SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Digitally networked action in european mass protest

•Download as PPSX, PDF•
•
P
polnet

We analyze the characteristics and the effects of emerging mobilization patterns based on intensive use of online social networks and loose organizational affiliation. To what extent is digitally networked action making a difference in political involvement? How different is it from traditional collective action strategies? Based on protest surveys for 57 demonstrations that occurred across 7 European countries between December 2009 and June 2011, we find that protest events staged by coalitions based on social networks and loosely-coupled alliances make a difference in reaching previously uninvolved individuals and those with lower organizational engagement. Evidence of online social networks that enable individual linkages through the personalization of collective frames indicates a possible mechanism for this mobilization effect. These findings provide new evidence for the debate on the potential impact of internet use in reducing political inequalities.

1 of 24
Camilo Cristancho Autonomous University of Barcelona camilo.cristancho@uab.cat Eva Anduiza Autonomous University of Barcelona eva.anduiza@uab.cat ESF Eurocores collaborative research project Caught in the Act of Protest: Contextualizing Contestation , research grant EUI2008-03812
 Theoretical Framework  Research question  Digitally Networked Action – typology  Analysis  Discussion  Conclusions
 Collective action – resource mobilization • Organizing • Leadership • Common frames • Relationship building  Digitally Networked action (Bennet & Segerberg 2012) • Easily personalized action frames • Social technology enabled networks • Loose alliances among organizations
 Towhat extent is Digitally Networked Action making a difference in political involvement? • H1: characteristics of participants - lower levels of political involvement and of its traditional predictors • H2: contents production and identity formation processes - higher levels of individual input into the discursive contents
 Protest survey • Face to face and mail-back surveys • 12,000 demonstrators • 57 major protest events • 7 European countries • 21 cities • between January 2010 and May 2012 www.protestsurvey.eu
 Protest events as one of two types: • Digitally Networked Action (DNA) • Traditional Collective action (TCA) 1. Online social networks as the most important information channel – Easily personalized action frames & Distributed across social technology enabled networks 2. Membership in staging organizations – Leaderless, Loose-ties & Distributed/fluid networks
 Correlation is high and negative (ρ = -0.59)  traditional organizational affiliation and online social network connections as substitute structures for mobilization processes?  trade-off between a centrally-controlled or hierarchical discourse (mobilization frame) and a loosely controlled and co-created meaning in the horizontal network model?
1 March for Work (Brussels) No o Aus e y B usse s We have a e na ves B usse s 1 Mei Mars (Antwerp) Demons a on agains he Demonstration against the new labour law (Santiago de Compostela) aga ns abou aw San ago Compos e a Non P o Demons a on B usse s Pensioenbetoging (Rotterdam) Samen s e k voo pub ek we k Den Haag Membership in Staging Organization S op de s ape ng Den Haag .8 Ma s Waa de ng Den Haag May Day SAP LO Ma mö a Democ a c Pa y S ockho m May 1 Ma ch Soc Fo emp oymen no cap a e o ms De end Ou R gh s V go 1s May Labou Day Ba ce ona Ce eb a on May Day V go May Day F o ence Gene a S ke F o ence Fund Ou Fu u e S op Educa on Cu s London TUC s Ma ch o heMarch (London) G ow h Jus ce London National Climate A e na ve Jobs Beat The Heat (Utrecht) Un e Aga ns Schoon genoeg van Ke nene g e Ams e dam Fasc sm Na ona Demo London Climate Change (Brussels) .6 World March of Women (Bern) Na ona C ma e Ma ch 2010 London gov e An Nuc ea Man es a on A May Day Labour March (London) against language decree (Santiago de Compostela) Demonstration Against the Europe of Capital, Crisis and War (Barcelona) No n Ou Name B usse s May 1st Demonstration (Zurich) Aga ns Labo Law Mad d An nuc ea demons a on S ockho m .4 Climate March (Copenhagen) Second S uden Na ona Demo London Self-determination is democracy (Barcelona) Ma c a Pe ug a Ass s Assmö P de Geneva Geneva May Day Le Pa y Ma s Gay May 1 March, Left Party (Stockholm) S op ac sm and exc us on Ams e dam Take Back Parliament (London) .2 Laat het onderwijs niet leeg lopen (Amsterdam) NL sch eeuw om cu uu Ams e dam We a e a na M we Women Base London on on dec de R ce ona Kenn sc s s Den Haag Demonstration Against Abortion (Madrid) Aga ns ac s po Eu omayday M an No o Ha e C me V g London Occupy London London cu uu U ech NL sch eeuw om Rea Democ acy Now W e a e no good n he hands o po c ans and banke s Mad d No Gove nmen G ea Coun y B usse s 0 0 .2 .4 .6 SOCIAL NETWORK - Mob sat on channe Online Social Network as Mobilization channel (Most important)
Id Demo City Issue N % 29 Against racist politics Stockholm Prejudice 193 6.4 43 Anti-nuclear demonstration Stockholm Environment 283 9.4 58 Gay Pride Geneva Geneva Prejudice 59 2.0 34 Kenniscrisis Den Haag Student 280 9.3 12 Laat het onderwijs niet leeg lopen Amsterdam Student 161 5.3 31 NL schreeuwt om cultuur Amsterdam Austerity 174 5.8 32 NL schreeuwt om cultuur Utrecht Austerity 171 5.7 28 No Government, Great Country Brussels Democracy 365 12.0 23 No to Hate Crime Vigil London Prejudice 169 5.6 56 Occupy London London Democracy 70 2.3 51 Real Democracy Now! Madrid Democracy 350 11.6 27 Second Student National Demo London Austerity 98 3.2 16 Self-determination is democracy Barcelona Democracy 301 10.0 11 Take Back Parliament London Democracy 351 11.6
H1  DV1 - 1 for DNA and 0 for TCA events Events Cases % tca 43 8,991 74,83 dna 14 3,025 25.17 Total 57 12,016 100.00 DV2 – Online social networks as MIIC & Membership in staging organizations  IV – • Socio-economic status • Political attitudes • Collective efficacy • Demonstration effectiveness
H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN -0.240*** -0.211*** 47.0*** 40.1 Age (12 – 76) (0.027) (0.016) (14.6) (16.5) -0 0.017*** 0.47*** 0.49 Gender (Female) (0.009) (0.005) (0.5) (0.5) 0.211*** 0.043*** 5.62*** 6.21 Education (1-8) (0.023) (0.012) (1.6) (1.4) 0.032* 0.022** 0.06*** 0.07 Unemployed (%) (0.018) (0.010) (0.2) (0.3)
H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Logistic Biprobit regression for regression for non-membership in TCA DNA DNA staging org. & OSN -0.342*** -0.098*** 2.7*** 2.2 Formal embeddedness (0.028) (0.015) (2.3) (2.1) -0.214*** -0.133*** Identify with any org. 2.9*** 2.5 staging demo (0.019) (0.011) (1.0) (1.2) Identify with the other 0.110*** 0.019 3.1*** 3.0 people present at demo (0.025) (0.013) (0.8) (0.8) Interpersonal 0.04 -0.023 1.1*** 1.2 Mobilisation - Asked (0.041) (0.022) (0.7) (0.8) Interpersonal 0.168*** 0.064*** 1.5*** 1.5 Mobilisation -Asked by (0.026) (0.014) (1.3) (1.3)
H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN 0.056*** 0.020** 0.5*** 0.5 Contact, petition, donate (0.018) (0.010) (0.3) (0.3) 0.030** 0.001 0.6* 0.6 Political consumerism (0.013) (0.007) (0.4) (0.4) 0.011 0.014** 0.5*** 0.5 Expressive participation (0.010) (0.006) (0.5) (0.5) -0.129*** -0.066*** 0.2*** 0.1 Direct action (0.019) (0.010) (0.3) (0.3) -0.001 -0.012 0.0 0.0 Violent action (0.043) (0.022) (0.1) (0.1) 0.018 0.01 0.9*** 0.9 Vote (0.015) (0.008) (0.3) (0.3) -0.054*** -0 3.5*** 3.0 Protest experience (Life) (0.019) (0.010) (1.4) (1.4)
H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN 0.124*** 0.047*** 3.3* 3.3 Interest in politics (0.022) (0.012) (0.7) (0.7) -0.014 -0.024* 2.8 2.8 Individual internal efficacy (0.024) (0.013) (0.9) (0.9) -0.066** 0.013 3.0*** 3.0 Collective internal efficacy (0.026) (0.015) (0.8) (0.8) 0.130*** 0.041*** 2.5*** 3.0 Ideology (Right) (0.024) (0.013) (2.2) (2.0) 0.138*** 0.043*** 3.3*** 3.4 Demonstration efficacy (0.017) (0.009) (1.1) (1.1) -0.271*** -0.054*** 3.0*** 2.4 Decision time (0.014) (0.008) (0.9) (0.9)
H1  Mobilization potential DNA demonstrators are: • younger • higher chance for women • lower formal involvement in associational life • less experience in some forms of political participation • less ideologically identified with the left • less believe that the event will reach its goals • lower conviction for effectiveness of organized group action in influencing policy decisions  Reinforcement • more educated • higher class • interest in politics • more results oriented
H2 Distribution of number of terms used in DNA and TCA events .05 .04 .03 Density .02 .01 0 0 20 40 60 Number of terms provided in reasons to take part in the demonstration TCA DNA
H2 Concentration in DNA and TCA events 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Cumulative population proportion TCA DNA
H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Not being a member of staging organizations 0.31* 0.15 Mobilization by online social networks -0.42** 0.15 Age 0.14 0.38 Gender (Female) 0.01 0.12 Education -0.54 0.36 Formal embeddedness (Count) -0.70** 0.27 Identify with any organization staging the demonstration -0.41 0.30 Identify with other people present at the demonstration -0.21 0.39
H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Past participation index -0.09 0.60 Vote 0.53** 0.23 Protest experience (Life) -0.25 0.28 Protest experience (last 12 months) -0,05 0.38 Interest in politics 0.68* 0.36 Individual internal efficacy -0.32 0.55 Collective internal efficacy 2.45*** 0.75 Ideology (Right) 0.38 0.36 Demonstration efficacy 0.14 0.12 Number of reported organizations staging the demo 0.09 0.11
H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Anti-abortion -0.13 0.19 Prejudice -0.02 0.06 Austerity 0.09** 0.04 Democracy -0.15** 0.06 Environment 0.06 0.06 Peace -0.16* 0.09 Students 0.07 0.12 Women 0.01 0.08 Constant -1.43** 0.56 Workers as reference category
H2  Small but significant differences  Effect of involvement in staging organizations ≠ mobilization by online social networks • Formal embeddedness – organizational attribute or strategic behaviour to reach out in the context of calls to action  Differences between issues • democracy and peace have lower concentration when compared to workers’ issues
social networks  involvement of  online unusual demonstrators  mobilization effect  weak affiliations to organizations  low previous engagement in protest or other forms of political involvement • Entry-barriers?  Political interest  High expectations - results oriented motivations  Fora wide diversity of issues and contexts online social networks  personal action frames
 Caveats • Endogeneity of organizational engagement • Combined effects of online/offlinenetworks  Future research • Organizational attributes • Demonstrations online • Effects of personalized action frames
Comments greatly appreciated camilo.cristancho@uab.cat

More Related Content

Digitally networked action in european mass protest

  • 1. Camilo Cristancho Autonomous University of Barcelona camilo.cristancho@uab.cat Eva Anduiza Autonomous University of Barcelona eva.anduiza@uab.cat ESF Eurocores collaborative research project Caught in the Act of Protest: Contextualizing Contestation , research grant EUI2008-03812
  • 2.  Theoretical Framework  Research question  Digitally Networked Action – typology  Analysis  Discussion  Conclusions
  • 3.  Collective action – resource mobilization • Organizing • Leadership • Common frames • Relationship building  Digitally Networked action (Bennet & Segerberg 2012) • Easily personalized action frames • Social technology enabled networks • Loose alliances among organizations
  • 4.  Towhat extent is Digitally Networked Action making a difference in political involvement? • H1: characteristics of participants - lower levels of political involvement and of its traditional predictors • H2: contents production and identity formation processes - higher levels of individual input into the discursive contents
  • 5.  Protest survey • Face to face and mail-back surveys • 12,000 demonstrators • 57 major protest events • 7 European countries • 21 cities • between January 2010 and May 2012 www.protestsurvey.eu
  • 6.  Protest events as one of two types: • Digitally Networked Action (DNA) • Traditional Collective action (TCA) 1. Online social networks as the most important information channel – Easily personalized action frames & Distributed across social technology enabled networks 2. Membership in staging organizations – Leaderless, Loose-ties & Distributed/fluid networks
  • 7.  Correlation is high and negative (ρ = -0.59)  traditional organizational affiliation and online social network connections as substitute structures for mobilization processes?  trade-off between a centrally-controlled or hierarchical discourse (mobilization frame) and a loosely controlled and co-created meaning in the horizontal network model?
  • 8. 1 March for Work (Brussels) No o Aus e y B usse s We have a e na ves B usse s 1 Mei Mars (Antwerp) Demons a on agains he Demonstration against the new labour law (Santiago de Compostela) aga ns abou aw San ago Compos e a Non P o Demons a on B usse s Pensioenbetoging (Rotterdam) Samen s e k voo pub ek we k Den Haag Membership in Staging Organization S op de s ape ng Den Haag .8 Ma s Waa de ng Den Haag May Day SAP LO Ma mö a Democ a c Pa y S ockho m May 1 Ma ch Soc Fo emp oymen no cap a e o ms De end Ou R gh s V go 1s May Labou Day Ba ce ona Ce eb a on May Day V go May Day F o ence Gene a S ke F o ence Fund Ou Fu u e S op Educa on Cu s London TUC s Ma ch o heMarch (London) G ow h Jus ce London National Climate A e na ve Jobs Beat The Heat (Utrecht) Un e Aga ns Schoon genoeg van Ke nene g e Ams e dam Fasc sm Na ona Demo London Climate Change (Brussels) .6 World March of Women (Bern) Na ona C ma e Ma ch 2010 London gov e An Nuc ea Man es a on A May Day Labour March (London) against language decree (Santiago de Compostela) Demonstration Against the Europe of Capital, Crisis and War (Barcelona) No n Ou Name B usse s May 1st Demonstration (Zurich) Aga ns Labo Law Mad d An nuc ea demons a on S ockho m .4 Climate March (Copenhagen) Second S uden Na ona Demo London Self-determination is democracy (Barcelona) Ma c a Pe ug a Ass s Assmö P de Geneva Geneva May Day Le Pa y Ma s Gay May 1 March, Left Party (Stockholm) S op ac sm and exc us on Ams e dam Take Back Parliament (London) .2 Laat het onderwijs niet leeg lopen (Amsterdam) NL sch eeuw om cu uu Ams e dam We a e a na M we Women Base London on on dec de R ce ona Kenn sc s s Den Haag Demonstration Against Abortion (Madrid) Aga ns ac s po Eu omayday M an No o Ha e C me V g London Occupy London London cu uu U ech NL sch eeuw om Rea Democ acy Now W e a e no good n he hands o po c ans and banke s Mad d No Gove nmen G ea Coun y B usse s 0 0 .2 .4 .6 SOCIAL NETWORK - Mob sat on channe Online Social Network as Mobilization channel (Most important)
  • 9. Id Demo City Issue N % 29 Against racist politics Stockholm Prejudice 193 6.4 43 Anti-nuclear demonstration Stockholm Environment 283 9.4 58 Gay Pride Geneva Geneva Prejudice 59 2.0 34 Kenniscrisis Den Haag Student 280 9.3 12 Laat het onderwijs niet leeg lopen Amsterdam Student 161 5.3 31 NL schreeuwt om cultuur Amsterdam Austerity 174 5.8 32 NL schreeuwt om cultuur Utrecht Austerity 171 5.7 28 No Government, Great Country Brussels Democracy 365 12.0 23 No to Hate Crime Vigil London Prejudice 169 5.6 56 Occupy London London Democracy 70 2.3 51 Real Democracy Now! Madrid Democracy 350 11.6 27 Second Student National Demo London Austerity 98 3.2 16 Self-determination is democracy Barcelona Democracy 301 10.0 11 Take Back Parliament London Democracy 351 11.6
  • 10. H1  DV1 - 1 for DNA and 0 for TCA events Events Cases % tca 43 8,991 74,83 dna 14 3,025 25.17 Total 57 12,016 100.00 DV2 – Online social networks as MIIC & Membership in staging organizations  IV – • Socio-economic status • Political attitudes • Collective efficacy • Demonstration effectiveness
  • 11. H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN -0.240*** -0.211*** 47.0*** 40.1 Age (12 – 76) (0.027) (0.016) (14.6) (16.5) -0 0.017*** 0.47*** 0.49 Gender (Female) (0.009) (0.005) (0.5) (0.5) 0.211*** 0.043*** 5.62*** 6.21 Education (1-8) (0.023) (0.012) (1.6) (1.4) 0.032* 0.022** 0.06*** 0.07 Unemployed (%) (0.018) (0.010) (0.2) (0.3)
  • 12. H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Logistic Biprobit regression for regression for non-membership in TCA DNA DNA staging org. & OSN -0.342*** -0.098*** 2.7*** 2.2 Formal embeddedness (0.028) (0.015) (2.3) (2.1) -0.214*** -0.133*** Identify with any org. 2.9*** 2.5 staging demo (0.019) (0.011) (1.0) (1.2) Identify with the other 0.110*** 0.019 3.1*** 3.0 people present at demo (0.025) (0.013) (0.8) (0.8) Interpersonal 0.04 -0.023 1.1*** 1.2 Mobilisation - Asked (0.041) (0.022) (0.7) (0.8) Interpersonal 0.168*** 0.064*** 1.5*** 1.5 Mobilisation -Asked by (0.026) (0.014) (1.3) (1.3)
  • 13. H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN 0.056*** 0.020** 0.5*** 0.5 Contact, petition, donate (0.018) (0.010) (0.3) (0.3) 0.030** 0.001 0.6* 0.6 Political consumerism (0.013) (0.007) (0.4) (0.4) 0.011 0.014** 0.5*** 0.5 Expressive participation (0.010) (0.006) (0.5) (0.5) -0.129*** -0.066*** 0.2*** 0.1 Direct action (0.019) (0.010) (0.3) (0.3) -0.001 -0.012 0.0 0.0 Violent action (0.043) (0.022) (0.1) (0.1) 0.018 0.01 0.9*** 0.9 Vote (0.015) (0.008) (0.3) (0.3) -0.054*** -0 3.5*** 3.0 Protest experience (Life) (0.019) (0.010) (1.4) (1.4)
  • 14. H1 Marginal effects Mean differences Biprobit regression for Logistic regression for DNA non-membership in TCA DNA staging org. & OSN 0.124*** 0.047*** 3.3* 3.3 Interest in politics (0.022) (0.012) (0.7) (0.7) -0.014 -0.024* 2.8 2.8 Individual internal efficacy (0.024) (0.013) (0.9) (0.9) -0.066** 0.013 3.0*** 3.0 Collective internal efficacy (0.026) (0.015) (0.8) (0.8) 0.130*** 0.041*** 2.5*** 3.0 Ideology (Right) (0.024) (0.013) (2.2) (2.0) 0.138*** 0.043*** 3.3*** 3.4 Demonstration efficacy (0.017) (0.009) (1.1) (1.1) -0.271*** -0.054*** 3.0*** 2.4 Decision time (0.014) (0.008) (0.9) (0.9)
  • 15. H1  Mobilization potential DNA demonstrators are: • younger • higher chance for women • lower formal involvement in associational life • less experience in some forms of political participation • less ideologically identified with the left • less believe that the event will reach its goals • lower conviction for effectiveness of organized group action in influencing policy decisions  Reinforcement • more educated • higher class • interest in politics • more results oriented
  • 16. H2 Distribution of number of terms used in DNA and TCA events .05 .04 .03 Density .02 .01 0 0 20 40 60 Number of terms provided in reasons to take part in the demonstration TCA DNA
  • 17. H2 Concentration in DNA and TCA events 1 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Cumulative population proportion TCA DNA
  • 18. H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Not being a member of staging organizations 0.31* 0.15 Mobilization by online social networks -0.42** 0.15 Age 0.14 0.38 Gender (Female) 0.01 0.12 Education -0.54 0.36 Formal embeddedness (Count) -0.70** 0.27 Identify with any organization staging the demonstration -0.41 0.30 Identify with other people present at the demonstration -0.21 0.39
  • 19. H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Past participation index -0.09 0.60 Vote 0.53** 0.23 Protest experience (Life) -0.25 0.28 Protest experience (last 12 months) -0,05 0.38 Interest in politics 0.68* 0.36 Individual internal efficacy -0.32 0.55 Collective internal efficacy 2.45*** 0.75 Ideology (Right) 0.38 0.36 Demonstration efficacy 0.14 0.12 Number of reported organizations staging the demo 0.09 0.11
  • 20. H2 OLS for individual input in framing B SE Anti-abortion -0.13 0.19 Prejudice -0.02 0.06 Austerity 0.09** 0.04 Democracy -0.15** 0.06 Environment 0.06 0.06 Peace -0.16* 0.09 Students 0.07 0.12 Women 0.01 0.08 Constant -1.43** 0.56 Workers as reference category
  • 21. H2  Small but significant differences  Effect of involvement in staging organizations ≠ mobilization by online social networks • Formal embeddedness – organizational attribute or strategic behaviour to reach out in the context of calls to action  Differences between issues • democracy and peace have lower concentration when compared to workers’ issues
  • 22. social networks  involvement of  online unusual demonstrators  mobilization effect  weak affiliations to organizations  low previous engagement in protest or other forms of political involvement • Entry-barriers?  Political interest  High expectations - results oriented motivations  Fora wide diversity of issues and contexts online social networks  personal action frames
  • 23.  Caveats • Endogeneity of organizational engagement • Combined effects of online/offlinenetworks  Future research • Organizational attributes • Demonstrations online • Effects of personalized action frames
  • 24. Comments greatly appreciated camilo.cristancho@uab.cat