Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction Prologue
Research Goal and Methodology
Theoretical Framework and Empirical Case
Part 1. State of Online Research Methods
Early Views on Online Research Methods
Twitter Data as an Actor in the Research Process
Case Study: Visualisations Made with Gephi
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Information Systems

Holistic Twitter Research

Profile image of Kalina DanchevaKalina Dancheva

2013

Abstract

"This thesis aims to contribute for the discussions on online research methods, by suggesting the concept of a holistic approach to the study of social media. This idea argues that data, online platforms and tools cannot be perceived as isolated objects, but as assemblages of heterogeneous agents. Employing this view, I build a case on research with data from the microblogging site Twitter, analysing the processes of knowledge-making afforded by the platform, the APIs, the database and the software tool for data visualisation Gephi. As a result of this empirical exploration, I argue that social interactions are inherently implicit and appropriated by Twitter users and thus, scholars need to develop tactics that would allow them to look beyond the logic of the database. Moreover, I show that social media research takes place on several levels and on each stage, the method of research is shaped by the actors. Thus, I argue that the concept of online research method cannot be confined within the traditional frames, but instead, it should be perceived as an evolving process, being in a state of constant flux, where heterogeneous actors influence the research decisions, mobilise traditional and new methods and negotiate the research choices of scientific exploration. The main argument of this thesis is that social media studies are not only a technological accomplishment, but should be understood as a complex holistic process. Key words: online research methods, holistic approach, Twitter, big data, actor-network theory, software tools."

Related papers

Big Social Data Approaches in Internet Studies: The Case of Twitter
Aman Agarwal

Well beyond Internet Studies itself, but arguably led by it to a considerable extent, there has been a turn towards computational methods in the study of social and communicative phenomena at large scale. This "computational turn" has commonly been described as a turn towards "big data" or, more specifically, towards "big social data", and it continues to drive the development of new research methodologies, approaches, and tools. Internet Studies has been an advocate of "big data" approaches because the field connects several core disciplines that use "big data" methods-media, communication and cultural studies, the social sciences, and computer science. Equally, the major objects of research in Internet studies-including platforms, search engines, mobile apps and devices, and Internet technologies and networks themselves-are key sources of "big data" on user interests, attitudes, and activities. Proponents of such approaches suggest that it is becoming possible to "study society with the Internet", while others ask critical questions about which observations are privileged and which are discounted as the logic of "big data" influences research agendas. The early development and application of "big social data" research methods in Internet Studies, as well as critical interrogations of such approaches, focused especially on research into Twitter as a global social media platform. This is largely due to Twitter's (initially) highly accessible Application Programming Interface (API), which enabled the development of powerful research methods and the promise of large, sometimes real-time, datasets tracing patterns of user activity around specific themes and topics on the platform, as well as, by proxy, in wider society. Twitter's tightening of API access serves as a reminder of the precarious nature of "big social data" research drawing on proprietary datasets, just as concerns about the use of social media data for the social profiling of individual users raise questions about research ethics and user privacy. The growing body of "big data" research drawing on Twitter as a data source has paradoxically also underlined the many limitations and blind spots of such approaches, as researchers drawing on publicly available API data struggle to place their findings in the context of a platform whose overall global shape is shrouded in considerably more mystery, due to Twitter, Inc.'s interest in keeping aspects of the platform and its user community commercial-in-confidence. The increased work in this field also highlights shortcomings in research training and publishing models, which need to be addressed to further develop "big social data" research. This chapter outlines the current state of the art in computationally-driven Twitter research, using platform-specific research as a case study for the computational turn in Internet Studies. It will consider the opportunities and challenges inherent in this shift toward more data-driven research, and outline the key needs for the discipline which have emerged to date. Even as Twitter's own fortunes fluctuate, the experiences made in this branch of Internet Studies stand as a guide for broader developments in our field. 2

View PDFchevron_right
Microblog Analysis as a Program of Work
Rob Procter

ACM transactions on social computing, 2018

Inspired by a European project, PHEME, that requires the close analysis of Twitter-based conversations in order to look at the spread of rumors via social media, this paper has two objectives. The first of these is to take the analysis of microblogs back to first principles and lay out what microblog analysis should look like as a foundational programme of work. The other is to describe how this is of fundamental relevance to Human-Computer Interaction's interest in grasping the constitution of people's interactions with technology within the social order. Our critical finding is that, despite some surface similarities, Twitterbased conversations are a wholly distinct social phenomenon requiring an independent analysis that treats them as unique phenomena in their own right, rather than as another species of conversation that can be handled within the framework of existing Conversation Analysis. This motivates the argument that Microblog Analysis be established as a foundationally independent programme, examining the organizational characteristics of microblogging from the ground up. We articulate how aspects of this approach have already begun to shape our design activities within the PHEME project. • Human-centred computing➝Human computer interaction (HCI) • Collaborative and social computing➝Social media.

View PDFchevron_right
Qualitative Analysis of Social Media Data
Roser Beneito-Montagut

SAGE Research Methods Foundations, 2020

Beneito-Montagut, R. (in-press). Analyzing multimedia social interactions on social media, Atkinson, P.; et al (Ed.) SAGE Research methods Foundations: An Encyclopedia Analyzing digital social data Introduction Society has become thoroughly mediatised. Every aspect and part of society from the economy, politics and education to civil society and everyday social relations is immersed by media. Today we have the internet, smart phones, apps, social network services, blogs, email, and other social media platforms. Social media has brought changes to the way we inform, communicate with others, learn, play and socialize. Most people are quite well connected and communicate with others and while being connected they obtain, organize, produce and share information on a regular basis. These common routinely activities generate a large amount of information and knowledge of different forms, much of it created by 'ordinary people'. This information is generally referred as digital social data which is potentially of great interest to social scientists (Sloan and Quan-Haase, 2017). From the emergence of the internet, both quantitative and qualitative research have been interested in analysing digital data for its endeavour. As social media have enlarged the size and variety of the traces of social actors' actions and expressions, the analytical possibilities available for social science researchers have been reshaped too. This has brought to the fore the necessity of methodological innovations and interdisciplinary collaboration for the study of social media data. Conversely, this digital turn has generated lively debates about its potential to know the contemporary social world. While at the beginning of internet research scholars tended to study social life online as a separated from 'real life', researchers disputed this and argued the need for online social life to be viewed as an integral part of social life (Beneito-Montagut, 2011). Nevertheless, linking social media data to what is going on offline is still one of the challenges of digital social science research. Most of the methodological innovations have been made regarding the analysis of big data and technological tools to make sense of it, but not much has been said about how to qualitatively analyse social media data. This chapter deals with the analysis of social media data and offers a framework which considers the limits and challenges that this kind of data poses. Rather than offering a prescriptive method, it attempts to document the reflective process to incorporate social media data to qualitative research projects considering how we extract meaning from them. So, it is presented as a toolkit to start thinking about the analytical process instead of a universally applicable model. The aim is to link the analysis of social media data to well-stablished research paradigms, instead of reinventing them. Modes and media. Multimodality and multimediality The first section brings some definitions to set together the differences and common grounds of two terms: multimodal and multimedia. We will also put these two concepts in relation to the digital context and explain the reasons why we use multimedia. Yet suggesting multimodal research as a useful analytical framework to analyse social media data. We first define modes and media. Modes are ways of representing information −the semiotic means used to compose a text. Note that text is understood, in a wider sense, as any socio-cultural artefact or act that embeds communication. Examples of modes comprise words, sounds, still and moving images, animation and colour (see Bella Dicks' chapter). Media, on the other hand, are the tools and material resources used to produce and disseminate texts. Media are technologies, channels, practices and platforms which we use to disseminate share, obtain, store, organize and create information about the world around us through communication and interaction. Examples of media, both broad and narrow casting, include books, radio, television, computers, smartphones, paint brush and canvas, and the body. The internet and digital tools are usually referred as digital media. 1 Hence, although media and modes are different and independent of each other, the media used affects the ways in which meaning can be realized through modes-or each media affords certain possibilities for communication or action. Accordingly, these concepts are independent and interdependent from each other at the same time. A multimodal text is characterized by the use of several different modes. In multimodal research, communication and representation is more than language, it refers to semiotic approaches as in the analysis of colour, shape, image, gestures and gazes in communicative situations. It assumes that our languages and their modes (written, oral, visual, gestural) attach meanings (semantic, symbolic and affective) and are world making. Its major influence comes from social semiotics. Multimodal analytical approaches have provided concepts, methods and a framework for the analysis of multimodal data. 1 Also, they used to be called new media.

View PDFchevron_right
The informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter: Networks of digital humanities scholars
Anabel Quan-Haase

Big data research is currently split on whether and to what extent Twitter can be characterised as an informational or social network. We contribute to this line of inquiry through an investigation of digital humanities scholars’ uses and gratifications of Twitter. We conducted a thematic analysis of 25 semi-structured interview transcripts to learn about these scholars’ professional use of Twitter. Our findings show that Twitter is considered a critical tool for informal communication within DH invisible colleges, functioning at varying levels as both an informational network (learning to ‘Twitter’ and maintaining awareness) and a social network (imagining audiences and engaging other digital humanists). We find that Twitter follow relationships reflect common academic interests and are closely tied to scholars’ pre-existing social ties and conference or event co-attendance. The concept of the invisible college continues to be relevant but requires revisiting. The invisible college formed on Twitter is messy, consisting of overlapping social contexts (professional, personal, and public), scholars with different habits of engagement, and both formal and informal ties. Our research illustrates the value of using multiple methods to explore the complex questions arising from big data studies and points toward future research that could implement big data techniques on a small scale, focusing on sub-topics or emerging fields, to expose the nature of scholars’ invisible colleges made visible on Twitter.

View PDFchevron_right
Researching Social Media in Digital Age: Reflections on 'Observation' as a Data Collection Method
International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 2020

The global spread of social media is unparalleled both in growth of take-up and content production. The amount of data created and deposited every minute is extraordinary. In short, social media usage has become a daily practice for many. Researchers have viewed this revolution in communication both as opportunity and challenge. The sheer amount of digitized user-generated content is a potentially rich source of information about interactions, attitudes, opinions and virtual reactions to real-world events. However, there are computational and analytical challenges too. Reflecting on varied nuances of social media and challenges about how to research it, this paper critically explores with the plurality of meanings given to the term social media. Offering a brief historical overview of how the term has evolved, it then details on how 'observation' as a methodology can be utilized while researching his vast data on social media.

View PDFchevron_right
The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. LukeSloan and AnabelQuan-Haase (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, 2017. 728 pp. $175.00 (Hardcover). (ISBN 9781473916326)
Mélanie Millette

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
Weller et al., Twitter and Society
Avery Holton

The Journal of media innovations, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
New Tools: Using Social Media in a Research Capacity
Sunday Moulton

In the past decade, social media sites, particularly Facebook, experienced exponential growth in their user-base, worldwide. As of 2012, the estimated users of Facebook number nearly one billion according to Miniwatts Marketing Group (2013), and span all seven continents. These new technologies, linking diverse groups together and creating a nearly instant transmission of information, create new social spheres and provide fertile ground for social movements and revolutions. Anthropologists are asking vital questions: What is social media? What are these new communities? How are these online movements generated? However, many social scientists look to social media as an object of study while neglecting or downplaying its use as a research tool. This paper argues social media as a new component of the anthropologist’s tool kit while discussing and tying it to qualitative methodologies and specific methods.

View PDFchevron_right
Blurring the Boundaries? New social media, new social research: Developing a network to explore the issues faced by researchers negotiating the new research landscape of online social media platforms
Katie Metzler, Grant Blank

2013

View PDFchevron_right
The Research Politics of Social Media Platforms
Greg Elmer

This is the first time the world has seen this scale and quality of data about human communication', Marlow says with a characteristically serious gaze before breaking into a smile at the thought of what he can do with the data. For one thing, Marlow is confident that exploring this resource will revolutionize the scientific understanding of why people behave as they do. His team can also help Facebook influence our social behaviour for its own benefit and that of its advertisers. This work may even help Facebook invent entirely new ways to make money.

