Suay Özkula and I have published an article in Social Media + Society. Entitled ‘Where is the Global South? Northern Visibilities in Digital Activism Research’, this paper draws on the results of a review of 315 articles published between 1994 and 2018.
The abstract can be read below:
The seemingly global nature of English-language hashtags often obscures activism from outside the Global North (GN). This systematic review explores geographic representation in this field (N = 315 articles) through an investigation of case study location, author affiliation, methods of data collection and analysis, and researched social media platforms. The results show a preponderance of GN/Majority cases and non-region-specific social media groupings such as hashtag publics, particularly in research employing digital methods. As such, extant research in the field has disproportionately produced what we term Northern Visibilities—groups and movements based in GN countries (above all the United States) and platforms popular within them. We use the findings of the review to critically interrogate notions of the Global South in digital social research and provide recommendations for rectifying geopolitical underrepresentation and promoting more inclusive research practice.
Many thanks to the editors, reviewers, and the SM+S team for their help in getting this out. We would also like to thank Jenny Hayes for her earlier work on this project.
The article can be downloaded and read for free here.
Look out for further details on the study in the New Year!
My first paper is entitled ‘Watching over the watchers? Ethical dilemmas in qualitative studies of sousveillance on YouTube. Drawing on my previous work on ‘The Battle of Stokes Croft‘ and the union flag protests, I critique the notion that unaware participants are ‘fair game’ in online research. The abstract can be read in full here.
My second paper, co-authored with Suay Özkula, draws on our systematic review of empirical Digital Activism research between 2011 and 2018. We focus on how activists and social movements within the so-called Global South are represented within the field. The abstract can be read in full here.
If you are at the conference this week please do say hi – looks like a great programme!
Suay Melisa Özkula and I were honoured to receive an award at the annual International Communication Association (ICA) conference in Australia today. Our paper ‘Where is the Global South? A Systematic Review of Regional Visibilities in Digital Activism Research’ received the Top Faculty Paper from the ICA’s Activism, Communication and Social Justice Interest Group.
Best Faculty Paper Award, ICA ACSJ 2024
Many thanks to the reviewers and the ACSJ team (Rasha, Hanan and Betty) for the award.
If you are at #ICA24 you can see Suay present our paper as part of the Digital Activism and Social Justice panel on Monday (3:00 PM – 4:15 PM; Surfer’s Paradise 1 Star L3).
Suay picking up our award at the ACSJ Business Meeting!
The abstract for the paper can be read below:
Where is the Global South? A Systematic Review of Regional Visibilities in Digital Activism Research
Recent scholarship has problematised the dominance of the Global North within communication research and called for de-westernisation to incorporate more cosmopolitan perspectives (Badr & Ganter, 2021; Bosch, 2022; Waisbord, 2022). While some scholars argue that a ‘decolonial turn’ in digital media research is occurring (Couldry &Mejia, 2021), it remains unclear whether this is also the case in digital activism (abbreviated: DA) research. Extant scholarship suggests that ‘Western’ social media platforms and activism from Global North countries are over-represented within the field (e.g., Mahl et al., 2022; Ruess et al., 2021) including in research methods applied in these (Bosch, 2022; Schoon et al., 2020). This has, for example, been problematised within African (Moyo & Mutsvairo, 2018, Wasserman, 2018) and Latin-American contexts (Gómez-Cruz, et al., 2023; Medrado & Rega, 2023).
Other studies have drawn attention to the western-centric nature of information and communication technologies, as demonstrated by the countries from which their providers or designers originate (Arora, 2019). Much of this critical research has framed these digitally mediated exploitations as a manifestation of ‘data colonialism’, a concept describing how user data are processed at scale to produce economic value (Couldry & Mejias, 2021, 2019). In the same vein, cognate theories of databased geographies’ (Arora, 2019), ‘technocolonialism’ (Madianou, 2022), and ‘neocolonial media culture’ (Bosch, 2022, p. 299) illustrate how the growth of “big data” has often been linked to the exploitation of those residing in the Global South as knowledge about those regions is typically produced through the lens and paradigms of the Global North.
The evolution of ‘digital methods’ should theoretically create more opportunities for DA research on the Global South. These are typically software-based methods that draw on natively digital objects, methods, and data (Rogers, 2019; Venturini et al., 2018). However, it remains to be seen whether their use correlates with more representative DA research. The often prohibitive cost of these software packages, as well as their configuration for the study of “Western” social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X, and Instagram, suggest that they may primarily intended for privileged Global North researchers.
While previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have explored either the relationship between ICTs and political engagement (e.g. Ruess et al., 2021; Boulianne et al., 2023) or the platforms being studied in DA research (anonymised), there has been no research to date exploring the geographic foci of empirical DA research, including in relation to digital methods specifically. This paper sets out to address this gap by presenting the results of a systematic review of DA research published between 2011 and 2018 (N=315). Specifically, it explores the representation of Global South and semi-periphery case studies in DA journal articles, the methods and platforms that feature in this body of research, and where the author(s) were based at the time of publication.
For further information on the study, please feel free to contact us.
The abstract can be read below:
Where exactly is the Global South? Exploring Northern visibilities in digital activism research
The seemingly global nature of hashtag activism makes it difficult to assess what regions are being studied in digital activism research and the extent to which this scholarship is subject to ‘digital bias’ (Marres, 2017). This is of particular concern to scholars who have problematised the dominance of ‘Western’, Global North actors in digital media research whilst also calling for internet research methods to become de-westernised, internationalised, or decolonised (e.g. Badr & Ganter, 2021; Bosch, 2022; Milan & Treré, 2019; Karam & Mutsvairo, 2022; Mutsvairo, 2019; Schoon et al., 2020). While some argue that a ‘decolonial turn’ in digital media research is belatedly occurring (Couldry and Mejia, 2021), questions remain about whether similar trends are evident in digital activism research.
