Yıl 2018, Cilt 17, Sayı 1, Sayfalar 53 - 69 2018-01-31

A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks
Sosyal Ağlarda Kolektif Eylem Eşik Modeli Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Enes ABANOZ [1] , Cem S. SÜTÇÜ [2]

101 204

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.    

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 ağaların 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 düşük olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. 
  • Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
  • Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing.
  • Bennett, P. W. L., ve 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., ve Stohl, C. (2012). Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Castells, M. (2003). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (1. Baskı). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877
  • Castells, M. (2009a). Communication Power (2. Baskı). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Castells, M. (2009b). The Rise of the Network Society (2. Baskı). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet Age (2. Baskı). 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, ve 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
  • Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Cohen, J. L. (1985). Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 663–716.
  • Consalvo, M., ve Ess, C. (2011). The Handbook of Internet Studies. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Csardi, G., ve Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695. Earl, J., ve Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Easley, D., ve Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected World (1. Baskı). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gane, N., ve Beer, D. (2008). New Media: The Key Concepts (1 edition). Oxford ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • González-Bailón, S., Wang, N., Rivero, A., Borge-Holthoefer, J., ve 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
  • 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
  • Harary, F. (1969). Graph Theory. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  • Howard, P. N. (2011). Castells and the Media: Theory and Media. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  • Jackson, M. O. (2010). Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton 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(1), 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. Cambridge ; Malden, MA: Polity.
  • Medina, L. F. (2007). A Unified Theory of Collective Action and Social Change. Ann Arbor: 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.
  • Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
  • Oberschall, A. (1993). Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities. New Brunswick: Transaction Cop.
  • Olson, M. (2003). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (21. Baskı). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Padilla, L. E. S. (2015). From the Village to the Global Village: An Alternative Model of Collective Action in Digital Media Networks (Thesis). University of Washington, Washington, DC. 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. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.
  • Sandler, T. (2004). Global Collective Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schelling, T. C. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Tillock, H., ve 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.
  • Trudeau, R. J. (1993). Introduction to Graph Theory (Revised Edition of “Dots and Lines”, 1976). New York, NY: Dover Publications.
  • Watts, D. J., ve Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1086/518527
  • Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2 Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Konular İletişim
Dergi Bölümü İletişim
Yazarlar

Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-1845
Yazar: Enes ABANOZ
E-posta: enes.abanoz@omu.edu.tr
Kurum: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, İletişim Fakültesi
Ülke: Turkey


Yazar: Cem S. SÜTÇÜ
E-posta: csutcu@marmara.edu.tr
Kurum: Marmara Üniversitesi, İletişim Fakültesi, Bilişim Ana Bilim Dalı
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { jss345628, journal = {Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences}, issn = {1303-0094}, address = {Gaziantep Üniversitesi}, year = {2018}, volume = {17}, pages = {53 - 69}, doi = {10.21547/jss.345628}, title = {A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks}, key = {cite}, author = {ABANOZ, Enes and SÜTÇÜ, Cem S.} }
APA ABANOZ, E , SÜTÇÜ, C . (2018). A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17 (1), 53-69. DOI: 10.21547/jss.345628
MLA ABANOZ, E , SÜTÇÜ, C . "A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks". Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 17 (2018): 53-69 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/jss/issue/34057/345628>
Chicago ABANOZ, E , SÜTÇÜ, C . "A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks". Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 17 (2018): 53-69
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks AU - Enes ABANOZ , Cem S. SÜTÇÜ Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.21547/jss.345628 DO - 10.21547/jss.345628 T2 - Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 53 EP - 69 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 1303-0094-2149-5459 M3 - doi: 10.21547/jss.345628 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.21547/jss.345628 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks %A Enes ABANOZ , Cem S. SÜTÇÜ %T A Study of Collective Action Threshold Model on Social Networks %D 2018 %J Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences %P 1303-0094-2149-5459 %V 17 %N 1 %R doi: 10.21547/jss.345628 %U 10.21547/jss.345628