![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article summarizes the first part of the findings of a larger study which gathers data on Turkish activists’ perceptions on the scope, strength and limitations of digital activism. Specifically, the study explores what strength Turkish activists attribute to digital activism in achieving certain objectives, whether Turkish activists are optimistic, pessimistic or persistent in their attributions related to digital activism, and whether they believe in the possibility of an e-revolution. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected via a web-based survey of 302 activists. The survey employed a Likert Scale to measure the efficacy that Turkish activists attribute to digital activism in achieving different objectives as well as six open-ended questions that provide in-depth qualitative data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Amin, “The Empire Strikes Back,” 64.
2. Putnam, Bowling Alone; Schulman, “Case Against Mass e-Mails”; and Morozov, “The Brave New World.”
3. Micó and Ripollés, “Political Activism Online,” 861.
4. Harp, Bachmann, and Guo, “The Whole Online World,” 300–1.
5. Kenski and Stroud, “Connections Between Internet Use.”
6. Harp, Bachmann and Guo, “The Whole Online World,” 300–1.
7. Swann, Cases in Public Relations, 226.
8. Yang, Power of the Internet, 3.
9. Ibid., 3.
10. Shah, “Citizen Action,” 666.
11. Burns and Eltham, “Twitter Free Iran,” 299.
12. Baraković, “Facebook Revolutions,” 195.
13. Jurgenson, “When Atom Meet Bits,” 83.
14. Peña-López, Congosto and Aragón, “Spanish Indignados and Evolution,” 212.
15. Sivitanides and Shah, “Era of Digital Activism,” 4–5.
16. Wray, “On Electronic Civil Obedience,” 108–9.
17. Ibid., 109.
18. Micó and Ripollés, “Political Activism Online,” 860.
19. Sivitanides and Shah, “Era of Digital Activism,” 4.
20. Murdoch, “Destructive Activism,” 139.
21. Jurgenson, “When Atom Meet Bits,” 87.
22. Murdoch, “Destructive Activism.” 146.
23. Micó and Ripollés, “Political Activism Online,” 862.
24. Ghannam, “Social Media, 2011 Uprisings,” 7.
25. Şener, “Social Media, Social Struggle,” 194.
26. Watson et al., “Citizen (In)Security?” 300.
27. Gerbaudo, Tweets and the Streets, 162.
28. Ghannam, “Social Media, 2011 Uprisings,” 16.
29. Harp, Bachmann and Guo, “The Whole Online World,” 299.
30. Sivitanides and Shah, “Era of Digital Activism,” 3.
31. Ghannam, “Social Media, 2011 Uprisings,” 5, 7.
32. Sivitanides and Shah, “Era of Digital Activism,” 2.
33. Putnam, Bowling Alone; Schulman, “Case Against Mass e-Mails”; and Morozov, “The Brave New World.”
34. Micó and Ripollés, “Political Activism Online,” 860, and Sivitanides and Shah, “Era of Digital Activism,” 5.
35. Bölükbaşı, Devrim Taksim’de Göz Kırptı [Revolution Winked in Taksim], 18.
36. Peña-López, Congosto and Aragón, “Spanish Indignados and Evolution,” 213.
37. Benford, “Social Movement Framing Perspective,” 412.
38. Taştan, “Gezi Park Protests,” 33, and Sarfati, “Dynamics of Mobilization,” 26.
39. Goodwin, Jasper and Polletta, “Return of the Repressed.”
40. Personal communication, May 29, 2013; May 12, 2015.
41. Hornsey et al., “Why Collective Action,” 4.
42. Yin, Case Study Research.
43. Peña-López, Congosto and Aragón, “Spanish Indignados and Evolution,” 212.
44. Costa, Social Media in Turkey, 152, 155.
45. Ibid., 138.
46. Black, Doing Quantitative Research.
47. Cho and Lee, “Grounded Theory and Qualitative.”
48. Gürcan and Peker. “Turkey’s Gezi Park Demonstrations.”
49. Bickford et al, “Science Communication.”
50. Lawrence, Sides and Farrell, “Self-Segregation or Deliberation?”
51. Peña-López, Congosto and Aragón, “Spanish Indignados and Evolution,” 192.
52. Sunstein, Republic.com, 199.
53. Deniz, “Gezi Park,” 107.
54. Karkın, et al. “Twitter Use by Politicians.”
55. Akser and Baybars-Hawks, “Media and Democracy in Turkey,” 307–8.
56. May, “Twelve Sycamore Trees,” 300.
57. Baruh and Watson, “Using Twitter for What?”
58. Akgül and Kırlıdoğ, “Internet Censorship in Turkey,” 11.
59. Ahn, “Turkey’s Unraveling Democracy,” 30, 31, 34.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Şenay Yavuz Görkem
Şenay Yavuz Görkem is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Relations and Publicity at Maltepe University. She has BA and MA degrees in applied linguistics and a PhD degree from Istanbul University in public relations and publicity. She believes in the importance of interdisciplinary work and has many national and international publications. Her latest areas of academic interest are digital activism and political humor.