Overview
Social media today provide an impressive amount of data about users and their societal interactions, thereby offering computer scientists, social scientists, economists, and statisticians many new opportunities for research exploration. Arguably one of the most interesting lines of work is that of forecasting future events and developments based on social media data, as we have recently seen in the areas of politics, finance, entertainment, market demands, health, etc.

But what can successfully be predicted and why? Since the first algorithms and techniques emerged rather recently, little is known about their overall potential, limitations and general applicability to different domains.

Better understanding the predictive power and limitations of social media is therefore of utmost importance, in order to, for example, avoid false expectations, misinformation or unintended consequences. Today, current methods and techniques are far from being well understood, and it is mostly unclear to what extent or under what conditions the different methods for prediction can be applied to social media. While there exists a respectable and growing amount of literature in this area, current work is fragmented, characterized by a lack of common evaluation approaches. Yet, this research seems to have reached a suficient level of interest and relevance to justify a dedicated special issue.

This special issue aims to shape a vision of important questions to be addressed in this field and fill the gaps in current research by soliciting presentations of early research on algorithms, techniques, methods and empirical studies aimed at the prediction of future or present events based on user generated content in social media.

Topics
To address this guiding theme the special issue will be articulated around, but not limited to, the following topics:

1. Politics, branding, and public opinion mining (e.g., electoral, market or stock market prediction).
2. Health, mood, and threats (e.g., epidemic outbreaks, social movements).
3. Methodological aspects (e.g., data collection, data sampling, privacy and data de-identification).
4. Success and failure case studies (e.g., reproducibility of previous research or selection of base-lines).

Schedule
- Manuscript due date: June 1, 2012
- Decisions due: August 1, 2012
- Revised paper due: September 15, 2012
- Notification of acceptance: October 1, 2012
- Submission of final manuscript: October 31, 2012
- Publication date: late 2012 / early 2013 (tentative)

Submission
All submitted manuscripts should be original contributions and not be under consideration in any other venue.

Publication of an enhanced version of a previously published conference paper is possible if the review process determines that the revision contains significant enhancements, amplification or clarification of the original material. Any prior appearance of a substantial amount of a submission should be noted in the submission letter and on the title page.

Submissions must adhere to the Author Guidelines available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=intr
Detailed instructions will be announced later this year.

Guest editors
- Daniel Gayo-Avello [@PFCdgayo], University of Oviedo (Spain), dani@uniovi.es
- Panagiotis Takis Metaxas [@takis_metaxas], Wellesley College and Harvard University (USA), pmetaxas@seas.harvard.edu
- Eni Mustafaraj [@enimust], Wellesley College (USA), emustafa@wellesley.edu
- Markus Strohmaier [@mstrohm], Graz University of Technology (Austria), markus.strohmaier@tugraz.at
- Harald Schoen, University of Bamberg (Germany), harald.schoen@uni-bamberg.de
- Peter Gloor [@pgloor], MIT (USA), pgloor@mit.edu

Feel free to contact the guest editors if you have any question.

We first happened upon the idea that certain users, based on their position in conversation networks of politically interested users, were able to keep political information from reaching specific sections of the network in a paper on the use of Twitter during the run up to the German federal election of 2009, Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus: Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009 [Preprint]. In that paper we called these users New Gatekeepers in reference to the Gatekeeper concept in mass communication research.

We met the New Gatekeepers again in a blogpost for the ZEIT blog Zweitstimme. In the post “Alle Twitterer sind gleich, aber manche sind gleicher: Neue Gatekeeper und ihre Bedeutung für die Verbreitung von Nachrichten auf Twitter” we constructed a network based on Twitter conversations between politically vocal users during one day. We showed that the unity of the network depended critically on a few well connected users. Once we excluded these users from the network it scattered into many isolated components. This shows that these users, because of their position in the structure of the network, are vital for the distribution of information to different sections of the network.

