I've just been thinking about the type of social network study I am reading about - where twitter or facebook are used and a very specific interaction is investigated. Some studies also examine in much more general terms the way in which that network functions. But why not approach these questions from another perspective - people.
Let me explain. Think about this: my egocentric social network is far bigger than my twitter network. My egocentric network on twitter is completely unrepresentative of my actual social network. At best it only represents those people that I know who are on twitter.
In reality, my ecocentric network is actually a whole mass of interconnected people, who I communicate with via Twitter, via Facebook, by email, by phone, by texting to a large extent, through letters very occasionally and most frequent of all face to face. It is also constantly changing and evolving both in how I contact them and who I am contacting and why.
I would love to see a comprehensive study of specific people's egocentric networks. Perhaps taking 10s or 100s of people. Imagine the diversity of methods used to communicate - imagine the potential findings and the document of our current communication forms that this would form! This sample could then be repeated years later and potentially conducted again multiple times over the years.
What would it look like?
Interview the participants in detail to identify the forms of communication they use. Use samples of people from deliberately chosen ages and demographics - for instance in the university it could be undergrad, postgrad, lecturer and admin person for instance... The networks within these various communciation forms could then be examined individually i.e. for each person you would come out with their twitter, facebook, email network etc etc and you would then end up with a comprehensive snapshot of the technology they used at that time and who they contacted, how etc. Each network could be analysed for its own merit but then also cross-analysed with each person's other networks and then between people or different groups of people...
It's probably wildly overcomplex & time intensive but anyway, just an idea!
Showing posts with label socialmedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialmedia. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Friday, 4 February 2011
Return to posting with Node XL success
Have had a successful day working with the social networking visualisation tool NodeXl which allows you to analyse social media networks. Twitter is the source of the network data and today I have finally got some data into the worksheet and been able to play around with it!
My supervisor will be happy to know that I have now mapped her ecocentric social network on Twitter!
Friday, 25 June 2010
GE2010 Extended Article. Part i: The International Social Media 'Climate'
How did the three main political parties engage the electorate through use of digital media tools during the United Kingdom’s 2010 General Election?
Introduction
The General Election in the United Kingdom on 6th May 2010 came at the end of a month of campaigning. This campaign was the first election campaign to include televised Prime Ministerial debates. It was also the first election to be held since Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other Web 2.0 start-ups became household names and widely used in the United Kingdom. It was widely reported that this election campaign would be the first ‘Social Media Election’ in the United Kingdom. Channel Four News’ article of March 24th 2010 sums up the hype:
“As the election in the UK draws closer, all eyes are on our three major political parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - to see how they will harness the power of social media and the internet.” (Channel Four News Website, 24th March 2010.)
The Telegraph newspaper ran a similar piece on 6th April 2010 with the headline “Facebook, Twitter and other social media will have an unprecedented impact on the General Election campaign.” (Telegraph, 6th April 2010.)
The aim of this extended article is to explore how the three main parties did in fact use digital media tools during the 2010 General Election Campaign. It will highlight the climate in which the campaigns were conducted, emphasising changes in international usage of social media since the last General Election, ask how and why the three main political parties engaged with potential voters and evaluate critically where they did and did not use social media and digital tools to fully engage voters in the course of the General Election Campaigns.
The International Social Media ‘Climate’
The past 10 years have seen a dramatic increase in the uptake of social media. In fact, the term itself was seldom used even 10 years ago. The Web 2.0 'revolution' which is characterised by the shift from corporately controlled content to massively user-generated content on the Internet has had a dramatic effect on the way that politics and news in general is created and engaged with. There has been an undoubted shift from news controlled almost exclusively by professional reporters and traditional media networks, to widely available user-generated content and the proliferation of non-professional opinion. The individual has seemingly been empowered to affect the mainstream news ‘cycle’ and can now broadcast their own thoughts and ideas, often for free, nearly always without any kind of editorial supervision.
Perhaps the most widely broadcast and written about examples of social media use in political spheres have been the American Presidential Elections of 2004 and 2008. The 'Dean for America' presidential campaign was the first fully to embrace internet campaigning and use social media tools to allow the public to engage with their campaign. Through the use of their own website, 'www.deanforamerica.com' the campaign encouraged online engagement and donations, as well as creating sites such as 'dean.tv' where they posted videos from the campaign and encouraged supporters to post their own videos and engage with the 'community', whilst using all these methods to create new supporters and activists 'on the ground' (This was before YouTube existed). Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, reflects on the campaign at its end:
"Now, here it is at the end of 2003 and we're actually on top, ahead in the polls, raking in more than $50 million, $15.8 million in this fund-raising quarter alone - a record - most of it from small donations of $100 or less. And whose fundraising records are we beating? Our own! From the quarter before." (Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, 2004.)
The small donations had largely come from supporters on the internet giving what they could afford. The campaign did much to galvanise support from those who could not afford the £2500 giving limits that exist in the US Presidential Races. This was in stark contrast to their Republican opponents who largely received their money through events that were designed to attract the donations of large amounts, often at the limit for each individual.
The ‘Dean for America’ campaign only existed during the Democratic Primary stage of the Election. Governor Dean was eliminated from the race and John Kerry went on challenge George W. Bush in the Presidential Election, but the ‘seed had been sown’ and the 2008 Presidential race built upon the successes seen in the use of the Internet in the 2004 race, particularly on the Democratic side.
David Plouffe, campaign manager on the Obama for America campaign put it like this:
"So many people are living their lives through technology, how can we expect their interaction with politics to be the one exception?" (David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win 2009.)
The nature of the ‘Obama for America’ campaign lent itself to the organising potential of the internet and social networks, where events can be advertised and talked about and friends can easily recommend candidates to others within their networks. The Obama campaign strategy made use of large organisations ‘on the ground’, consisting largely of volunteers: local people talking to local people. The internet enabled early supporters of Obama to engage with the campaign:
“...our grassroots supporters had already been organizing on their own through our social networking site, mybarackobama.com or MyBO. It made easier our decision to send a modest amount of staff into these states- they would not have to start from scratch with only a few assets to call in.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
The campaign organisation also made use of and attracted huge crowds to rally events which could be advertised and registered for online. The online portion of the campaign had direct relevance to the operations of the Obama campaign across the states that were fiercely contested during the election.
The Obama Campaign broke the Democratic Primary records of the ‘Dean for America’ campaign in terms of fundraising and also engaged large demographics that had either never voted before or were independent voters. Plouffe sums up how important the internet was to the campaign:
“Technology played a key role in our success. Reaching an audience involves more than just figuring out who your audience is; it also means knowing how to find them. Part of the reason our campaign was so successful is that we were able to identify early that many of the people who we wanted to reach were spending more of their time on the Internet. We realized that a smart, and large, Internet presence was the best way to provide people with the opportunity and the tools to get involved in the campaign...We met people where they lived, instead of forcing them to deviate from their habits or lifestyle to seek us out.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
Introduction
The General Election in the United Kingdom on 6th May 2010 came at the end of a month of campaigning. This campaign was the first election campaign to include televised Prime Ministerial debates. It was also the first election to be held since Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other Web 2.0 start-ups became household names and widely used in the United Kingdom. It was widely reported that this election campaign would be the first ‘Social Media Election’ in the United Kingdom. Channel Four News’ article of March 24th 2010 sums up the hype:
“As the election in the UK draws closer, all eyes are on our three major political parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - to see how they will harness the power of social media and the internet.” (Channel Four News Website, 24th March 2010.)
The Telegraph newspaper ran a similar piece on 6th April 2010 with the headline “Facebook, Twitter and other social media will have an unprecedented impact on the General Election campaign.” (Telegraph, 6th April 2010.)
The aim of this extended article is to explore how the three main parties did in fact use digital media tools during the 2010 General Election Campaign. It will highlight the climate in which the campaigns were conducted, emphasising changes in international usage of social media since the last General Election, ask how and why the three main political parties engaged with potential voters and evaluate critically where they did and did not use social media and digital tools to fully engage voters in the course of the General Election Campaigns.
The International Social Media ‘Climate’
The past 10 years have seen a dramatic increase in the uptake of social media. In fact, the term itself was seldom used even 10 years ago. The Web 2.0 'revolution' which is characterised by the shift from corporately controlled content to massively user-generated content on the Internet has had a dramatic effect on the way that politics and news in general is created and engaged with. There has been an undoubted shift from news controlled almost exclusively by professional reporters and traditional media networks, to widely available user-generated content and the proliferation of non-professional opinion. The individual has seemingly been empowered to affect the mainstream news ‘cycle’ and can now broadcast their own thoughts and ideas, often for free, nearly always without any kind of editorial supervision.
Perhaps the most widely broadcast and written about examples of social media use in political spheres have been the American Presidential Elections of 2004 and 2008. The 'Dean for America' presidential campaign was the first fully to embrace internet campaigning and use social media tools to allow the public to engage with their campaign. Through the use of their own website, 'www.deanforamerica.com' the campaign encouraged online engagement and donations, as well as creating sites such as 'dean.tv' where they posted videos from the campaign and encouraged supporters to post their own videos and engage with the 'community', whilst using all these methods to create new supporters and activists 'on the ground' (This was before YouTube existed). Joe Trippi, the campaign manager, reflects on the campaign at its end:
"Now, here it is at the end of 2003 and we're actually on top, ahead in the polls, raking in more than $50 million, $15.8 million in this fund-raising quarter alone - a record - most of it from small donations of $100 or less. And whose fundraising records are we beating? Our own! From the quarter before." (Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, 2004.)
The small donations had largely come from supporters on the internet giving what they could afford. The campaign did much to galvanise support from those who could not afford the £2500 giving limits that exist in the US Presidential Races. This was in stark contrast to their Republican opponents who largely received their money through events that were designed to attract the donations of large amounts, often at the limit for each individual.
The ‘Dean for America’ campaign only existed during the Democratic Primary stage of the Election. Governor Dean was eliminated from the race and John Kerry went on challenge George W. Bush in the Presidential Election, but the ‘seed had been sown’ and the 2008 Presidential race built upon the successes seen in the use of the Internet in the 2004 race, particularly on the Democratic side.
David Plouffe, campaign manager on the Obama for America campaign put it like this:
"So many people are living their lives through technology, how can we expect their interaction with politics to be the one exception?" (David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win 2009.)
The nature of the ‘Obama for America’ campaign lent itself to the organising potential of the internet and social networks, where events can be advertised and talked about and friends can easily recommend candidates to others within their networks. The Obama campaign strategy made use of large organisations ‘on the ground’, consisting largely of volunteers: local people talking to local people. The internet enabled early supporters of Obama to engage with the campaign:
“...our grassroots supporters had already been organizing on their own through our social networking site, mybarackobama.com or MyBO. It made easier our decision to send a modest amount of staff into these states- they would not have to start from scratch with only a few assets to call in.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
The campaign organisation also made use of and attracted huge crowds to rally events which could be advertised and registered for online. The online portion of the campaign had direct relevance to the operations of the Obama campaign across the states that were fiercely contested during the election.
The Obama Campaign broke the Democratic Primary records of the ‘Dean for America’ campaign in terms of fundraising and also engaged large demographics that had either never voted before or were independent voters. Plouffe sums up how important the internet was to the campaign:
“Technology played a key role in our success. Reaching an audience involves more than just figuring out who your audience is; it also means knowing how to find them. Part of the reason our campaign was so successful is that we were able to identify early that many of the people who we wanted to reach were spending more of their time on the Internet. We realized that a smart, and large, Internet presence was the best way to provide people with the opportunity and the tools to get involved in the campaign...We met people where they lived, instead of forcing them to deviate from their habits or lifestyle to seek us out.” (David Plouffe, 2009.)
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Just how big is SocialMedia?
Well if there is an answer (what is the question?), this provides an interesting insight. This was created by Gary Hayes of Personalize Media
Monday, 3 May 2010
The Cult of The Amateur
Ever wandered if there are downsides to the Web 2.0 'revolution'? Well, Andrew Keen's 2007 book The Cult Of The Amateur is as complete an exposition of the downsides as I have yet come across.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Perhaps a gross over-simplification, but I perceive his three main arguments to be that:
1. The Web 2.0 culture is killing the 'expert' and proliferating what is already 'known'.
2. The Web 2.0 culture is not 'free': it is sucking life out of industry and retail in many different sectors (printmedia, music, film etc.).
3. The wisdom of crowds is no wisdom at all - that pioneers and true revolutionaries are often outcasts, shunned by the crowd of their day.
Although I do not agree with everything which Keen argues, it is undeniable that parts of our society and therefore people's livelihoods are being severely affected by the Web 2.0 culture. This book provides a challenge to society and the future of the web that is worth considering. We don't hear much about the downsides of the changes happening all around us.
Interestingly, since I first wrote notes on this at the end of last week a friend of mine has referred to the positive effect of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in relation to voting. Does the crowd know what is best for itself? I haven't decided yet.
It is an important idea for the Web 2.0 generation. Charles Leadbeater bases much of his book We-Think on the idea. Google uses it as basis for what you will want to receive in results. Facebook are now using it all over the web in their controversial Open Graph.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet...
"The Seven Inviolable, Irrefutable, Ingenious Things Your Business or Institution or Candidate Can Do in the Age of the Internet That Might Keep You from Getting Your Ass Kicked But Then Again Might Not"
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
The following are the seven things that Trippi describes in his book with a simplified explanation of each. Please do get hold of a copy and read these in full!
1. Be First - There is very little about the Internet that is proprietary...the first everything has a headstart building a community...(rule 1a - If you're not going to be the first mover, you'd better be a hell of a lot better.)
2. Keep it Moving - Don't be static... Don't let your website be wallpaper.
3. Use an Authentic Voice - Have real people write real stuff.
4. Tell the Truth - The internet has an inherent transparency... Tell them what you want. Don't manipulate
5. Build a Community - Create a commons, a town square, a place where people can come together...
6. Cede Control - Once you invite people in, they're going to want to do more.
7. Believe Again - Have some faith in the [] people again.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
This advice is still massively relevant to all sorts of organisations today. They are very important areas that we see missed so much - we see 'websites as wallpaper' all the time! Bland press releases with no space for community. Many examples, in my own immediate experience spring to mind of organisations that believe this in their ethos and are trying to engage but miss out on the potential of the internet as a way to do it.
The tools for the job have improved massively since 2004; many of them free. What is holding you back? Will your organisation survive and thrive without this sort of engagement?
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
The following are the seven things that Trippi describes in his book with a simplified explanation of each. Please do get hold of a copy and read these in full!
1. Be First - There is very little about the Internet that is proprietary...the first everything has a headstart building a community...(rule 1a - If you're not going to be the first mover, you'd better be a hell of a lot better.)
2. Keep it Moving - Don't be static... Don't let your website be wallpaper.
3. Use an Authentic Voice - Have real people write real stuff.
4. Tell the Truth - The internet has an inherent transparency... Tell them what you want. Don't manipulate
5. Build a Community - Create a commons, a town square, a place where people can come together...
6. Cede Control - Once you invite people in, they're going to want to do more.
7. Believe Again - Have some faith in the [] people again.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Joe Trippi, 2004)
This advice is still massively relevant to all sorts of organisations today. They are very important areas that we see missed so much - we see 'websites as wallpaper' all the time! Bland press releases with no space for community. Many examples, in my own immediate experience spring to mind of organisations that believe this in their ethos and are trying to engage but miss out on the potential of the internet as a way to do it.
The tools for the job have improved massively since 2004; many of them free. What is holding you back? Will your organisation survive and thrive without this sort of engagement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)