Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorBossner, Felixde
dc.contributor.authorNagel, Melaniede
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-01T11:21:21Z
dc.date.available2021-03-01T11:21:21Z
dc.date.issued2020de
dc.identifier.issn2183-2463de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/71795
dc.description.abstractThe increasing relevance of social networking platforms is accompanied by a growing number of studies using digital trace data. However, most studies still lack further understanding of the data-generating process. This analytical gap can be directly attributed to the prevalence of quantitative approaches, as only qualitative work is able to generate these insights. The broad methodological toolset of Discourse Network Analysis addresses this shortcoming as it combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The present study therefore employs Discourse Network Analysis in order to (1) determine different user groups’ varying role as senders and recipients of targeted online conversations, (2) identify and compare Twitter users’ (simultaneous) reference to different forms of conversational Twitter content, and to (3) asses the motivation of @message authors to direct particular tweets at particular user groups. To this end, this study analyzes @messages during the BBC program 'Question Time' on 2nd of June 2017 - the final media encounter of Prime Minister Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn in the context of the 2017 UK election campaign. We draw on the theoretical background of Maarten Hajer's discourse coalitions approach in order to investigate the preconditions for the formation of discourse coalitions in new and emerging virtual discourse arenas. Thus, our work not only mirrors the focus in existing literature on Twitter usage during high-profile political media events, but also emphasizes Twitter's unique features for interactive exchange. This article identifies different forms of meta-talk and policy issues, which vary in both their general popularity with Twitter users as well as their interconnectedness. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers the motivation behind the decisions of @message authors to send particular @messages to certain groups of Twitter users. Finally, we could establish that media events only temporarily affect the topical foci of @message authors.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcPublizistische Medien, Journalismus,Verlagswesende
dc.subject.ddcNews media, journalism, publishingen
dc.subject.ddcPolitikwissenschaftde
dc.subject.ddcPolitical scienceen
dc.subject.otherJeremy Corbyn; TV debate; Theresa May; political campaignsde
dc.titleDiscourse Networks and Dual Screening: Analyzing Roles, Content and Motivations in Political Twitter Conversationsde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2573de
dc.source.journalPolitics and Governance
dc.source.volume8de
dc.publisher.countryPRT
dc.source.issue2de
dc.subject.classozinteraktive, elektronische Mediende
dc.subject.classozInteractive, electronic Mediaen
dc.subject.classozpolitische Willensbildung, politische Soziologie, politische Kulturde
dc.subject.classozPolitical Process, Elections, Political Sociology, Political Cultureen
dc.subject.thesozsoziales Netzwerkde
dc.subject.thesozsocial networken
dc.subject.thesozTwitterde
dc.subject.thesoztwitteren
dc.subject.thesozDiskursde
dc.subject.thesozdiscourseen
dc.subject.thesozNetzwerkanalysede
dc.subject.thesoznetwork analysisen
dc.subject.thesozDatengewinnungde
dc.subject.thesozdata captureen
dc.subject.thesozOnline-Mediende
dc.subject.thesozonline mediaen
dc.subject.thesozpolitische Kommunikationde
dc.subject.thesozpolitical communicationen
dc.subject.thesozpolitische Meinungde
dc.subject.thesozpolitical opinionen
dc.subject.thesozMeinungsbildungde
dc.subject.thesozopinion formationen
dc.subject.thesozMedienereignisde
dc.subject.thesozmedia eventen
dc.subject.thesozWahlkampfde
dc.subject.thesozelection campaignen
dc.subject.thesozGroßbritanniende
dc.subject.thesozGreat Britainen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10053143
internal.identifier.thesoz10094030
internal.identifier.thesoz10041158
internal.identifier.thesoz10053147
internal.identifier.thesoz10040547
internal.identifier.thesoz10064820
internal.identifier.thesoz10049299
internal.identifier.thesoz10052046
internal.identifier.thesoz10041758
internal.identifier.thesoz10076381
internal.identifier.thesoz10061878
internal.identifier.thesoz10042102
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo311-325de
internal.identifier.classoz1080404
internal.identifier.classoz10504
internal.identifier.journal787
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc070
internal.identifier.ddc320
dc.source.issuetopicPolicy Debates and Discourse Network Analysisde
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2573de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/oai/@@oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2573
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record