An exploratory approach to a Twitter-based community centered on a political goal in South Korea: Who organized it, what they shared, and how they acted

New Media and Society

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 129-148

  Choi, Sujin ^a   Park, Han Woo ^b  

^a Kookmin University   (South Korea)

^b Yeungnam University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Co word analysis; mixed method; online activism; online community; Twitter; virtual ethnography; Webometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893027901     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444813487956     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Ackland R,Gibson RK,Lusoli W, et al.Engaging with the public? Assessing the online presence and communication practices of the nanotechnology industry.Social Science Computer Review. 2010;28 (4): 443-465.
2. Allagui I,Kuebler J.The Arab Spring and the role of ICTs - editorial introduction.International Journal of Communication (IJOC). 2011;5:1435-1442.
3. Barash V,Golder SAnalyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World. Hansen DShneiderman BSmith MA, ed. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2010:143-164.
4. Benford RD,Snow DA.Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.Annual Review of Sociology. 2000;26:611-639.
5. Bennett WL.Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics.Information, Communication & Society. 2003;6 (2): 143-168.
6. Biddix JP,Park HW.Online networks of student protest: The case of the living wage campaign.New Media & Society. 2008;10 (6): 871-891.
7. BiddixJPParkHWWangT (2009) Co-word analysis of open-end answers from Chinese internet users: An alternative content analysis method for qualitative research. Society for Humanities Studies in East Asia16: 415-447. Available at: www.dbpia.co.kr/view/ar_view.asp?arid=1326289 (accessed March 22, 2013).
8. Bimber B,Flanagin AJ,Stohl C.Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment.Communication Theory. 2005;15 (4): 365-388.
9. Boulianne S.Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research.Political Communication. 2009;26:193-211.
10. BowlerGM (2010) Netnography: A method specifically designed to study cultures and communities online. Qualitative Report15(5): 1270-1275. Available at: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-5/kozinets.pdf (accessed March 22, 2013).
11. Boyd D,Golder S,Lotan GTweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. Kauai, HI: IEEE; 2010:.
12. Bryman A.Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1 (8): 8-22.
13. Callon M,Coutrial JP,Laville F.Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry.Scientometrics. 1991;22 (1): 155-205.
14. Carragee KM,Roefs W.The neglect of power in recent framing research.Journal of Communication. 2004;54 (2): 214-233.
15. Castells MCommunication Power. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:.
16. Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenutoz F, et al. (2010) Measuring user influence in Twitter: the million follower fallacy. In: Proceedings of the fourth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Washington DC, US, 23-26 May 2010, p. 8. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
17. Chang W.Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formation in Korea.Media, Culture & Society. 2005;27 (6): 925-935.
18. ChangW (2008) The cyber balkanization and structural transformation of the public sphere in Korea. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia7(2): 29-48. Available at: eastasia.yu.ac.kr/documents/Chang_.pdf (accessed January 18, 2013).
19. Cho SE,Choi MG,Park HW.Government-civic group conflicts and communication strategies: A text analysis of TV debates on Korea's Import of U.S. Beef.Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia. 2012;11 (1): 1-20.
20. ChristensenHS (2011) Political activities on the internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?First Monday16(2-7). Available at: firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3336/2767 (accessed January 15, 2013).
21. Coulter N,Monarch I,Konda S.Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis.Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1998;49 (13): 1206-1223.
22. Della Porta D,Diani MSocial Movements: An Introduction. 2006) Social Movements: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc; 2006:.
23. Della Porta D,Mosca L.Global-net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements.Journal of Public Policy. 2005;25 (1): 165-190.
24. De Zuniga HG,Puig-I-Abril E,Rojas H.Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment.New Media & Society. 2009;11 (4): 553-574.
25. Diani M.The concept of social movement.Sociological Review. 1992;40 (1): 1-25.
26. Earl J,Kimport K.The targets of online protest.Information, Communication & Society. 2008;11 (4): 449-472.
27. Evans JH.Multiorganizational fields and social movement organization frame content: The religious prochoice movement.Sociological Inquiry. 1997;67 (4): 451-469.
28. Garrett RK.Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social movements and new ICTs.Information, Communication & Society. 2006;9 (2): 202-224.
29. Gaver WW.Technology affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 1991New Orleans, LA, US; 1991. 79-84.
30. GladwellM (2010) Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, 4October. Available at: www.newyorker.com (accessed August 15, 2011).
31. GrossmanL (2009) Iran protests: Twitter, the medium of the movement. Time, 17June. Available at: www.time.com (accessed August 1, 2011).
32. Gurak LJ,Logie JCyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. McCaughey MAyers MD, ed. New York: Routledge; 2003:25-46.
33. Halpern D,Lee S.Civic participation and social media: Are they bowling together?. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Political Science Association; 2011Seattle, US; 2011.
34. Hampton KN.Grieving for a lost network: Collective action in a wired suburb. Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking.The Information Society. 2003;19 (5): 417-428.
35. Harlow S.Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline.New Media & Society. 2012;14 (2): 225-243.
36. Hine CVirtual Ethnography. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2000:.
37. Honeycutt C,Herring SC.Beyond microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2009; 2009.
38. Howard PN.Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods.New Media & Society. 2002;4 (4): 550-574.
39. Hsu C,Park HW.Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: A case study of South Korea.Social Science Computer Review. 2011;29 (3): 354-368.
40. Hsu C,Park SJ,Park HW.Political discourse among key Twitter users: The case of Sejong city in South Korea.Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia. 2013;12 (1):.
41. HubermanBARomeroDMWuF (2009) Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday14. Available at: firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063 (accessed July 28, 2011).
42. Hughes AL,Palen L.Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events.International Journal of Emergency Management. 2010;6 (3-4): 248-260.
43. Hunt SA,Benford RD,Snow DANew Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Larana EJohnston HGusfield JR, ed. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 1994:185-208.
44. Jansen BJ,Zhang M,Sobel K, et al.Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009;60 (11): 2169-2188.
45. Java A,Song X,Finin T, et al.Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD workshop 2007; 2007; 2007.
46. Kahn R,Kellner D.New media and internet activism: From the 'Battle of Seattle' to blogging.New Media & Society. 2004;6 (1): 87-95.
47. Kern T,Nam S.The making of a social movement: Citizen journalism in South Korea.Current Sociology. 2009;57 (5): 637-660.
48. Kim HH,Moon JY,Yang S.Broadband penetration and participatory politics: South Korea case. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2004; 2004; 2004.
49. Krishnamurthy B,Gill P,Arlitt M.A few chirps about Twitter.Proceedings of the first workshop on online social networks. 2008;:19-24.
50. Kropczynski J,Nah S.Virtually networked housing movement: Hyperlink network structure of housing social movement organizations.New Media & Society. 2010;13 (5): 689-703.
51. Lakoff GMoral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2002:.
52. LandauE (2009) Retweeting: 'Followers' look to 'leaders' as social networks grow. CNN, 23June. Available at: edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/23/why.retweet.twitter/ (accessed June 23, 2011).
53. Lebert JCyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. McCaughey MAyers MD, ed. New York: Routledge; 2003:209-232.
54. LenhartAFoxS (2009) Twitter and status updating. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at: www.pewinternet.org (accessed June 23, 2011).
55. Marmura S.A net advantage? The internet, grassroots activism and American Middle-Eastern policy.New Media & Society. 2008;10 (2): 247-271.
56. McAdam D,McCarthy JD,Zald MNComparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:.
57. Mercea D.Digital prefigurative participation: The entwinement of online communication and offline participation in protest events.New Media & Society. 2011;14 (1): 153-169.
58. Moon J,Yang S.The internet as an agent of political change: The case of "Rohsamo" in the South Korean presidential campaign of 2002. Proceedings of the international conferon information systems 2003; 2003Seattle, Washington, US; 2003.
59. MorozovE (2009) The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy, 19May. Available at: neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_world_of_slacktivism (accessed May 13, 2012).
60. Park HW.Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social structure on the web.Connections. 2003;25 (1): 49-61.
61. Park HW,Jankowski NK.A hyperlink network analysis of citizen blogs in South Korean politics.Javnost: The Public. 2008;15 (2): 57-74.
62. Parmelee JH,Bichard SLPolitics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship. Parmelee JHBichard SL, ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2011:142-166.
63. Pirolli P,Preece J,Shneiderman B.Cyberinfrastructure for social action on national priorities.Computer. 2010;:.
64. Poell T,Borra E.Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr as platforms of alternative journalism: The social media account of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests.Journalism. 2011;:.
65. Postmes T,Brunsting S.Collective action in the age of the internet.Social Science Computer Review. 2002;20 (3): 290-301.
66. Price VOnline Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Davies TGangadharan SP, ed. Chicago, IL: Center for the Study of Language and Information, University of Chicago Press; 2009:37-58.
67. Reid E,Chen H.Internet-savvy US and Middle Eastern extremist groups.Mobilization: An International Quarterly. 2007;12 (2): 177-192.
68. Scott WA.Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1955;19:321-325.
69. Segerberg A,Bennett WL.Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests.The Communication Review. 2011;14 (3): 197-215.
70. Snow DA,Benford RDFrontiers in Social Movement Theory. Morris ADMueller CM, ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1992:133-155.
71. Stein L.Social movement web use in theory and practice: A content analysis of US movement websites.New Media & Society. 2009;11 (5): 749-771.
72. Sunstein CRRepublic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007:.
73. Tashakkori A,Creswell JW.Editorial: The new era of mixed methods.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1 (1): 3-7.
74. Van Aelst P,Walgrave S.New media, new movements? The role of the internet in shaping the "Anti-Globalization" movement.Information, Communication & Society. 2002;5 (4): 465-493.
75. Van Dyke N,Soule S,Taylor V.The targets of social movements.Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change. 2004;25:27-51.
76. Van Laer J,Van Aelst P.Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations.Information, Communication & Society. 2010;13 (8): 1146-1171.
77. Yi Y.Social roles of counter social movements: The case of Korea's new right movement.Discourse 201. 2005;8 (1): 5-31.
78. Yun S,Chang W.Political participation of teenagers in the information era.Social Science Computer Review. 2011;29 (2): 242-249.
79. YunSDoHKimH (2010) Analysis of user interactions in online social networks. In: WWW 2010. Available at: channy.creation.net/blog/data/channy/2010/sns-social-interaction.pdf (accessed June 13, 2012).
80. Zhang W,Johnson TJ,Seltzer T, et al.The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior.Social Science Computer Review. 2010;28 (1): 75-92.
81. Zhao D and Rosson MB (2009) How and why people Twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group. DOI: 10.1145/1531674.1531710.