We propose a methodological approach to analyze the content of hyperlink networks which represent networked public spheres on the Internet. Using the case of the food safety movement in the United States, we demonstrate how to generate a hyperlink network with the web crawling tool Issue Crawler and merge it with the results of a probabilistic topic model of the network’s content. Combining hyperlink networks and content analysis allows us to interpret such a network in its entirety and with regard to the mobilizing potentials of specific sub-issues of the movement. We focus on two specific sub-issues in the food safety network, genetically modified food and food control, in order to trace the involved websites and their interlinking structures, respectively.
AcklandR.O’NeilM. (2011). Online collective identity: The case of the environmental movement. Social Networks, 33, 177–190.
2.
AdamS. (2008). Do mass media portray Europe as a community? German and French debates on EU enlargement and a common constitution. Javnost—The Public, 15, 91–112. doi:10.1080/13183222.2008.11008966
3.
AdamS.HäusslerT.Schmid-PetriH.ReberU. (2016). Identifying and analyzing hyperlink issue networks. In VoweG.HennP. (Eds.), Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs (pp. 233–247). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
AndersonW. A. (2000). The future relationship between the media, the food industry and the consumer. British Medical Bulletin, 56, 254–268.
5.
BarabásiA.-L.AlbertR. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509
6.
BenklerY.RobertsH.FarisR.Solow-NiedermanA.EtlingB. (2015). Social mobilization and the networked public sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA debate. Political Communication, 32, 594–624. doi:10.1080/10584609.2014.986349
7.
BennettW. L.FootK.XenosM. (2011). Narratives and network organization: A comparison of fair trade systems in two nations. Journal of Communication, 61, 219–245. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01538.x
8.
BennettW. L.LangS.SegerbergA. (2015). European issue publics online: The cases of climate change and fair trade. In RisseT. (Ed.), European public spheres. Politics is back (pp. 108–137). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BennettW. L.ManheimJ. B. (2006). The one-step flow of communication. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608, 213–232. doi:10.1177/0002716206292266
10.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
11.
CammaertsB. (2012). Protest logics and the mediation opportunity structure. European Journal of Communication, 27, 117–134. doi:10.1177/0267323112441007
12.
CastellsM. (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, 78–93. doi:10.1177/0002716207311877
13.
DahlgrenP. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160
14.
DianiM. (2003). Networks and social movements: A research programme. In DianiM.McAdamD. (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 299–319). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199251789.003.0013
15.
DiMaggioP.NagM.BleiD. M. (2013). Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of U.S. government arts funding. Poetics, 41, 570–606. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2013.08.004
16.
EderK.KantnerC. (2000). Transnationale Resonanzstrukturen in Europa. Eine Kritik der Rede vom Öffentlichkeitsdefizit [Transnational resonance structures in Europe: A critique of the supposed deficit of the public sphere] [Special issue]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 52, 306–331.
17.
EildersC. (2000). Media as political actors? Issue focusing and selective emphasis in the German quality press. German Politics, 9, 181–206. doi:10.1080/09644000008404613
18.
ElgesemD.SteskalL.DiakopoulosN. (2015). Structure and content of the discourse on climate change in the blogosphere: The big picture. Environmental Communication, 9, 169–188. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.983536
19.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
20.
FriedlandL. A.HoveT.RojasH. (2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost—The Public, 13, 5–26. doi:10.1080/13183222.2006.11008922
21.
GamsonW. A.WolfsfeldG. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114–125.
22.
GelmanA.ShaliziC. R. (2013). Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 8–38. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x
23.
GerhardsJ.RuchtD. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 555–595. doi:10.1086/230049
24.
GriffithsT.SteyversM. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5228–5235. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307752101
25.
GüntherE.ScharkowM. (2014). Automatisierte Datenbereinigung bei Inhalts- und Linkanalysen von Online-Nachrichten [Automated cleansing of content and link data in online news analyses]. In SommerK.WettsteinM.WirthW.MatthesJ. (Eds.), Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse [Automation in content analysis] (pp. 111–126). Köln, Germany: Herbert von Halem Verlag.
26.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411–426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
27.
HerringR. J. (2015). How is food political? Market, state, and knowledge. In HerringR. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of food, politics, and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195397772.013.35
28.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 40–60. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
29.
HuY. (2011). Algorithms for visualizing large networks. In NaumannU.SchenkO. (Eds.), Combinatorial scientific computing (pp. 525–549). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
30.
JacksonM. H. (1997). Assessing the structure of communication on the World Wide Web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00063.x
31.
JacobiC.van AtteveldtW.WelbersK. (2016). Quantitative analysis of large amounts of journalistic texts using topic modelling. Digital Journalism, 4, 89–106. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1093271
32.
KimJ. H. (2012). A hyperlink and semantic network analysis of the triple helix (university–government–industry): The interorganizational communication structure of nanotechnology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 152–170. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01564.x
33.
Kleinen-von KönigslöwK. (2010). Die Arenen-Integration nationaler Öffentlichkeiten: Der Fall der wiedervereinten deutschen Öffentlichkeit [The integration of arenas in national public spheres: The case of the reunified German public sphere]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
34.
KnightA. J. (2009). Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 177–188. doi:10.1177/0963662507079375
35.
KoopmansR. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33, 367–391. doi:10.1023/B: RYSO.0000038603.34963.de
36.
KoopmansR.ZimmermannA. (2010). Transnational political communication on the internet. In KoopmansR.StathamP. (Eds.), The making of a European public sphere (pp. 171–194). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LuhmannN. (1971). Öffentliche Meinung [Public opinion]. In LuhmannN. (Ed.), Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung [Political planning: Essays on the sociology of politics and administration] (pp. 9–34). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
38.
MarresN. (2006). Net-work is format work: Issue networks and the sites of civil society politics. In DeanJ.AndersonJ. W.LovinkG. (Eds.), Reforming politics: Networked communications and global civil society (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
MarresN.RogersR. (2005). Recipe for tracing the fate of issues and their publics on the web. In LatourB.WeibelP. (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 922–935). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
MerazS. (2012). The democratic contribution of weakly tied political networks: Moderate political blogs as bridges to heterogeneous information pools. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 191–207. doi:10.1177/0894439312451879
41.
MillerM. M.RiechertB. P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.JrGrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
MimnoD.BleiD. M. (2011). Bayesian checking for topic models. In Association for Computational Linguistics (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 227–237). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
43.
MimnoD.WallachH. M.TalleyE.LeendersM.McCallumA. (2011). Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In Association for Computational Linguistics (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 262–272). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
44.
NewmanM. (2010). Networks: An introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199206650.001.0001
45.
O’NeillE. T.McClainP. D.LavoieB. F. (2001). A methodology for sampling the World Wide Web. Journal of Library Administration, 34, 279–291. doi:10.1300/J111v34n03_07
46.
PapacharissiZ. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
47.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
48.
ParkH. W. (2003). Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social structure on the web. Connections, 25, 49–61.
49.
PfetschB.AdamS.BennettW. L. (2013). The critical linkage between online and offline media: An approach to researching the conditions of issue spill-over. Javnost—The Public, 20, 9–22.
50.
RogersR. (2002). Operating issue networks on the web. Science as Culture, 11, 191–213. doi:10.1080/09505430220137243
51.
RogersR. (2010). Internet research: The question of method—A keynote address from the YouTube and the 2008 election cycle in the United States Conference. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 241–260.
52.
ShumateM. (2012). The evolution of the HIV/AIDS NGO hyperlink network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 120–134. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01569.x
53.
TateoL. (2005). The Italian extreme right on-line network: An exploratory study using an integrated social network analysis and content analysis approach. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00247.x
54.
TehY. W.JordanM. I.BealM. J.BleiD. M. (2006). Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1566–1581. doi:10.1198/016214506000000302
55.
TremayneM.ZhengN.LeeJ. K.JeongJ. (2006). Issue publics on the web: Applying network theory to the war blogosphere. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 290–310. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00326.x
56.
WaldherrA.MaierD.MiltnerP.GüntherE. (2016). Big data, big noise: The challenge of finding issue networks on the web. Social Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0894439316643050
57.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442. doi:10.1038/30918
