Emergent Networks of Topical Discourse: A Comparative Framing and Social Network Analysis of the Coffee Party and Tea Party Patriots Groups on Facebook

  • Christopher M. MascaroEmail author
  • Alison N. Novak
  • Sean P. Goggins
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)


In this chapter, we examine and compare the activity in the two politically focused Facebook groups, “Join the Coffee Party Movement” and “Tea Party Patriots,” from the time period immediately preceding the 2010 mid-term elections through the week following the seating of the newly elected Congress (October 25, 2010–January 12, 2011). We incorporate social network analysis of electronic trace data coupled with a framing analysis of the topics posted by the group administrators (parent posts) to provide an understanding of the agenda setting practices of administrators and subsequent discourse from the participants that occur in these two groups. Through this analysis we identify three interesting findings. First, there are shared topics of discourse that are framed differently in the two groups.


Social Network Analysis Parent Post Betweenness Centrality Agenda Setting Online Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agre, P. E. (2004). The Practical Republic: Social Skills and the Progress of Citizenship. In A. Feenberg (Ed.), Community in the Digital Age (pp. 201–224). Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Bebbe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (2009). Communicating in Small groups: Practices and Principles (9). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Cassell, J., Huffaker, D., Tversky, D., & Ferriman, K. (2006). The language of online leadership: Gender and youth engagement on the Internet. Developmental Psychology, 42, 436–449.Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, H., & Drezner, D. (2008). The Power and Politics of Blogs. Public Choice, 134, 15–30.Google Scholar
  6. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.Google Scholar
  7. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  9. Goggins, S., Galyen, K., & Laffey, J. (2010). Network Analysis of Trace Data for the Support of Group Work: Activity Patterns in a Completely Online Course. Proceedings from ACM Group, Sanibel Island, FL.Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Kaltenbrunner, A., & Banchs, R. E. (2010). The structure of political discussion networks: a model for the analysis of online deliberation. Journal of Information Technology, 2010, 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1992). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1997). Computer-Mediated Political Communication: The USENET and Political Communities. Political Communication, 14(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, J. (2007). The Chechnya Conflict: freedom fighters of terrorists? Demokratizatsiva, 15, 293–311.Google Scholar
  14. Karpowitz, C. F., Monson, J. Q., Patterson, K. D., & Pope, J. C. (2011). Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the 2010 Midterm Elections. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(2), 303–309.Google Scholar
  15. Kavanaugh, A., Perez-Quinones, M. A., Tedesco, J., & Sanders, W. (2010). Toward a Virtual Town Square in the Era of Web 2.0. International Handbook of Internet Research, 2010, 279–294.Google Scholar
  16. Mascaro, C., & Goggins, S. (2011a). Brewing Up Citizen Engagement: The Coffee Party on Facebook. Proceedings from Communities and Technologies, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  17. Mascaro, C., & Goggins, S. (2011b). The Daily Brew: The Structural Evolution of the Coffee Party on Facebook During the 2010 United States Midterm Election Season. Proceedings from 2011 Political Networks Conference at The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  18. Mascaro, C., Novak, A., & Goggins, S. (2012). Shepherding and Censorship: Discourse Management in the Tea Party Patriots Facebook Group. Proceedings from Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (E-Government Track), Grand Wailea Maui, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  19. McCombs, M. (1994). News Influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbraum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6, 543–557.Google Scholar
  21. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. J. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Towards a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221–246.Google Scholar
  23. Opsahl, T. (2009). Structure and Evolution of Weighted Networks. Ph.D. University of London, London, UK.Google Scholar
  24. Park, A. (2010). Why I started Coffee Party USA. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from
  25. Rainie, L. (2011). The Internet and Campaign 2010. Retrieved from
  26. Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., & Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Information Polity, 15, 11–31.Google Scholar
  27. Spillius, A. (2010). US Midterms: Coffee Party Emerges to take on the Tea Party. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from
  28. Sweetser, K. D., & Weaver Lariscy, R. (2008). Candidates Make Good Friends: An Analysis of Candidates’ Uses of Facebook. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(3), 175–198.Google Scholar
  29. Urbina, I. (2009). Beyond Beltway, Health Debate Turns Hostile. New York Times,.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, C., & Gulati, G. J. (2007). Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 Midterm Elections. Proceedings from American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Williams, C., & Gulati, G. J. (2009). Facebook Grows Up: An Empirical Assessment of its Role in the 2008 Congressional Elections. Proceedings from Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Woodly, D. (2008). New Competencies in Democratic Communication: Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 134, 109–123.Google Scholar
  33. Zak, D. (2010). Coffee Party activists say their civic brew’s a tastier choice than Tea Party’s. Washington Post.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Mascaro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alison N. Novak
    • 2
  • Sean P. Goggins
    • 1
  1. 1.Drexel University, College of Information Science and TechnologyPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Drexel University, College of Arts and SciencesPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations