Mapping social networks on a new
   communication ecosystem


  Inês Amaral – inesamaral@gmail.com (University of Minho /
               Instituto Superior Miguel Torga)
  Helena Sousa – helena@ics.uminho.pt (University of Minho)
Keywords
Agenda

•   Introduction
•   Context: New Communication Ecosystem
•   Perspective: Sociability With No Territory
•   Study: Social Networks on Twitter
•   Results
•   Discussion
•   Further Research
Introduction [1]

Thesis/Assumption: new sociability based on a constantly changing model of
  communication that has transformed the concept of user in Consumer 2.0 and
  created to the receivers the possibility of publishing for a global audience.



-   BEING ONLINE > people are changing their behaviours: they work, live and
    think connectedly.
-   COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE > the new digital environment promotes
    collective action, consumers 2.0 and prosumers.
-   ‘GLOCALIZATION’ > we are globalizing the local through the web.
Introduction [2]

Objective: explore the possibility of a new communication paradigm oriented to
   socialization based in social web platforms and user-generated content.



Research Question: network environments (based on collective intelligence and
   action) promote a new kind of citizenship and consequently sociability with
   new relationships and practices?



Hypothesis: web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for public
  engagement and network participation.



Empirical Study: draw social networks on microblogging service Twitter based
  on ‘folksonomy’.
Context: New Communication Ecosystem

–   Dynamic model of communication: the possibility of the receiver being also
    a sender and a dynamic part of the communication process .

–   New ecosystem: individualization of communication (user-centred) but
    maximizing the social.

–   Metamorphic idea of territoriality: the concept of space is a result of the
    construction of shared systems and symbolic representation of social
    dynamics.




Cyberspace is the displacement of sociability where collective intelligence is
                promoted by a new communication ecosystem.
Perspective: Sociability With No Territory

–   Community and Society: updating the concepts to the new sociability with no
    territory.

–   Social Web: lack of territory + prosumers + new forms of aggregation of
    individuals = social networks and online communities

– Web 2.0 as a ‘social amplifier’: participation, mobility and power.




                     Community and Society rises to 2.0.
Study: Social Networks on Twitter > Keywords
Study Context: Twitter and Microblogging


–   Microblogging: a form of blogging based on immediacy and portability. Users
    publish updates (typically 140 or 200 characters) to a public timeline or to a
    distributed private group of subscribers.

–   Twitter: ‘Twittering’ is now a daily activity for millions of people.

– Twitter timelines: public, hashtag and user.

–   Twitter conventions: tweets, retweets, reply/mention, direct messages,
    hashtags, lists, profile.

– Trending Topics on Twitter: what is happening around the world.
Design of the Study: Social Networks on Twitter

–   Objective: analyze a map of conversations on Twitter through different
    hashtags and draw social networks based on ‘folksonomy’ in order to
    understand how the web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for public
    engagement and network participation.

–   Methodology: Social Network Analysis

– Data: 2 distinct data sets based on Twitter hashtags: #iranelection and
  #michaeljackson [24h/each]

                                 #iranelection     #michaeljackson
              Number of users    8083              13957
              Total of Tweets    12006             16072
              Interactions among 5001              4094
              users [@ & RT]
Results: Hashtag Networks




    #iranelection’s network   #michaeljackson’s network
Results: Hashtag Networks

–   Content-based networks where is possible             to draw interactions through
    conversation-based tweets.

–   Two undirected graphs: a direct edge between users that establish direct conversations
    (@ or RT) without regard to reciprocity.

–   #iranelection has more conversation-based tweets and users more active [average 1,49
    tweets per user].

–   #michaeljackson’s network is mainly structured on content-tweets and users are less
    active [average 1,15 tweets per user].

–   Degree distribution reveals residual connectivity.

–   Secondary conversations can be seen more often.

–   Both networks are similar to scale free: self-organized social network where central
    actors are the most active ones and have more ties with others.
Discussion

–    Twitter promotes a network environment simultaneously based on collective
     intelligence and direct action.

–    Retweets promote a new kind of social practice and, in some sense, social
     relationships.

–    Users are connected by different bonds (share, interact, promote, express) that may
     transformed the way people communicate and interact online.




    Social networks have many interesting characteristics and are similar to a
         complicated organism whose global structure shows an interesting
      morphological structure. Therefore, and although it might be tempting to
      draw final conclusions about the structure of the graphs, such arguments
                                may be misleading.
Further Research

Further research will analyze the content of tweets published on different days (evolution of
    the networks) in order to understand:

i.   if the social tagging systems promote a unique social communication or this kind of
     phenomena is a continuity in public communication;
ii. if web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for a declared public engagement and
     network participation;
iii. if there is a new kind of citizenship and consequently sociability that result from new
     social relationships and practices that we have observed.




                                    W. I. P.
THANK YOU!



INÊS AMARAL [http://ciberesfera.com]
HELENA SOUSA

Mapping social networks on a new communication ecosystem

  • 1.
    Mapping social networkson a new communication ecosystem Inês Amaral – inesamaral@gmail.com (University of Minho / Instituto Superior Miguel Torga) Helena Sousa – helena@ics.uminho.pt (University of Minho)
  • 2.
  • 3.
    Agenda • Introduction • Context: New Communication Ecosystem • Perspective: Sociability With No Territory • Study: Social Networks on Twitter • Results • Discussion • Further Research
  • 4.
    Introduction [1] Thesis/Assumption: newsociability based on a constantly changing model of communication that has transformed the concept of user in Consumer 2.0 and created to the receivers the possibility of publishing for a global audience. - BEING ONLINE > people are changing their behaviours: they work, live and think connectedly. - COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE > the new digital environment promotes collective action, consumers 2.0 and prosumers. - ‘GLOCALIZATION’ > we are globalizing the local through the web.
  • 5.
    Introduction [2] Objective: explorethe possibility of a new communication paradigm oriented to socialization based in social web platforms and user-generated content. Research Question: network environments (based on collective intelligence and action) promote a new kind of citizenship and consequently sociability with new relationships and practices? Hypothesis: web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for public engagement and network participation. Empirical Study: draw social networks on microblogging service Twitter based on ‘folksonomy’.
  • 6.
    Context: New CommunicationEcosystem – Dynamic model of communication: the possibility of the receiver being also a sender and a dynamic part of the communication process . – New ecosystem: individualization of communication (user-centred) but maximizing the social. – Metamorphic idea of territoriality: the concept of space is a result of the construction of shared systems and symbolic representation of social dynamics. Cyberspace is the displacement of sociability where collective intelligence is promoted by a new communication ecosystem.
  • 7.
    Perspective: Sociability WithNo Territory – Community and Society: updating the concepts to the new sociability with no territory. – Social Web: lack of territory + prosumers + new forms of aggregation of individuals = social networks and online communities – Web 2.0 as a ‘social amplifier’: participation, mobility and power. Community and Society rises to 2.0.
  • 8.
    Study: Social Networkson Twitter > Keywords
  • 9.
    Study Context: Twitterand Microblogging – Microblogging: a form of blogging based on immediacy and portability. Users publish updates (typically 140 or 200 characters) to a public timeline or to a distributed private group of subscribers. – Twitter: ‘Twittering’ is now a daily activity for millions of people. – Twitter timelines: public, hashtag and user. – Twitter conventions: tweets, retweets, reply/mention, direct messages, hashtags, lists, profile. – Trending Topics on Twitter: what is happening around the world.
  • 10.
    Design of theStudy: Social Networks on Twitter – Objective: analyze a map of conversations on Twitter through different hashtags and draw social networks based on ‘folksonomy’ in order to understand how the web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for public engagement and network participation. – Methodology: Social Network Analysis – Data: 2 distinct data sets based on Twitter hashtags: #iranelection and #michaeljackson [24h/each] #iranelection #michaeljackson Number of users 8083 13957 Total of Tweets 12006 16072 Interactions among 5001 4094 users [@ & RT]
  • 11.
    Results: Hashtag Networks #iranelection’s network #michaeljackson’s network
  • 12.
    Results: Hashtag Networks – Content-based networks where is possible to draw interactions through conversation-based tweets. – Two undirected graphs: a direct edge between users that establish direct conversations (@ or RT) without regard to reciprocity. – #iranelection has more conversation-based tweets and users more active [average 1,49 tweets per user]. – #michaeljackson’s network is mainly structured on content-tweets and users are less active [average 1,15 tweets per user]. – Degree distribution reveals residual connectivity. – Secondary conversations can be seen more often. – Both networks are similar to scale free: self-organized social network where central actors are the most active ones and have more ties with others.
  • 13.
    Discussion – Twitter promotes a network environment simultaneously based on collective intelligence and direct action. – Retweets promote a new kind of social practice and, in some sense, social relationships. – Users are connected by different bonds (share, interact, promote, express) that may transformed the way people communicate and interact online. Social networks have many interesting characteristics and are similar to a complicated organism whose global structure shows an interesting morphological structure. Therefore, and although it might be tempting to draw final conclusions about the structure of the graphs, such arguments may be misleading.
  • 14.
    Further Research Further researchwill analyze the content of tweets published on different days (evolution of the networks) in order to understand: i. if the social tagging systems promote a unique social communication or this kind of phenomena is a continuity in public communication; ii. if web’s collaborative potential establishes spaces for a declared public engagement and network participation; iii. if there is a new kind of citizenship and consequently sociability that result from new social relationships and practices that we have observed. W. I. P.
  • 15.
    THANK YOU! INÊS AMARAL[http://ciberesfera.com] HELENA SOUSA