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.

Eva Schweitzer und Steffen Albrecht (Hrsg.): Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009

Just got news that Eva Schweitzer’s and Steffen Albrecht’s edited volume “Das Internet im Wahlkampf: Analysen zur Bundestagswahl 2009” is out. The book collects papers that address different aspects of the internet’s role in the campaign for the German general election of 2009. Pascal Jürgens and I contributed a paper on the use of Twitter during the campaign called “Wahlkampf vom Sofa aus: Twitter im Bundestagswahlkampf 2009″ [SpringerLink] [preprint in German].

The collection offers a broad perspective on the state of political internet use in Germany. It also contains interesting pieces by Steffen Albrecht who writes about blogs, Jesscia Kunert and Jan Schmidt who write about social networking sites, Thorsten Faas and Julia Partheymüller who write on political internet use in Germany, Thomas Roessing and Nicole Podschuweit who focus on political uses of Wikipedia, Christoph Bieber who comments on the role of online tools in the overall party campaigning strategies and Eva Schweitzer who focuses on political websites during the campaign. There are many other interesting articles in this collection so if you are interested in the topic be sure to check it out.

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).

Sunbelt 30: The location Lago di Garda

I went to Riva to present a paper, which I cowrote with Pascal Jürgens, during the “Collective Action and Social Movements” track organized by David Tindall and Mario Diani. The paper was called “Just a conversation like any other? A network analysis of digital activism in the German Twittersphere”. In this paper we examined the network structures of three different #networks on Twitter. More on that paper at a later point.

So what remains from the Sunbelt XXX except the amazing location, interesting (and quite unexpected) dinner conversations, and the fond recollection of Italian food and drink?

For one, the keynote of Tom Snijders, in which he gave a short “How we got here?” survey of social network analysis and its major building blocks together with his own estimation of the potential that the concept “reciprocity” might hold in future SNA research. I also enjoyed two talks by Steve Borgatti [@ittagroB] very much. In his talk “Some Thoughts on Analyzing Trajectories” Borgatti illustrated how to model social phenomena like coworking relationships of film directors or career trajectories of college coaches as directed traversals of networks. The second talk had the somewhat grandiose title “A Network Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything: A Progress Report”. In this talk Borgatti outlined his efforts to develop a more generative and integrative approach to network theory. Dawn Gilpin [@drgilpin] gave an interesting talk on her work on Twitter. In the paper “The Twitter network boost: Social amplification and attenuation of discourse in microblogging” she and her coauthors examined how contextual emotional charges influence the amplification and attenuation of online discourse on Twitter. In their presentation “Pride, Prejudice and Dynamic Triangles. Marriage Strategies within the Estate System in England at the End of the 18th Century” Jürgen Pfeffer and Betina Hollstein used the analysis of social networks to examine the social relationships in the TV version of Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”. Based on this they characterized different marriage strategies in late 18th century England. Finally Michael Pearson‘s talk on “Individual Profiles in Local Network Structures” gave me interesting perspectives on how to proceed with the longitudinal analysis of social networks.

For the abstracts of these and the other presentations have a look at the Sunbelt XXX program (pdf).

In the final account: inspiring conversations, instructive paper presentations, Italian food, espresso, and a great location. What more to ask from a conference?

[Update 2010/07/29]

For another account of this year’s sunbelt have a look a Drew Conway’s blog post Sunbelt XXX, and Other Loose Ends.

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”.