Euko 100820

Rīga, 21.08.2010.

The role of social media networks in communication of stakeholders.

Ilze BērziņaMBA, Riga Business School

Doctoral program, School of Business Administration Turība

Latvia case.

Agnis StibeMBA, Riga Business School

Mg. Comp. Sc., University of Latvia

Content

• Why?• Summary of key findings of earlier

researches in:– Networks– Social relationships– Communication in network society– Community– Community of knowledge networks

• Latvia Twitter case– Why Twitter?– The aim of the research– Methodology– Data analysis

• Conclusions

Rīga, 21.08.2010.

2Ilze Bērziņa, Agnis Stibe: The role of social media networks in communication of stakeholders. Latvia Twitter case.

Internet governance

• Billions of users - no 1 governance tool

• We all are stakeholders of state, municipality, interest group

• Its about stakeholders - government, private sector, civil society

• As today is booming the concept of the individualization, there is not much hope that appointed global governance structure or its spokesperson will be the one who’s voice will be decisive

Ilze Bērziņa, Agnis Stibe: The role of social media networks in communication of stakeholders. Latvia Twitter case. 3

Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Why?

• Goal– To discover whether social platforms can

be an option how to govern internet

through communication

• Theory sources– Castells, Teigland, Dijk, Dutton and others

• Methodology– Quantitative Survey of Latvia Twitter users

– Data mining

• Future steps– Repeat and advance


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Networks

• From the mass to the network society → concentrated communication space available for everyone

• Network society → individualization, social fragmentation and new forms of mediated community

• Network society → social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks that process and manage information

• Networks help to govern it’s participants → every receiver can become communicator → self organization of these electronic networks


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Social relationships

• Social relationships, whether they are strong or weak

• Social relationships are not planned but they are emerging based upon the interests of people in the network or community

• Virtual community is defined as a group of individuals who communicate and build social relationship with each other via internet-based technology


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Communication in network society

• One to many is the principle how works mass media

• Concept of mass self communication = citizen journalism

• Feedback and participation in communication

• Communicative power from news organizations to citizen

• The term face – to - face has got a new understanding, no more physical face – to – face communication → virtual web relations


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Community

• Society – community – particular network community

• Communities are relatively small groups of people who keep more or less direct contact, individuals therefore follow each other what results in high degree of social control

• Restriction could be the language

• Real network community is much, much smaller because part of the people are too passive in their actions to be called community


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Community of knowledge networks

• Knowledge networks = innovation through communities of practice → constructing “recipes” for knowledge development

• Limited in size, need for member interaction and learning together

• Motivations to share knowledge today → higher quality of knowledge in future, stronger relationships with members

• Knowledge has no value unless it has been shared and used in some way

• Knowledge is often perceived more of a public good than a private good within the community


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Internet governance

• The idea of social network such as Twitter to be a common platform for dialogue of many stakeholders because of the following criteria:

– Public sector & Private sector

– Control and Flexibility

– Stability and experimentation

– Centralization and decentralization

– Top-down and bottom-up

– Formal and informal

– Legal restrictions and permissive, laissez-faire (rules)


Rīga, 21.08.2010.


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Latvia case

• Why Twitter?– Recent and fast developing community, 2006– Became popular in Latvia, 2009– Considerable amount of users in Latvia, 18.08.2010

[Data provided by SIA Soon]

• 32 392 – total: language, location

• 19 848 – active: at least one tweet within last month

• 14 666 – hyperactive: has tweeted 3 days out of seven days

• 22 659 – tweets collected per day

– Hard to determine more precisely• Communication language – Latvian• Location stated as Latvia• Russian speaking people may use social networks operated in

Russia


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Latvia case

• The aim of the survey:

– To detect what groups of society are using

Twitter and what are the habits of using this

social platform

– Are there any groups formed among the

Twitter users

– What knowledge Twitter society exchanges

– Do the communication through Twitter

benefits the society


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Latvia case

• Methodology– Quantitative survey online

• 37 questions

• 403 responses

– Invitations• 7 tweets by authors

• 37 retweets

• 1 reference in technology blogger article

• 1 author’s blog entry in http://ilzeberzina.wordpress.com/

• Several messages in other social networks

– Data processing• Data export to Excel

• Data mining


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

http://ilzeberzina.wordpress.com/


Rīga, 21.08.2010.


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Latvia case


Rīga, 21.08.2010.


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Latvia case


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Conclusions

• Social platforms as Twitter or analogue who could emerge in the nearest future are meant for socially active members of society ready to involve in information creation and consumption, exchanging different views and discussing with wide range of perception owners within the community.

• It is possible to form particular group of interests within the social networks as Twitter or analogue to keep mass and also personal communication on the subject. These groups can become as platforms for the spread and discussion of particular information.


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Conclusions

• Members of community each personally and community together have different kind of knowledge what becomes useful by exchange among the members of community. The knowledge can be individual, group and tacit knowledge.

• Personal interests of each Twitter user can be turned into the benefit of community and society through the communication of information and knowledge what each stakeholder have.


Rīga, 21.08.2010.

Rīga, 21.08.2010.

The role of social media networks in communication of stakeholders.

Ilze Bērziņa@Pasniedzeja

[email protected]


Latvia case.

Agnis Stibe@agsti

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Euko 100820

Documents

Transcript of Euko 100820