View PDFchevron_right

References (109)

  1. Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. "The De-Scription of Technical Objects", In W.E. Bijker & J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 205-224.
  2. Anderson, Chris. 2008. "The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete". Wired magazine website. <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory>. (accessed on February 23 2013).
  3. Andrews, Marc, Bootsman, Joris, Borra, Erik, Dresscher, Paulien, Rek, Declan, van Sprang, Maarten and Matthijs Volkers. 2008. "PostDemographics". Digital Methods Initiative Website <https://www.digitalmethods.net/Digitalmethods/PostDemographics>. (accessed April 11 2013).
  4. Anger, Isabel and Christian Kittle. 2011. "Measuring Influence on Twitter". Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies 31. ACM New York.
  5. Appadurai, Arjun. 2005. Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Barabàsi, Albert-László. 2003. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means. Plume.
  7. Barocas, Solon, Hood, Sophie and Malte Ziewitz. 2013. Governing Algorithms -A Provocation Piece. Paper, presented as Conference on Computation, Automation, and Control at New York University, May 16-17, 2013. <http://governingalgorithms.org/resources/provocation-piece>.
  8. Bashky, Eytan, Janke M. Hofman, Winter A. Manson, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. "Everyone's an Influencer: Quantifying Influence on Twitter". Paper presented at the WSDM '11: Fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. New York, NY, USA.< http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1935845>.
  9. Bastian, Mathieu, Heymann, Sebastien and Mathieu Jacomy. 2009. "Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks". Paper, presented at International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. <https://gephi.org/users/publications>.
  10. Beevolve. 2012. "An Exhaustive Study of Twitter Users Across the World". Beevolve Website. <http://www.beevolve.com/twitter-statistics/#c1>. (accessed May 6 2013).
  11. Bell, Gavin. 2009. Building Social Web Applications. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media. <https://www.mgov2.org/documentos/social_web_applications_oreilly.pdf>.
  12. Berry, David. (ed). 2012. Understanding Digital Humanities. Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. ---. 2011. The Computational Turn: Thinking About Digital Humanities. In Digital Humanities: Beyond Computing 12. <http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/issue/view/23>.
  14. boyd, danah. 2006. Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social. Network Sites. First Monday 11(12). <http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418>.
  15. boyd, danah and Nicole Ellison. 2007. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1), article 11. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>.
  16. boyd, danah. 2010. Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi). London: Routledge: 39-58.
  17. boyd, danah and Kate Crawford. 2011. Six Provocations for Big Data. Paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute's -A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium, on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. University of Oxford.
  18. Bollen, Johan, Mao, Huina, Xiao-Jun Zeng. 2011. Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science 2(1): 1-8.
  19. Bruns, Axel and Jean Burgess. 2011. The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc publics. In 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, 25 -27 August 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik. <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46515>.
  20. Bruns, Axel. 2013. "Visualising Twitter Dynamics in Gephi, Part 2". Mapping Online Publics Website. <http://mappingonlinepublics.net/2010/12/30/visualising-twitter- dynamics-in-gephi-part-2>. (accessed May 21 2013).
  21. Burger, John, Henderson, John, Kim, George and Guido Zarrella. 2011. "Discriminating Gender on Twitter". Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. ACM New York: 1301-1309.
  22. Callon, Michel. 1986. "The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle." In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, edited by M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
  23. Cha, Meeyoung, Hamed Haddadi, Hamed Benevenuto and Krishna P. Gummadi. 2010. "Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy". Proceedings of International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), May 2010. <http://twitter.mpi-sws.org/icwsm2010_fallacy.pdf>.
  24. Chen, Curtis. 2010. "Twitter API Adds Retweet Count and More". Programmable Web. <http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/08/30/twitter-api-adds-retweet-count- and-more>. (accessed May 11 2013).
  25. Collier, Nigel, Truong Son, Nguyen and Ngoc Mai Nguyen. 2011. OMG U got flu? Analysis of Shared Health Messages for Bio-Surveillance. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 2(5): S9. <http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/2/S5/S9>.
  26. Durkheim, Emile. 1982. Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.
  27. Farrel, Dan and Peter Petersen. 2010. The Growth of Internet Research Methods and the Reluctant Sociologist. Sociological Inquiry 80 (1): 114-125.
  28. Freeman, Linton. 1977. A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry 40 (1): 35-41.
  29. ---. 2000. Visualizing Social Networks. Journal of Social Structure 1 (1). <http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume1/Freeman.html>.
  30. Foucault, Michel. 2002. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
  31. Fuller, Matthew. 2008. Software Studies. A Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  32. Galloway, Alexander. R. 2004. Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  33. Garton, Laura, Haythornthwaite, Caroline and Barry Wellman. 2006. Studying Online Social Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (1), June 1997.
  34. Gephi. 2013. "Features". Gephi Official Website. <https://gephi.org/features>. (accessed on May 18 2013).
  35. ---. 2012. "Circular Layout". Gephi Marketplace Website. <https://marketplace.gephi.org/plugin/circular-layout>. (accessed on 20 May 2013. accessed on May 20 2013).
  36. ---. 2011a. "Force Atlas 2, the New Version of a Home Brew Layout". Gephi Official Website..<http://gephi.org/2011/forceatlas2-the-new-version-of-our-home-brew- layout>. (accessed on May 20 2013).
  37. ---. 2011b. "New Tutorial Layouts in Gephi". Gephi Official Website. <https://gephi.org/2011/new-tutorial-layouts-in-gephi>. (accessed on May 20 2013).
  38. Gibson, James Jerome. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press: New Ed edition.
  39. Halevi, Gali, & Henk F. Moed. 2012. Research Trends. Special Issue on Big Data, issue 30, September 2012. <http://www.researchtrends.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/Research_Trends_Issue30.pdf>.
  40. Hayles, N. Katherine. 2012. "How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies". In Understanding the Digital Humanities, D. M. Berry (ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  41. Helmond, Anne. 2010. On the Evolution of Methods: Banditry and the Volatility of Methods. Personal blog, <http://www.annehelmond.nl/2010/05/17/on-the- evolution-of-methods-banditry-and-the-volatility-of-methods>. (accessed on May 23 2013).
  42. Hecht, B.; Hong, L.; Suh, B.; and Chi, E. H. 2011. "Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: The dynamics of the location field in user profiles". In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI '11. ACM New York: 237-246.
  43. Hine, Christine. 1994. "Virtual ethnography". Public Communication on Science and Technology. <http://www.cirst.uqam.ca/PCST3/PDF/Communications/HINE.PDF>.
  44. ---. 2000. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
  45. ---. 2005. Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford:Berg.
  46. Jacomy, Mathieu, Heymann, Sebastien and Tommaso Venturini. 2011. "ForceAtlas2, A Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization". WebAtlas Website. <http://webatlas.fr/tempshare/ForceAtlas2_Paper.pdf>. (accessed June 18).
  47. Java, Akshay, Song, Xiaodan, Finin, Tim and Belle Tseng. 2007. "Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities". Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis. ACM New York: 56-65.
  48. Jones, Steve (ed). 1998. Doing Internet Research. Critical Issues and Methods for Exploring the Internet. London: Sage.
  49. Kim, Dongwoo, Jo, Yohan, Moon, Il-Chul, and Oh, Alice. 2010. "Analysis of Twitter Lists as a Potential Source for Discovering Latent Characteristics of Users". Conference paper at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. <http://people.csail.mit.edu/aoh/papers/chi2010microblogging.pdf>.
  50. Kinash, Shelley. 2012. "Paradigms, Methodology & Methods". Bond University Website, <http://www.bond.edu.au/prod_ext/groups/public/@pub-tls- gen/documents/genericwebdocument/bd3_012336.pdf>. (accessed May 22 2013).
  51. Köhler, Wolfgang. 1970[1929]. Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology. New York: Liveright.
  52. Koffka, Kurt. 1922. Perception: And Introduction to the Gestalt-theorie. Psychological Bulletin 19: 531-585.
  53. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon Press.
  54. Kwak, Haewoon, Lee, Changhyun, Park, Hosung and Sue Moon. 2010. "What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media". Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web (WWW) Conference, Raleigh NC.
  55. Law, John.1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity Systems Practice 5 (4). <http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf>.
  56. ---. 2004. After Method. Mess in Social Science Research. London/New York: Routledge.
  57. Latour, Bruno. 1986. Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together. In H. Kuklick (editor). Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6. Jai Press: 1-40.
  58. ---. 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press.
  59. ---. 1994. On Technical Mediation-Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy. Common Knowledge 3 (2): 29-64.
  60. ---. 1997. Stengers'Shibbolet. Foreword to Power and Invention: Situating Science, by Isabelle Stengers. University of Minnesota Press: xiii-xiv.
  61. ---. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  62. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D. and Van Alstyne, M. 2009. Computational Social Science. Science 323(5915): 721-723.
  63. Lessig, Lawrence. 2006. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books.
  64. Madge, Clare and Henrietta O'Connor. 2004. Exploring the Internet as a medium for research: web-based questionnaires and online synchronous interviews. ESRC Research Methods. <http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/documents/WorkingPaper9>.
  65. Manovich, Lev. 2008a. Software Takes Command. <http://black2.fri.uni- lj.si/humbug/files/doktorat- vaupotic/zotero/storage/D22GEWS3/manovich_softbook_11_20_2008.pdf>. (accessed on May 20 2013).
  66. ---. 2008b. "Cultural Analytics". Software Studies Initiative Website. <http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2008/09/cultural-analytics.html>. (accessed on June 12 2013).
  67. ---. 2012a. "How to follow software users". Software Studies Initiative Website. <http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2012/04/new-article-lev-manovich-how-to- follow.html>.
  68. ---. 2012b. "Media Visualization: Visual Techniques for Exploring Large Media Collections". In Media Studies Futures, ed. Kelly Gates. Blackwell Publishers.
  69. ---. 2010. What is Visualization?. In Visual Studies 26 (1): 36-49.
  70. ---.2011. "Trending: The Promises and the Challenges of Big Social Data". Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. M.K.Gold. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. <http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/Manovich_trending_paper.pdf>.
  71. Markoff, John. 2011. "Government Aims to Build a ''Data Eye in the Sky". The New York Times < https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/science/11predict.html>. (accessed on June 18).
