Civil society and online political discourse: The network structure of unrestricted discussions

Communication Research

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 634-659

  Himelboim, Itai ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

civil society; online forums; social networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051997969     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650210384853     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Adamic L.Glance N. (2005). The political blogoshphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Available from http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf.
2. Arato A.,Cohen J. L.Civil society and political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1992:.
3. Baber Z. Engendering or endangering democracy? The Internet, civil society and the public sphere.Asian Journal of Social Science. 2002; 30: 287-303.
4. Bagdikian B.The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon; 2004:.
5. Barabási, A. L. (2003). Emergence of scaling in complex networks. In S. Bornholdt & H. G. Schuster (Eds.), Handbook of graph networks (pp. 69-84). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
6. Barabási A. L., Jeong H., Něda Z., Ravasz E., Schubert A., Vicsek T. Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A. 2000;311: 590-614.
7. Broder A., Kumar R., Maghoul F., Raghavan P., Rajagopalan S., Stata R., et al. Graph structure in the web.Computer Networks. 2000; 33: 309-320.
8. Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-50). Cambridge: MIT Press.
9. Chu Y. W.,Tang J. T. H.The Internet and civil society: Environmental and labour organizations in Hong Kong.International Journal of Urban & Regional Research. 2005;29:849-866.
10. The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth?. Compaine B. M., ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2001:.
11. Conway M. M.Political participation in the US. Washington, DC: CQ Press; 2000:.
12. Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era in American politics. Corrado A.Firestone C. M., ed. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute; 1996:.
13. Dahlberg L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html.
14. Davis R.The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999:.
15. de Tocqueville A.Democracy in America. New York: George Adlard; 1839:.
16. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York: Russell Sage.
17. Dunn J.Consent in the political theory of John Locke.The Historical Journal. 1967;10:153-182.
18. Ellis, E. (1999). Immanuel Kant's two theories of civil society. In F. Trentmann (Ed.), Paradoxes of civil society: New perspectives on modern German and British history (pp. 105-131). New York: Berhahn Books.
19. EstabrookL.RainieL. (2007). Information searches that solve problems. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_UI_LibrariesReport.pdf.
20. Ferguson A.An essay on the history of civil society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1782:.
21. Fisher D.,Smith M.,Welser H. T.You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in Usenet newsgroups. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Hawaii;. 59.2.
22. Journal of Democracy. Foley M. W.Edwards B., ed. 1996:38-52.
23. Friedland L. A.Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of the communicatively integrated community.Communication Research. 2001;28:358.
24. Friedland L.,Hove T.,Rojas H.The networked public sphere.Javnost-The Public. 2006;13 (4): 5-26.
25. Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 359-375). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Gillmor D.We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly; 2004:.
27. Habermas J.The structural transformation of the public sphere. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1989:.
28. Habermas J.Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research.Communication Theory. 2006;16:411-426.
29. Hacker K. L.,Howl L.,Scott M.,Steiner R.Uses of computer-mediated political communication in the 1992 presidential campaign: A content analysis of the Bush, Clinton and Perot computer lists.Communication Research Reports. 1996;13:138-146.
30. HancockG. R. (2003). Models for skewed count distributions [Computer Application].
31. Hargittai E.Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills.Second Monday. 1999;7 (4): 1-20.
32. Hauben M.,Hauben R.Netcitizen. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1997:.
33. Hill K. A.,Hughes J. E.Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little; 1998:.
34. Himelboim I.,Gleave E.,Smith M.Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 2009;14:771-789.
35. Horrigan, J., & Rainie, L. (2002). The broadband difference: How online Americans' behavior changes with high speed Internet connection at home. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Projects.
36. Huberman B. A.,Adamic L. A.Growth dynamics of the World-Wide Web.Nature. 1999;401:131.
37. Ingelhart, R. (1997). Postmaterialist values and the erosion of industrial authority. In J. Nye, P. Zelikov, & D. King (Eds.), Why people don't trust government (pp. 217-236). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Internet World Stats. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
39. Jeong H.,Tombor B.,Albert R.,Oltvai Z. N.,Barabasi A. L.The large-scale organization of metabolic networks.Nature. 2000;407:65.
40. Jones Q.,Ravid G.,Rafaeli S.An empirical examination of mass interaction system dynamics: Individual information overload and Usenet discourse. Paper presented at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Hawaii.
41. Jongpil C.Diffusing power or concentrating control: The impact of information technology on civil society in China and South Korea. Paper presented at the International Studies Association; Chicago.
42. KahnR.KellnerD. (2003). Internet subcultures and oppositional politics. In MuggletonD. (Ed.), The post-subcultures reader. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers. Available from http://richardkahn.org/writings/tep/internetsubculturesoppositionalpolitics.pdf.
43. Civil society: History and possibilities. Kaviraj S.Khilnan S., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001:.
44. Keane J.Civil society: Old images, new visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1998:.
45. Kelly, W., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. (2006). Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 151, 412-417.
46. Kiesler S.,Adaniuk B.,Lundmark V.,Kraut R.Troubles with the Internet: The dynamics of help at home.Human Computer Interaction. 2001;15:323-351.
47. Kumar K.Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term.The British Journal of Sociology. 1993;44:375-395.
48. Levine P.The Internet and civil society.Philosophy and Public Policy. 2000;20 (4): 1-8.
49. Mehra B.,Merkel C.,Peterson Bishop A.The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginal users.New Media & Society. 2004;6:781-802.
50. Muhlberger, P. (2004). Access, skill and motivation in online political discussions: Testing cyberrealism. In P. M. Shane (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects of political renewal through the Internet. New York: Routledge.
51. Naidoo K.,Tandon R. The promise of civil society. Civil society at the Millennium. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1999:1-16.
52. Nagin D. S.Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach.Psychological Measurements. 1999;4:139-157.
53. Naughton, J. (2001). Contested space: The Internet and global civil society. In H. Anheier, M. Glasius, & M. Kaldor (Eds.), Global civil society (pp. 147-168). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54. Newman M. E. J.Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks.Physical Review E. 2001;64:025-102.
55. Newman M. E. J.The structure and function of complex networks.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review. 2003;45:167-256.
56. Nye J. S.The paradox of American Power: Why the world's only superpower can't go it alone. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2002:.
57. OblakT. (2003). Boundaries of interactive public engagement: Political institutions and citizens in new political platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/oblak.html.
58. Papacharissi Z.The Internet as a public sphere.New Media & Society. 2002;4 (1): 9-27.
59. Papacharissi Z.Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups.New Media & Society. 2004;6:259-283.
60. Pew Internet and American Lifestyle Project. (2004). The Internet and campaign 2004. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campaign.pdf.
61. Pew Internet and American Lifestyle Project. (2009). The current state of civic engagement in America. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org.
62. Pingree, R (2009). Decision structure: A new approach to three problems in deliberation. In T. Davis & S. P. Gangadharam (Eds.), Online deliberations: design, research, and practice (pp. 309-316). Chicago: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.
63. Price V.,Nir L.,Cappella J.Normative and informational influences in online political discussions.Communication Theory. 2006;16:47-74.
64. Putnam R. D.Bowling alone: America's decline social capital.Journal of Democracy. 1995;6 (1): 65-78.
65. Putnam R. D.The strange disappearance of civic America.The American Prospect. 1996;7 (24): 34-48.
66. Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2004). How does the Internet affect social capital? In M. Huysman & V. Wulf (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 113-130). Cambridge: MIT Press.
67. Raban D. R.,Rabin E.The power of assuming normality. Paper presented at EMCIS 2007; Valencia, Spain.
68. RainieL. (2005). The state of blogging. Pew Internet & American Life Project Reports: Technology & Media Use. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/144/report_display.asp.
69. Räsänen P.,Kouvo A.Linked or divided by the web? Internet use and sociability in four European countries.Information, Communication & Society. 2007;10:219-241.
70. Rheingold H.The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1993:.
71. Riedel M.Transcendental politics? Political legitimacy and the concept of civil society in Kant.Social Research. 1981;48:588-613.
72. Seligman A. B.The idea of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992:.
73. Shah D. V.,Kwak N.,Holbert L. R."Connecting" and "disconnecting" with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital.Political Communication. 2001;18:141-162.
74. Sharf B. F.Communicating breast cancer on-line: Support and empowerment on the Internet.Women & Health. 1997;26 (1): 65-84.
75. Simon H. A.On a class of skew distribution functions.Biometrika. 1955;42:425-440.
76. Sirianni C.,Friedland L.Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2001:.
77. Skocpol T.,Fiorina M. P.Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1999:.
78. Sunstein C. R.Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2006:.
79. Taylor C. Hegel. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1975.
80. The London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society. (2008). Available from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction.htm.
81. Usenet. (2008, February11). In Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet.
82. Walzer, M. (2002). Equability and civil society. In S. Chambers & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 34-49). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83. Wasserman S.,Faust K.Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999:.
84. Wellman B. Computer networks as social networks.Science. 2001;293:2031-2034.
85. Wellman B., Haase A. Q., Witte J., Hampton K. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist. 2001; 45: 436-455.
86. Wilhelm A. G.Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. London: Routledge; 2000:.
87. Wojcieszak M. E.,Mutz D.Online groups and political discourse.Journal of Communication. 2009;59:40-56.
88. Yang G.The Internet and civil society in China: A preliminary assessment.Journal of Contemporary China. 2003;12:453-475.
89. Yang B.NPOs in China: Some issues concerning Internet communication.Knowledge, Technology & Policy. 2008;21 (1): 37-42.
90. Zaphiris P.,Sarwar N.Trends, similarities, and differences in the usage of teen and senior public online newsgroups.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2006;13:403-422.