Reciprocal Communication and Political Deliberation on Twitter

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
R. Ackland, Felix Gumbert, Ole Pütz, Bryan Gertzel, Matthias Orlikowski
{"title":"Reciprocal Communication and Political Deliberation on Twitter","authors":"R. Ackland, Felix Gumbert, Ole Pütz, Bryan Gertzel, Matthias Orlikowski","doi":"10.3390/socsci13010005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social media platforms such as Twitter/X are increasingly important for political communication but the empirical question as to whether such communication enhances democratic consensus building (the ideal of deliberative democracy) or instead contributes to societal polarisation via fostering of hate speech and “information disorders” such as echo chambers is worth exploring. Political deliberation involves reciprocal communication between users, but much of the recent research into politics on social media has focused on one-to-many communication, in particular the sharing and diffusion of information on Twitter via retweets. This paper presents a new approach to studying reciprocal political communication on Twitter, with a focus on extending network-analytic indicators of deliberation. We use the Twitter v2 API to collect a new dataset (#debatenight2020) of reciprocal communication on Twitter during the first debate of the 2020 US presidential election and show that a hashtag-based collection alone would have collected only 1% of the debate-related communication. Previous work into using social network analysis to measure deliberation has involved using discussion tree networks to quantify the extent of argumentation (maximum depth) and representation (maximum width); we extend these measures by explicitly incorporating reciprocal communication (via triad census) and the political partisanship of users (inferred via usage of partisan hashtags). Using these methods, we find evidence for reciprocal communication among partisan actors, but also point to a need for further research to understand what forms this communication takes.","PeriodicalId":37714,"journal":{"name":"Social Sciences","volume":"254 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social media platforms such as Twitter/X are increasingly important for political communication but the empirical question as to whether such communication enhances democratic consensus building (the ideal of deliberative democracy) or instead contributes to societal polarisation via fostering of hate speech and “information disorders” such as echo chambers is worth exploring. Political deliberation involves reciprocal communication between users, but much of the recent research into politics on social media has focused on one-to-many communication, in particular the sharing and diffusion of information on Twitter via retweets. This paper presents a new approach to studying reciprocal political communication on Twitter, with a focus on extending network-analytic indicators of deliberation. We use the Twitter v2 API to collect a new dataset (#debatenight2020) of reciprocal communication on Twitter during the first debate of the 2020 US presidential election and show that a hashtag-based collection alone would have collected only 1% of the debate-related communication. Previous work into using social network analysis to measure deliberation has involved using discussion tree networks to quantify the extent of argumentation (maximum depth) and representation (maximum width); we extend these measures by explicitly incorporating reciprocal communication (via triad census) and the political partisanship of users (inferred via usage of partisan hashtags). Using these methods, we find evidence for reciprocal communication among partisan actors, but also point to a need for further research to understand what forms this communication takes.
推特上的互惠交流与政治审议
推特/X 等社交媒体平台在政治交流中的作用日益重要,但这种交流是促进了民主共识的建立(协商民主的理想),还是助长了仇恨言论和 "信息失调"(如回声室),从而助长了社会两极分化,这一实证问题值得探讨。政治审议涉及用户之间的互惠交流,但近期对社交媒体政治的研究大多集中在一对多的交流上,特别是推特上通过转发进行的信息分享和传播。本文提出了一种研究 Twitter 上互惠政治传播的新方法,重点是扩展网络分析的审议指标。我们使用 Twitter v2 API 收集了 2020 年美国总统大选第一场辩论期间 Twitter 上互惠传播的新数据集(#debatenight2020),结果表明,仅基于标签的收集只能收集到辩论相关传播的 1%。以前使用社交网络分析来衡量商议的方法包括使用讨论树网络来量化论证程度(最大深度)和代表性(最大宽度);我们通过明确纳入互惠交流(通过三方普查)和用户的政治党派性(通过使用党派标签推断)来扩展这些衡量方法。利用这些方法,我们发现了党派参与者之间互惠交流的证据,但也指出需要进一步研究以了解这种交流的形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Sciences
Social Sciences Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
494
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) is an international, peer-reviewed, quick-refereeing open access journal published online monthly by MDPI. The journal seeks to appeal to an interdisciplinary audience and authorship which focuses upon real world research. It attracts papers from a wide range of fields, including anthropology, criminology, geography, history, political science, psychology, social policy, social work, sociology, and more. With its efficient and qualified double-blind peer review process, Social Sciences aims to present the newest relevant and emerging scholarship in the field to both academia and the broader public alike, thereby maintaining its place as a dynamic platform for engaging in social sciences research and academic debate. Subject Areas: Anthropology, Criminology, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, Social policy, Social work, Sociology, Other related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信