  72. Marin, Alexandra and Barry Wellman. 2011. Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Ed. Peter Carrington and John Scott. London: Sage.
  73. Marres, Noortje. 2012. The Redistribution of Methods: On Intervention in Digital Social Research, Broadly Conceived. The Sociological Review 60: S1, pp. 139-165.
  74. Marres, Noortje and Esther Weltevrede. 2013. Scraping the Social?. Journal of Cultural Economy. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2013.772070>.
  75. McMillan, Robert. 2013. "The Big-Data Interview: Making Sense of the New World Order". Wired Magazine. < http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/big- data>. (accessed June 18).
  76. Mitchell, Melanie. 2006. Complex systems: Network thinking. Artificial Intelligence 170: 1194-1212.
  77. Moreno, Jacob. L. 1953. Who Shall Survive? .Beacon, N.Y.: Beacon House Inc.
  78. Newman, M., Barabási, A. and Watts, D. 2007. The Structure and Dynamics of Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  79. Norman, Donald. 2002[1988]. The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  80. Oppenheim, Paul and Hilary Putnam. 1958. "The unity of science as a working hypothesis", in H. Feigl et al., eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
  81. Page, Larry., Brin, Sergey., Motwani, R Rajeev and Terry Winograd, 1999 "The PageRank Citation Ranking: bringing order to the Web. Technical Report". Stanford InfoLab. <http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422>.
  82. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2009. The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society 11. London: SAGE: 199-220.
  83. Paßmann, Johannes., Boeschoten, Thomas. and Schäfer, Mirko Tobias. (Forthcoming). "The Gift of the Gab: Retweet cartels and gift economies on Twitter", in Twitter and Society, Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., and Puschmann, C. (eds.), New York: Peter Lang.
  84. Patrick, McSweeney J. 2009. "Gephi Network Statistics". Paper proposed for Google Summer of Code 2009. <http://web.ecs.syr.edu/~pjmcswee/gephi.pdf>.
  85. Polycom. 2013. Policom Website, <http://www.polycom.co.jp/global/documents/services/professional_services/dat asheets/api-software-services-faq.pdf>. (accessed 10 May 2013).
  86. Popper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
  87. Procter, Rob, Vis, Farida and Alex Voss. 2011. "Reading the riots. Investigating England's summer disorder". The Guardian. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2011/dec/07/london-riots-twitter>. (accessed March 25 2013).
  88. Rogers, Richard. 2009. The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. <http://www.govcom.org/publications/full_list/ oratie_Rogers_2009_preprint.pdf>.
  89. Saukko, Paula. 2003. Doing Research in Cultural Studies: An Introduction to Classical and New Methodological Approaches. London: SAGE.
  90. Schäfer, Mirko Tobias. 2011. Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  91. Schnapp, Jeffrey and Todd Presner. 2009. "Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0". Humanities Blast Website. <http://www.humanitiesblast.com/manifesto/Manifesto_V2.pdf>. (accessed April 11 2013).
  92. Shaffer, Ann, Patrick Carey at al. 2010. New Perspectives on Microsoft Office 2010, First Course. Boston. MA: Course Technology.
  93. Shapin, Steven and Simon Schaffer. 1989. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.
  94. Skågeby, Jörgen. 2010. "Online Ethnographic Methods: Towards a Qualitative Understanding of Virtual Community Practices". In Handbook of Research on Methods and Techniques for Studying Virtual Communities: Paradigms and Phenomena, ed. Ben Kei Daniel. IGI Global; 1 edition: 410-428.
  95. Tergan, Sigmar-Olaf and Tanya Keller (Eds.). 2005. Knowledge and Information Visualization: Searching for Synergies (Lecture Notes in Computer Science / Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  96. Tufte, Edward. 2011. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press. Twitter. 2009. "The Streaming APIs".Dev.Twitter.com. <https://dev.twitter.com/docs/streaming-apis>. (accessed May 8).
  97. ---. 2012a. "Things Every Developer Should Know". Dev.Twitter.com. <https://dev.twitter.com/docs/things-every-developer-should-know>. (accessed May 7 2013).
  98. ---. 2012b. "Developer Rules to the Road". Dev.Twitter.com. <https://dev.twitter.com/terms/api-terms>. (accessed May 9 2013).
  99. ---. 2013a. "About Twitter". Official blog. <https://twitter.com/about>. (accessed April 19 2013)
  100. ---. 2013b. "Twitter Certified Products". Dev.Twitter.com. <https://dev.twitter.com/programs/twitter-certified-products/products>. (accessed April 19 2013).
  101. ---. 2013c. "Platform Objects". Dev.Twitter.com . <https://dev.twitter.com/docs/platform- objects>. (accessed May 11 2013).
  102. ---. 2013d. "What are Hashtags Symbols". Support.Twitter.com . <https://support.twitter.com/entries/49309-what-are-hashtags-symbols>. (accessed May 11 2013).
  103. Watts, Duncan. 2007. A Twenty-First Century Science. Nature. 445 (7127): 489-489.
  104. Weng, J.; Lim, E.-P.; Jiang, J.; and He, Q. 2010. "TwitterRank: Finding Topic-Sensitive Influential Twitterers". In: Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM New York: 261-270.
  105. Wertheimer, Max. 1912. Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 61: 247-250.
  106. Wertheimer, Max. 1938 [1925]. "Gestalt theory". In W. D. Ellis (Ed. & Trans.), A source Book of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  107. Willig, Carla 2008. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Open University Press: 1s-11.
  108. Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). 2010. "An Introduction to WOM Marketing with Definitions". WOMMA Website. <http://www.womma.org/wom101> . (accessed on March 6 2012).
  109. Zhao, Dejin, and Mary B. Rosson. 2009. "How and Why People Twitter: The Role that Micro-Blogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work". Proceedings of GROUP 2009. <http://cscl.ist.psu.edu/public/users/mrosson/Working/GROUP09-Zhao.pdf>.

