Abstract
Today, a range of research approaches is used to define the so-called influencers in discussions in social media, and one can trace both conceptual and methodological differences in how influencers are defined and tracked. We distinguish between ‘marketing’ and ‘deliberative’ conceptualization of influencers and between metrics based on absolute figures and those from social network analytics; combining them leads to better understanding of user activity and connectivity measures in defining influential users. We add to the existing research by asking whether user activity necessarily leads to better connectivity and by what metrics in online ad hoc discussions, and try to compare the structure of influencers. To do this, we use comparable outbursts of discussions on inter-ethnic conflicts related to immigration. We collect Twitter data on violent conflicts between host and re-settled groups in Russia and Germany and look at top20 user lists by eight parameters of activity and connectivity to assess the structure of influencers in terms of pro/contra-migrant cleavages and institutional belonging. Our results show that, in both discussions, the number of users involved matters most for becoming an influencer by betweenness and pagerank centralities. Also, contrary to expectations, Russian top users all in all are, in general, more neutral, while Germans are more divided, but in both countries pro-migrant media oppose anti-migrant informal leaders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Nieminen, H.: Hegemony and the public sphere: essays on the democratisation of Communication. Department of Media Studies, School of Art, Literature and Music, University of Turku (2000)
Scheufele, D.A., Tewksbury, D.: Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J. Commun. 57(1), 9–20 (2007)
White, C.S.: Citizen participation and the internet: prospects for civic deliberation in the information age. Soc. Stud. 88(1), 23–28 (1997)
White, D.M.: The gate keeper: a case study in the selection of news. Journal. Mass Commun. Q. 27(4), 383 (1950)
Fuchs, C.: Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage, London (2013)
Chadwick, A.: The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., et al.: Influencer: The Power to Change Anything. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, London (2007)
Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York (2010)
Wallsten, K.: Political blogs and the bloggers who blog them: is the political blogosphere and echo chamber. In: American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, pp. 1–4 (2005)
Castells, M.: Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. Int. J. Commun. 1(1), 238–266 (2007)
Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., Adamic, L.: The role of social networks in information diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 519–528. ACM (2012)
Habermas, J.: Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Commun. Theory 16(4), 411–426 (2006)
Dahlgren, P.: Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Bruns, A., Burgess, J.E.: The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011 (2011)
Papacharissi, Z.A.: Affective Publics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)
Bruns, A., Highfield, T.: Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In: Christensen, C., Bruns, A., Enli, G., Skogerbo, E., Larsson, A. (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, pp. 56–73. Routledge, London (2016)
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Blekanov, I.S.: Influencers on the Russian Twitter: institutions vs. people in the discussion on migrants. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 22–23 November 2016, pp. 212–222 (2016)
Hladík, R., Štětka, V.: The powers that tweet: social media as news sources in the Czech Republic. Journal. Stud. 1, 1–21 (2015)
McCombs, M.E., Shaw, D.L.: The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36(2), 176–187 (1972)
McCombs, M.: A look at agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journal. Stud. 6(4), 543–557 (2005)
Fraser, N.: Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Soc. Text 25/26, 56–80 (1990)
Laclau, E., Mouffe, C.: Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Verso, London (2001)
Fenton, N., Downey, J.: Counter public spheres and global modernity. Javnost - Public 10(1), 15–32 (2003)
Dahlberg, L.: The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: radicalizing the public sphere. Int. J. Media Cult. Politics 3(1), 47–64 (2007)
Nakamura, L.: Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. Routledge, London (2013)
Daniels, J.: Race and racism in internet studies: a review and critique. New Media Soc. 15(5), 695–719 (2013)
Pfetsch, B., Adam, S.: Media agenda building in online and offline media–comparing issues and countries. In: Proceedings of the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 25–27 (2011)
Bodrunova, S., Litvinenko, A.: Fragmentation of society and media hybridisation in today? Russia: how Facebook voices collective demands. Zhurnal Issledovanii Sotsial’noi Politiki 14(1), 113–124 (2016)
Norris, P.: Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)
Van Deursen, A.J., Van Dijk, J.A.: The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media Soc. 16(3), 507–526 (2014)
Murthy, D.: Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Wiley, London (2013)
Dubois, E., Gaffney, D.: The multiple facets of influence identifying political influentials and opinion leaders on Twitter. Am. Behav. Sci. 58(10), 1260–1277 (2014)
Aquino, J.: Boost brand advocates and social media influencers. CRM Mag. 17(1), 30–34 (2013)
Papacharissi, Z.A.: A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Polity, London (2010)
Calhoun, C.: Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In: Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the public sphere, pp. 1–50. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)
Katz, E.: The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opin. Q. 21(1), 61–78 (1957)
Hartley, J., Green, J.: The public sphere on the beach. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 9(3), 341–362 (2006)
Morozov, E.: The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy 19(05) (2009). http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/
Broersma, M., Graham, T.: Social media as beat: tweets as a news source during the 2010 British and Dutch elections. Journal. Pract. 6(3), 403–419 (2012)
Lindgren, S., Lundström, R.: Pirate culture and hacktivist mobilization: the cultural and social protocols of# WikiLeaks on Twitter. New Media Soc. 13(6), 999–1018 (2011)
Koltsova, O., Koltcov, S.: Mapping the public agenda with topic modeling: the case of the Russian Livejournal. Policy Internet 5(2), 207–227 (2013)