Conversation network of politically interested Twitter users on 9/1/2009

In “Small Worlds with a Difference: New Gatekeepers and the Filtering of Political Information on Twitter” we decided to look for a specific metric in quantitative social network analysis that corresponded with our interpretation of New Gatekeepers and to check if users existed in our network that corresponded with said metric. We ended up using a concept based on work by Stephen Borgatti (2005) and Daniel Ortiz-Arroyo (2010). Based on their reasoning we decided to identify those nodes in the network whose exclusion had the strongest impact on the entropy of the whole network. Our analysis showed that the exclusion of only a few nodes critically impacts the entropy of the network. For us this is an indicator for the ability of a small number of users to effectively filter the flow of information on Twitter.

For a more detailed discussion of this and the bias these users showed in their Twitter activities please have a look at the paper. Please let us know what you think of the concept and its operationalization in the context of social network analysis.

[Update: 2011/06/21]
Meanwhile Pascal has uploaded his presentation.

Also, our contribution was mentioned in “The Science of the Web” by David De Roure [@dder] on his nature network blog eResearch.

[Update: 2011/07/21]
Pascal’s presentation has been posted as a video on videolectures.net [Video: Small Worlds with a Difference: New Gatekeepers and the Filtering of Political Information on Twitter]

Further Reading:
Stephen P. Borgatti (2005) ‘Centrality and network flow’, Social Networks 27, 55-71. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008.

Andreas Jungherr, Pascal Jürgens and Harald Schoen (2011) ‘Alle Twitterer sind gleich, aber manche sind gleicher: Neue Gatekeeper und ihre Bedeutung für die Verbreitung von Nachrichten auf Twitter’ Zweitstimme.

Pascal Jürgens and Andreas Jungherr (2011) ‘Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus: Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009’, in: Eva Johanna Schweitzer and Steffen Albrecht (eds.), Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92853-1_8.

Pascal Jürgens, Andreas Jungherr and Harald Schoen (2011) ‘Small Worlds with a Difference: New Gatekeepers and the Filtering of Political Information on Twitter’. Paper presented at the conference ‘ACM WebSc ’11: 3rd International Conference on Web Science’ Koblenz, Germany on 14-17 June. [pdf at the conference's website]

Daniel Ortiz-Arroyo (2010) ‘Discovering Sets of Key Players in Social Networks’, in: Abraham, A., Hassanien, A.-E., and Snásel , V. (eds.). Computational Social Network Analysis. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht et al., 27-46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-229-0_2.

Conversation network of politically interested Twitter users on 9/1/2009

As shown above these highly interconnected individuals are crucial for the information flow through the network of politically interested Twitter users. For a more comprehensive discussion of this idea please see the blogpost or our forthcoming paper Pascal Jürgens and Andreas Jungherr (2011) “Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus: Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009″, in: Eva Johanna Schweitzer und Steffen Albrecht (Eds.), Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag (forthcoming).

Jungherr, Jürgens (2010) The Political Click: Figure 1 Signatures per day across all petitions

We also introduced the concept of the co-signature overspill. We found that the daily number of co-signatures of e-petitions below a total of 10.000 co-signatures rose when highly successful e-petitions were active. This is shown by the development of the black area in the graph above.

Jungherr, Jürgens (2010) The Political Click: Figure 3 Number of co-signatures per petition collected in steps of 10,000 co-signatures

Also we showed that only a very small number of e-petitions collected most of the co-signatures on the e-petition platform.

These and other results of our analysis can be found in Andreas Jungherr and Pascal Jürgens (2010) ‘The political click: political participation through e-petitions in Germany’, Policy & Internet, 2(4) Article 6.

Abstract: Electronic petitions can serve as an influential mechanism for political participation. We present a study on the dynamics in the German e-petition system which was introduced in late 2008. Drawing on a data set of signatures, we analyze four aspects: (a) the types of petitions found, (b) the temporal dynamics of petitions, (c) the types of users found, and (d) the intersection of different petitions’ supporter populations. We present evidence that (a) the system is dominated by a very small number of high-volume petitions and (b) these high-volume petitions have a delayed boosting effect on the base activity in the petition system. We furthermore (c) present a typology of users, showing that although highly active “new lobbyists” and “hit-and-run activists” exist, one- or two-time petitioners have the largest impact. Finally, it is indicated that (d) many of the high-volume petitions share a significant part of their user base, hinting at a complex, topically motivated network of supporters. Through the application of methods from what has been called “Computational Social Sciences,” we illuminate a highly relevant field of political behavior online, while demonstrating the capability of data-driven approaches in such novel domains.

