2) heterogeneity and (3) plasticity. We contend that this combination creates what we term a ‘dynamic data deluge’ for social scientists, which makes distinguishing and recording meaningful information generated by the political Internet a methodologically challenging endeavour. We then discuss how the chapters collected here attempt to make sense of the dynamic data deluge that the political Internet presents. In the course of doing so, we build a picture of what distinguishes social media from earlier types of digital communication and discuss how social media content can be assimilated and processed by social science. We touch on epistemological concerns arising from this discussion before outlining the structure of the book and providing details of the individual contributions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, P. (2007) ‘What Is Web 2.0? Ideas, Technologies and Implication for Education’, JISC Technology and Standards Watch Report, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K., Conway, D., Laver, M. and Mikhaylov, S. (2012) ‘Crowd-sourced Data Coding for the Social Sciences: Massive Non-expert Human Coding of Political Texts’, paper presented at the 3rd annual ‘New Directions in Analyzing Text as Data’ Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 5–6 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B. (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., Ajay, M., Daniel, B. and Labianca, G. (2009) ‘Network Analysis in the Social Sciences’, Science, 323 (5916), 892–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2007) ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. and Howard, P.N. (2009) ‘Introduction: New Directions in Internet Politics Research’, in A. Chadwick and P.N. Howard (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. and Shafer, S. (2004) ‘Digital Inequality: From Unequal Access to Differentiated use’, in K. Neckerman (ed.), Social Inequality (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), pp. 355–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J., Kifer, M. and Parkin, M. (2009) ‘Campaign Communications in US Congressional Elections’, American Political Science Review, 103 (3), 343–366. The Economist. (2012) ‘Digital Archiving: History Flushed’, 28 April 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R.K. and McAllister, I. (2011) ‘Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election’, Political Communication, 28 (2), 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R.K. and Ward, S.J. (2000) ‘A Proposed Methodology for Studying the Function and Effectiveness of Party and Candidate Websites’, Social Science Computer Review, 18 (3), 301–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grillo, B. (2011) ‘The 5 Star MoVement (sic.) Between Utopia and Reality.’ Beppe Grillo’s Blog (English version), posted 23 June 2011, available at: http://www.beppegrillo.it/en/2011/06/the_5_star_movement_between_ut.html, date accessed 11 March 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2000) ‘Open Portals or Closed Gates? Channelling Content on the World Wide Web’, Politics, 27 (4), 233–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. and Walejko, P. (2008) ‘The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age’, Information, Communication & Society, 11 (2), 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendler, J. (2009) ‘Web 3.0 Emerging’, Computer (IEE Computer Society), 42 (1), 111–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindman, M. (2005) ‘The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign’, Perspectives on Politics, 3 (1), 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D. and King, G. (2010) ‘Extracting Systematic Social Science Meaning from Text’, American Journal of Political Science, 54 (1), 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000) Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation(New York: Vintage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010) ‘Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. (2012) ‘Social Science Research Methods in Internet Time’, Information, Communication & Society, 15 (5), 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilliker, D.G. and Jackson, N.A. (2010) ‘Towards a More Participatory Style of Election Campaigning: The Impact of Web 2.0 on the UK 2010 General Election’, Policy & Internet, 2 (3), 69–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. (2012) ‘How the German Pirate Party’s “Liquid Democracy” Works’ published on http://www.tecpresident.com’s ‘WeGov’ section, available at: http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/22154/how-german-pirate-partys-liquid-democracy-works date accessed 12 March 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. (1915) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, translated into English by Eden P. and Cedar P. (New York: The Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2011) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (London: Allen Lane).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosco, V. and Foster, D. (2001) ‘Cyberspace and the End of Politics’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 25 (3), 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, J. and Knutsen, T. (2012) Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research, second edition (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, H. (2012) ‘Boris Johnson Backs Down Over London Mayoral Twitter Account’, The Guardian, 20 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital (New York: Vintage Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, R.K. (2012) Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005) ‘What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.’ O’Reilly website, 30 September 2005 O’Reilly Media Inc. available at: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html, date accessed 13 April 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procter, R., Vis, F. and Voss, A. (2013) ‘Reading the Riots on Twitter: Methodological Innovation for the Analysis of Big Data’, International Journal of Sociological Research Methodology, 16 (3), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnieder, S.M. and Foot K.A. (2004) ‘The Web as an Object of Study’, New Media and Society, 6, 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirky, C. (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age(New York: Penguin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Southern, R. and Ward, S.J. (2011) ‘Below the Radar: Online Campaigning at the Local Level at the 2010 Election’, in D. Wring, R. Mortimore and S. Atkinson (eds.), Political Communication in Britain (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 218–241.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2014 Laura Sudulich, Matthew Wall, Rachel Gibson, Marta Cantijoch and Stephen Ward

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sudulich, L., Wall, M., Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M., Ward, S. (2014). Introduction: The Importance of Method in the Study of the ‘Political Internet’. In: Cantijoch, M., Gibson, R., Ward, S. (eds) Analyzing Social Media Data and Web Networks. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137276773_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics