Social network analysis

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

16

collective action evolves by improving the effectiveness of communication and facilitating collective identity and solidarity (Diani, 2000). Many believe that the reason why the Internet or CMC plays such an important role in the work of activists is because it connects all sorts of communities that are either geographically dispersed (Rheingold, 1993; Pini, Brown, and Previte, 2004) or forced to operate underground by the very nature of their activities. All these opinions reveal the significance of CMC or SNSs in the discussion of activism and social movements.

However, at this time when the discussion mainly focuses on the application, it is even more critical to return to the basis and to study the fundamental relationships between social media activism and conventional activism, which is the significance of this research.

2.2 Social network analysis

A search on Wikipedia⁸ provides a simple yet comprehensive introduction about social network analysis. First of all, a social network is a structure composed of individuals or organizations. These components of a social network are referred to as nodes in the network theory. These nodes are then connected by various types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, sexual relationship, relationships of belief, knowledge, prestige, etc. These different forms of relationship are referred to as ties in the network theory. Social network analysis has been applied in several social scientific fields and has become a popular topic of speculation and study. This study will further the research agenda by extending the scope to cover online activism.

When studying a social network, it is essential to consider the concepts of

8 Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the effort of a community of users.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

17

bridging and bonding proposed by Putnam (2000). These two terms were coined on the basis of two other concepts, namely the weak ties and the strong lies, which had been developed by Mark Granovetter (1973) when he was studying people looking for employment. Putnam (2000) used the concepts of bridging and bonding to investigate social capital. According to him, bridging social capital is inclusive and mainly takes place when individuals from various backgrounds establish connections between social networks (Williams, 2006). By contrast, bonding can be exclusive.

Bonding happens when close friends or family members provide one another with strong emotional or substantive support (Williams, 2006). A further point noted by Williams (2006) in his study is that despite the fact that the aforementioned concepts of bridging and bonding play an important role in understanding communities, they have rarely been applied to successfully study either online or offline communities. In other words, these measures need to be further conceptualized and validated.

2.2.1 Significance of network analysis

Do networks always matter? This is an important question raised by Diani (2006).

Similar to previous research, this study aims to find out the effects networks have on mobilization or participation. The author of this study assumes that the network effects derived from being involved in the cause groups on Facebook can either enhance or subtract users’ participation in conventional activism. In other words, the author assumes that there is a correlation between the two forms of activism. This is further illustrated by Diani (2006) in his review where he has identified several studies, in which the results of network effects are mixed. One example is Oliver’s study (1984), which found that people acquainted with their neighbors were more likely to be involved in neighborhood associations, but network effects were mixed in her study. Another example is Nepstad and Smith’s study (1999). They found that ties

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

18

to people directly involved were the most powerful predictor of participation, but ties to other organizations didn’t seem to be as important. However, this relationship became reversed for those people who joined an organization after it has existed for at least 3 years.

Since the results of network studies varied under different circumstances, perhaps, it is important for the analysts to qualify their points. Diani (2006) has urged scholars to ask these two crucial questions: “What networks actually explain what?”

and “Under what conditions do specific networks become relevant?”

In addition, the context or local condition is also very important. In areas where countercultural milieus are strong, and the overall attitudes toward collective action is generally more favorable, there is less need to be linked to members of specific political organizations to encourage adhesion. From the discussion above, it is not difficult to see the importance of incorporating network analysis in the current study.

2.2.2 Networks & ties

In the previous chapter, an introduction of the Facebook application of Causes was provided. This section of literature review then turns to examine how the network theory can be applied in the study of Causes. The concepts of bridging and bonding are helpful in understanding the nature as well as the functions of the Causes application on Facebook. Therefore, in this section, the author first presents some arguments from the existed literature and then discusses the application of these arguments on the study of Causes.

Weak ties of bridging networks and informational input

Williams (2006) pointed out that bridging has the potential of broadening social horizons or world views and thus opening up opportunities for information or new

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

19

resources. This kind of networks involves participants from different backgrounds.

These participants usually share tentative relationships that lack depth (Williams, 2006). In addition, the same article on social networks from Wikipedia states that

“more open networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties.” According to Putnam (2000, p.22), networks with bridging or weak ties are “better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion”.

External assets and information diffusion are the staple concepts. Based on these two concepts, Putnam implied some criteria that are good starting points for theorizing about bridging networks (Williams, 2006). These criteria are: 1) outward looking, 2) contact with a broader range of people, 3) a view of oneself as part of a broader group, and 4) diffuse reciprocity with a broader community. Williams (2006) then went on to use these criteria to develop questions for research.

Strong ties of bonding networks and emotional support

Bonding networks, on the other hand, provides stronger emotional support, which leads to mobilization of people to participate in various events and activities.

The participants in these networks with strong ties tend to lack diversity in their backgrounds despite the tighter relationships among them. Oftentimes, the enhanced in-group emotional support may help develop antagonism against the out-group world. As illustrated in Sherif’s study (1988), the formation of a group can lead to feelings of mistrust and dislike for those outside of the group. This is why Putnam (2000) conceptualized bonding networks to be exclusive. Similarly, some criteria are proposed to theorize bonding networks (Williams, 2006). These include: 1) emotional support, 2) access to scarce or limited resources, 3) ability to mobilize solidarity, and 4) out-group antagonism. Based on these criteria, Williams (2006) also

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

20

developed some research questions.

In the case of Causes, participants in a cause group are recruited through different relationships, usually by friends or family. Facebook is an online platform where people have to be added to a user’s friendlist through his or her own decision.

As a result, these people added to the friendlist are usually close friends, family or at least acquaintances. However, once these users have joined a cause group, the ties they establish are usually bridging weak ties.

2.2.3 Strength of ties and mobilization

The previous sections introduce the concepts of strong ties and weak ties. But how is the strength of a tie measured? Haythornthwaite (2002) mentioned that it is by taking into account several factors, such as frequency of contact, duration of the association, intimacy of the tie, provision of reciprocal services, and kinship. Previous studies have concluded that more strongly tied individuals share a higher level of intimacy, more self-disclosure, emotional as well as instrumental exchanges, reciprocity in exchanges, and more frequent interactions (Haythornthwaite, 2002).

Different levels of strength of ties may bring about different mobilization effects.

Therefore, in order to understand whether activism on Causes can be transformed to conventional activism, it is essential to first understand what kind of ties are maintained on Causes. According to Haythornthwaite (2002), “earlier theories and approaches to computer-mediated communication (CMC) have been tacitly concerned with the types of social network relations communicators can maintain via CMC.” It is argued that because of a lack of social presence, online communication exchanges seem to be characterized as instrumental rather than emotional, simple rather than complex, and nonverbal rather than verbal (Haythornthwaite, 2002).

Because of these characteristics, online networks seem to be able to maintain weak

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

21

ties more efficiently. CMC has been accredited for its ability to provide users with an access to those who are weakly tied, to extend communication potential to overcome temporal and spatial barriers, to inform local and remote operations simultaneously, to draw in more peripheral participants, and to give users an access to a wider set of contacts (Haythornthwaite, 2002). Even though Causes is placed within the framework of Facebook, a social networking website and is thus considered a form of CMC, it would be reckless to assume that ties maintained on Causes are exactly the same as those on other CMC contexts.

Next, it is imperative to learn more about the connection between the strength of a tie and the mobilization of collective action. Some scholars such as McAdam (1986) believe that “it is the broad support, emotional aid, and companionship of strong ties that provides the encouragement and solidarity necessary for collective action” (cited from Hampton, 2003). However, scholars such as Granovetter (1973) disagree. He argued that weak ties provide the connectivity indispensable for collective action. This viewpoint is thoroughly illustrated in his pioneering work “The Strength of Weak Ties”, in which he argued that although weak ties represent social relations of less intimacy, they are able to bridge clusters of stronger ties and to provide access to a wider range of information and resources (Granovetter, 1973).