Upload
marius-rohde-johannessen
View
172
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of a research paper published at the Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences (HICSS)
Citation preview
Social Capital and the Networked Public Sphere:Implications for Political
Social Media sites
Marius Rohde Johannessen
Department of Information Systems
University of Agder, Norway
2
Outline
• The networked public sphere
• Social capital
• Findings from example case
• Summary
3
The short version
• Working public spheres can be a positive contribution to democracy
• Social capital can contribute to explain why some are more likely to participate than others
• Participation increases social capital
• …therein lies the paradox…
4
Why is this interesting?
• Need to conceptualise the Public Sphere in a modern context of networks, Internet and social media
• Need to explore and understand how we can get more people to contribute in democratic debates
• Avoid elitist democracy
5
Background and motivation
• Public sphere often used, seldom explained in eParticipation studies
• Need for further exploration• What is a public?• When does a forum become a public sphere?• How is a public sphere created and maintained?• Are there different types of public spheres?
• If so, what are the consequences for democracy?
• How can we explain who participates?
6
The Public Sphere - definition
• Habermas: “that domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed”
• A mediating layer between government and citizen
• Circular: Receives and provides information
• Autonomous from state and economic power – for citizens by citizens
• Disappeared with mass media?Photo: Wikimedia commons
7
The Networked Public Sphere
8
Analysing the Public Sphere
• Dahlberg’s criteria• Autonomy from state and economic power• Rational-critical discourse: no dogmas• Self-reflective and critical participants• Understand the others’ perspective• Make all information known• Everyone equally entitled to participate
• Network society• Points out the importance of connecting different
spheres to disseminate ideas and arguments• Allows us to visualise connections between
mulitple networks, actors etc
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3853946554/
9
Analysing the Public Sphere (2)
• Gemeinschaft community• ’’Organic’’ communities, constructed by the participants• Based on common interests, views• Reciprocal ties. Participants help each other out• With networked media everyone can “hide” in their own small enclaves• The challenge is to connect them and engage them in social debate
• Weak or strong Public Sphere?• Strong: Enlightened individuals, constructing shared meaning through
membership in the “cosmopolitan society”• Weak: Freedom of the press, the public’s right to access information and act
as a check on government
Social Capital
• The glue that binds society together:
• Trust & reciprocity• Individual, institutional. Giving something back
• Bridging social capital• Connection between groups
• Bonding social capital• Connections within a group – community formation
• Maintained social capital• Keep connections also when physically apart
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2365568058 10
11
Bridging and bonding social capital
A core of active members bonds the community
Bridges between different communities
Weak bonding. Few people in the community actually interacting with each other
12
Example case
• MyLabour: a Norwegian political party’s online community
• Objectives: inform, facilitate debate, information sharing
• Zones for local groups
• Structure similar to blogs
• To what degree is this a public sphere?
13
Case findingsTheory Concept Case observationsPublic sphere Dahlberg’s criteria Partially present: autonomous discussions, inclusive
debates, some reflection and some rational-critical discourse
Network society Ties between internal core actors and between different zones contribute to maintain a networked community
Gemeinschaft community
Metacommunication and tone between participants contribute to Gemeinschaft
Weak/strong Has aspects of strong public sphere, but not all of them
Social Capital Bridging A total of ten people contribute in more than one zone, acting as bridges.
Bonding Each zone has a core community that contributes regularly, and who seem to know each other
Trust & reciprocity Plays a big role. Trusting relations and reciprocal actions contribute to participants’ staying. Lack of reciprocity makes participants leave.
Maintained social capital
A fair proportion of the participants only meet online, but still address each other as if they have a “real” relationship
14
Summary
Society
RepresentativeDemocracy/government
Social mediaPhysical spaces
Traditional media
Public Sphere(s)
Public Sphere(s)
Public Sphere(s)
Participates
Socialcapital
Contributes“Controls”