Social Capital and the Networked Public Sphere:Implications for Political

Social Media sites

Marius Rohde Johannessen

Department of Information Systems

University of Agder, Norway

2

Outline

• The networked public sphere

• Social capital

• Findings from example case

• Summary

3

The short version

• Working public spheres can be a positive contribution to democracy

• Social capital can contribute to explain why some are more likely to participate than others

• Participation increases social capital

• …therein lies the paradox…

4

Why is this interesting?

• Need to conceptualise the Public Sphere in a modern context of networks, Internet and social media

• Need to explore and understand how we can get more people to contribute in democratic debates

• Avoid elitist democracy

5

Background and motivation

• Public sphere often used, seldom explained in eParticipation studies

• Need for further exploration• What is a public?• When does a forum become a public sphere?• How is a public sphere created and maintained?• Are there different types of public spheres?

• If so, what are the consequences for democracy?

• How can we explain who participates?

6

The Public Sphere - definition

• Habermas: “that domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed”

• A mediating layer between government and citizen

• Circular: Receives and provides information

• Autonomous from state and economic power – for citizens by citizens

• Disappeared with mass media?Photo: Wikimedia commons

7

The Networked Public Sphere

8

Analysing the Public Sphere

• Dahlberg’s criteria• Autonomy from state and economic power• Rational-critical discourse: no dogmas• Self-reflective and critical participants• Understand the others’ perspective• Make all information known• Everyone equally entitled to participate

• Network society• Points out the importance of connecting different

spheres to disseminate ideas and arguments• Allows us to visualise connections between

mulitple networks, actors etc

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3853946554/

9

Analysing the Public Sphere (2)

• Gemeinschaft community• ’’Organic’’ communities, constructed by the participants• Based on common interests, views• Reciprocal ties. Participants help each other out• With networked media everyone can “hide” in their own small enclaves• The challenge is to connect them and engage them in social debate

• Weak or strong Public Sphere?• Strong: Enlightened individuals, constructing shared meaning through

membership in the “cosmopolitan society”• Weak: Freedom of the press, the public’s right to access information and act

as a check on government

Social Capital

• The glue that binds society together:

• Trust & reciprocity• Individual, institutional. Giving something back

• Bridging social capital• Connection between groups

• Bonding social capital• Connections within a group – community formation

• Maintained social capital• Keep connections also when physically apart

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2365568058 10

11

Bridging and bonding social capital

A core of active members bonds the community

Bridges between different communities

Weak bonding. Few people in the community actually interacting with each other

12

Example case

• MyLabour: a Norwegian political party’s online community

• Objectives: inform, facilitate debate, information sharing

• Zones for local groups

• Structure similar to blogs

• To what degree is this a public sphere?

13

Case findingsTheory Concept Case observationsPublic sphere Dahlberg’s criteria Partially present: autonomous discussions, inclusive

debates, some reflection and some rational-critical discourse

Network society Ties between internal core actors and between different zones contribute to maintain a networked community

Gemeinschaft community

Metacommunication and tone between participants contribute to Gemeinschaft

Weak/strong Has aspects of strong public sphere, but not all of them

Social Capital Bridging A total of ten people contribute in more than one zone, acting as bridges.

Bonding Each zone has a core community that contributes regularly, and who seem to know each other

Trust & reciprocity Plays a big role. Trusting relations and reciprocal actions contribute to participants’ staying. Lack of reciprocity makes participants leave.

Maintained social capital

A fair proportion of the participants only meet online, but still address each other as if they have a “real” relationship

14

Summary

Society

RepresentativeDemocracy/government

Social mediaPhysical spaces

Traditional media

Public Sphere(s)

Public Sphere(s)

Public Sphere(s)

Participates

Socialcapital

Contributes“Controls”

15

Thank you for listening!

marius.johannessen@uia.no

http://egovthesis.wordpress.com