In response to this issue, this paper explores geographic representation in digital activism research. The corpus for the systematic review was created by running queries spanning 21 relevant keywords describing digitally enabled activism on the Scopus database. The final corpus consisted of 315 articles published between 2011 and 2018, which was tested on a range of attributes including methodological approaches and factors for evaluating regionality with a focus on regionally disadvantaged communities (towards capturing “Global South” and semi-periphery regions), incl.: case study origin and location, author affiliation, regional foci of the publishing journals, and researched digital/ social media platform (as tied to specific user demographics).
Results indicate that Global North and non-region specific campaigns dominated digital activism research during this period, particularly in articles featuring digital data. As such, extant research in the field has disproportionately produced what we term Northern Visibilities – privileged demographics & popular platforms of the “Global Majority” (i.e. Global North and privileged economies), above all in research applying software-based approaches.
The paper concludes by outlining a number of epistemological provocations around the extent to which the methods and methodological instruments researchers choose affect which social groups they capture or potentially omit as demographics may become diffused over multiple spaces and language contexts. Challenges in capturing Global South and semi-periphery communities apply, above all, in computational approaches as these are often based on high visibility as well as the API access options platforms provide. This means that researchers may need to rethink (a) where (e.g. which platform spaces) and how disadvantaged and less visible social groups are represented online, (b) which precise social groups digital social research is meant to capture, (c) gaps in digital activism research, above all in relation to “unheard” groups, as well as (d) what these skewed representations mean for inclusive research practice.
Bosch, T. (2022). Decolonizing Digital Methods. Communication Theory, 32(2), 298-302.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2021). The decolonial turn in data and technology research: what is at stake and where is it heading?. Information, Communication & Society, 1-17.
Karam, B., & Mutsvairo, B. (2022). Decolonising Political Communication in Africa: Reframing Ontologies (p. 254). Taylor & Francis.
Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big data from the South (s): Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319-335.
Mutsvairo, B. (2019). Challenges facing development of data journalism in non-western societies. Digital Journalism, 7(9), 1289-1294.
Schoon, A., Mabweazara, H. M., Bosch, T., & Dugmore, H. (2020). Decolonising digital media research methods: Positioning African digital experiences as epistemic sites of knowledge production. African Journalism Studies, 41(4), 1-15.
72nd International Communication Association conference, 26-30 May 2022
Suay Özkula (Trento), Jenny Hayes (Sheffield) and I are presenting a paper at the ICA Conference in Paris today (30 May). This paper builds on our systematic review of digital activism research, which was recently published in Information, Communication & Society.
Entitled Easy Data, same old platforms?, the slides can be read below:
Pleased to report that our article in Information, Communication & Society will be available open access until 31 March 2022. Entitled ‘Easy data, same old platforms? A systematic review of digital activism methodologies’, this paper draws on the results of a review of 315 articles published between 1994 and 2018.
The abstract can be read below:
Burgess and Bruns (2015) have linked the computational turn in social media research to an increase in the number of studies focussing exclusively on ‘easy data’, such as the ‘low hanging fruit’ provided by Twitter hashtags. This paper explores whether there is a preponderance of such easy data in digital activism research through a systematic review of relevant journal articles published between 2011 and 2018 (N = 315). Specifically, it examines whether computational digital methods have become increasingly prominent in digital activism research during this period. A key focus of the paper is the extent to which digital activism research focused on easily accessible Twitter data, and whether these were obtained via standard API services. Results indicate that (1) traditional research methodologies were more commonly deployed in these articles than digital methods, but (2) Twitter was the most researched platform in the corpus, and (3) single-platform hashtag studies were an archetype of digital activism research alongside single-platform Facebook studies and holistic approaches (hybrid, multi-method & multi-sited, e.g., ethnography). The paper concludes by advocating for greater diversity in terms of the methodological approaches adopted in digital activism research.
Many thanks to the editors, reviewers, and the iCS team for their help in getting this out. And of course to Suay and Jenny, for their collaboration on this. Hopefully the first of many!
New article with Suay Özkula and Jenny Hayes published in iCS
Suay Özkula, Jenny Hayes and I have an article out today in Information, Communication & Society. Entitled ‘Easy data, same old platforms? A systematic review of digital activism methodologies’, this paper draws on the results of a review of 315 articles published between 1994 and 2018.
The abstract can be read below:
Burgess and Bruns (2015) have linked the computational turn in social media research to an increase in the number of studies focussing exclusively on ‘easy data’, such as the ‘low hanging fruit’ provided by Twitter hashtags. This paper explores whether there is a preponderance of such easy data in digital activism research through a systematic review of relevant journal articles published between 2011 and 2018 (N = 315). Specifically, it examines whether computational digital methods have become increasingly prominent in digital activism research during this period. A key focus of the paper is the extent to which digital activism research focused on easily accessible Twitter data, and whether these were obtained via standard API services. Results indicate that (1) traditional research methodologies were more commonly deployed in these articles than digital methods, but (2) Twitter was the most researched platform in the corpus, and (3) single-platform hashtag studies were an archetype of digital activism research alongside single-platform Facebook studies and holistic approaches (hybrid, multi-method & multi-sited, e.g., ethnography). The paper concludes by advocating for greater diversity in terms of the methodological approaches adopted in digital activism research.
Many thanks to the editors, reviewers, and the iCS team for their help in getting this out. And of course to Suay and Jenny, for their collaboration on this. Hopefully the first of many!
There are 50 free downloads of the article, which can be accessed here
Dr Paul Reilly 