Bruns, A., Burgess, J.E., Crawford, K., Shaw, F.: #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods. Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. ARC, Brisbane (2012)
Bastos, M.T., Raimundo, R.L.G., Travitzki, R.: Gatekeeping Twitter: message diffusion in political hashtags. Media Cult. Soc. 35(2), 260–270 (2013)
Bruns, A.: Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. Peter Lang, London (2005)
Bodrunova, S.S., Blekanov, I.S., Maksimov, A.: Measuring influencers in Twitter ad-hoc discussions: active users vs. internal networks in the discourse on Biryuliovo bashings in 2013. In: Proceedings of the AINL FRUCT 2016 Conference, item #7891853 (2017). Authors (2016-2)
Almind, T.C., Ingwersen, P.: Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to ‘webometrics’. J. Doc. 53(4), 404–426 (1997)
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 591–600. ACM (2010)
González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Moreno, Y.: Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. Am. Behav. Sci. 57(7), 943–965 (2013). doi:10.1177/0002764213479371
Maireder, A., Weeks, B.E., de Zúñiga, H.G., Schlögl, S.: Big data and political social networks introducing audience diversity and communication connector bridging measures in social network theory. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. (2015). doi:10.1177/0894439315617262
Hilbert, M., Vásquez, J., Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., Arriagada, E.: One step, two step, network step? Complementary perspectives on communication flows in Twittered citizen protests. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. (2016). doi:10.1177/0894439316639561
Jungherr, A.: Twitter as political communication space: publics, prominent users, and politicians. In: Jungherr, A. (ed.) Analyzing Political Communication with Digital Trace Data. CPS, pp. 69–106. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20319-5_4
Adam, S.: Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive. Publizistik 53(2), 180–199 (2008)
Wu, S., Hofman, J.M., Mason, W.A., Watts, D.J.: Who says what to whom on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 705–714. ACM (2011)
Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.: Social media and political communication: a survey of Twitter users during the 2013 Italian general election. Rivista italiana di scienza politica 43(3), 381–410 (2013)
Jungherr, A., Juergens, P.: Through a glass, darkly tactical support and symbolic association in Twitter messages commenting on stuttgart 21. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 32(1), 74–89 (2014)
Fox, S., Zickuhr, K., Smith, A.: Twitter and status updating, fall 2009. Pew Internet Am. Life Proj. 21 (2009)
Page, R.: The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: the role of hashtags Discourse. Communication 6(2), 181–201 (2012)
Vis, F.: Twitter as a reporting tool for breaking news: journalists tweeting the 2011 UK riots. Digit. Journal. 1(1), 27–47 (2013)
Bruns, A.: Social media and journalism during times of crisis. In: Hunsinger, J., Senft, T. (eds.) The Social Media Handbook, pp. 159–175. Routledge, London (2014)
Lotan, G., Graeff, E., Ananny, M., Gaffney, D., Pearce, I.: The arab spring: the revolutions were tweeted: information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Int. J. Commun. 5, 31 (2011)
Gruzd, A., Roy, J.: Investigating political polarization on Twitter: a Canadian perspective. Policy Internet 6(1), 28–45 (2014)
Xu, W.W., Sang, Y., Blasiola, S., Park, H.W.: Predicting opinion leaders in twitter activism networks the case of the Wisconsin recall election. Am. Behav. Sci. (2014). doi:10.1177/0002764214527091
Kissane, D.: How many Twitter users are there in Germany? Quoracom, 27 January 2016. https://www.quora.com/How-many-Twitter-users-are-in-Germany. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sandner, P.G., Welpe, I.M.: Election forecasts with Twitter: how 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. (2010). doi:10.1177/0894439310386557
Hallin, D.C., Mancini, P.: Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)
Dearden, L.: Cologne attacks: support for refugees in Germany falling amid far-right protests and vigilante attacks. The Independent, 13 January 2016. http://www.independentcouk/news/world/europe/cologne-attacks-support-for-refugees-in-germany-plummeting-amid-far-right-protests-and-vigilante-a6808616html. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
Vartanova, E.L.: Post-Soviet Transformations of Media and Journalism. MediaMir, Moscow (2013)
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A.: New media and political protest: the formation of a public counter-sphere in Russia, 2008–12. In: Russia’s Changing Economic and Political Regimes: The Putin Years and Afterwards, pp. 29–65 (2013)
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Gavra, D.P., Yakunin, A.V.: Twitter-based discourse on migrants in Russia: the case of 2013 bashings in Biryulyovo. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 5, 97–104 (2015)
Greene, S.A.: Twitter and the Russian street: memes, networks and mobilization. Working Materials of Center for the Study of New Media Society, Moscow New Economic School (2012). https://ru.scribd.com/document/94393092/Twitter-and-the-Russian-Street-CNMS-WP-2012-1. Accessed 01 Feb 2017
Nikiporets-Takigawa, G.: Tweeting the Russian protests. Digit. Icons: Stud. Russ. Eurasian Central Eur. New Media 9, 1–25 (2013)
Barash, V., Kelly, J.: Salience vs commitment: dynamics of political hashtags in Russian Twitter. Berkman Center Research Publication, no. 2012-9 (2012)
Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., Penfold-Brown, D., Tucker, J.: Turning the virtual tables: government strategies for addressing online opposition with an application to Russia. Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the 2015 Annual Conference of the International Society of New Institutional Economics, June 2015
Blekanov, I.S., Sergeev, S.L., Martynenko, I.A.: Constructing topic-oriented web crawlers with generalized core. Sci. Res. Bull. St. Petersburg State Polytech. Univ. 5(157), 9–15 (2012)
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported in full by Russian Science Foundation (research grant 16-18-10125).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Blekanov, I.S. (2017). Comparing Influencers: Activity vs. Connectivity Measures in Defining Key Actors in Twitter Ad Hoc Discussions on Migrants in Germany and Russia. In: Ciampaglia, G., Mashhadi, A., Yasseri, T. (eds) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10539. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67216-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67217-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)