Advertisement

How Social Media Mashups Enable and Constrain Online Activism of Civil Society Organizations

  • Oana Brindusa Albu
  • Michael Andreas Etter
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Activists of civil society organizations often use social media (SM) to organize and achieve social change by sharing content across different SM technologies. These technologies themselves can be understood as non-human actors that crucially influence how activists share content and organize. This chapter focuses on how the sharing of content, which is shaped by the interplay between human and non-human actors, results in mashups, i.e., mutable interactions that emerge from disparate locales. Based on affordances theory and an ethnographic study, this chapter investigates how these mashups influence activist organizing of two civil society organizations. The study shows how the human-technology interplay that rests on the feature of “exporting” and “importing” content across SM connects various actors and interactions. The study furthermore shows the role and agency of non-human actors (algorithm-driven hashtags) in creating mashups and shows how these mashups can develop ordering and disordering effects.

Keywords

Social media Digital activism Mashups Organizational theory Connective affordances 

References

  1. Abbruzzese J (2017) Twitter’s ‘LasVagas’ hashtag fail shows the worst part of algorithms. http://mashable.com/2017/10/03/twitter-algorithm-fail-las-vegas/#nvynexnERPqr. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  2. Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A (2014) Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innov Policy Econ 14(1):63–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aouragh M, Alexander A (2011) The Arab spring| the Egyptian experience: sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. Int J Commun 5(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aral S, Walker D (2014) Tie strength, embeddedness, and social influence: a large-scale networked experiment. Manag Sci 60(6):1352–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asur S, Huberman BA (2010) Predicting the future with social media. In: Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference, vol 1. IEEE, Washington DC, pp 492–499Google Scholar
  6. Bennett WL, Segerberg A (2012) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):739–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell KK (2005) Agency: promiscuous and protean. Commun Crit/Cult Stud 2(1):1–19Google Scholar
  8. Charmaz K (2006) The power of names. J Contemp Ethnogr 35(4):396–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deuze M (2012) People and media are messy. New Media Soc 14(4):717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobusch L, Schoeneborn D (2015) Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: the communicative constitution of Anonymous. J Manag Stud 52(8):1005–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eltantawy N, Wiest JB (2011) The Arab spring| Social media in the egyptian revolution: reconsidering resource mobilization theory. Int J Commun 5(1):18–40Google Scholar
  12. Fayard AL, Weeks J (2007) Photocopiers and water-coolers: the affordances of informal interaction. Organ Stud 28(5):605–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flyverbom M (2016) Transparency: mediation and the management of visibilities. Int J Commun 10:110–122Google Scholar
  14. Fulk J, Yuan CY (2013) Location, motivation, and social capitalization via enterprise social networking. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(1):20–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA (2014) Media technologies: essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffey A (2008) Algorithm. In: Martin F (ed) Software studies: a lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 15–20Google Scholar
  17. Herrera L (2014) Revolution in the age of social media: the Egyptian popular insurrection and the internet. Verso Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson MH (2007) Fluidity, promiscuity, and mash-ups: new concepts for the study of mobility and communication. Commun Monogr 74(3):408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kallinikos J, Leonardi PM, Nardi BA (2012) The challenge of materiality: origins, scope, and prospects. Materiality and organizing: social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee FL, Chan JM (2016) Digital media activities and mode of participation in a protest campaign: a study of the umbrella movement. Inf Commun Soc 19(1):4–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leonardi PM (2017) The social media revolution: sharing and learning in the age of leaky knowledge. Inf Organ 27:47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Inf Organ 18(3):159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonardi PM, Nardi BA, Kallinikos J (2012) Materiality and organizing: social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press on Demand, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leonardi PM, Huysman M, Steinfield C (2013) Enterprise social media: definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovejoy K, Saxton GD (2012) Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media. J Comput-Mediat Commun 17(3):337–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makhortykh M, Lyebyedyev Y (2015) SaveDonbassPeople: Twitter, propaganda, and conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Commun Rev 18(4):239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKenna B, Myers MD, Newman M (2017) Social media in qualitative research: challenges and recommendations. Inf Organ 27(2):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McPherson E (2015) Advocacy organizations’ evaluation of social media information for CSO journalism the evidence and engagement models. Am Behav Sci 59(1):124–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meraz S, Papacharissi Z (2013) Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on # Egypt. Int J Press/Politics 18(2):138–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milan S (2015) From social movements to cloud protesting: the evolution of collective identity. Inf Commun Soc 18(8):887–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murthy D (2011) Twitter: microphone for the masses? Media Cult Soc 33(5):779–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Obar JA, Zube P, Lampe C (2012) Advocacy 2.0: an analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. J Inf Policy 2(1):1–25Google Scholar
  33. Rane H, Salem S (2012) Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. J Int Commun 18(1):97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salge C, Karahanna E (2016) Protesting corruption on Twitter: is it a bot or is it a person? Acad Manag Discov.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott SV, Orlikowski WJ (2014) Entanglements in practice: performing anonymity through social media. MIS Q 38:873–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Segerberg A, Bennett WL (2011) Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests. Commun Rev 14(3):197–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thom-Santelli J, Muller MJ, Millen DR (2008) Social tagging roles: publishers, evangelists, leaders. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1041–1044Google Scholar
  38. Tracy SJ (2013) Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Treem JW, Leonardi PM (2012) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Commun Yearb 36(1):143–189Google Scholar
  40. Vaast E, Safadi H, Lapointe L, Negoita B (2017) Social media affordances for connective action-an examination of microblogging use during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. MIS Q 41(4):1179.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.08CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications, vol 8. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilkie A, Michael M, Plummer-Fernandez M (2015) Speculative method and Twitter: bots, energy and three conceptual characters. Sociol Rev 63(1):79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yardi S, Golder SA, Brzozowski MJ (2009) Blogging at work and the corporate attention economy. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Boston, MA, pp 2071–2080Google Scholar
  44. Yoo Y (2012) Digital Materiality and the Emergence of an Evolutionary Science of the Artificial in Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 134–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Marie Curie Research Fellow, Faculty of Management, Cass Business SchoolCity, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations