Polarisation in political twitter conversations

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 329-341

  Lorentzen, David Gunnarsson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Polarization; Political debate; Social network analysis; Sweden; Twitter

Indexed keywords

POLARIZATION; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH; POLITICAL DEBATES; SUB-GROUPS; SWEDEN; SWEDISHS; TWITTER;

SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

EID: 84928253770     PISSN: 20503806     EISSN: 20503814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0086     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Anger, I. and Kittl, C. (2011), “Measuring influence on Twitter”, in Lindstaedt, S., and Granitzer, M. (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, ACM, New York, NY.
2. Ausserhofer, J. and Maireder, A. (2013), “National politics on Twitter”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 291-314.
3. Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. (2009), “Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks”, International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 361-362.
4. Boyd, D., Golder, S. and Lotan, G. (2010), “Tweet, tweet, retweet: conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter”, Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ‘10), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 1-10.
5. Bruns, A. (2011), “How long is a tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using Gawk and Gephi”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1323-1351.
6. Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. (2011), “Ausvotes: how Twitter covered the 2010 Australian Federal Election”, Communication, Politics & Culture, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 37-56.
7. Bruns, A. and Highfield, T. (2013), “Political networks on Twitter”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 667-691.
8. Bruns, A. and Stieglitz, S. (2013), “Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 91-108.
9. Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A. and Menczer, F. (2011), “Political polarization on Twitter”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 89-96.
10. Grusell, M. and Nord, L. (2012), “Three attitudes to 140 characters: the use and views of twitter in political party communications in Sweden”, Public Communication Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 48-61.
11. Jacomy, M., Heymann, S., Venturini, T. and Bastian, M. (2012), “A graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization”, working paper, Médialab, Sciences Po, Paris, 1 August, available at: www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/publications/Jacomy_Heymann_Venturini-Force:Atlas2.pdf (accessed 18 December 2013).
12. Jürgens, P., Jungherr, A. and Schoen, H. (2011), “Small worlds with a difference: new gatekeepers and the filtering of political information on twitter”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Web Science Conference, ACM, New York, NY, June 14-17.
13. Kim, M. and Park, H.W. (2012), “Measuring twitter-based political participation and deliberation in the South Korean context by using social network and triple helix indicators”, Scientometrics, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 121-140.
14. Larsson, A.O. (2011), “‘Extended infomercials’ or ‘Politics 2.0’? A study of Swedish political party web sites before, during and after the 2010 election”, FirstMonday, Vol. 16 No. 4, available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3456/2858 (accessed 26 February 2014).
15. Larsson, A.O. and Moe, H. (2012), “Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign”, New Media & Society, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 729-747.
16. Lassen, D.S. and Brown, A.R. (2011), “Twitter: the electoral connection?”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 419-436.
17. Metaxas, P.T., Mustafaraj, E. and Gayo-Avello, D. (2011), “How (Not) To Predict Elections”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and Trust, and International Conference on Social Computing, pp. 165-171.
18. O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B.R. and Smith, N.A. (2010), “From tweets to polls: linking text sentiment to public opinion time series”, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, The AAAI Press, Washington, DC, pp. 122-129.
19. Paßmann, J., Boeschoten, T. and Schäfer, M.T. (2014), “The gift of the gab. Retweet cartels and gift economies on Twitter”, in Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M. and Puschmann, C. (Eds), Twitter and Society, Peter Lang, New York, NY, pp. 331-344.
20. Pennacchiotti, M. and Popescu, A.-M. (2011), “Democrats, republicans and starbucks afficionados: user classification in twitter”, Proceedings of the 17th ACMSIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’11), ACM, New York, NY, pp. 430-438.
21. Small, T.A. (2011), “What the hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 872-895.
22. Sunstein, C.R. (2009), Republic.com 2.0, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
23. Sæbø, Ø. (2011), “Understanding TwitterTM use among parliament representatives: a genre analysis”, in Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A. and de Bruijn, H. (Eds), ePart 2011, LNCS 6847, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 1-12.
24. The Swedish Parliament (2013), “Members and parties”, available at: www.riksdagen.se/en/Members-and-parties/ (accessed 18 December 2013).
25. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods And Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Yardi, S. and Boyd, D. (2010), “Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on twitter”, Bulletin of Science Technology Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 316-327.