Technology, Media and Social Movements by Cristina Flesher Fominaya Kevin Gillan

Author:Cristina Flesher Fominaya, Kevin Gillan [Cristina Flesher Fominaya, Kevin Gillan]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367664152
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2020-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

2012

* * *

2013

* * *

2014

* * *

Network feature Mild institutionalization Inclusion Consolidation

* * *

N (number of nodes) 858 1175 994

M (number of arcs) 3663 5270 2970

Overall density 0.0022 0.0020 0.0019

Average geodesic distance 300 307 29

Isolates 5.0% 2.4% 4.2%

Inclusivity of the principal component 91.7% 96.9% 93.8%

K (mean degree) 0.40 0.37 0.35

KMAX (max degree) 43.99 41.14 53.17

In-degree centralization 3646% 3305% 4800%

Note: K and KMAX values normalized.

Besides remaining generally ‘nonsegmented’ (Diani, 2003 , p. 310), the Tweetathon network remains also rather centralized. This feature is typically grasped by looking at the disproportion between the highest and the average number of ties in which nodes of the network are involved, which are measured, respectively, through maximum and mean degree (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 173). In fact, the high centralization of the network is not surprising, if we consider that the TBTT Tweetathon is part of a planned campaign effort (see Bennett & Segerberg, 2013, 2014). Thus, across the whole period examined and regardless of the stage along the process of institutionalization, the most prominent position is held by the Twitter official account of the campaign (@takebackthetech), which steadily guides and fuels the process of online integration. Conversely, other campaigners engage on average only in few local interactions. In this sense, they maintain a low, and yet constant, ‘level of investment in the building of the network as a whole’3 (Diani, 2003, p. 310) while renewing their commitment to the collective effort by engaging mainly with the campaign handle.

Nonetheless, a closer look at in-degree centralization indexes suggests that, as the institutionalization process unfolds, the campaign handle is not the sole point of reference that campaigners share. In-degree centralization captures the extent to which network ties tend to flow toward a handful of prominent actors (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 176). As values in Table 1 show, while every edition of the Tweetathon remains highly centralized around the TBTT’s handle, after TBTT ‘inclusion’ in the institutional sphere, in-degree centralization diminishes, suggesting that users direct their ties toward a greater variety of actors and, hence, that the campaigning efforts become more horizontal and participatory. Conversely, when TBTT institutionalization consolidates in 2014, the Tweetathon network reaches its centralization peak and the TBTT handle becomes more prominent than ever.4 Perhaps as a consequence of the difficult phase of negotiation, campaigners seem to reinforce their identification with the campaign, addressing it more systematically, favoring its leadership function, and thus supporting its role of ‘insider’.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.