Related papers

Critically Engaging with Social Media Research Methods
Dhiraj Murthy

An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology?, 2016

As social media technologies such as Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube have become highly ubiquitous, social life itself has become reconfigured. Though early notions of an offline/online binary remain in some quarters of social research, there is a realization amongst most that this binary is reified. As such, the study of social interactions within social media is a fundamental sociological question. This chapter argues that social researchers need to engage with the study of social media in order to comprehensively understand modern social life. This chapter also provides insights into how we, as social researchers, can critically collect and discern social formations via social media. Twitter is specifically used in this chapter to provide an example of how the medium provides opportunities for mixed qualitative and quantitative social analysis. Ultimately, this chapter also argues that the understanding of large social questions is increasingly contingent on us deciphering and understanding social knowledge formed and maintained within social media platforms.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding the production and circulation of social media data: Towards methodological principles and praxis
Susan Halford

New Media & Society

Social media data have provoked a mixed response from researchers. While there is great enthusiasm for this new source of social data – Twitter data in particular – concerns are also expressed about their biases and unknown provenance and, consequently, their credibility for social research. This article seeks a middle path, arguing that we must develop better understanding of the construction and circulation of social media data to evaluate their appropriate uses and the claims that might be made from them. Building on sociotechnical approaches, we propose a high-level abstraction of the ‘pipeline’ through which social media data are constructed and circulated. In turn, we explore how this shapes the populations and samples that are present in social media data and the methods that generate data about them. We conclude with some broad principles for supporting methodologically informed social media research in the future.

