Connecting Theory to Social Technology Platforms: A Framework for Measuring Influence in Context

American Behavioral Scientist

Volumn 58, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1376-1392

  Goggins, Sean ^a   Petakovic, Eva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

electronic trace data; influence; levelism; theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906748880     PISSN: 00027642     EISSN: 15523381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002764214527093     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bansler J. P.,Havn E.Sensemaking in technology-use mediation: Adapting groupware technology in organizations.Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2006;15 (1): 55-91.
2. Bikhchandani S.,Hirshleifer D.,Welch I.A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades.The Journal of Political Economy. 1992;100 (5): 992-1026.
3. BirdC.RigbyP. C.BarrE. T.HamiltonD. J.GermanD. M.DevanbuP. (2009). The promises and perils of mining Git. In 6th IEEE international working conference on mining software repositories (pp. 1-10). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5069475.
4. Black A.,Mascaro C. M.,Gallagher M.,Goggins S. P.Twitter zombie: Architecture for capturing, socially transforming and analyzing the Twittersphere. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM group conference; 2012Sanibel Island, FL: ACM; 2012. 229.
5. Boyd D. Privacy and publicity in the context of Big Data. Paper presented at the WWW conference; 2010Raleigh, NC; 2010.
6. Chang H. C.A new perspective on Twitter hashtag use: Diffusion of innovation theory.Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010;47 (1): 1-4.
7. Crowston K.,Wei K.,Howison J.,Wiggins A.Free/Libre Open Source Software development: What we know and what we do not know.ACM Computing Surveys, 44. 2012;:.
8. Dabbish L.,Stuart C.,Tsay J.,Herbsleb J.Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work; 2012New York, NY: ACM; 2012. 1277.
9. De Souza C. S.,Preece J.A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities.Interacting With Computers. 2004;16 (3): 579-610.
10. Dourish P.What we talk about when we talk about context.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 2004;8:19-30.
11. Eisenhardt K. M.Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review. 1989;14 (4): 532-550.
12. Engländer J.,Harris S. C.,Kyprianou A. E.Strong law of large numbers for branching diffusions.Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré, Probabilités et Statistiques. 2010;46:279-298.
13. Erickson T.,Kellogg W. A.Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2000;7:59-83.
14. FinleyK. (2011). Github has surpassed Sourceforge and Google Code in popularity. Retrieved from http://readwrite.com/2011/06/02/github-has-passed-sourceforge#awesm=~oxkoadKkSk6gAo.
15. Floridi L.The method of levels of abstraction.Minds and Machines. 2008;18 (3): 303-329.
16. Gil de Zúñiga H.,Jung N.,Valenzuela S.Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2012;17 (3): 319-336.
17. GilbertE.KarahaliosK. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 211-220). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1518736.
18. Goggins S. P.,Mascaro C. M. Social media discourse and culture: A proposal for comparative informatics research. Paper presented at the 2nd annual workshop on comparative informatics; 2011Copenhagen, Denmark; 2011.
19. Goggins S. P.,Mascaro C. M.,Valetto G.Group informatics: A methodological approach and ontology for understanding socio-technical groups.JASIS&T. 2013;64 (3): 516-539.
20. Golder S. A.,Yardi S.Structural predictors of tie formation in Twitter: Transitivity and mutuality. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing; 2010; 2010. 88.
21. GrabowiczP. A.RamascoJ. J.EguiluzV. M. (2012). Dynamics in online social networks. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.0808.
22. HowisonJ.WigginsA.CrowstonK. (2012). Validity issues in the use of social network analysis with digital trace data. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 12(2). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol12/iss12/2/.
23. King G.Ensuring the data rich future of the social sciences.Science. 2011;331 (6018): 719-721.
24. Lampe C.,Ellison N.,Steinfield C.A face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. New York, NY: ACM; 2006:.
25. Lazer D.,Pentland A.,Adamic L.,Aral S.,Barabasi A. L.,Brewer, D., Van, Alstyne M.Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science.Science. 2009;5915 (323): 721-723.
26. Malhotra Y.,Galletta D.A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior.Journal of Management Information Systems. 2003;22 (1): 117-151.
27. Mascaro C. M.,Novak A. N.,Goggins S. P.The daily brew: The structural evolution of the coffee party on Facebook during the 2010 United States midterm election season.Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 2012;9 (3): 234-253.
28. McGrath J. E.,Hollingshead A. B.Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evidence, issues and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1993:.
29. McLuhan M.,Fiore Q.The medium is the massage. Berkeley, CA: Gingko Press; 2005:.
30. Miller G.Social scientists wade into the tweet stream.Science. 2011;333 (6051): 1814-1815.
31. Orlikowski W. J.,Barley S. R.Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?.MIS Quarterly. 2001;25 (2): 145-165.
32. Steinfield C.,Ellison N. B.,Lampe C.,Vitak J.Online social network sites and the concept of social capital.Frontiers in New Media Re search. 2012;15:115.
33. Urry J.Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Routledge; 2000:.
34. Valenzuela S.,Park N.,Kee K. F.Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2009;14 (4): 875-901.
35. Watts D.A twenty-first century science.Nature. 2007;445 (7127): 489.
36. 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 (3): 436-455.
37. Yardi S.,Boyd D.Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2010;30 (5): 316-327.
38. Yuan C.,Gay G.Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging social capital in computer-mediated distributed teams.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2006;11:1062-1084.