Social Media and Society, London, July, 2016http://socialmediaandsociety.org/

Non-public eParticipation in Social Media Spaces

Dr Ella Taylor-Smith (@EllaTasm) and Dr Colin F. Smith

www.iidi.napier.ac.uk/e.taylor-smithwww.iidi.napier.ac.uk/cf.smith

Summary: technology as context

Focusing on the relationship between activitiesand contexts in citizen-led participation.

These contexts are described as

participation spaces.

Participation spaces are sociotechnical assemblages

Participation spaces are sociotechnical assemblages

Human and non-human artefacts and processesworking together.

cf. Sociomaterial assemblages (Suchman, 2007)e.g. Google search (Orlikowski, 2007)

Habermas’ Public SphereOldenburg’s 3rd Places

Political talk and deliberation

Deliberation/ Public Sphere (Habermas, 1964; 1989)

Third Places (Oldenburg, 1999; Wright, 2012)

Everyday political talk (Kim and Kim, 2008)

Wife Swap forums (Graham, 2012)

Goffman’s regionsCornwall and Hassan’s spaces

Place/ behaviourGoffman (1971): audienceBack region: preparationFront region: performance

Cornwall (2002): ownershipParticipation initiativesInvited spaces: top-downCreated spaces: bottom-up

Case study groups

1. Local anti-cuts group2. Community improvement

group3. School parents’ campaign

against planning application

Data collection• Interviews• Participant observation

(in on and offline spaces)

Case studies and data collection

Participation spaces modelled as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks

Participation spaces (online and offline spaces)

CS1Anti-cuts group

CS2Community group

CS3Parents’ campaign

Community centre meeting roomFacebook pageEmailFlyersTwitterAlliance blog

WordPress blogHill Facebook groupHill Facebook pageHill.org websiteOrg’s OfficeHill Village TwitterDirectory magazine

Reply-all email listPC Facebook groupThe PlaygroundCity planning portalCity ChambersHyperlocal paper (website and newssheet)

Modelling participation spaces as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks

STIN heuristicsto model participation spaces

H1 System interactorsH2 Core interactor groupsH3 IncentivesH4 Excluded actors,

undesired interactionsH5 Communication forumsH6 Resource flowsH7 System architectural choice pointsH8 Viable configurations and trade-offs

Kling, McKim and King, 2003

Modelling participation spaces as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks

Findings: spatial characteristics influence use

Use of both online and offline spaces influenced by:

• boundaries• inhabitants• access• ownership• cost

Findings: most participation takes place in non-public spaces

Closed Facebook groups (and email)

Can see/ know likely audience.Defined boundaries and inhabitants.Like Goffman’s back region.

All social media spaces considered public for government employees.

Findings: free space =shared ownership

Ownership and cost

Free to the group: shared ownership (Cornwall’s Created Spaces).

Costs of social media diversifiedand moved to background, e.g. devices + Internet.(Polymedia: Madianou and Miller, 2012).

Findings: invisible, informational work

The Iceberg of participation

Hidden (non-public) worksupports public outputs.

Most work (and discussion) is organisation,not performance, or public deliberation.

Findings: photos

Photos

Practical and influential vehicles for emotion and information.

On social mediaand in e.g. Planning Committee hearing.

cf. affect and impact (Papacharissi, 2014)and Media Logic (Altheide, 2004)

Findings: Boundary objects

Facebook as Boundary Object

Information objects which support collaboration of people from different social worlds.

(Star and Griesemer, 1989)

End. Thanks. Questions.

However, social media spaces are mutable, permeable, and subjective spaces.

Dr Ella Taylor-Smith (@EllaTasm) and Dr Colin F. Smith,School of Computing,Edinburgh Napier University.

Woodcuts: thanks to Van Gogh Museum.

References

Altheide, D. (2004). Media logic and political communication. Political Communication. 21 (3). Pp.293-296.Cornwall, A. (2002) Locating Citizen Participation. IDS Bulletin. 33 (2). Pp49-58.Goffman, E. (1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Originally published, New York: Doubleday; London: Mayflower, 1959.Graham, T. (2012). Beyond “Political” Communicative Spaces: Talking Politics on the Wife Swap Discussion Forum. Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 9 (1). Pp.31–45.Habermas, J. (1964). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopaedia Article. New German Critique. 3 (Autumn, 1974). Pp. 49-55.Hassan, G. (2014). Independence of the Scottish mind elite narratives, public spaces and the making of a modern nation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Kim, J. and Kim, E.J. (2008). Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue. Communication Theory. 18. Pp.51–70.Kling, R., McKim, G. and King, A. (2003). A Bit More to IT: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (1). Pp.46-67.Madianou, M. and Miller, D. (2012). Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. New York: Routledge.Oldenburg, R. (1999). Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of the Community. 3rd edition. New York: Marlow.Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies. 28 (9). Pp.1435-1448.Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, "translations" and boundary objects: amateursand professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Studies of Social Science. 19 (3). Pp.387-420.Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, (2nd edition). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Wright, S. (2012). From ‘third place’ to ‘Third Space’: everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. Javnost. 19 (3). Pp. 5-20.