A copy of the paper is available on the website of the journal.

Jungherr, Andreas and Jürgens, Pascal (2010) “The Political Click: Political Participation through E-Petitions in Germany,” Policy & Internet: Vol. 2: Iss. 4, Article 6.

DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1084

At the conference I presented the paper “The political click: political participation through e-petitions in Germany” written by Pascal Jürgens and me on the use of the German e-petition system. A copy of the paper can be found on the conference microsite hosted by the Oii. There the other papers presented at the conference are also available for download. An updated version of the paper will appear later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Policy & Internet. Since the edits were significant advances on the version available the Oii site I would ask you, if you are interested in the paper, to reference the published version.

The conference has been covered on a number of blogs. For example on:

OII Blog
Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: What is our impact on the Internet? Keynote by Arthur Lupia
Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Political Participation and Petitioning
Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Campaigning in the 2010 UK General Election
Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Closing keynote by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger
Internet, Politics, Policy 2010: Wrap-Up

ICTlogy by Ismael Peña-López
Internet, Politics, Policy (I). Arthur Lupia: An impact Assessment
Internet, Politics, Policy (II). Political Participation and Petitioning
Internet, Politics, Policy (III). Participation in Politics and Policy-making
Internet, Politics, Policy (IV). Comparative Campaigning (I)
Internet, Politics, Policy (V). Campaigning: UK2010 Election
Internet, Politics, Policy (VI). Digital Divides
Internet, Politics, Policy (VII). Internet Governance (II)
Internet, Politics, Policy (VIII). Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: Delete. The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age

Digital Government – Digital Society
Internet, Politics, Policy Conference – Day 1
IPP Conference – Day 2

[Update 2010/12/20]
Richard Parsons [@problybored] was kind enough to write a short wrap up on the Oii draft of “The political click: political participation through e-petitions in Germany” on his blog eDemocracyBlog.com.

In his inaugural lecture “The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods” Richard Rogers who holds the Chair of New Media & Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam proposes a shift in internet research:

“The issue no longer is how much of society and culture is online, but rather how to diagnose cultural change and societal conditions using the Internet.”
Rogers: The End of the Virtual. p. 8

For Rogers too much of research focuses on the differences between on- and offline culture. He sees the reason for this in the methods with which researchers from the humanities and the social sciences approach the internet. Rogers’ critiques the use of surveys, interviews and other approaches that proved succesfull in offline research. He collects these methods under the term virtual methods. To him the exclusive use of these virtual methods leads to an unnessary concentration of research on just a few topics and would even mislead in the quest to advance our understanding the internet.

“The argument advanced here is that virtual methods and user studies in the social sciences and the humanities have shifted the attention away from the data of the medium, and the opportunities for study of far more than online culture.”
Rogers: The End of the Virtual. p. 6

To remedy this situation Rogers advances the notion of methods based on online groundedness. Instead of imposing research approaches from differenct context on internet research he proposes a research approach that uses the epistemology of the internet as methodological basis. Rogers calls these methods digital methods:

“For the third era of Internet research, the digital methods program introduces the term online groundedness, in an effor t to conceptualize research which follows the medium, captures its dynamics, and makes grounded claims about cultural and societal change. Indeed, the broader theoretical goal of digital methods is to rethink the relationship between the Web and the ground.”
Rogers: The End of the Virtual. p. 8

Rogers suggests that through the use of digital methods we will be able to use the internet as a data source that informs on social processes offline that until now remained hidden.

“The conceptual point of departure for the research program is the recognition that the Internet is not only an object of study, but also a source. Knowledge claims may be made on the basis of data collected and analyzed by devices such as search engines. [...] It thereby challenges existing methods of data collection [...], and reopens the discussion of the Web as anticipatory medium, far closer to the ground than one might expect.”
Rogers: The End of the Virtual. p. 8

Rogers then moves on and discusses a group of epistemological elements of the interent that can serve as basis for research using digital methods. These elements are The Link, The Website, The Search Engines & the Spheres, The Webs, Social Networking Sites & Post-demographics, and Wikipedia & Networked Content. For each element he discusses recent research and further research possibilities.

