Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collective Action in the Digital Age: An Actor-Based Typology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collectivity and Power on the Internet

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

Abstract

This article investigates two questions: One, how might the very differently structured social collectives on the internet—masses, crowds, communities and movements—be classified and distinguished? And two, what influence do the technological infrastructures in which they operate have on their formation, structure and activities? For this, we differentiate between two main types of social collectives: non-organized collectives, which exhibit loosely coupled collective behavior, and collective actors with a separate identity and strategic capability. Further, we examine the newness, or distinctive traits, of online-based collectives. We consider that newness to be comprised of the strong and hitherto non-existent interplay between the technological infrastructures that these collectives are embedded in and the social processes of coordination and institutionalization they must engage in order to maintain their viability over time. Conventional patterns of social dynamics in the development and stabilization of collective action are now systematically intertwined with technology-induced processes of structuration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, E. (1992). The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International Organization, 46, 101–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, A., & Aouragh, M. (2014). Egypt’s unfinished revolution: The role of the media revisited. International Journal of Communication, 8, 890–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejevic, M., & Gates, K. (2014). Big data surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 185–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2014). Mobilization through online social networks: The political protest of the Indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 750–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 739–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Knüpfer, C. B. (2017). The democratic interface: Technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1348533 (ahead-of-print).

  • Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd: Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 232–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1939). Collective behavior. In A. Lee McClung (Ed.), New outline of the principles of sociology (pp. 166–222). New York: Barnes & Noble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brevini, B., Hintz, A., & McCurdy, P. (2013). Beyond WikiLeaks. Implications for the future of communications, journalism and society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caren, N., & Gaby, S. (2012). Occupy online: How cute old men and Malcolm X recruited 400,000 U.S. users to OWS on Facebook. Social Movement Studies, 11, 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carty, V. (2015). Social movements and new technology. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, C. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: The story of anonymous. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M. K. D. (2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39, 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Essays in the theory of society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G., McAdam, D., Scott, R. W., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. W., & Meckel, M. (2012). Political power and the requirements of accountability in the age of WikiLeaks. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 22, 463–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, L., & Quack, S. (2011). Interorganisationale Netzwerke und digitale Gemeinschaften. Von Beiträgen zu Beteiligung? Managementforschung, 21, 171–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, Identity, and organizationality. The communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seiz, G. (2017). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736930.

  • Dolata, U. (2013). The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2017). Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft. Market concentration–competition–innovation strategies. Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies 2017-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunkel, W., & Kleemann, F. (Eds.). (2013). Customers at work: New perspectives on interactive service work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. [1885] (1970). Regeln der soziologischen Methode. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, J., McKee Hurwitz, H., Mejia Mesinas, A., Tolan, M., & Arlotti, A. (2013). This protest will be tweeted: Twitter and protest policing during the Pittsburgh G20. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 459–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, K. (1993). The new politics of class. Social movements and cultural dynamics in advanced societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, S. (2008). Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of outlaw innovation. Research Policy, 37, 177–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting brand communities right. Harvard Business Review, 87, 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A., & Sandoval, M. (2012). Internet and surveillance. The challenges of Web 2.0 and social media. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (2004). Bystanders, public opinion, and the media. In D. S. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 242–261). Maldon/Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M., & Dutton, W. H. (Eds.). (2014). Society and the internet. How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammon, L., & Hippner, H. (2012). Crowdsourcing. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4, 165–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haucap, J., & Heimeshoff, U. (2014). Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the internet driving competition or market monopolization? International Economics and Economic Policy, 11, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haucap, J., & Heimeshoff, U. (2017). Ordnungspolitik in der digitalen Welt. In J. Haucap & Thiem, H. J. (Eds.), Wirtschaftspolitik im Wandel. Ordnungsdefizite und Lösungsansätze (pp. 79–132). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., & Martin, B. (2007). Science, technology, and social movements. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology (pp. 473–498). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Society, 20, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 14(6). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.html. Accessed 1 February 2018.

  • Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn effect. The unexpected transformation of American political advocacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, C. (2013). Media governance and technology. From ‘code is law’ to governance constellations. In M. Price, S. Verhulst, & L. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge handbook of media law (pp. 399–418). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavada, A. (2015). Creating the collective: Social media, the Occupy movement and its constitution as a collective actor. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 872–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, R. (2013). Wikipedia: Between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). CODE and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. C. (2012). The tension between professional control and open participation. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 836–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losey, J. (2014). The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and European civil society: A case study on networked advocacy. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action. A micro-social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2010). Global structures: Markets, organizations, networks—and communities? In M. Djelic, & S. Quack (Eds.), Transnational communities. Shaping global economic governance (pp. 37–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1995): Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung (pp. 39–72). New York/Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., & Scott, R. W. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. Davis, D. McAdam, R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, G. J. (2015). Who’s afraid of WikiLeaks? Missed opportunities in political science research. Review of Policy Research, 32(2), 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milkman, R., Luce, S., & Lewis, P. (2012). Changing the subject: A bottom-up account of Occupy Wall Street in New York City. New York: The Murphy Institute, City University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederer, S., & Van Dijck, J. (2010). Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system. New Media & Society, 12, 1368–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1079–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, G. (2003). Regel und Ausnahme. Suhrkamp: Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung. Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papsdorf, C. (2009). Wie Surfen zu Arbeit wird. Crowdsourcing im Web 2.0. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. [1937] (1949). The structure of social action. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory & Society, 20, 725–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2016). Constructing public space: Global perspectives on social media and popular contestation. International Journal of Communication, 10, 226–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10, 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2012). WikiLeaks: The illusion of transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D. (1994). Modernisierung und neue soziale Bewegungen. Deutschland, Frankreich und USA im Vergleich. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrape, J.-F. (2017). Reciprocal irritations: Social media, mass media and the public sphere. In R. Paul, M. Mölders, A. Bora, M. Huber, & P. Münte (Eds.), Society, regulation and governance: New modes of shaping social change? (pp. 138–150). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2013). Civic engagement in the digital age. Report of the PEW Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stäheli, U. (2012). Infrastrukturen des Kollektiven: alte Medien – neue Kollektive? Zeitschrift für Medien- und Kulturforschung, 2, 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thackston, R., & Umphress, D. (2012). Micropreneurs: The rise of the MicroISV. IT Professional, 3(2012), 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C., & Rule, J. (1965). Measuring political upheaval. Princeton: Center for International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vehlken, S. (2013). Zootechnologies: Swarming as a cultural technique. Theory, Culture & Society, 30, 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, I., & Duyvendak, J. W. (2017). Understanding governmental activism. Social Movement Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1338942. (ahead-of-print).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werle, R. (2011). Institutional analysis of technical innovation. A review. SOI Discussion Paper 2011-4. Stuttgart: Institute for Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Sciences (SOWI VI), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Ulrich Dolata & Jan-Felix Schrape

Authors
  1. Ulrich Dolata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Felix Schrape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Dolata .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dolata, U., Schrape, JF. (2018). Collective Action in the Digital Age: An Actor-Based Typology. In: Collectivity and Power on the Internet. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78413-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78414-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation