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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
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.
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies (London: Routledge).
Bimber, B. (2003) Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Borgatti, S., Ajay, M., Daniel, B. and Labianca, G. (2009) ‘Network Analysis in the Social Sciences’, Science, 323 (5916), 892–895.
Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2007) ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210–230.
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.
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.
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.
Gibson, R.K. and McAllister, I. (2011) ‘Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election’, Political Communication, 28 (2), 227–244.
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.
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.
Hargittai, E. (2000) ‘Open Portals or Closed Gates? Channelling Content on the World Wide Web’, Politics, 27 (4), 233–253.
Hargittai, E. and Walejko, P. (2008) ‘The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age’, Information, Communication & Society, 11 (2), 239–256.
Hendler, J. (2009) ‘Web 3.0 Emerging’, Computer (IEE Computer Society), 42 (1), 111–113.
Hindman, M. (2005) ‘The Real Lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the First Digital Campaign’, Perspectives on Politics, 3 (1), 121–128.
Hopkins, D. and King, G. (2010) ‘Extracting Systematic Social Science Meaning from Text’, American Journal of Political Science, 54 (1), 229–247.
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2000) Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation(New York: Vintage).
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2010) ‘Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
Karpf, D. (2012) ‘Social Science Research Methods in Internet Time’, Information, Communication & Society, 15 (5), 639–661.
King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
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.
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.
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).
Morozov, E. (2011) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (London: Allen Lane).
Mosco, V. and Foster, D. (2001) ‘Cyberspace and the End of Politics’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 25 (3), 218–236.
Moses, J. and Knutsen, T. (2012) Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research, second edition (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan).
Mulholland, H. (2012) ‘Boris Johnson Backs Down Over London Mayoral Twitter Account’, The Guardian, 20 March.
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital (New York: Vintage Publishing).
Nielsen, R.K. (2012) Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide (New York: Cambridge University Press).
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.
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.
Schnieder, S.M. and Foot K.A. (2004) ‘The Web as an Object of Study’, New Media and Society, 6, 114–122.
Shirky, C. (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age(New York: Penguin).
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.
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137276773_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-44680-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-27677-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political Science CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)