Understanding a digital movement of opinion: the case of #RefugeesWelcome

References

• Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. (2014). Mobilization through online networks: The political protest of the Indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17(6), 750–764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvidsson, A., Caliandro, A., Airoldi, A., & Barina, S. (2016). Crowds and value. Italian directioners on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 921–939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailo, F., & Vromen, A. (2016). Hybrid social and news media protest events: From MarchinMarch to BusttheBudget in Australia. Information, Communication & Society, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Job Market Paper, New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an Echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barisione, M., & Ceron, A. (2017). A digital movement of opinion? Contesting austerity through social media. In M. Barisione & A. Michailidou (Eds.), Social Media and European politics: Rethinking power and legitimacy in the digital Era (pp. 89–118). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Baym, N., & boyd, d. (2012). Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 320–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, L. W. (2003). Communication global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. Information, Communication & Society, 6(2), 143–168.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 8, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524–538. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2012). Researching news discussion on Twitter: New methodologies. Journalism Studies, 13(5–6), 801–814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvo, E., Dunford, E., & Lund, N. (2016). Hashtags that matter: Measuring the propagation of Tweets in the Dilma crisis. Research note. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306275910_Hashtags_that_Matter_Measuring_the_propagation_of_Tweets_in_the_Dilma_Crisis
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, D. M., Waugh, B., Abdipanah, M., & Hashemi, O. (2014). Twitter deception and influence: Issues of identity, slacktivism, and puppetry. Journal of Information Warfare, 13(1), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2013). The political web: Media, participation and alternative democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Big data, big questions working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research (pp. 457–488). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Gephi.org. (2016). Gephi: The open graph viz platform. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/
   Google Scholar
• Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., & Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, S. M., & Castañeda, H. (2016). Representing the ‘European refugee crisis’ in Germany and beyond: Deservingness and difference, life and death. American Ethnologist, 43(1), 12–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media dissent and networked counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65, 932–952. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D., & Vedel, T. (2016). Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media and Society, 18(9), 1807–1816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content analysis in an era of big data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(1), 34–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loader, B., Steel, H., & Burgum, S. (2015). Introduction to virtual special issue: Social movement protest and organization. Information, Communication & Society. http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/ah/ics-vsi/social-movement#23092
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1971). Offentliche meinung. In N. Luhmann (Ed.), Politische planung (pp. 9–34). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Maireder, A., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2012). A movement of connected individuals: Social media in the Austrian student protest 2009. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 171–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makazhanov, A., Rafiei, D., & Waqar, M. (2014). Predicting political preference of Twitter users. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Michailidou, A. (2017). Twitter, public engagement and the Eurocrisis: More than an echo chamber? In M. Barisione & A. Michailidou (Eds.), Social media and European politics: Rethinking power and legitimacy in the digital era (pp. 275–300). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Murthy, D., Powell, A. B., Tinati, R., Anstead, N., Carr, L., Halford, S. J., & Weal, M. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| bots and political influence: A sociotechnical investigation of social network capital. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4952–4971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogan, C., & Varol, O. (2016). What is gained and what is left to be done when content analysis is added to network analysis in the study of a social movement: Twitter use during Gezi Park. Information, Communication & Society, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1229006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perrin, A. J., & McFarland, K. (2011). Social theory and public opinion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 87–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieder, B. (2012). The refraction chamber: Twitter as sphere and network. First Monday, 17(11), 1–16. doi: 10.5210/fm.v17i11.4199
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segesten, A. D., & Bossetta, M. (2016). A typology of political participation online: How citizens used Twitter to mobilize during the 2015 British general elections. Information, Communication & Society, 11, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., Goh, D., & Pang, N. (2016). Social media and citizen engagement: A meta-analytic review. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1817–1839. doi: 10.1177/1461444815616221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Part 2: Conversational archetypes: Six conversation and group network structures in Twitter. Report, Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/20/part-2-conversational-archetypes-six-conversation-and-group-network-structures-in-twitter/
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and mass politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Texifter. (2016). Discovertext text analytics. Amherst, MA: Texifter LCC. Retrieved from http://discovertext.com
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, C. (2004). Social Movements, 1768-2004. Paradigm Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, C., & Wood, L. J. (2015). Social Movements 1768-2012 (pp. 1768–2012). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327.
   Google Scholar
• Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar