Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 53 - 69 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.21547/jss.345628 İndeks Tarihi: 27-06-2019
Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma
Öz: Kolektif eylem; iki veya daha fazla bireyin bir amaca ulaşmak için, ortak hareket etme ihtiyacının bulunduğu anlarda ortaya çıkar. Toplumsal yapıdaki değişimler, küreselleşme ve dijital ağların günlük yaşamın unsurlarını her geçen gün bünyesine katması, kolektif eylem yapısını değiştirmiştir. Kolektif eylem, üzerinde gerçekleştiği ağın yapısal özellikleri ile ölçülebilir hale gelmiştir. Bireyler; kolektif eyleme katılma kararını, eylemin farklı zamanlarında almaktadır. Bireye göre değişen bu psikolojik sınır “eşik değer” olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada; bireylerin kolektif eyleme katılma eşik değerlerinin, ağ yapısı özellikleri kullanılarak belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda; bireylerin hukuki ve toplumsal yaptırımlar ile karşılaşma olasılıklarının olduğu politik konularda daha yüksek eşik değere sahip iken çevre ve temel haklar konularında daha düşük eşik değere sahip oldukları gözlemlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime: A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks
Öz: Collective action occurs when two or more individuals need to act jointly in order to reach a goal. The configuration of collective action has affected by the changes in social structure, globalization and digital networks that includes all aspects of daily life in. Collective action has become measurable by the structural characteristics of the network that it has taken place. Individuals take the decision to participate in a collective action at the different times of process. This psychological level, which varies according to individual, is defined as “threshold value”. The aim of this study is to determine the threshold value of collective action participants by using network structure properties. The study results show that participants have high threshold value for political subjects where they are likely to face legal and social sanctions, while they have lower threshold value for subjects such as environmental and fundamental rights.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand. Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
- Bennett, P. W. L., & Segerberg, D. A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bimber, B., Flanagin, A., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Burt, R. S. (1980). Innovation as a structural interest: rethinking the impact of network position on innovation adoption. Social Networks, 2(4), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378- 8733(80)90002-7
- Burt, R. S. (1987). Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1287–1335.
- Castells, M. (2003). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
- Centola, D. (2010). The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194–1197. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185231
- Centola, D. M. (2013). Homophily, Networks, and Critical Mass: Solving the start-up Problem in Large Group Collective Action. Rationality and Society, 25(1), 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463112473734
- Chwe, M. S. (1999). Structure and Strategy in Collective Action. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 128–156. https://doi.org/10.1086/210269
- Cohen, J. L. (1985). Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 663–716.
- Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.
- Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Francisco, R. A. (2010). Collective Action Theory and Empirical Evidence. New York, NY: Springer. Gane, N., & Beer, D. (2008). New Media: The Key Concepts. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
- González-Bailón, S., Wang, N., Rivero, A., Borge-Holthoefer, J., & Moreno, Y. (2014). Assessing the bias in samples of large online networks. Social Networks, 38, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.004
- Gould, R. V. (1993). Collective Action and Network Structure. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095965
- Granovetter, M. S. (1978). Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.
- Habermas, J. (1981). New Social Movements. Telos, 1981(49), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.3817/0981049033
- Hamblin, R. L., Miller, J. L. L., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1973). A mathematical theory of social change. New York, NY: Wiley.
- Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts and Findings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Kuran, T. (1991). Now out of never: The element of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44(01), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010422
- Lichbach, M. I. (Ed.). (1996). The Cooperator’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
- Lichbach, M. I. (1998). The Rebel’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lievrouw, L. (2011). Alternative and Activist New Media. Malden, MA: Polity.
- Macy, M. W. (1991). Chains of Cooperation: Threshold Effects in Collective Action. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 730–747. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096252
- Markoff, J. (1986). Literacy and Revolt: Some Empirical Notes on 1789 in France. American Journal of Sociology, 92(2), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1086/228503
- Medina, L. F. (2007). A Unified Theory of Collective Action and Social Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
- Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia, PA: Hutchinson Radius.
- Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Oberschall, A. (1993). Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Cop.
- Oliver, P. (1993). Formal Models of Collective Action. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 271– 300.
- Oliver, P., Marwell, G., & Teixeira, R. (1985). A Theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 522–556.
- Olson, M. (2003). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Olzak, S. (1989). Analysis of Events in the Study of Collective Action. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001003
- Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Pacheco, J. M., Santos, F. C., Souza, M. O., & Skyrms, B. (2009). Evolutionary dynamics of collective action in N-person stag hunt dilemmas. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1655), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1126
- Prahl, R., Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. E. (1991). Reach and selectivity as strategies of recruitment for collective action: A theory of the critical mass, V*. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1991.9990083
- R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
- Reisman, D. A. (1990). Theories of Collective Action: Downs, Olson, and Hirsch. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Sandler, T. (2004). Global Collective Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
- Snyder, D., & Tilly, C. (1972). Hardship and Collective Violence in France, 1830 to 1960. American Sociological Review, 37(5), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093448
- Spilerman, S. (1970). The Causes of Racial Disturbances: A Comparison of Alternative Explanations. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 627–649. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093941
- Tillock, H., & Morrison, D. E. (1979). Group Size and Contributions to Collective Action: An Examination of Olson’s Theory Using Data from Zero Population Growth, Inc. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, 2, 131–158.
- Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(95)00256-1
- Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1086/518527
| APA | Abanoz E, SÜTCÜ C (2018). Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. , 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| Chicago | Abanoz Enes,SÜTCÜ Cem S. Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. (2018): 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| MLA | Abanoz Enes,SÜTCÜ Cem S. Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. , 2018, ss.53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| AMA | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. . 2018; 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| Vancouver | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. . 2018; 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| IEEE | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C "Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma." , ss.53 - 69, 2018. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| ISNAD | Abanoz, Enes - SÜTCÜ, Cem S.. "Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma". (2018), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.345628 |
| APA | Abanoz E, SÜTCÜ C (2018). Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| Chicago | Abanoz Enes,SÜTCÜ Cem S. Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 17, no.1 (2018): 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| MLA | Abanoz Enes,SÜTCÜ Cem S. Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol.17, no.1, 2018, ss.53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| AMA | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2018; 17(1): 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| Vancouver | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2018; 17(1): 53 - 69. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| IEEE | Abanoz E,SÜTCÜ C "Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma." Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, ss.53 - 69, 2018. 10.21547/jss.345628 |
| ISNAD | Abanoz, Enes - SÜTCÜ, Cem S.. "Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma". Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 17/1 (2018), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.345628 |
