Trying not to fall out: the importance of non-political social ties in online political conversation

References

• Albrecht, S. (2006). Whose voice is heard in online deliberation? Information, Communication & Society, 9(1), 62–82.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: Will the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete? Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/anderson08/anderson08_index.html
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. (1968). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York, NY: Viking Press.
   Google Scholar
• Basu, S. (1999). Dialogic ethics and the virtue of humor. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(4), 378–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baym, N. K. (2013). Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics. First Monday, 18(10).
   Google Scholar
• Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner (Eds.), Applying Qualitative Methods to Marketing Management Research (pp. 141–156). Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y., Roberts, H., Faris, R., Solow-Niederman, A., & Etling, B. (2015). Social mobilization and the networked public sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA debate. Political Communication, 32(4), 594–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, M., Monroy-Hernández, A., Harry, D., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. (2011). 4chan and /b/: An analysis of anonymity and ephemerality in a large online community. In Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 50–57). Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Birchall, C. (2016). Understanding large scale public political conversation online in austerity Britain through an iterative, quali-quanti investigation. Leeds: University of Leeds.
   Google Scholar
• Birchall, C., & Coleman, S. (2015). Creating spaces for online deliberation. In S. Coleman, & D. G. Freelon (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 264–280). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• boyd, d. , & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data – provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, S. (2004). Whose conversation? Engaging the public in authentic polylogue. Political Quarterly, 75(2), 112–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Moss, G. S. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cindio, F. (2012). Guidelines for designing deliberative digital habitats: Learning from e-participation for open data initiatives. The Journal of Community Informatics.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: An review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dix, A. (2007). Designing for appropriation. In Proceeding of the 21st British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: HCI … but not as we know it – volume 2. Lancaster: British Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas, C. L., LaManna, D., Harrison, T. M., Ravi, S., Kotfila, C., Gervais, N., … Chen, F. (2015). Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in We the people. Big Data & Society, 2(2).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, B., & Strauss, J. (2008). An offline foundation for online accountable pseudonyms. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on social network systems – SocialNets ‘08 (pp. 31–36). Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172–1190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitelman, L., & Jackson, V. (2013). Introduction, raw data is an oxymoron (Gitelman, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T. (2008). Needles in a haystack: A new approach for identifying and assessing political talk in non-political discussion forums. Javnost, 15(2), 17–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T. (2010). The use of expressives in online political talk: Impeding or facilitating the normative goals of deliberation? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic participation ( Vol. 6229, pp. 26–41). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Wright, S. (2015). From everyday conversation to political action: Talking austerity in online ‘third spaces’. European Journal of Communication, 30(6), 648–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Wright, S. (2016). ‘We need to get together and make ourselves heard’: Everyday online spaces as incubators of political action. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1373–1389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2014). Analysing ‘super-participation’ in online third spaces. In S. W. M. Cantijoch, & R. Gibson (Eds.), Analyzing social media data and Web networks (pp. 197–218). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Grudin, J. (2002). Group dynamics and ubiquitous computing: From ‘here and now’ to ‘everywhere and forever’. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 74–78.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hiltz, S., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jhaver, S., Ghoshal, S., Bruckman, A., & Gilbert, E. (2018). Online harassment and content moderation: The case of blocklists. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 25, 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilner, P. G., & Hoadley, C. M. (2005). Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 272–280). Taipei, Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Kling, R., Lee, Y.-C., Teich, A., & Frankel, M. S. (1999). Assessing anonymous communication on the internet: Policy deliberations. The Information Society, 15(2), 79–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampe, C., & Resnick, P. (2004). Slash (dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In Proceedings of CHI (pp. 543–550). Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. C., Holton, A. E., & Coddington, M. (2014). Reciprocal journalism. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 229–241.
   Google Scholar
• Mackay, H., & Gillespie, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping of technology approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 686–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMillan, K., & Koenig, T. (2004). The wow factor: Preconceptions and expectations for data analysis software in qualitative research. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 179–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. Retrieved from http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/trending-the-promises-and-the-challenges-of-big-social-data
   Google Scholar
• Millen, D. R., & Patterson, J. F. (2003). Identity disclosure and the creation of social capital. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 720–721. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2013). Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-democracy policy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 16(3), 410–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23, 443–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg, R. (1999). Great good place. New York, NY: Marlow.
   Google Scholar
• Panyametheekul, S. (2011). Conversational dominance in a Thai chat room. In 2011 international conference on social science and humanity (Vol. 5, pp. 75–79). Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Preece, J., & Shneiderman, B. (2009). The reader-to-leader framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 13–32.
   Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A. (2007). The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication a test of two competing hypotheses. Communication Research, 33(1), 100–125.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, K. A., & Wilson, R. W. (2002). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2), 83–94.
   Google Scholar
• Sack, W. (2001). Conversation Map: An Interface for Very Large-Scale Conversations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 73-92.
   Google Scholar
• Schuler, D. (2009). Online civic deliberation with E-liberate. In T. Davies, & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice (pp. 293–302). Chicago: CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the dark side of political deliberation: The effects of media and political discussion on political interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 679–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2006). Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of control. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(4), 550–568.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2009). The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums. In T. Davies, & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research and practice (pp. 233–242). Chicago: CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press. Vol. 2009 SRC.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media and Society, 9(5), 849–869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar