Advertisement

Deep Data: Analyzing Power and Influence in Social Media Networks

  • Fiona Martin
  • Jonathon Hutchinson
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Social media network analysis (SMNA) is an interdisciplinary Internet studies methodology which uses computational methods to track, map, and analyze the conduct of social relationships on social networking and social media platforms. Increasingly SMNA is being used to explore the nature of online sociality and to address questions about communicative power and influence. This chapter explores SMNA’s history, principles, and epistemological foundations, uses, and analytical methods, with a critical focus on the dimensions of researchers’ access to, interpretation, and governance of social media datasets. Each section explores methodological problems that arise during the capture, filtering, interpretation, and representation of real-time data flows in transnational, commercialized social media streams. Centrally the chapter interrogates and explores how researchers can derive deeper, better culturally informed information from big data flows.

Keywords

Social media Social network analysis Sociometrics Big data Network influence 

References

  1. Agarwal SD, Bennett WL, Johnson CN, Walker S (2014) A model of crowd-enabled organization: theory and methods for understanding the role of Twitter in the occupy protests. Int J Commun 8:646–672Google Scholar
  2. Barabási A (2010) Introduction and keynote to a networked self. In: Papacharissi Z (ed) A networked self: identity, community, and culture on social network sites. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett WL, Segerberg A, Walker S (2014) Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests. Inf Commun Soc 17(2):232–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs S (ed) (2012) Remediating the social. Electronic literature as a model for creativity and innovation in practice (ELMCIP) initiative. University of Edinburgh, University of Bergen. http://elmcip.net/sites/default/files/files/attachments/criticalwriting/remediating_the_social_full.pdf
  5. Borgatti SP, Lopez-Kidwell V (2013) Network theory. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Sage, London, pp 40–54Google Scholar
  6. Bott E (1957) Family and social network. Tavistock Publications Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. boyd d, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):662–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brath R, Jonker D (2015) Graph analysis and visualization: discovering business opportunity in linked data. Wiley, IndianapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruns A, Burgess J, Crawford K, Shaw F (2012) #qldfloodsand @QPSMedia: crisis communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland floods. ARC Centre for Creative Industries and Innovation. http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf. Accessed
  10. Burnap P, Avis NJ, Rana OF (2013) Making sense of self-reported socially significant data using computational methods. Int J Soc Res Methodol 16(3):215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busch L (2015) A dozen ways to get lost in translation: inherent challenges in large scale data sets. Int J Commun 8:1727–1744Google Scholar
  12. Carrington PJ, Scott J (2013) Introduction. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Sage, London, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  13. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, 1st edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheong F, Cheong C (2011) Social media data mining: a social network analysis of tweets during the 2010–2011 Australian floods. PACIS 2011 proceedings. Paper 46. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/46. Accessed 4 Aug 2015
  15. Council of Europe (1995) On the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe. 24 Oct 1995Google Scholar
  16. Crawford K, Miltner K, Gray ML (2014) Critiquing big data: politics, ethics, epistemology. Int J Commun 8:1663–1672. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2167/1164
  17. Cummings S, Heeks R, Huysman M (2006) Knowledge and learning in online networks in development: a social-capital perspective. Dev Pract 16(6):570–586.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520600958215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutton W (2013) The social shaping of digital research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 16(3):177–195.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.774171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edney K (2014) The globalization of Chinese propaganda: international power and domestic political cohesion. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ellis B (2012) Social humanism: a new metaphysics. Routledge, New York/OxonGoogle Scholar
  21. Enright AJ, Ouzinis CA (2015) BioLayout – an automatic graph layout algorithm for similarity visualization. Bioinformatics 17(9):853–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FDA (2015) U.S. food and drug administration guidelines for mobile medical applications. February 9. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM263366.pdf
  23. Fordyce R (2015) Business fish goes all in: affect-images and the Facebook machine. Interdisciplinary Internet Institute. http://theiii.org/?p=1373. Accessed 28 May 2015
  24. Freedman L (2014) Ukraine and the art of limited war. Survival 56(6):7–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman L (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman LC (2004) The development of social network analysis: a study in the sociology of science. Empirical Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman LC, White DR, Romney AK (1989) Research methods in social network analysis. Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  28. Goggin G, Dwyer T, Martin F, Hutchinson J (2014) Finding mobile internet policy actors in big data: methodological concerns in social network analysis. Paper presented to Digital Humanities Australasia 2014: Expanding Horizons, The Australasian Association for Digital Humanities (aaDH) 18–21 March 2014, PerthGoogle Scholar
  29. Gonzalez-Bailon S, Wang N (2016) Networked discontent: the anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Social Networks 44:95–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graham M, Hogan B, Straumann RK, Medhat A (2014) Uneven geographies of user-generated information: patterns of increasing informational poverty. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 104(4):746–764.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.910087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Granovetter M (1976) Network sampling: some first steps. Am J Sociol 81(6):1287–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gupta A, Lamba H, Kumaraguru P (2013) $1.00 per RT #BostonMarathon #PrayForBoston: analyzing fake content on Twitter. Accepted at IEEE APWG eCrime Research Summit (eCRS), 2013Google Scholar
  34. Hampton KN, Rainie L, Lu W, Dwyer M, Shin I, Purcell K (2014) Social media and the ‘spiral of silence’. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/ Accessed 28 Nov 2014Google Scholar
  35. Hansen D, Schneiderman B, Smith MA (2011) Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrington S, Highfield T, Bruns A (2013) More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. Participations: J Audience Reception Stud 10(1):405–409Google Scholar
  37. Himelboim I, Gleave E, Smith M (2009) Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: content importers and conversation starters. J Comput-Mediat Commun 14(4):771–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Himelboim I, McCreery S, Smith M (2013) Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. J Comput-Mediat Commun 18(2):40–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hutchinson J (2015) The impact of social TV and audience participation on national cultural policy: co-creating television comedy with #7DaysLater. Commun Polit Cult 47(3):18–30Google Scholar
  40. Jupp V (2006) Network analysis. In: The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kleinsman J, Buckley S (2015) Facebook study: a little bit unethical but worth it? Bioeth Inq 12:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Latour B (2013) Biography of an inquiry: on a book about modes of existence. Social Studies of Science 43(2):287–301.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712470751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Langlois G, Elmer G (2013) The research politics of social media platforms. Cult Mach 14:1–17Google Scholar
  44. Larsson AO, Moe H (2013) Untangling a complex media system. A comparative study of twitter-linking practices during three Scandinavian election campaigns. Inf Commun Soc 16(5): 775–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lomborg S, Bechman A (2014) Using APIs for data collection on social media. The information society: an international journal 30(4):256–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.915276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manovich L (2011) Trending: the promises and the challenges of big social data. In: Debates in the digital humanities. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/Manovich_trending_paper.pdf. 7 Feb 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marin A, Wellman B (2013) Social network analysis: an introduction. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ (eds) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. Sage, London, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  48. Mendoza M, Poblete B, Castillo C (2010) Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we RT? Paper presented at the 1st workshop on social media analytics (SOMA’10), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Moreno JL (1951) Sociometry, experimental method and the science of society. An approach to a new political orientation. Beacon House, Beacon/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Morstatter F, Pfeffer J, Lui H, Carley KM (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s streaming API with Twitter’s firehose. In: Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media; version at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5204. Accessed 25 Feb 2014
  51. Ockenden W, Leslie T (2015) What reporter will Ockenden’s metadata reveals about his life. ABC News. August 24. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-24/metadata-what-you-found-will-ockenden/6703626
  52. Puschmann C, Burgess J (2014) Metaphors of big data. Int J Commun 8:1690–1709Google Scholar
  53. Race K (2015) Speculative pragmatism and intimate arrangements: online hook-up devices in gay life. Cult Health Sex 17(4):496–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ratkiewicz J, Conover M, Meiss M, Gonçalves B, Patil S, Flammini A, Menczer F (2011) Truthy: mapping the spread of Astroturf in microblog streams. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World Wide Web. Association for Computing Machinery, ACM, pp 249–252Google Scholar
  55. Robertson A (2013) The accidental dystopias of the @TwoHeadlines Twitter Bot. Retrieved 30 June 2015, from http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/18/5118566/the-accidental-dystopia-of-twoheadlines-twitter-bot
  56. Rossiter N, Zehle S (2014) Toward a politics of anonymity: algorithmic actors in the constitution of collective agency and the implications for global economic justice movements. In: Parker M, Cheney G, Fournier V, Land C (eds) The Routledge companion to alternative organization. Routledge, Oxon/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Sayes EM (2014) Actor-network theory and methodology: just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Soc Stud Sci 44(1):134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scifleet P, Henninger M, Albright KH (2013) When social media are your source. Inf Res 18(3). http://informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC41.html. Accessed
  59. Scott J (2012) What is social network analysis. Bloomsbury Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Scott J (2017) What is social network analysis? 4th edn. Sage, London/Thousand Oaks/New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith MA, Rainie L, Shneiderman B, Himelboim I (2014) Mapping Twitter topic networks: from polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/mapping-twitter-topic-networks-from-polarized-crowds-to-community-clusters/. Accessed 12 Feb 2015
  62. Stroppa A, di Stefano D, Parrella B (2016) Social media and luxury goods counterfeit: a growing concern for government, industry and consumers worldwide. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2016/05/IG_A2016_ST2.pdf
  63. Supovitz JA, Daly AJ, del Fresno M (2015) #CommonCore: how social media is changing the politics of education. HashtagCommonCore project. University of Pennsylvania: ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/hashtagcommoncore/1. Accessed 29 June 2015
  64. Swahar G (2014) Methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture to rank users in an online social network. Australian patent AU 2011202431Google Scholar
  65. Telea A (2015) Data visualization: principles and practice, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  66. Travers J, Milgram S (1969) An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry 32(4):425–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tufekci Z (2015) Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal 13 J on Telecomm & High Tech L, 203–218Google Scholar
  68. Walker S (2015) Salutin’ Putin: inside a Russian troll house. theguardian.com. Thursday April 2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house. Accessed 30 June 2015
  69. Watts DJ (2003) Six degrees: the science of a connected age. Vintage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Wheaton KJ, Richey MK (2014) The potential of social network analysis in intelligence e-international relations. 9 Jan 2014. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2014/01/09/the-potential-of-social-network-analysis-in-intelligence/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media & CommunicationsUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations