SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Issue: 34

Twitter-Based Public Discussions in Turkey: A Communicative Analysis

Türkiye’de Twitter’ın Kamusal Tartışmalardaki Rolü Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Zafer Kıyan(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7318-5419
Uğur Kocager(GALATASARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4924-129X
Pages
464–489
Publication Date
2020-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, analysis of the interactional dimension has showed that the retweet feature of Twitter confines public discussions within their limits rather than expanding them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Every day users engage in discussions on a wide range of topics on Twitter through hashtags in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on Dahlgren's (1995) theory, this study analyzes the Twitter-based discussions in three dimensions: structural, representational and interactional.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, analysis of the interactional dimension has showed that the retweet feature of Twitter confines public discussions within their limits rather than expanding them.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Twitter · Kamusal Alan · Kamusal Tartışmalar

Abstract

Every day users engage in discussions on a wide range of topics on Twitter through hashtags in Turkey. This study examines these discussions as they offer vast opportunities not only to comprehend the role of Twitter in public discussions, but also to understand public discussion culture in Turkey. Based on Dahlgren's (1995) theory, this study analyzes the Twitter-based discussions in three dimensions: structural, representational and interactional. The quantitative data of the study consists of six hashtags of three different case studies and 18,500 tweets produced under these hashtags. Two different methods have been used in the analysis of the tweets: qualitative content analysis and social network analysis. The study has produced three results. Analysis of the structural dimension has suggested that Twitter is relatively inclusive in public discussions. Analysis of the representational dimension, however, has revealed that users do not produce content that is able to contribute to public discussions on Twitter. Finally, analysis of the interactional dimension has showed that the retweet feature of Twitter confines public discussions within their limits rather than expanding them.

Özet

Türkiye’de Twitter kullanıcıları her gün hashtagler aracılığıyla çeşitli konularda tartışmalar yapmaktadırlar. Bu tartışmalar hem Twitter’ın kamusal alan açısından rolünü görmek hem de Türkiye’deki kamusal tartışma kültürünü anlamak açısından büyük bir olanak sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma Twitter dolayımlı tartışmaları analiz ederek Twitter’ın kamusal alan açısından rolünü ve Türkiye’deki kamusal tartışma kültürünü anlamaya yarayacak anlamlı sonuçlar üretmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Dahlgren’in (1995) kuramına yaslanarak Twitter dolayımlı tartışmaları üç ayrı boyutta analiz etmektedir: yapısal, temsili ve etkileşimsel. Çalışmanın nicel verisi üç örnekolaya ilişkin altı hashtag ve bunların altında üretilen 18,500 tweetten oluşmaktadır. Tweetlerin analizinde iki farklı yöntem kullanılmıştır: niteliksel içerik analizi ve sosyal ağ analizi. Çalışma üç sonuç üretmiştir. Twitter’ın yapısal boyut açısından analizi bu platformun kamusal tartışmalarda dışlayıcı değil görece kapsayıcı olduğunu göstermiştir. Böyle olmakla birlikte, Twitter’ın temsili boyut açısından analizi kullanıcıların bu platformda kamusal tartışmalara katkı sağlayacak nitelikte içerik üretmediklerini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Twitter’ın etkileşimsel boyut açısından analizi ise bu platformun retweet özelliğinin kamusal tartışmaları genişletmekten çok kendi içine kapattığını göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kıyan, Z., Kocager, U. (2020). Twitter-Based Public Discussions in Turkey: A Communicative Analysis. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 34, 464–489. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.781854

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (59)

  1. Anduiza, E., Cantijoch, M. ve Gallego, A. (2009). Political Participation and the Internet: A Field Essay. Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 860-878. DOI: 10.1080/13691180802282720
  2. Ausserhofer, J. ve Maireder, A. (2013). National Politics on Twitter: Structures and Topics of a Networked Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291-314. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050
  3. Barbera, P. ve Rivero, G. (2015). Understanding the Political Representativeness of Twitter Users. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 712-729. DOI: 10.1177/0894439314558836
  4. Batorski, D. ve Grzywińska, I. (2018). Three Dimensions of the Public Sphere on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 21(3), 356-374. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281329
  5. Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
  6. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T. ve Grimes, J. M. (2012). Promoting Transparency and Accountability Through ICTs, Social Media, and Collaborative e-Government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 78-91.
  7. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social Media Use and Participation: A Meta-Analysis of Current Research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524-538. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
  8. Boyd, D. ve Crawford, K. (2012). Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
  9. Boyd, D., Golder, S. ve Lotan, G. (2010, 5-8 Ocak). Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. 43. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences’ta sunulan bildiri (s. 1-10), Kauai, ABD. Erişim adresi: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5428313
  10. Brandtzaeg, B. P. (2017). Facebook is No ‘Great Equalizer’: A Big Data Approach to Gender Differences in Civic Engagement Across Countries. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 103-125. DOI: 10.1177/0894439315605806
  11. Bruns, A. (2015). Making Sense of Society Through Social Media. Social Media+Society, 1(1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115578679
  12. Bruns, A. ve Stieglitz, S. (2012). Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication Patterns on Twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3-4), 160-185. DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2012.744249
  13. Carey, J. (1995). The Press, Public Opinion, and Public Discourse. T. L. Glasser, C. T. Salmon (Der.). Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent (s. 373-402) içinde. New York: Guilford.
  14. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Cheshire, T. (2017, 6 Şubat). Social media ‘echo chamber’ causing political tunnel vision, study finds. Sky News. https://news.sky.com/story/social-media-echo-chamber-causing-political-tunnel-vision-study-finds-10755219 adresinden 18.09.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  16. Choi, S. (2015). The Two-Step Flow of Communication in Twitter-Based Public Forums. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 696-711. DOI: 10.1177/0894439314556599
  17. Dahlgren, P. (1995). Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democracy and the Media. London: SAGE.
  18. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1080/10584600590933160
  19. Dahlgren, P. (2012). Kamusal Alan ve Medya. (H. Köse, Çev.), E. Dacheux (Der.). Kamusal Alan (s. 45-58) içinde. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  20. Eranti, V. ve Lonkila, M. (2015). The Social Significance of the Facebook Like Button. First Monday, 20(6).
  21. Felt, M. (2016). Social Media and the Social Sciences: How Researchers Employ Big Data Analytics. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/2053951716645828
  22. Ferree, M. M., Gamson W. A., Gerhards, J. ve Rucht, D. (2002). Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern Democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289-324.
  23. Freeman, J. (2016). Digital Civic Participation in Australian Local Governments. M. Z. Sobaci (Der.). Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice (s. 195-218) içinde. New York: Springer.
  24. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: SAGE.
  25. Gerhards, J. ve Schäfer, S. M. (2010). Is the Internet a Better Public Sphere? Comparing Old and New Media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143-160. DOI: 10.1177/1461444809341444
  26. Habermas, J. (1962/1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. (T. Burger, Çev.), Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  27. Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A. ve Caba-Pérez, M. C. (2018). Using Social Media to Enhance Citizen Engagement with Local Government. New Media & Society, 20(1), 29-49. DOI: 10.1177/1461444816645652
  28. İnal, A. (1995). Yazılı Basın Haberlerinde ‘Yapısal’ Yanlılık Sorunu. Toplum ve Bilim, 67, 111-134.
  29. Iosifidis, P. (2011). The Public Sphere, Social Networks and Public Service Media. Information, Communication & Society, 14(5), 619-637. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2010.514356
  30. Jackson, J. S. ve Welles, B. F. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media Dissent and Networked Counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 932-952. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12185
  31. Jensen, B. K. (2015). What’s Social About Social Media? Social Media & Society, 1(1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115578874
  32. Jericho, G. (2012). The Rise of the Fifth Estate: Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politcs. Brunswick: Scribe.
  33. Kavada, A. (2015). Social Media as Conversation: A Manifesto. Social Media+Society, 1(1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115580793
  34. KONDA. (2018). Hayat Tarzları. https://interaktif.konda.com.tr/tr/HayatTarzlari2018/#5thPage/1 adresinden 02.04.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  35. Kruse, M. L., Norris, D. R. ve Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62-84. DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143
  36. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H. ve Moon, S. (2010, 26-30 Nisan). What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? 19. International Conference on World Wide Web’de sunulan bildiri (s. 591-600), Raleigh, ABD. Erişim adresi: http://www.ambuehler.ethz.ch/CDstore/www2010/www/p591.pdf
  37. Lagos, G. T., Coopman, T. M. ve Tomhave, J. (2013). ‘Parallel Poleis’: Towards a Theoretical Framework of the Modern Public Sphere, Civic Engagement and the Structural Advantages of the Internet to Foster and Maintain Parallel Socio-Political Institutions. New Media & Society, 16(3), 398-414. DOI: 10.1177/1461444813487953
  38. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B. ve Gaudet, H. (1948). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University.
  39. Lee, S. N. P., So, Y. K. C., Lee, F., Leung, L. ve Chan, M. (2018). Social Media and Political Partisanship – A Subaltern Public Sphere’s Role in Democracy. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 1949-1957. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.007
  40. Lewis, J., Inthorn, S. ve Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2005). Citizens or Consumers? What the Media Tell Us About Political Participation. New York: Open University Press.
  41. Loader, D. B. ve Mercea, D. (2011). Networking Democracy? Social Media Innovations and Participatory Politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 757-769. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
  42. Lounasmeri, L. (2017). Revisiting the Spheres of Public Discussion. Journalism Practice, 11(10), 1302-1318. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2016.1259959
  43. Lunt, P. ve Livingstone, S. (2013). Media Studies’ Fascination with the Concept of the Public Sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 87-96. DOI: 10.1177/0163443712464562
  44. MacKinnon, R. (2012). China’s ‘Networked Authoritarianism’. L. Diamond, M. F. Plattner (Der.). Liberation Technology (s. 71-92) içinde. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  45. Marin A. ve Wellman, B. (2011). Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. J. Scott, P. J. Carrington (Der.). Social Network Analysis (s. 11-25) içinde. London: SAGE.
  46. Meraz, S. ve Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked Gatekeeping and Networked Framing on #Egypt. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 138-166. DOI: 10.1177/1940161212474472
  47. Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: How not to Liberate the World. London: Penguin.
  48. Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age. Cambridge: Polity.
  49. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The Virtual Sphere: The Net as a Public Sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 5-23. DOI: 10.1177/14614440222226244
  50. Quan-Haase, A. ve Sloan, L. (2017). Introduction to the Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. L. Sloan, A. Quan-Haase (Der.). Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (s. 1-9) içinde. London: SAGE.
  51. Rauchfleisch, A. ve Kovic, M. (2016). The Internet and Generalized Functions of the Public Sphere. Social Media+Society, 2(2), 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116646393
  52. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. U. Flick (Der.). Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (s. 170-183) içinde. London: SAGE.
  53. Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41.
  54. Small, A. T. (2011). What the Hashtag? A Content Analysis of Canadian Politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 872-895. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2011.554572
  55. Stevenson, N. (2002). Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication. London: SAGE.
  56. Twitter. (2020). About Twitter. https://about.twitter.com/en_us.html adresinden 02.04.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  57. Vicari, S. (2017). Twitter and Non-Elites: Interpreting Power Dynamics in the Life Story of the (#) BRCA Twitter Stream. Social Media+Society, 3(3), 1-14. DOI: 10.1177/2056305117733224
  58. We Are Social. (2020). Digital in 2020. https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020 adresinden 02.04.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  59. Yang, S., Quan-Haase, A. ve Rannenberg, K. (2017). The Changing Public Sphere on Twitter. New Media & Society, 19(12), 1983-2002. DOI: 10.1177/1461444816651409