Rogers’ text is a welcome addition to the developing debate about computational social science. While the manifesto Computational Social Science by the luminaries of the field David Lazer, Alex Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert-László Barabási, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, Tony Jebara, Gary King, Michael Macy, Deb Roy, and Marshall Van Alstyne opens up a promising research field there are also real dangers lurking. Be it data driven web sience, digital methods, analysis of social networks, or computational social science, these field are blessed by an ever increasing amount of data. While the best research in these fields does not forget theory, the more data we get the louder the voices become that proclaim the end of theory: All theory has become obsolete. The truth is in the data all apparent to mighty algorithms. For an example of such an argument see Chris Anderson’s unfortunate essay The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Rogers’ text offers a welcome example how to combine theory and data.

Rogers’ text is also a timely reminder that there is more to a science of the web than just the analysis of opportunity data sets. The richness of data collected on Twitter or Facebook can serve as basis for original research (for an example of an analysis based on data sets collected on Twitter see for example Drew Conway’ s post “SNA in R Talk, Updated with [Better] Video “; for research based on Facebook data sets see “How to split up the US” by Pete Warden). In the short term analyses like these can provide original and valuable insights. Still, if this research is not conducted in a larger research context we risk losing sight of the bigger picture.

But Roger’s text does not only offer interesting perspectives to researchers coming from a data perspective. “The End of the Virtual” also offers an interesting advancement to researchers coming from the humanties or the social sciences. Rogers directs their focus away from shiny “new” phenomena on the web towards the data structure behind these phenomena. This might curb the enthusiasm of some research but at the same time advance our knowlegde about the web at large and the conditions of social action online.

The End of the Virtual can be found either in bookform here or a pre-print of the lecture as pdf on Richard Rogers’ website.

Disclaimer: Richard Rogers sent me a free copy of his “The End of the Virtual”.

The interplay of theory and observation: a proposition for structured research on human behavior on the web

The paper makes for a nice change of pace since it’s neither concerned with Twitter nor with agent-based modeling. Instead we used the chance of the first Web Science conference to try our hands in a bit of computational social science methodology. Be it only to escape the claim of our dear friends from the theory department we would only be a group of empiricistic heathens. Have a look at the paper at the online proceedings of the WebSci’09: Society On-Line and judge if we succeeded.

Due to copyright restrictions I can’t make this paper available on this page. If you are interested you can find the paper in the Proceedings of the 11th General Online Research Conference edited by Martin Welker, Holger Geißler, Lars Kaczmirek and Olaf Wenzel. On his webpage Martin Welker makes a pdf of the proceedings available.

For the gist of the paper have a look at the presentation:

In this paper we build on the work we presented in Andreas Jungherr and Pascal Jürgens (2008) ‘Modeling Small-Group Interaction on Pervasive Digital Channels: New Influence on Public Opinion’. Poster presented at the International Workshop on Challenges and Visions in the Social Sciences. Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation, ETH Zurich, Switzerland on 18-23 August. In contrast to the earlier work in this paper we focused on the potential agent-based modeling holds for the social sciences in general.

For a higher resolution of the graphs have a look at this pdf.

Abstract
The attempt of Web Science to develop a deeper understanding of human behavior on and with the web, as practiced today, struggles to transcend the stage of isolated case studies of individual phenomena with little or no connection to the nature of human behavior as a whole. The authors believe this state can be remedied by a more conscious combination of theoretical concepts of human behavior and empirical work. To this end this paper identifies four key challenges in sound Web Science: A – Providing theoretical context for studies, B – addressing the role of technological design and communication culture, C – dealing with large data sets and D – charting the web so research can be placed within. We then propose a blueprint for research practices which is based on the school of critical rationalism and serves to increase a study’s contribution to the field of web science.

The interplay of theory and observation: a proposition for structured research on human behavior on the web

This is the poster version of the paper The Interplay of Theory and Observation: A Proposition for Structured Research on Human Behavior on the Web which Pascal Jürgens and Benjamin Heitmann presented in early 2009 in rainy Athens at the WebSci’09: Society On-Line.

For the paper have a look at this pdf at the online proceedings of the conference. There you can also take a closer look at the poster itself.