View PDFchevron_right
‘end of theory’ in the era of Big Data: methodological Practices and challenges in social media studies
Andra Siibak

Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae scientiarum, 2020

Emerging digital data sources provide opportunities for explaining social processes, but also challenge knowledge production practices within social sciences. this article contributes to the ‘end of theory’ discussions, which have intensified in the social sciences since the widening practice of big data and computational methods. Adopting a systematic literature review of 120 empirical articles through a combined quantitative and qualitative approach, this article strives to contribute to the ongoing discussions on the epistemological shifts in social media big data (smBD) studies. This study offers an insight into the development of analytical methods and research practices in smBD studies during their rapid growth period in 2012 –2016. The study findings only partially revealed the ‘end of theory’ claim: the problem setting of the studies is rather weakly related to theory, often neither hypothesis nor research questions are formulated on the basis of previous theories or research. However, this relatively weak relatedness to theory has not led to the descriptive type of inference, but rather exploratory, or predictive ways of reasoning. instead of enabling predictions in social science research, smBD raises issues of understanding the causes and effects in predictions for evaluating the social mechanisms of global disruptions. Developing ‘human research machines’ that exploit the cognitive resources of individuals should not be the aim of smBD production. the outcome should be to recognise that the cognitive abilities of researchers, access to data, and developing novel methods are necessary for evaluating the global impact of social behaviour.

View PDFchevron_right
Microblog Analysis as a Programme of Work
Rob Procter

arXiv (Cornell University), 2015

Inspired by a European project, PHEME, that requires the close analysis of Twitter-based conversations in order to look at the spread of rumors via social media, this paper has two objectives. The first of these is to take the analysis of microblogs back to first principles and lay out what microblog analysis should look like as a foundational programme of work. The other is to describe how this is of fundamental relevance to Human-Computer Interaction's interest in grasping the constitution of people's interactions with technology within the social order. Our critical finding is that, despite some surface similarities, Twitterbased conversations are a wholly distinct social phenomenon requiring an independent analysis that treats them as unique phenomena in their own right, rather than as another species of conversation that can be handled within the framework of existing Conversation Analysis. This motivates the argument that Microblog Analysis be established as a foundationally independent programme, examining the organizational characteristics of microblogging from the ground up. We articulate how aspects of this approach have already begun to shape our design activities within the PHEME project. • Human-centred computing➝Human computer interaction (HCI) • Collaborative and social computing➝Social media.

View PDFchevron_right
Social Media Research: new methods, challenges and oportunities
Janna Joceli Omena

In Tecnologias Culturais e Artes do Media [e-book], edited by Maria Teresa Cruz, Maria Augusta Babo and José Gomes Pinto, Coleção Cultura, Media e Artes, n.4. Lisboa: CECL/UnYleYa.

O uso das mídias sociais não mais é sinônimo de novidade na vida social, pois já alcançou um consenso comum, a exemplo de, comportamento, significado e uso. Estes aspectos, explorados pelos pesquisadores das mídias sociais, tem suscitado uma questão essencial: seremos capazes de compreender as mídias sociais através, apenas, de métodos de pesquisa tradicionais? Novas medias requerem novas metodologias; acreditamos que os investigadores de comunicação social devem voltar suas atenções para novas possibilidades e formas de fazer pesquisa, pois, tem se tornado desafiante compreender as mídias sociais e o uso delas via métodos tradicionais de pesquisa. Neste contexto, o nosso principal objetivo é reunir novos métodos de análise das mídias sociais, destacando a importância dos mesmos para área de investigação nas ciências sociais. A proposta de trabalho está dividida em três partes: primeiro, faremos uma curta revisão das características e pesquisa nas medias sociais; em seguida, listaremos novos métodos destacando as oportunidades e daremos um exemplo prático dos métodos digitais; e, por fim, discutiremos os desafios e futuros trabalhos. Palavras-Chave: mídias socias, pesquisa, métodos digitais, análise dos media, facebook.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Online Research Methods
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved