Everyday Politics On Twitter

2015
Everyday Politics on Twitter:
Engagement, discourse,
participation.
STEVEN R. TALBOT
SUPERVISOR: MARIA BAKARDJIEVA
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY | Communications, Media, and Film Studies

Contents
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................... 7
The Public Sphere: Adapted to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) .......................... 10
Civic Communication: Civic-links and Civic Agency .................................................................. 12
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 16
A Networked Approach ............................................................................................................ 16
The Digitally Native ............................................................................................................... 17
Qualitative Analysis: Diving Deeper .......................................................................................... 19
Research Questions and Rationale ............................................................................................... 22
Research Question 1 (R1).......................................................................................................... 23
Methodology................................................................................................................................. 24
Intent......................................................................................................................................... 24
Civic-links on Twitter: Civic content and connective tools ....................................................... 26
Hashtags ................................................................................................................................ 28
1
Co-hashtags ........................................................................................................................... 29
Mentions and Replies ........................................................................................................... 30
Link Sharing and Re-tweeting ............................................................................................... 31
DMI-TCAT and Gephi: How to Capture and Analyze Tweets .................................................... 32
Macro Collection: Defining the Calgary Public Sphere on Twitter ........................................... 34
Additional Queries: Supplementing the “Calgary Civic-Sphere” Query ............................... 36
Meso-analysis: Patterns of Interaction ..................................................................................... 38
Micro-analysis: Re-tweets and Survey on Civic Agency............................................................ 44
Prominent content: Re-tweets ............................................................................................. 44
Survey on Civic Agency: How do citizens use Twitter? ......................................................... 47
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 48
An Overview of Statistics .......................................................................................................... 48
Mentions Analysis: Influencers’ Roles in the Calgary Civic-sphere .......................................... 49
Diving Deeper: What role do citizen accounts play? ............................................................ 54
Mentions Analysis: Citizens and Connective Action ................................................................. 56
Civic-links: An examinations of Re-tweets and Replies ............................................................ 61
The Collective and Connective: How to (help) catch a poppy thief ..................................... 64
Replies: Civic discourse, civic-links, and connective tools .................................................... 72
2
Citizen Agency: What is the value of these civic-links on Twitter? .......................................... 76
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 81
Further Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix A: Civic Co-hashtags ...................................................................................................... 90
Appendix B: Survey Questions ...................................................................................................... 91
Appendix C: Glossary .................................................................................................................... 94
DMI-TCAT Tools and Metrics Used ........................................................................................... 96
Appendix D: Top Re-tweets. ......................................................................................................... 99
Top 54 Re-tweets from October 28t,h 2014 to November 24th, 2014: ..................................... 99
Top Re-tweet’s Total Exposure ............................................................................................... 108
References .................................................................................................................................. 112
Acknowledgements
The following research in its entirety would not be possible without the guidance and
encouragement from my supervisor Dr. Maria Bakardjieva, my honors thesis coordinator Dr.
Tania Smith, and assistance in data collection from John Brosz. Dr. Bakardjieva's previous work
inspired me to look at the ways citizens interact with each other. Her direction in the literature
and notes on my drafts produced a stronger understanding of the theories and concepts which
were the foundation for this work. Dr. Smith's guidance during the research process kept me
3
moving forward and focused. And finally, the data collection would not have been possible if
not for John Brosz, who allowed me to use his server, set up DMI-TCAT, and provided me with
technical assistance when needed. Thank you to all who supported me and contributed, your
help is very much appreciated.
4
Introduction
The democratizing potential of the Internet has been hotly debated, particularly the user-led
shift of web 2.0. New media and particularly social media, allows for users to not only produce,
but curate their own content – social media users choose which news sources they are
frequently exposed to. The dynamics of media production online – whether new media
replicates existing structures creates its own – have not been settled yet. However, research
has shown that the Internet as a source of information and the practices of information seeking
are of its primary use. Those interested in public concerns have new platforms which they can
easily disseminate their opinions and decide which sources they turn to for news. Social media
in particular creates networks which connect those across temporal and spatial boundaries who
otherwise would not interact. With these two properties, social media facilitates dialogue
between individuals, groups, and collectives. These interactions between users may act as
instances of negotiation. Although not always in a respectful manner, politics and civic issues
are debated online. Information, discussion, and even debates, form citizen’s opinions, create
and re-enforce collective identities, and can even facilitate action. How then, do these
networks of interaction made by social media facilitate civic communication?
Although Twitter is primarily used to follow celebrities, the platform has grown extensively in
its use by those interested in civic concerns; citizens, organizations, and political actors.
Wedging his way into the top ten most followed accounts is Barack Obama at 3 rd with 41.9
million followers (Greene, 2014, May 21) – more than fellow top 10 accounts Lady Gaga, Taylor
Swift, and Justin Timberlake. Obama’s appearance in the top ten is most likely a combination of
5
his celebrity and position, but none-the-less, his appearance indicates that the platform can
combine celebrity and political engagement. Further, the platform is predominantly used by
younger citizens, with 66% of users reporting their age to be between 15 and 24 years of age
(Sysomos, 2014, p.3). This demographic situates Twitter in a unique position, in that it may
provide an avenue for young citizens to join civic conversations with ease. Twitter may provide
what are traditionally a marginalized or disinterested demographics an opportunity to engage
in politics and civic concerns. The platform allows for anyone to broadcast their opinion to their
followers, employ the use of a hashtag to join a conversation, or mention another user to
engage them directly. Moreover, Twitter accounts that incorporate politics as well as other
content (humor, sports, entertainment, etc.) expose their followers who are not primarily
concerned with civic issues to these debates. These accounts may be ideally situated to include
citizens who do not frequently engage in civic discussion by exposing them to issue specific
debates that they care about.
The scope of my research project focuses on how politics and civic discourse, concerning
Calgary and Calgarians, functions on Twitter. Mayor Naheed Nenshi received national attention
for his candor on the platform during the 2013 Floods (Bowman, 2013, June 2), but what is its
use for citizens, civic institutions, other political actors, and activist organizations? My research
aims at uncovering how Twitter aids citizens in not only engaging in civic issues, but providing
an avenue to participation online and offline. Understanding who is producing and engaging in
civic content online will provide a topographical view of what is important to citizens. Network
dynamics show us by virtue of everyday actions (mentions, re-tweets, replies, and link sharing)
which users engage the most and are most influential. By using both quantitative and
6
qualitative methods, this research will provide both a network overview of interactions, as well
as what these mean to citizens, political actors, and event coordinators. Users and popular civic
topics on Twitter provide the scope of this research, as these are the important sites of
investigation in understanding how everyday negotiations can facilitate political action. These
instances of participation in civic concerns or political activism are integral to a healthy
democracy. With more and more political actors taking to social media it will be important to
understand how citizens feel about their interactions with decision makers. At the heart of this
research is efficacy. How is Twitter being used every day by citizens, politicians, and
organizations to discuss and act on the issues and political decisions important to them – how
does democracy work on Twitter?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical concept which frames my research is Jürgen Habermas’s model of the public
sphere. As a social theory it addresses the importance of, and ways in which public opinion is
formed and communicated to those in decision-making positions. Habermas posits that
situated in the "lifeworld" are everyday negotiations between individuals which can form a
collective consensus – in effect creating a “democratic demand” (Habermas, 2006, p.73).
Habermas’ public sphere was traditionally conceptualized as a place that people could
physically meet to discuss issues of public concern. It was in places such as coffee houses in the
1800s that allowed a reasoned public to develop. He argues that through rational and critical
debate on issues of public concern, reflexivity, and an agreement to come to consensus on a
topic, this democratic demand was formed. Important to these spaces and the public sphere is
7
a separation from market influences, and that individuals discussing these issues are on even
ground socially. Habermas argues that a democracy functions well when decision-making
processes are amenable to a rational public’s opinion; that is, that the democratic demand has
some impact on decision-making processes. Although the implication of the democratic
demand on decision-making processes are of the upmost importance, my research focuses on
the lifeworld and everyday interactions between individuals and groups online. At the core of
the lifeworld are the negotiations we as individuals make every day which define our social
relations and identity. Bakardjieva (2009), recognizes these various negotiations have the
potential for small acts of civic engagement and participation, acts she defines as “sub-
activism.” This concept stems from the larger metaphysical argument made by Beck (1997) of
“sub-politics.” Sub-politics are a recognition that opinion formation happens on a small scale, in
everyday interactions – like the ones in Habermas’ coffee houses in the 1800s. Sub-politics
focus on the lifeworld as a site for discourse and the loci of power which result from them.
Habermas’s lifeworld “provides the context of action – that is, it comprises a stock of shared
assumptions and background knowledge, of shared reasons on the basis of which agents may
reach consensus” (Finlayson, 2005, p.51). My research focuses on the ways in which we come
to consensus on social media and how Twitter’s mediation might affect the ways in which we
interact, engage, and participate in politics.
The public sphere model has changed since its initial conceptualization by Habermas. The main
critiques, as outlined by Garnham (1992), center around the rationalist model of deliberation,
varying methods of communication (i.e. rhetorical and playful), and the idealized example of
the bourgeois public sphere in the 1800s. His model of deliberation requires that rational-
8
critical debate is maintained, that those participating are reflexive of all arguments, agreeable
to the best possible argument, and that the common goal is consensus. Critiques argue that this
confined definition of deliberation disregards the passion people feel when debating politics
and that rational and logical consensus is often not the norm. Instead of viewing passion as a
negative in democratic engagement, Mouffe (1999), asserts that, “the aim should be to
‘mobilize those passions towards the promotion of democratic design’.” (p. 756). Her argument
is that by confining deliberation to rational critical debate, we are ignoring the deep seeded
motivation of individuals that encourage us to engage in political conversations. Not only have
Habermas’s communicative norms been criticized, but his example of a “public,” as well.
Scholars argue that Habermas overlooks household economics, and thereby the impact of
homemakers – almost exclusively women at the time – in public opinion formation (Garnham,
1992). Moreover, Habermas discusses the bourgeois class as enlightened likeminded
individuals, imparting perhaps a more altruistic and progressive motivation than is warranted.
Garnham (1992) rather asserts that it was not a love of democracy which motivated the
bourgeois class, but rather a chance to increase their profits by controlling the early print
market, which elicited political participation (p.360).
What remains of his work is the key question the public sphere model seeks to answer: how
does society establish “solidarity among strangers”? (Garnham, 2007, p.202). The public sphere
model addresses the relationship within the lifeworld, identifying instances of communicative
action whereby politics are debated and public opinion is formed. In addressing the practices
which facilitate public opinion formation it is important to evaluate how these discussions of
public concern are mediated and how different mediums might convey this rational consensus
9
to decision-makers – the expression of a “democratic demand”. The following section will
discuss how Habermas’ concept of opinion formation has been adapted to computer mediated
communication (CMC) and the conceptual shift of the public sphere.
The Public Sphere: Adapted to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Applications of Habermas’ public sphere to computer-mediated communication (CMC) has
transformed the concept substantially. The public sphere has evolved from a solely a physical
place to a conceptual spaces, the internet bring people from different time zones, cultures, and
lifestyles to different online spaces. The public sphere according to Dahlgren (2009), is
“normatively seen as comprised of the institutional communicative spaces, universally
accessible, that facilitate the formation of discussion and public opinion, via the unfettered flow
of relevant information and ideas” (72). User-led and generated discussions online have been
likened to the Habermasian coffee houses, acting as conduits for political discussion and
opinion formation (For examples see, Bruns, 2008; Dahlgren, 2005, 2009; Dahlberg, 2001;
Graham, 2008). Bruns (2008) argues that CMC creates networks of interaction in which
“localized-public spheres” have emerged. Instead of one unified public sphere, multiple
conversations emerge which often revolve around specific topics, interests, or events. When a
user shares their interests, “ideas, plans, images, and resources” (Bruns, 2008, p.753) with
others, they create many weak ties which the logic of connective action utilizes; social ties that
platforms such Twitter facilitate. Bennett and Segerberg’s concept of connective action works
to create inadvertent linkages thereby forming publics that could not have done so in a pre-
internet era (Coleman, 2013, p.379). “The linchpin of connective action is the formative
10
element of ‘sharing’: the personalization that leads to actions and content to be distributed
widely across social networks” (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012, p.760). The like-minded
communities that this sharing creates around a specific topic or particular interest may be
fleeting ones or persist, and are often centered on political or civic topics, events, and interests.
Bennett and Segerberg (2012), assert that the starting point of connective action in CMC is self-
motivated, and often these self-motivated posts are political in nature, expressing opinions;
using technology to organize and disseminate them. Bennett and Segerberg (2012) use the
metaphor of DNA to explain how these weak social ties create the structure of a dialogue.
These localized public spheres are brought together by sharing information and experience with
persons of similar interest. This connective logic is but one aspect in creating these localized-
publics, the content being shared must in some way engage civic issues, events, or political
stances.
In terms of the content of these conversations, Dahlberg (2001), provides an extensive analysis
of “everyday online discourse” compared to a normative conception of the public sphere. In
evaluating these online spaces he finds a substantial disconnect in: Increasing commodification;
an inequitable amount and quality of participation by groups or users; a lack of reflexivity,
willingness to compromise, and accountability; and the exclusory implications of access to the
Internet. Although a lack of access to internet has diminished in modern democratic states
since 2001, the remaining disconnects are still prevalent. He concludes that political discourse
can and does arise online, the main departure from Habermas being that it is not always in the
deliberative spirit he outlines. Rational-critical deliberation, free from emotion or passion is
seldom the norm in online discussions. Agreeing with Mouffe (1999), some scholars identify the
11
need for a broadening of the term deliberation to encompass emotion in political discourse,
arguing that strictly rational-critical debate is an unrealistic standard, and often ineffective for
facilitating further participation in political discussion and action (Dahlgren, 2005, 2009;
Dahlberg, 2001; Rodan & Balnaves, 2009; Graham, 2008; Wright, 2012). Moreover, this
deliberation needs to be with others who do not necessarily agree with one another, to
facilitate civic discussion. Wojcieszak & Mutz, (2009) in a study of online groups and political
discourse, find that “political discussions that occur within nonpolitical online groups frequently
involve participants who disagree with each other” (p.50). CMC and especially social media
produces platforms where politics are not the central function, but are subsections of the
discourse. Here, in everyday interactions we find politics discussed, with the potential for
deliberative instances. In this way public opinion is many different localized-public spheres with
bridges connecting these publics to each other. Habermas’ initial concept of the public sphere
when applied to CMC still looks at the connective tissue of democracy by addressing the
networks of interaction surrounding politics. However, public opinion formation online can be
seen as an aggregate of multiple conversations, multiple public spheres.
Civic Communication: Civic-links and Civic Agency
Peter Dahlgren’s (2005, 2009, 2012a, 2012b) concept of civic cultures, civic agency, and civic
communication situates online-mediated discourse as operating as a public sphere. Similar to
Habermas, he argues that for democracy to be substantive there must be open lines of
communication from citizens to decision makers. However, Dahlgren’s model aims to be more
inclusive in its definition of public opinion formation. Civic links between individuals create
12
unity and understanding among citizens; Dahlgren outlines a more realistic blueprint for how
civic deliberation and civic action are fostered. Specific to CMC, Dahlgren’s (2005) work on
public spheres and political communication identifies structural dimensions of different net-
based spheres – e-government, advocacy/activist, the prepolitical/parapolitical, and the
journalism domain. These different structural dimensions Dahlgren is referring to are the
incubators, and expression of, democratic demand. Dahlgren defines them as institutions of
democracy which have their own communicative ecologies and thereby different dynamics of
inclusion/exclusion, norms, and practices. Of these structural dimensions, Twitter acts as a
“prepolitical or parapolitical domain, which airs social and cultural topics having to do with
common interests and/or collective identities. Here debating politics is not explicitly the aim of
the platform, but always remains a potential.” (Dahlgren, 2005, p.152) In
prepolitical/parapolitical domains we see varying levels of discussion and interaction. In these
domains we see a continuum of interactions, citizens discussing their concerns are engaged in
discourse, but may also use the domain to participate in politics. Often engagement and
participation are conflated when discussing democracy. Dahlgren distinguishes issues of
engagement versus participation arguing:
“Engagement refers to subjective states, that is, a mobilized, focused attention on some
object. It is in a sense a prerequisite for participation: To ‘participate’ in politics,
presupposes some degree of engagement. For engagement to become embodied in
participation and thereby give rise to civic agency there must be some connection to
practical, do-able activities where citizens can feel empowered.” (Dahlgren, 2009, 80-
81).
The difference lies in the transition of a citizen from simply being engaged in politics, to feeling
empowered enough to participate in it. From Dahlgren’s works (2005, 2009, 2012a, 2012b) I
13
have adopted both definitions for engagement and participation, and the attributes of the
internet which facilitate civic communication; sharing information, sharing experience,
providing mutual support, organizing, mobilizing, and solidifying collective identities (Dahlgren
2012b, 27). These civic “links” as Dahlgren refers to them, aid citizens in discussing and
participating in politics online. As I will discuss later, the civic-links which mobilize and organize
are of primary concern to my research, as they provide more than commentary on political
events, they aim to facilitate action. All of these civic-links found in digital media, according to
Dahlgren (2012a) impact “how people participate socially culturally, and not least on how civic
agency is enacted and how politics gets done.” (p.158). In examining these civic-links in
discourse on Twitter I will be identifying varying levels of civic communication.
My research will dissect civic communication by identifying these civic-links in everyday
conversation between citizens on Twitter. Civic-links produce a continuum on which to evaluate
how citizens are engaging and participating in politics online, they break down into three
evolving categories, one building onto the next: sharing information/ experiences
(Engagement); providing mutual support/ solidifying collective identities (Group identity
recognition/ formation); Organizing/ mobilizing (Participation). Instances of sharing information
and/or experiences show an initial level of engagement in civic or political subjects. Citizens
extending these to others in uni-lateral communication – i.e. posting a tweet, or mentioning
another user – are attempting to share their knowledge or experiences, thereby engaging
others. These links are the first step in creating conversations around civic topics and are the
prerequisite to deliberation and participation. Links which are identified as providing mutual
support or solidifying collective identities are an important step in creating a collective “we”.
14
These links are the foundation of individual and collective civic identity recognition and
formation, often a prerequisite to collective action movements. When citizens engage in bi-
lateral communication and extend these links they are creating a unified “we” which can be
drawn upon at a later date. They are establishing familiarity online through topics important to
them, the requisite for community building. Links which aim at organizing or mobilizing
represent actionable or “do-able” activities that signify a citizen’s participation. Instances of
organizing civic-links are calls to action centered on a specific cause, using organizational links
such as hashtags, informative YouTube videos, Kickstarter campaigns, and the like. These links
draw on both collective and individual action frames. Mobilizing links will be differentiated by
current physical meet ups that show mobilization outside of Twitter. Uni-lateral instances of
these civic-links show that at least one citizen is trying to organize or mobilize others for an
issue important to them. Although these may not be received in the affirmative, the citizen is
using Twitter to participate in politics with a specific goal in mind by attempting to elicit further
participation from others. Bi-lateral instances of these links reveal the solidifying of collective
identities and, when the response is in the affirmative, an instance of successful organization or
mobilization. When a citizen responds – in the affirmative – to another’s call to support or
action we see the realization of civic-links aimed at participation. This evolving continuum of
civic-links shows the different stages of civic communication occurring everyday on Twitter,
each of which with varying motivations and objectives imbued in them. Not only are these links
conceptual, but literal when assessing communication online. In my methodology I will explain
further how I intend to operationalize these civic-links to show this continuum of civic
engagement, identify formation, and participation.
15
Literature Review
A Networked Approach
Scholars have taken the spirit of deliberation and modes of connection – like Habermas’ coffee
houses – to evaluate how online discourse facilitates democratic engagement and participation
online. Himelboim, McCreery & Smith (2013), argue that the common theme of questions
addressing social network analysis is whether or not social networking sites (SNS) allow
individuals to branch out and extend their political circles, or if their patterns of use rather
extend existing communities to the web. Coleman (2013) argues that research on the efficacy
of SNS’ have shown thus far that democratic engagement via conversations and opinion sharing
flourishes, but, that they have “yet to develop constructive mechanisms of helping people to
determine effective solutions in the face of scarce resources” (p.279). In contrast to this, Saebo
et al (2009) argues that SNS can become “citizen-driven” facilitating social movements,
community development, participation in internal governance, extending commerce and
government, disseminating issues and ideas, and eroding distinctions between real and virtual
identity. My research will aim to further explore the connection between online and offline
distinctions, specifically examining if citizens use Twitter to develop constructive mechanisms
for participation in local politics. Wojcieszak & Mutz (2009), look to all online groups where
political discourse is an “incidental” product of interactions. They find that discussion about
politics in non-political spaces are more “common than anticipated” (p.50). They approximate
that at the time of their study 5.1 million Americans had engaged in political discussion – the
16
majority of which were in non-political online forums. (Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009, p.50). The
issue then becomes identifying these instances of political discussion.
Axel Bruns (2008) work, “Life Beyond the Public Sphere: Towards a networked model for
political deliberation”, argues that whereas previous public spheres existed in smaller numbers
with less fluidity, a networked model existing on Twitter creates individual public spheres he
labels “spherules”. These individualized spheres are due to the aggregation of content defined
by each user. These networks are “interwoven” together, facilitating engagement via discussion
of news events and policy shifts. Neither Wojcieszak & Mutz (2009) nor Bruns (2008) address
the quality of these conversations online, but they do provide strong justification for research
looking at nonpolitical, or parapolitical, spaces for deliberation. While there is no consensus on
the final affordances or lack thereof of social networking sites, these works all address the
issues of citizenship, engagement and participation, in networked communities. Moreover, all
of these authors accept Dahlgren’s premise that “every day, conversational talk always harbors
a civic potential.” (Dahlgren, 2009, p.90). The identification of political, or civic communication
in SNS’ is the first step in evaluating online discourse and activism.
The Digitally Native
Specific to Twitter, Bruns (2008, 2012), Bruns & Highfield (2013), and Himelboim et al (2013), all
address the question of networked-politics and civic communication from a quantitative
perspective. Following Rogers (2009) methodological invitation to examine the “digitally
native,” they have all produced network visualizations of political conversations and election
rhetoric using Twitter’s inherent metrics. All of these have looked at the localized public
17
spheres on Twitter to establish a connective logic between individuals, groups, and political
actors on the platform. These localized public spheres are identified by the dense “clusters” of
interaction where political actors appear (Bruns & Highfield, 2013). Networked models show
how and in what way communication is occurring; is it uni-, bi-, or multi-, directional; is the
network of interaction dense or sparse (many social ties or few); which actors are producing the
most content; what type of content is shared the most. These analyses are at the core of
connective logic’s propensity to create an ad hoc community around events, issues, and politics
(Bennett, 2012; Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Bruns (2012) addresses how long these
interactions and issues on Twitter are sustained for, finding @replies (conversations between
two users) to be “highly ephemeral, and meaningful only in cumulative form” (p. 1340). From
this research Bruns argues that scholars studying social context and the digitally native need “to
allow the patterns emerging from their data to direct the focus of their further work at least to
some extent” (p.1351). Here Bruns is suggesting that data collected from Twitter should be
allowed to reveal itself rather than defined completely by a researcher. Bruns is attempting to
avoid “query” bias, where a researcher’s search terms might have an inherent preference.
Examining U.S. politics searching for partisanship, Himelboim et al (2013) identify clusters of
interaction on Twitter, finding that there was little cross-ideological communication. Having
searched for Twitter manually for Tweets and making network connections manually, they call
for new ways to capture and analyze tweets to create a more complete picture. They report
that the short term storage provided by Twitter makes it difficult to search for relevant Tweets.
In collecting Tweets manually, it is possible and indeed likely that they missed key users in
facilitating cross-ideological spheres. These users in network analysis are called “highly
18
between” because they frequently act as bridges from one conversation or set of users to
another separate set of users (Caldarelli & Catanzaro, 2012). Where Bruns (2008; 2012) takes a
quantitative approach to studying Twitter, Himelboim et al (2013) try to combine – an albeit
limited – quantitative collection of data with a content analysis.
Qualitative Analysis: Diving Deeper
Whereas the aforementioned scholars used networked models to establish communities of
interaction, others have taken a qualitative approach to understanding computer-mediated
communication and the public sphere. Much of the current literature takes a top-down
approach to political engagement and participation, focusing on politicians’ use of the platform
during elections and for their own purposes. (For examples, see: Bruns, 2012; Bruns &
Highfield, 2013; Larsson, 2014; Vergeer & Hermans, 2013). In these studies civic communication
and agency were measured by election results. They have examined how politicians used
Twitter for the purpose of gaining electoral votes, rather than as conduits for deliberation and
civic communication. Other studies conducted surrounding federal elections (Tumasjan et al,
2011; Yardi & boyd, 2010; Conover et al, 2011; Suh et al, 2010; as cited in Bruns & Stieglitz,
2012) address partisanship and the predictability of electoral outcomes. Whereas the first set of
studies examined politicians, the latter examined civic discourse, both of which were concerned
with electoral results.
As mentioned before, Dahlberg (2001), looks at “everyday online discourse,” but his survey of
the literature was assembled during web 1.0. While his findings that rational-critical debate is
not the norm in forum postings is still relevant, the network dynamics and relevance of social
19
media in news media and information seeking have produced considerable changes. Anstead &
O’loughlin (2011) address deliberation on Twitter surrounding a controversial episode of the
BBC’s Question Time. They find that in this real-time response to a particular event, hashtag use
increased significantly, suggesting a “propensity to many-to-many communications, in the form
of interaction that is most distinctively associated with social media” (p.458). In this we see
collective groups expressing themselves in real time, signified by the content of their Tweets
and hashtags, expressed through social media (Anstead & O’loughlin, 2011). Here we see the
synthesis of traditional news media and social media to allow for citizen’s commentary. In their
findings they identify the presence of “Superparticipants” (Wright & Graham, 2014) in the
dialogue on Twitter; recognizing that “the most vocal 20 percent of commentators produced
more than half the content.” (Anstead & O’loughlin, 2011, p.449). Wright & Graham (2014)
address the impact of “Superparticipants” in everyday talk online in forums and find that while
users who engage extensively do exist, in this context they were “largely positive” and
“facilitated an inclusive environment” (p.639). My research will address if and how collective
identities are formed and represented on Twitter in everyday conversations on the platform,
looking for the occurrence or lack thereof of superparticipants.
The formation of these identities through discussion are the basis for collective action. Saebo et
al (2009) agree with Durkheim’s assessment that solidarity is comprised of both Mechanical
and Organical aspects. Mechanical solidarity is the basis for Bennett and Segerberg’s concept of
connective action, arguing that many weak ties allow for a quick diffusion of information within
a social network; while organical solidarity allows for specialization in specific tasks, which is
then divided up between those in the network – creating an interdependency between

20
members of the same network (Saebo et al, 2009, p.50). Saebo et al (2009), argue that these
two forms of solidarity implicit in SNS are “a driver for the development of social capital” (p.50).
They further assert that it is this social capital that “collective action, voting choices, and other
aspects of political participation” (p.50) are based upon. Those studies which address social
movements, and thus collective identities, find that Twitter has been an effective tool in
disseminating information by both everyday users and journalists. Gomez & Trere’s (2014)
study on Yo Soy 132 (I am 132) examined how protesters used Twitter to divide up tasks for the
movement, allowing media students to create and share videos, aiding journalists in
disseminating breaking news – defying the government’s attempts to criminalize the protests.
They argue that the movement was a “turning point in Mexican politics, above all because
many young people with no prior history of being politically active joined the movement and
started to develop a sense of collective identity” (Gomez & Trere, 2014, p.507). Here we see the
effect of connective action creating a collective identity around a group which organized and
mobilized.
Not only engaging in everyday political interactions on Twitter, but participating in small
instances of political action, stems from Bakardjieva’s (2009) concept of “sub-activism”.
Bakardjieva (2009) conceptualizes sub-activism as “small-scale, often individualized decisions
and actions that have either a political or ethical frame of reference” (p.92). Multiple
negotiations that bond citizens and fuel collective action can combine to bring peripheral actors
in formal politics to “the stage of social design”. This frames everyday civic communication on
Twitter as negotiations by users which contribute to their identity formation, potentially
culminating in small – or large – instances of political action. Dumitrica (2013) analyzes

21
Canadian’s uses of the internet in everyday negotiations of social order to see whether
Canadians view their online interactions as formulating a political identity. She finds that, “the
banal and uninteresting details of personal uses were not seen as legitimate online content, yet
professional contributions were unproblematically considered as part of the ‘wealth’ of online
information. These everyday classifications were simultaneously open to negotiations and
resistances…” (p.601). Here, Dumitrica identifies that Canadians do not view their everyday
contributions to the Internet as worth-while. The implications on citizen agency, as echoed by
Bakardjieva (2009), is that citizens are often not fully aware that they are participating in these
negotiations. My research aims at contributing to this literature, to find how those involved in
political discussion on Twitter understand their contributions. Rather than situating my
research in the midst of a social movement or election I am examining the everyday practices of
users to understand how the medium is used to create connective and collective action; how
citizens are linking up with each other, and how Twitter might bridge the lifeworld with political
organizations and decision-makers. Will citizens recognize that they are forming collective
identities online? And moreover, will they recognize that they are contributing to civic
communication?
Research Questions and Rationale
Calgarian mayor Naheed Nenshi has received national recognition for his online presence
during the 2013 local state of emergency due to flooding. His online candor with citizens is both
conversational and witty, part of the reason he was elected 2014’s World Mayor (CBC News,
2015, February 2). But what does the broader Calgary related discourse entail? I will be
22
conducting a case study of civic communication by examining the discourse pertaining to
Calgary and its politics. Local, provincial, and federal politics can be associated with Calgary
simply by adding a #YYC to a tweet’s content. This simple act imbues the tweet with a
geographical signifier. This can either be a physical signifier or, in the case of provincial and
federal politics a topical one. By addressing content that users associate with the city I intend to
identify localized discussions of issues and/or events important to Calgarians and politics
surrounding Calgary. I expect to see city councilors engaging on the platform, addressing civic
issues, as well as MLAs discussing provincial politics. Local issues that are expected to come up
are related to Veteran’s issues, as November 9th was Remembrance Day. Issues of secondary
suites and bike lanes have frequently been addressed by Calgary news outlets. In the month of
November at the provincial level, the Progressive Conservative Party saw two former members
of the Wild Rose cross the floor. Given the prominence of Mayor Nenshi on Twitter, I expect
that he will be central in communication on the platform. But, of primary concern to my
research are the citizens that facilitate dialogue and connect others to civic conversations.
Taking from the literature on citizen-centric civic communication, my research questions aim at
uncovering the Calgary sphere network structure, civic related content, and it's use for citizens.
Research Question 1 (R1)
What does political discourse centered on #YYC reveal about these localized-public spheres?
Which actors – individuals, organizations, news media, politicians, – reveal themselves to be
prominent content creators, hubs of interaction, and act as central nodes in connecting other
users? I.e. who has the most followers, who is mentioned the most, and who is “highly
23
between”? From a network perspective, what does public discussion look like on Twitter?
(Network)
Of these actors on Twitter what type of content are they producing, and for which purposes are
they utilizing civic-links I.e. Information sharing, experience sharing, providing mutual support,
solidifying collective identities, organizing, and/or mobilizing. What type of content is shared
the most? (Content)
Do individual citizens on Twitter who engage in discourse and content creation extend their
engagement to offline? Are there instances where Twitter provided a citizen with a bridge to an
organization or actor which resulted in further political participation offline? In short, did
Twitter help increase their civic-agency online, offline, both, or neither? (Use)
Methodology
Intent
By establishing a network of interaction first, I will be able to see which actors are hubs for
discussion, how they are choosing to interact and which topics emerge. Identifying these
localized-publics within the Calgary Twitter network provides the scope and direction to my
survey. Those actors who have been identified through their engagement on Twitter
(conversation, sharing links, broadcasting opinions, etc.) to be politically active provide the site
to address questions of engagement, participation, and civic-agency.
24
Having identified who is creating content and which users are influential in the Calgary
network, it is important to identify what the quality of engagement is. Information sharing and
experience sharing, without reciprocation or acknowledgement from other users requires
relatively low commitment from an actor. Although their sharing of information and experience
can help disseminate important issues and inspire individuals, it does not constitute a form of
action that Dahlgren’s (2005) definition of “participation” requires. Instances of providing
mutual support and solidifying collective identities represent an interaction between two actors
which facilitates bi-lateral engagement. A political topic has connected these two users who
feel motivated enough to engage in discussion and respond to one another, establishing a
visible connection between the two. Further, instances where politics are being debated, or a
specific issue is at hand, support for one side or the other solidifies collective identities by
agreeing with a united ‘we’ - often shown by the use of hashtags. These instances rely on
collective frames such as nationalism, civic duty, sports teams, etc. Actionable calls to organize
and mobilize users via Twitter make use of the many weak ties of Social Networking Sites. By
evaluating the type of content and degrees of interaction in the Calgary network, my research
will distinguish on a continuum the level of participation in civic issues via Twitter. I will be
primarily concerned with civic-links which aim at organizing and mobilizing users, and the
effects – if any – online and offline.
Establishing who prominent actors are in the network and the amount/quality of civic-links
provides data to compare with citizen’s answers to my questionnaire on civic-agency. The
questionnaire is aimed at uncovering how people use Twitter for the purposes of civic
engagement (See Appendix B for questions). It aims at not only uncovering the motivations of
25
Twitter users, but how these engaged parties use Twitter to connect with others. Examples of
citizens engaging in dialogue directly with city officials and/or civic institutions illustrates the
bridges between the everyday spaces in the lifeworld and those in decision-making positions.
Understanding how people perceive these interactions and if their communication results in
citizens feeling empowered reveal how effective these bridges are.
Civic-links on Twitter: Civic content and connective tools
Dahlgren (2012a, 2012b) asserts that the net has been broadly understood to facilitate civic
communication by allowing people and organizations to “link up with each other for purposes
of sharing information and experience, providing mutual support, organizing, mobilizing or
solidifying collective identities” (Dahlgren, 2012a, p.158). Here he talks about linking up in a
conceptual way. But these links established over the Internet are not just conceptual, they can
be operationalized to show how citizens are facilitating civic communication on Twitter. Richard
Rogers (2009) has produced works advocating for the development of metrics which are
“natively digital,” deeming these to be “digital methods.” Instead of re-appropriating or
translating existing methods of inquiry such as surveys, interviews, and ethnographies to the
virtual world – what he calls “virtual methods” – he advocates researchers “follow the medium”
(Rogers, 2009, 2013). Rogers’ (2013) work Digital Methods dissects the implications of digital
communicative metrics such as hyperlinks, arguing:
“For small world theorists, the links that form paths show distance between actors.
Social network analysts use pathway thought, and zoom in on how the ties,
unidirectional or bidirectional, position actors. A special vocabulary has been developed
to characterize an actor’s position, especially an actor’s centrality within a network.”
(27)
26
The hyperlink is but one of these natively digital metrics of interaction Rogers advocates we
study. Twitter embedded functions, similar to the hyperlink, allow for natively digital metrics to
be analyzed (For examples see, Borra & Rieder, 2014; Bruns, 2008, 2012; Bruns & Highfield,
2013; Bruns & Stieglitz, 2012; Bruns & Liang, 2012; Himelboim, et al, 2013; Honeycutt &
Herring, 2009; Moe & Larsson, 2012; Small, 2011). By studying these natively digital links we
can examine the importance of actors on Twitter by who is frequently contacting whom, about
what, and in what manner.
The connective metrics inherent to Twitter, as a platform, allow citizens to link up in different
ways; Dahlgren recognizes that, “digital media contribute their particular feature to this
evolution, impacting on how people participate socially and culturally, and not least on how
civic agency is enacted and how politics gets done.” (Dahlgren, 2012a, p.158). These connective
symbols inherent to Twitter can, and are, used to engage and participate in civic issues and
events; these links are not only conceptual, but literal, and measurable. As mentioned in the
theoretical framework, each of these purposes of "linking up" have different motivations
behind them, producing a continuum of citizenship; engagement, identity formation,
participation. When used for the purposes that “link up” people and organizations, the content
of tweets and the natively digital metrics of Twitter are what I will call "civic-links." When
citizens or organizations utilize Twitter with a political or civic frame, the content of their tweet
and Twitter's connective metrics become civic-links from one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-
to-many. Twitter as a mass-interpersonal platform allows for these civic-links to engage
individual citizens or organizations, while being viewed by followers and those searching by
keyword. The term civic-links encapsulates the motivation behind "linking up" for civic
27
purposes, the civic related content of a tweet, and the natively digital metrics of interaction
utilized on Twitter. These civic-links can be for any of the aforementioned purposes identified
by Dahlgren.
Twitter's metrics of interaction consist of the hashtag (#), the co-hashtag (hashtags used in
conjunction with each other), the reply or mention (@), the re-tweet (a carbon-copy replication
of one user’s tweet by another user), and link sharing (imbedding a URL in one’s Tweet). Each of
these metrics allow us to establish a topical and interaction based network on Twitter.
Hashtags
Hashtags are measured as intentional content-signifiers. Users who use a hashtag, #Research
for example, are deliberately associating the term or topic “Research” with the content of their
Tweet. A hashtag’s imbedded content can be used to identify collective frames (e.g. #Occupy),
places (e.g. #YYC or #Canada), or emotions/ states of mind (e.g. #TooMuchTurkey), providing
additional context to a user's Tweet. These content-signifiers allow researchers to identify
topics of discourse on Twitter by following the dominant hashtag associated with a given topic.
When these hashtags pertain to civic issues, users are attempting to facilitate civic
communication by associating their tweet with a larger conversation – #Canada or #Ableg for
instance. These hashtags can be searched by users to view all tweets associated with this
content. Researchers have used hashtags to both, identify and evaluate networks and clusters
of interaction, and, conduct content analyses associated with their use (Bruns, 2012; Bruns &
Highfield, 2013; Bruns & Stieglitz, 2012; Small, 2011). While following topical discourse via
hashtags allows a researcher to analyze a user’s intentional association of a content-signifier (#)
28
with a given topic (research, occupy, etc.), it does not provide an exhaustive map of the topical
discourse. The limitation of the method is identified by Bruns, (2012) saying that: “What solely
[a] #hashtag-based approach to the study of Twitter interactions does not enable us to
examine, by contrast, is the level of relevant interaction that may take place outside the
#hashtag proper, or under other, alternative #hashtags” (1346). The trade-off for researchers
then becomes whether to study user intended content-signifiers or a complete picture of
topical discourse. When proceeding with a hashtag based approach a researcher is limiting their
visibility of users, by not allowing for tweets with pertinent content which do not employ the
dominant hashtag - #Calgary instead of #YYC, for instnace. Hashtags are the content signifier
civic-links utilized by Twitter users.
Data will be collected based on Twitter users coding of #YYC in their Tweet. This allows for
frequent topics associated with #YYC to be revealed; rather than searching by specific words
like “liberal, conservative, or wild rose,” which would only collect data surrounding these
political parties. Because this research is addressing everyday discourse online it is imperative
that a broad net is cast when collecting data. This allows for sub-topics to reveal themselves,
rather than be dictated by the researcher via specific keyword searches. These sub-topics can
be identified by the use of hashtags in conjunction with each other (co-hashtags).
Co-hashtags
Co-hashtag frequency allows a researcher to identify which content-signifiers are associated
with each other. By establishing the frequency of hashtags such as, #Research, with #Twitter or
29
#Thesis, we can identify how often users link these two or three topics. Borra and Rieder (2014)
recognize the connective relevance of co-hashtags, saying that:
“A co-hashtag network output allows for a type of content analysis that focuses on
relationships between these signal words: if two hashtags appear in the same tweet, a
link is established; the more often they co-occur, the stronger the link. By applying
network analysis techniques, one can get an overview of the subject variety in a set of
tweets and analyze relationships between subtopics.” (p. 270-71)
Analyzing the frequency and discourse of sub-topics in the greater #YYC conversation situates
my findings as part of a larger network of discourse. Co-hashtags which are civically relevant
will identify topics where citizens are engaging in political discussion. The amount co-
occurrence of #YYC and, say, #Nenshi for example, will show us how often citizens tweeted
about Calgary in relation to its mayor. By analyzing the frequency of civically related co-
hashtags I will create a topical map of Calgary politics on Twitter. This satisfies both
requirements of my data: relevant to Calgary and civically related. By identifying the prominent
co-hashtags we can define what “civic communication” in the month of November consists of.
These co-hashtags are what will define the Calgary localized-public sphere. Co-hashtags are
topical civic-links utilized by Twitter users.
Mentions and Replies
The use of the “@” symbol designates one Twitter user’s directed interaction with another, in
an attempt to engage them in conversation, or generally, evoke a response – positive or
negative. The metric provides researchers with networks of interaction between individual
Twitter users, revealing who is frequently conversing with whom. The relevance of which is
that, “[s]tudies of @reply patterns within all tweets marked with a specific #hashtag may help
30
to identify the most central users within that topical network – in doing so also exploring what
actual activity metrics may indicate ‘centrality’” (emphasis original) (Bruns, 2012, p.1325). By
identifying which actors are most central in a network, a researcher can ask whether or not
those actors operate as intermediaries between other users; thereby facilitating a connection
that would have otherwise not have been made. When these tweets contain content of a civic
nature they are attempts at dialogue with others. Replies to another user’s Tweets about civic
issues may be categorized as deliberative, and even participatory if they are organizing or
mobilizing other citizens. Furthermore, with data visualization software a researcher can
illustrate these clusters of interaction: who is attempting to facilitate conversation by
contacting others; who is being contacted by others the most, and therefore and influential
user in the network; and who is connecting peripheral users to the main conversation by
engaging those not regularly taking part in discourse. Mentions and replies are the
interpersonal civic-links utilized by Twitter users.
Link Sharing and Re-tweeting
Link sharing and re-tweeting provide researchers with simple metrics about the quality of
conversation occurring in networks. Imbedding links in Tweets allows users to direct others to a
variety of resources, from supporting news articles and personal blogs to crowd-sourced
funding campaigns such as Kickstarter. These links can, and often do, enhance communication
on Twitter by providing additional information, original commentary, and means to participate
further outside the platform of Twitter. Further, by following these links, a researcher is able to
“examine the political leaning of the sources of information that tweets link to” (Himelboim et
31
al, 2013, p.155), thereby addressing issues of partisanship and author intention. More pertinent
to this study is the intention of the author of the Tweet. Link sharing instances are
informational civic-links utilized by Twitter users.
Re-tweeting replicates the content of another user’s Tweet. This can be done to support the
content of the tweet and disseminate it in their own follower network or to show and criticize
the content of another user. Either way it shows that the content of another user is being
discussed – in the affirmative or negative – by another user in their own follower network. Re-
tweets – as well as replies – act as what Honeycutt and Herring (2009) call the
“conversationality” of everyday exchanges (p.8). Top re-tweets in a network highlight what
content is important to those participating and contributing. These top re-tweets in a data
selection provide a researcher with a site for content analysis. Re-tweeting on Twitter are civic-
links aimed at promotion or commentary.
DMI-TCAT and Gephi: How to Capture and Analyze Tweets
The current literature addressing how to establish, evaluate, and visually represent these
networks of interaction on Twitter is still emerging. The primary tool for Tweet collection
before Twitter’s enforcement of their Terms and Use of Services in March 2011 was called
TwapperKeeper (TK) (Used by, Bruns, 2012; Bruns & Highfield, 2013; Bruns & Stieglitz, 2012;
Moe & Larsson, 2012). Since 20 March, 2011 extraction of the data collected by TK is illegal.
However, the base code which allowed for the collection of Tweets has been replicated and
enhanced by Erik Borra & Bernhard Rieder at the University of Amsterdam’s (UvA) Digital
Methods Initiative (DMI). Borra & Rieder’s (2014) article “Programmed Method: Developing a
32
toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets” outlines their coding, reasoning, and functionality of
their Twitter Capture and Analysis Tool (TCAT). They argue that by “staying close to the units
defined by the Twitter platform instead of storing aggregates,” (p.266) their tool allows
researchers to follow digitally native symbols of interaction. Twitter data can be collected by
hashtags, user accounts, geo-location, keywords, or a 1% random sample of all Twitter data.
Once the data is collected it is stored and accessed via queries defined by the researcher. In the
same way anyone can query Google for results on “Calgary,” a researcher can query results
from the data captured for results of their choosing.
All of the various analytics1 produced by the Digital Methods Initiative’s Twitter Capture and
Analysis Tool (DMI-TCAT) allow researchers to output two types of files: either a Comma
Separated Value file (CSV) or a Gephi file (GDF or GEXF), used for network visualization. The
specific network analytics I will be using provided by the DMI-TCAT are: the “social graph by
mentions,” the “reply to status ID,” and the “Co-hashtag graph.” Other meta and user specific
data are revealed in the form of CSV’s by the TCAT including; users, text of the tweets, re-
tweets, user follower counts, time of tweet, etc. (See Appendix C for complete list of analytics).
The three network analytics in bold above allow a researcher to input this data into a
visualization program, such as Gephi. The other individual and group overview statistics will be
used as supplementary data.
Gephi allows researchers to visualize data by taking large amounts of information and
producing legible and digestible networks. For all of the data visualizations I used a spacing
1
See Appendix E for the various analyitics used in this research project
33
algorithm native to the program called “ForceAtlas2”2. Choosing this algorithm emphasizes who
is interacting with whom, as it groups users who have mentioned, replied, or re-tweeted
another closer to each other; those users who are spatially closer together are interacting
together on Twitter more frequently. Each node represents a distinct Twitter user, and each
edge represents an interaction between users. Gephi also allows a researcher to change the
color and size of the nodes, and the color and size of the labels of the nodes, to represent
various network metrics.3 For a glossary of each metric produced by Gephi and the network
implications of them see appendix C.
Macro Collection: Defining the Calgary Public Sphere on Twitter
The first question of my approach was “which Tweets are relevant to Calgary political discourse
on Twitter?” Using the DMI-TCAT I began by collecting 27 days (2014/10/28 – 2014/11/24)
worth of Twitter data centering on the keyword “#YYC”. This was done to identify user-defined
content which correlated with Calgary’s city code. It was important that users incorporated the
hashtag knowingly, thereby associating the City of Calgary with their tweet. Collecting data by
geo-location was not used due to the minimal number of tweets tagged with a geo-locator.
Moreover, content not tweeted just from Calgary, but about Calgary was also pertinent to this
study.
2
The spatial algorithm used to represent this was the ForceAtlas2: “FoceAtlas2 is a force directed layout: it
simulates a physical system in order to spatialize a network. Nodes repulse each other like charged particles, while
edges attract their nodes, like springs. These forces create a movement that converges to a balanced state. This
final configuration is expected to help the interpretation of the data.” (Jacomy et al, 2014, p.1). This attraction and
repulsion is based on the degree size of the node and weight of the edge; higher degrees mean more repulsion,
and higher edge weights mean stronger attraction. Due to this, nodes which interact with each other more
frequently (mention each other more) are drawn together physically closer.
3
In Degree, Out Degree, Total Degree, and Betweenness Centrality.
34
Unfortunately due to unforeseen errors I encountered four black-out periods:
2014/11/04/12:00 – 2014/11/06/9:00; 2014/11/10/12:00 – 2014/11/12/9:00; 2014/11/16/3:00
– 2014/11/17/6:00; 2014/11/18:00 – 2014/11/19/12:00. Not including these dates and times
the collection yielded 77,350 Tweets from 22,104 distinct users. Although there are some
sizeable blackout periods when the capture script stopped working, because the data is not
concerned with one continuous event, these periods have little effect on the overall quality of
the data. But, where specific events are dissected supplementary data queries using DMI-TCAT,
and programs such as TweetTunnel4, Twiangulate5, and Twitter, are used to fill in any gaps.
By collecting data centered on #YYC, and not just trending topics, smaller politically oriented
conversations were captured as well. Moving from the macro (Calgary) to the meso (Calgary
politics) was done by identifying co-hashtags which were politically relevant. The co-hashtag
graph analytic of the DMI-TCAT allowed me to identify which other hashtags were
predominantly associated with “#YYC”. Of these Co-hashtags’ I narrowed down their frequency
of co-occurrence to 50 times to address those more pertinent in Calgary dialogue. In doing so
338 unique co-hashtags remained, 44 of which were identified to be politically relevant (See
Appendix A for frequency). The topics of discussion were diverse, including, but not limited to,
religion, education, crime, and provincial politics. In fact, #Ableg (Alberta Legislative) was the 4th
highest co-occurrence (2,141 times) of all tweets associated with #YYC.
4
TweetTunnel is a website that allows you to search users old Tweets. Up to 3,000 of their most recent Tweets.
The format is easier to use than Twitter, however it changes with every new Tweet a user posts. All TweetTunnel
references were saved as PDFs due to this.
5
Twiangulate is a website that allows you to search for the common followers between two Twitter accounts.
35
The query function of the DMI-TCAT allowed me to refine my data further. With these co-
hashtags I created a query6 to narrow the results of tweets to those which were civically
relevant – as in, those that pertain to civic issues, events, and opinions. The resulting query
produced 7,391 tweets by 2,852 distinct users. Moving forward I will be referring to these 7,391
tweets as the “Calgary civic-sphere,” as it encapsulates the civic nature of discourse on the
Calgary Twitter-sphere. It should be noted that #CBC constituted a large majority of the Tweets
(1,544), which were not always politically relevant. Upon closer inspection many of the
interactions and tweets were about weather. Further, by including this hashtag in the query it
situates the CBC as a prominent actor in all of the discourse by nature of the hashtag. Particular
attention will be paid to #CBC tweets in the analysis to ensure that the content of these tweets
are civically relevant.
Additional Queries: Supplementing the “Calgary Civic-Sphere” Query
In two cases of my analysis I have used additional queries in conjunction with the Calgary civic-
sphere. The Calgary civic-sphere query – comprised of purely popular hashtags – provides us
with an overview of popular topics and trending discussions, however, it is not indicative of all
of the civic or political discussion on Twitter. Two cases will be presented which focus on
specific topics and require supplementary DMI-TCAT queries taken from the macro #YYC data
set. These queries were informed by popular topics in the Calgary civic-sphere and were used
6
The following is the DMI-TCAT query as identified by the frequency of politically relevant hashtags: “#oilandgas OR
#Housing OR #oilsands OR #changeisinyourhands OR #Education OR #Satire OR #yycliving OR #tyyz OR #yycwalk
OR #abhealth OR #smbyyc58 OR #muslims OR #yycroads OR #bcpoli OR #muslim OR #abgov OR #poppy OR #onpoli
OR #nenshi OR #uspoli OR #topoli OR #cndpoli OR #community OR #npdyyc OR #yycca OR #cnn OR #Judaism OR
#bbc OR #Islam OR #Sikh OR #Christianity OR #pcaa OR #yyctransit OR #lestweforget OR #yyccrime OR #yycbe OR
#abed OR #wrp OR # yycbike OR #abpoli OR #cbc OR #yyccc OR #ableg”
36
to enrich the data, filling in gaps where popular hashtags were not used, but where content
pertained to the following events/issues.
The first case focuses on an online fundraiser called “Foodapalooza,” created by Calgary citizen
Shane Byciuk (User name: @Calgaryrants). The data produced by the Calgary civic-sphere query
identified @Calgaryrants to be very active, and further inspection revealed the citizen’s social
media driven charity event and its corresponding hashtags. In addition to using the Calgary
civic-sphere hashtag based query, another query was created: “#ablegcares OR
#yyctwittercares OR #foodapalooza.” This produced a data set of 50 tweets from 20 different
users. Analysis pertaining to “Foodapalooza” include this query and the Calgary civic-sphere
query. This additional query will be referred to as the “Foodapalooza query” in future
reference.
The second case focuses on a larger issue discussed in the Calgary civic-sphere, the theft of two
poppy boxes by the same culprit on November 6th and 8th, 2014. The top re-tweets section
revealed the prominence of user @Producer_Gal’s tweet of a picture of the thief on a liquor
store’s security camera, and the citizen account @Crackmacs’s tweet linking to a YouTube video
of the same culprit stealing the poppy box. A query which searched for the terms “Poppy OR
poppy OR #Poppy” revealed 1,166 tweets by 910 users. “Poppy” and “poppy” are simply
keyword queries and revealed any tweet in the #YYC macro data set which contained them.
Using this query, it was found that the purely hashtag based search of the Calgary civic-sphere
missed the top 1, 2, and 3, re-tweets pertaining to civic discourse. Analysis of the data
pertaining to the poppy box thefts and the top re-tweets of the Calgary civic-sphere also
37
include this second query. This query will be referred to as the “Poppy query” in future
reference.
Meso-analysis: Patterns of Interaction
After defining the Calgary civic-sphere on Twitter I worked with these tweets to identify the
patterns of interactions. This meso-analysis uses the DMI-TCAT network functions and Gephi to
examine patters of interaction using mentions and replies. Working within this data set of 7,391
Tweets allowed me to produce two important network analytics: A “social graph by mentions,”
and a “reply to status id”. The social graph by mentions reveals which users are talking at
other users the most in the Calgary civic-sphere. These interactions can be commentaries on
another’s opinions, questions, sharing of information, etc. They represent an attempt to engage
another user – they are uni-directional communication that is shared over both Twitter feeds.
The visual below (Figure 1) shows this network of mentions. The node sizes show us who is
receiving the most mentions in the network. Label sizes reflect both amount of mentions
received by other users (Incoming mentions/ In Degree) and amount of mentions by the user
(Out-going mentions/ Out Degree) – both of these together are called “total degree”. By
allocating different rankings to the label size and node size, we can see that those users which
have a large label but a small node are ones which are mentioning others, but not being
mentioned frequently (Such as the user “ownyourvote” bottom middle-right of Figure 1). The
proximity of the nodes represents which users are interacting with each other, nodes closer to
38
each other are those who are mentioning each other. Each edge7 from a node to another
represents a mention, the thicker the edge the more frequent a user mentioned the other. The
color of the nodes indicates the betweenness centrality8 of the user – yellow for lower, red for
higher centrality. What this shows us is the potential a user has to act as a bridge between two
otherwise unconnected users. Betweenness centrality is fundamental to connective action, as
these users are most likely to be hubs of interaction; they are the glue and the gatekeepers of
these many weak social ties. Further, high betweenness centrality means that these users are
interacting with Twitter users who are not frequently mentioning others in the Calgary civic-
sphere. These accounts bridge peripheral citizens with political issues and conversations on a
daily basis. We see below that @Nenshi, @DonBraid, and @CBCCalgary all have orange and red
node colors, showing that they are integral to connecting users in the mention network. This is
unsurprising for the @CBCCalgary node due to the inclusion of #CBC in my query, which
produced the Calgary civic-sphere. The nodes surrounding @CBCCalgary are both CBC related
media and personalities, and the content of their tweets was combed particularly carefully to
assure that the content was civic or politically relevant.
Further, important to understanding how the mention network was constructed is
understanding the mention as categorized by DMI-TCAT. Re-tweets are also considered
7
Edges are the curved lines which link the nodes together.
8
Betweenness centrality: “takes all the pairs of nodes in a network and counts the shortest paths connecting
them. The betweenness centrality of a node is basically the proportion of shortest paths that cross that node. The
higher this proportion, the more central is the node… Central nodes usually act as bridges or bottlenecks”
(Caldarelli & Catanzaro, 2012, p.86). What this shows us is how often individual users act as a bridge between
other users. The redder the label, the more likely the user is to be a highway of information between users who do
not follow or interact with each other.
39
mentions by the DMI-TCAT’s visualization. This means that not only might these mentions be a
uni-lateral attempt to establish conversation with another user, but it might be a user
promoting the content of another. The difference between these mentions will be covered in
the analysis section focusing on top re-tweets.
The figure below shows 90% of the total interaction in the mention network. This was done in
an attempt to keep the visual as legible as possible while retaining the overall scope and gravity
of these numerous mentions. In total over the collection period there were 5,537 mentions by
3,087 users. The visual below is meant to give a general idea of the topography of the Calgary
mention network; who is being mentioned the most, who is mentioning others the most, and
which communities are produced by these interactions:
40
Figure 1: Mention Network
Node Size: Incoming mentions
Node Color: Betweenness Centrality (yellow for lower, red for higher)
Label Size: Total Mentions (In-coming and out-going)
What this graph shows us is who is attempting to engage in civic communication with others;
these tweets are meant to engage others in conversation or re-tweet the content of others.
Upon looking at the mention data, it reveals that a significant number of these mentions are re-
41
tweets. My analysis will focus on noteworthy communities and actors found here, examining
these actors for instances of civic-links.
Whereas the “social graph by mentions” showed us a network of who is promoting information
or talking at whom, the social graph “reply to status ID” shows us who are talking with whom.
Not only is there a potential for civic-links, but there is bi-lateral communication. The network
this analysis produced consisted of 171 different users engaging in 471 conversations (Figure 2).
It should be noted that due to the blackout periods and Hashtag based collection, this is not a
complete “reply to status ID” map. It is possible, and even likely, that in any of the blackout
periods a reply to a tweet was missed. Furthermore, those tweets which were not coded with
#YYC in their response to another tweet will be outside of my data collection. That being said,
what this graph is designed to show are the users who are most engaged in discussion with
other users in the Calgary civic-sphere that associate their replies with Calgary. It provides a
starting point to examine deliberation in the Calgary civic-sphere. My analysis will focus on the
prominent actors here and the content of their replies.
The size of the nodes indicate how often each user replied to the Tweet of another, possibly
extending civic-links to one another. The color of the node represents how many followers each
account has – red for more, beige for less (ranging from 8 – 200,630). The more followers of a
specific user the more exposure9 these civic-links will have over the platform; a reply from
9
Exposure: The total number of Twitter users potentially exposed to a tweet due to an interaction on Twitter. Also
referred to as the "reach" of a tweet. (Also see Appendix C: Glossary for definition)
42
@Nenshi (200,630 followers) will connect more Twitter users than one by @DonBraid (8624
followers). The arrows thickness represents how frequently users interacted with each other.
Figure 2: Replies Network

Node Size: Total Replies
Node Color: Number of followers (Grey for less, red for more)
In contrast to Figure 1, the network this produces is a disjointed one. This is in large part due to
initial collection based on a hashtag. Individual nodes which do not link to others are a result of
the former user not coding their tweet with #YYC and the latter (replying) user coding their
reply with #YYC. Other than the string of conversations in the middle linking together, and the
hub surrounding @CalgarySenate, interactions are limited to small groupings. Here is where I
43
will be looking for instances of deliberation, solidifying collective identities, and providing
mutual support; the everyday negotiations which are sub-political. My focus will be on the
cluster of interactions in the middle. Whereas the social mentions visual shows us the logic of
connectivity, this visual shows us reciprocated engagement and potential for civic-links. Both
the reply to status ID network and the top re-tweets of the Calgary civic-sphere reveal the sites
for analysis – the prominent users and issues to analyze.
Micro-analysis: Re-tweets and Survey on Civic Agency
Prominent content: Re-tweets
An important aspect of the connective power of Twitter is the re-tweet. In addition to creating
the social graph by mentions and reply to status ID, I used the DMI-TCAT function which listed
all of the top re-tweets in the Calgary civic-sphere. The initial data revealed 55 tweets were re-
tweeded 10 or more times (what I will refer to as “re-tweet chains10”), totaling 1,114 tweets in
all. The amount 10 or more times for a re-tweet chain was chosen to produce a manageable,
yet representative data set which could be said to reflect larger discourse patterns. Too low of a
threshold and the re-tweets would be less significant and too numerous to conduct a content
analysis on, and too high a threshold and there would be too few tweets to analyze and less
representative. Before using all of the DMI-TCAT data for re-tweets the data was cleaned in
three different ways.
10
Re-tweet Chain: All of the re-tweets by various users originating from a single Tweet. A re-tweet is by a singular
user, whereas a re-tweet chain is all of the users who re-tweeted the content of a singular tweet. (Also see
Appendix C: Glossary, for definition).
44
Firstly, it was cleaned to eliminate what I will call “hashtag co-opting.” This was where a user
imbedded #YYC into a tweet in an attempt to increase its visibility by hashtag/keyword searches
on Twitter. These were completely irrelevant in content pertaining to Calgary civic discourse,
and were rather a promotional tactic employed by the user. Hashtag co-opting was done by
two specific users, @Islam_love_him and @1oNo1_Islam, who used #YYC, #BBC, and #CNN to
promote pro-Islamic content. The re-tweet’s source11 was shown to be a Twitter app called
“‫ ال ت غري د م تاب عة ب رن امج‬2” which loosely translated by Google to “Follow on Twitter 2
Program” and most likely points to an automatic twitter account – a Twitter Bot. This was
confirmed when looking at both accounts’ post times, posting 6 tweets in 3-5 seconds and
repeating this approximately every 10 minutes. The speed at which the tweets were posted as
well as the frequency revealed it to be an automated account. Secondly, chains of re-tweets
which all came from the same source were investigated; two were found: The first was a re-
tweet string promoting Jason Markusoff’s (writer for the Calgary Herald) article “Council likely
to tap reserves for tree pruning, replanting after ‘Snowtember’”. All of the 32 tweets were
from the same source (Twitter Web Client), and 14/32 were linked to suspended or defunct
accounts. Since 18 of the 32 accounts were linked to an active account, and therefore exceeded
the threshold of 10 re-tweets, the re-tweet chain was kept in the data set. The second re-tweet
chain all from the same source utilized the hashtags #ableg, #yyc, #YEG, and #pcaa. However,
the content of the Tweet seemed irrelevant, reading; “Announcing his run Hughes boasts that
he has ‘ONLY two years experience in cabinet and caucus.’” Of the 20 accounts that re-tweeted
11
The source of a tweet is what device of app the Tweet was sent from, e.g. from an android phone, an iPhone, a
web client, iPad, Hootsuite, etc.
45
this only 7 were still active, the rest were suspended or defunct. Further, the location of these
users as identified by DMI-TCAT were found to be in the United States, unlike the majority of
the re-tweets who were located in Canada. Between the language used (cabinet and caucus),
the location of the users, and all of the re-tweets coming from the same kind of source (Twitter
Web Client), the chain was deemed irrelevant. Thirdly, 5 re-tweet chains were eliminated, as
their content was concerned with the heavy snowfall happening in November. This was due to
the inclusion of #CBC and their coverage of it. The remaining data set consisted of 54 re-tweet
chains, comprising 896 Tweets. In this section my analysis will focus on three things: The
frequency of civic-links aimed at organizing, mobilizing, and solidifying collective identities
being re-tweeted; the quality of these links, exemplified by the top re-tweet chains; and, the
network implications of each of these re-tweet chains as measured by total exposure and
important users in the re-tweet chain which amplify12 the original tweet.
Although it is not in the scope of this project, Twitter bot activity, how to identify them, and
their implications on quantitative data should concern Twitter scholars moving forward. Further
research might focus on the re-tweeting tactics and “hacks” that users/bots employ to increase
the visibility of their tweets. Instances of these misfit re-tweet chains and suspect methods
further reinforce that qualitative inspection must be used in conjunction with quantitative data
to refine data and ensure accuracy.
12
Amplification: Based on the amount of followers a Twitter account has; more followers means a greater
amplification potential. Amplification happens when a Twitter account with a large follower count re-tweets the
content of another user, thereby amplifying user’s tweet. (Also see Appendix C: Glossary, for definition).
46
Survey on Civic Agency: How do citizens use Twitter?
Both the mention and reply functions of DMI-TCAT produced a list of users on Twitter who are
participating in political or civic dialogue. Using this information I then Tweeted at 305 users
asking them to complete a survey on citizen-agency. The object of the survey was to
understand how citizens used the platform, to what end, and what their perception of Twitter’s
uses were. Users were initially selected to represent those who had mentioned others, or
replied to the tweet of another user's. All 234 users were selected from the social graph reply
to status ID and 74 were selected from the social graph by mentions. Users13 with high
betweenness centrality were targeted to increase the reach of the survey. Knowing the
network analytics first, and some re-tweets by key members of the mention network increased
the visibility of my survey request drastically. According to Twitter my tweets amassed 12,900
views, largely in part to 7 re-tweets from popular accounts – including one from Naheed
Nenshi. The link tweeted – which directed users to an online consent form – was clicked 171
times, 48 of which continued to the survey and completed it. The survey was opened on
1/10/2015 and closed on 1/21/2015, 11 days. Respondent's answers were kept anonymous to
protect any politically sensitive information. While this choice to keep respondents anonymous
means that the responses cannot be linked with certainty to users who mentioned and replied
to others, the fact that all of the respondents were directed to the survey via Twitter, and
completed the survey, indicates a strong civic concern and desire to contribute.
13
These users were picked intentionally due to high betweenness centrality (in decending order): @CBCCalgary,
@CBCEyeopener, @Ward4Ward1, @Nenshi, @Briansmithcal, @DonBraid, @Calgarysenate, @Gregginyyc, ,
@Crackmacs, @Markusoff, @cbcarch.
47
The full question list and the intent of asking each question may be found in Appendix B. The
questions in the survey aimed at uncovering: The temporal course of how users got involved in
civic, activist, or political organizations; if their participation in these organizations begin offline
first, or if it was facilitated by Twitter; who do they communicate with most on Twitter, offline
or online friends/ acquaintances; examples of personal uses for the platform that increase their
civic agency; and, how participants come to be connected with the online users they interact
with (i.e. via a hashtag search, seeing them mentioned by a mutual friend, did they hear about
them offline, etc.). These questions surround issues of how the platform connects people to
engage in political conversations, civic agency, and what the relationship is between offline and
online interactions are.
Analysis
An Overview of Statistics
The Calgary civic-sphere shows that of the 7,391 Tweets, of the 77,350 collected pertained to
civic issues, 9.5%. Of these Tweets, 70.1% of them contained a hyperlink. This shows that a
large majority of civic Tweets were attempting to direct Twitter users to content outside of the
platform, or provide additional information via a picture or video. Of the 7,391 tweets there
were 2,852 distinct users, a ratio of 2.59 Tweets per user. Only 7 users accounted for more than
1% of the total amount of tweets – cumulatively totaling 17.8%14. This, as well as the network
visuals indicate that there are a variety of views being expressed and a lack of
14
1,312/ 7,391 = 17.7751
48
superparticipants. The average follower count of the Calgary civic-sphere users was 1,96915,
with a range of 0 – 670,873. While these follower numbers do not represent only citizens living
in Calgary, it does show on average the amount of exposure each of these tweets garner. The
peak periods of activity were on November 7th (445 Tweets) and 20th (481 Tweets). The 7th was
related to the theft of two poppy boxes by the same culprit the previous day, and the 20 th
corresponded with a provincial political event: Wild Rose Party MLAs Ian Donovan and Kerry
Towle crossing the floor to join the Progressive Conservatives under Jim Prentice. The first step
of my analysis was to identify which users were influential, who was engaging in civic
communication on the platform the most? What were the quality of these interactions? And,
was Twitter being used to contact those in decision making positions?
Mentions Analysis: Influencers’ Roles in the Calgary Civic-sphere
These are the top 22 accounts that have been mentioned by users in the Calgary Twitter
network. They clearly show that Calgarians are contacting media outlets and personalities most
frequently (11), then political actors (4), citizen accounts (4), and civil institutions (2):
Mentions Type of Account Account Mentions Type of Account

Account
376 Media @chrisvarcoe 68 Media/ Personal
@CBCCalgary
373 Media @davecournoyer 58 Citizen Account
@Metrocalgary
290 Political Actor @CBCeyeopener 57 Media
@Nenshi
216 Media/ Personal @Producer_Gal 56 Media/ Personal
@Donbraid
208 Media @electdanielle 50 Political Actor
@CBCarch
15
5,615,427(Total Followers from all users) /2,852 (Users) = 1,968.94
49
119 Citizen Account @bergg69 49
@Crackmacs Citizen Account
111 Political Actor @devin_heroux 48 Media/ Personal

@Jimprentice
103 Media @Ward4Ward1 47 Political Actor
@CalgaryHerald
92 Media/ Personal @Wbrettwilson 46 Citizen Account/
@TonyHerald
Entrepreneur
88 Civil Institution @StopCrimeYYC 44 Civil Institution
@CalgaryTransit
71 Citizen Account @Markusoff 43 Media/ Personal
@haggisman57
Table 1: In-coming Mentions (In-Degree)
What this shows is that those Twitter accounts users deem to be the most important are,
mostly, already existing power centers; the CBC, Metro Calgary, Naheed Nenshi, Don Braid
(Calgary Herald columnist), etc. News media and their personalities account for more than 50%
of the top influential users. This is an early indication that news media frequently facilitate
dialogue on Twitter. Of the top 22 accounts 6 were in decision making positions, or formally
participating in politics: @Nenshi, @JimPrentice (Alberta Premier), @electdanielle (then
Alberta Wild Rose Party leader Danielle Smith), @Ward4Ward1 (City councilor Ward
Sutherland, Ward 1), @CalgaryTransit, and @StopCrimeYYC. These are of particular interest, as
these frequent mentions show that citizens are using the platform to act as a bridge to formal
decision makers and civic institutions. The figure below is a zoomed in and highlighted look at
the mentions network with some of the aforementioned actors in blue. It reveals which of
these accounts are interacting with each other and connecting the overall structure of the
Calgary-civic sphere.
50
Figure 3: Zoomed in view of Mentions network (Figure 1)
Node Size: In-coming mentions
Node Color: Betweenness centrality (yellow for less, red for more)
Label Size: Total Mentions
As shown above (Figure 3), the mention network shows us that @Nenshi and @Ward4Ward1
are both in the top 5 in betweenness centrality, numbers 4 and 3, respectively – as denoted by
their orange and red node colors. This shows us that both accounts are frequently go-between
actors for citizens engaging in civic discourse on Twitter. Betweenness centrality shows that
these users are frequently being engaged by and engaging many different users. The
importance of betweenness centrality is further illustrated by the survey: of the respondents
that answered “Yes” to the question “Do you interact with other individuals on Twitter you do
not know outside of the platform?” 30/39 attributed “becom[ing] aware of this individual” via a
mutual Twitter account they both follow, or by having the individual appear on their Twitter
51
feed. Note that these are interactions with individuals they do not know outside of Twitter, and
therefore would not know if not for the platform and these specific actors. Actors with high
betweenness centrality like Nenshi and Ward4Ward1 are the facilitators of this connective
logic. Both of these accounts frequently engaged in civic discourse with multiple citizens. These
accounts show that direct lines of communication with decision makers are being utilized, to a
small extent, by Twitter users. But with actors like @Nenshi, @Ward4Ward1, @CalgaryTransit,
and @StopCrimeYYC being frequently contacted, what is the quality of these interactions?
What is the value according to citizens?
To begin I looked at the civil institution accounts that were recognized as influencers. When
asked if a respondent could “recall an interaction on Twitter that made you feel more
empowered as a citizen of Calgary”, three respondents identified interactions with
@CalgaryTransit specifically. Respondent 16 and respondent 39 both recalled times on Twitter
where the platform increased their civic agency by providing them with a voice: they tweeted a
problem to @CalgaryTransit and it was promptly fixed. The most telling case where a citizen felt
the empowered by Twitter can be seen in respondent 37’s reply:
“I occasionally tweet to Calgary Transit on behalf of my 6-year-old son who loves buses
and trains. When they send back answers to his questions, it's great to see how he feels
connected to what's happening in the city, and proud that he merited an answer. And
then of course I feel pleased too, that I could use Twitter to help bridge the gap
between a public service and a young citizen.”
Here we see that @CalgaryTransit is not only tweeting about maintenance issues or delays, but
fostering a relationship with a “young citizen” and a proud parent. Although not mentioned
specifically in the survey, the same might be said about the police account, @StopCrimeYYC.
52
The in-coming mentions show that the account has received 44 mentions in the collection.
Accounts such as these provide an ease of accessibility via Twitter due to citizens incorporating
the platform into their daily lives. Some users of the platform find it easier to tweet to civil
institutions: “It’s an easier way of being heard/having questions answered than by writing a
letter or calling a phone line” (Respondent 16). Not only were citizens engaging in positive and
meaningful interactions with civil institutions, but with politicians and pundits too.
When asked in the survey “Have you contacted any political actors, Mayors, City Council
Members, Political commentators, via Twitter?” 43/48 respondents answered “Yes”; of which,
25 respondents said they were more likely to contact these accounts again because they
received a response. Only 5 felt they were less likely to do so because of a lack of response
from the aforementioned actors. The remainder replied that their response had no effect on
whether or not they would contact them again. Only one respondent (#28), went so far as to
say that they did not feel empowered in their interactions on Twitter, stating: “Not generally
no. Usually I feel either ignored or disenfranchised because I’m brushed off or spoken down
to.” Despite this, the majority of respondents suggested that the quality of interaction between
citizens and those actively involved in politics was productive, and that it lays the groundwork
for future interactions. As for frequency of interactions, 13/48 respondents claimed to, on
average, interact with news media, political organizations, and/or political actors 10+ times a
week. Tweets to and responses from local politicians – including Nenshi (mentioned 290 times)
– were identified by respondents as interactions that made them “feel more empowered as a
citizen of Calgary.” Respondents 3, 9, 14, 17, 23, 25, 29, 32, 33, 35, and 42 all refer to
interactions with Calgary politicians as empowering instances. The nature of these interactions
53
range from banal instances like respondent 42 getting a response to his joke from Nenshi; to
respondents discussing public policies with elected officials, like respondent 35’s discussion on
“the secondary suites issue with city councilor’s & mayor”; to holding politicians accountable on
the public record, like respondent 25’s castigation of “the deplorable statements and actions
that Alderman Sean Chu has made”; to helping a citizen organize support for a preferred
candidate, like respondent 32’s role in “the ‘Purple Wave’ during the 2010 municipal Election…
working to promote Nenshi’s mayoral campaign using Twitter, Facebook and other social
avenues.” These examples not only show engagement and deliberation in politics via Twitter,
but do-able activities that leave citizens feeling more connected to Calgary and empowered as
citizens. In these instances, Twitter is providing a bridge for citizens in their everyday
interactions to formal decision makers. For the most part these interactions do not have a
direct effect on decision making processes. But, what they all have in common is that they
encourage more engagement in politics and civic concerns due to the empowerment citizens
feel.
Diving Deeper: What role do citizen accounts play?
Overall there was a lacking of citizen account as influencers, only two received more than 42
mentions in the data collection. These accounts do, however, connect users in different ways
than political actors or news media. Followers of these account are not strictly interested in
political content, but rather drawn to the account for a multitude of reasons. One citizen
account which acts as a bridge between others and civic discussions is the user @Crackmacs. An
investigation of @Crackmacs shows that the account tweets about a wide variety of topics;
54
ranging from Super bowl commercials, to everyday events in their life, to political commentary.
As shown by the mentions network (Figure 3) the account interacted frequently with Mayor
Nenshi, the City of Calgary, and Calgary Transit. @Crackmacs received 119 mentions from other
users, identifying it as an influential account within the Calgary civic-sphere. But what is more
important is the betweenness centrality of the account; it ranks 12th of all accounts identified.
The account has 11.4 thousand followers and has tweeted 51.8 thousand times. It plays a key
role in facilitating connective action in the Calgary civic-sphere because it links peripheral users
who do not engage in civic discourse often with those frequently engaging. The second account
with a high in-degree (incoming mentions) is the citizen account @Haggisman57, who posts
news articles and personal tweets. The account has 25.9K followers and was shown to interact
with @Nenshi, and a number of other citizen and media accounts (Figure 1). @Haggisman57
constantly posts links to news articles as well as provides his own commentary on political
issues and events. Although Haggisman57 does not connect as many users with each other as
@Crackmacs, his in-coming mentions (71) and out-going mentions (18) show that he is
engaging frequently with others on Twitter. His low betweenness centrality indicates that he
often engages in conversation with others who also frequently discuss civic issues online. The
importance of these citizens is illustrated by results: 30/39 survey respondents began
interacting with users they did not know outside of the platform through users like
@Crackmacs and @Haggisman57. These citizen accounts are the hubs of conversation and
connective action at work, they are linking individuals that otherwise would not be associating
with each other. These accounts not only have established a large following on Twitter which
55
elevates their own opinions, but they connect users to a political conversation who may follow
them for other reasons.
Mentions Analysis: Citizens and Connective Action
When we reverse the mentions to see which users are engaging others the most we see much
more citizen engagement. These accounts are making use of the platform to amplify their
opinions on civic issues.
Mentio Type of Account Account Men Type of

Account
ns tions Account
353 Citizen Account @TGCACalgary 31 Civil
@Ownyourvote
Institution
130 Political Actor @Crackmacs 30 Citizen
@CalgarySenate
Account
120 Media @Billgraveland 30 Political
@CBCCalgary
Actor
67 Media/ @Newstalk770 29 Media
@Mlumsden770
Personal
49 Citizen Account @Calgarydreamer 28 Citizen
@Calgaryrants
Account
45 Media @Littleshasta 25 Citizen
@Devin_heroux
Account
44 Media/ @CBCdougkirks 25 Personal/
@CBCEdmonton
Personal Media
38 Media @Nenshi 23 Political
@CBCeyeopener
Actor
34 Civil Institution @Dwscherban 22 Citizen
@Winstonheights
Account
32 Media @Metro_nolais 20 Media
@CBChomestretch
32 Citizen Account @Markusoff 20 Media/
@Thekreap
Personal
Table 2: Out-going Mentions (Out-Degree)
56
We see a similar level of media engagement (9) showing dialogue on the platform by outlets
and personalities. CBCCalgary and CBC media again show itself to be a prominent actor on
Twitter – due largely in part to the inclusion of #CBC. A closer look at the tweets shows that
these mentions are primarily inter-CBC interactions and re-tweets, rather than citizen-media
interactions. Although this content is shared with their followers, it is not engaging directly
individual citizens on issues. However, we do see – as will be examined later – that these re-
tweets and media driven conversations provide an opportunity for citizens to comment on
issues with replies to these tweets. Both of the accounts identified as civil institutions are
community associations (CAs) engaging in discourse with citizens and other CAs. These are
prominently associated with the #yycca (Calgary Community Association). An examination of
the tweets reveals that the discourse is primarily centered on information sharing and
organizing, e.g.: a Halloween Pumpkin contest in Winston Heights. The primary thrust of these
tweets are around promoting the community centers and the activities they hold, with little
dialogue occurring. Although these tweets are not engaging citizens directly, they do facilitate
civic-links on Twitter (information sharing and organization) in an effort to get people involved
in their community. These extensions of civic-links by community associations are recognized
by respondents 6, 37, and 47 in their response to the question “Can you recall a time where
Twitter helped you organize support for a cause important to you?” The strongest assertion by
respondent 37 addresses the platform as an organizational tool for “pop-up arts & culture
event such as Inglewood Night Market,” saying that “Twitter is a very important tool for us in
raising awareness of our events!” Although this does not show conclusively that these
community associations Twitter practices are facilitating a shift from engagement to
57
participation, it does show us the importance – as identified by citizens and community
association organizers – of information sharing for CAs on Twitter.
The most important find this analysis reveals, is how frequently citizen accounts are engaging
others in civic discourse (7/22) – as opposed to (2/22) in the in-coming mentions. To illustrate
the importance of these accounts I will focus on the two most prominent, @Ownyourvote and
@Calgaryrants. @Ownyourvote re-tweets politically relevant tweets, acting as a conduit of
political information for its 1,209 followers. @Ownyourvote has no formal political affiliation,
and re-tweets information about municipal, provincial, and federal politics. The account’s
information, pictures, and videos all center on the importance of voting rather than any specific
party’s politics. @Ownyourvote is an example of citizen-driven news curation, and thereby a
do-able activity. The owner of the account – who is unidentified – has taken it upon themselves
to use Twitter’s connective logic to provide other citizens with what they believe to be an
informed vote. The user re-tweets individual citizens with their concerns, politicians and their
platforms, and news media’s coverage. Whereas @Ownyourvote may be considered a low-
effort do-able activity, the user @Calgaryrants that exemplifies participation via Twitter. The
account self-identifies to be a Federal and provincial conservative board member engaged in
politics and provides a link to their Blogger site (www.calgaryrants.com). Both the replies
network and an examination on Twitter of @Calgaryrants’s tweets reveals multiple interactions
with other citizens. The account not only provides information and personal experience, but
engages other citizens in attempts to organize and mobilize them. “Foodapalooza” was a perogi
eating contest put on by @Calgaryrants for the charity Inn From the Cold. The event took
donations online from “friends and social media contacts in an attempt to sponsor them [read
58
participants] for each food item they were able to eat” (Calgary Rants, November 7). The blog
post by @Calgaryrants recognizes the role social media had in raising nearly $10,000 in 2012 for
the cause (Calgaryrants, 2014).
In 2014, Tweets after the event from the Calgary civic-sphere reveal that the fundraiser was
able to raise $11,639 for Inn From the Cold (@Calgaryrants, November 27). Tweets from users
promoting the fundraiser shared a link which directed individuals to “Good Pin,” the site that
hosted fundraising for Foodapalooza. On Good Pin individuals were able to donate to a political
party’s candidate participating in the eating contest. Team Alberta Party, the Progressive
Conservative, Wild rose, Liberal, and independent parties were all represented. The site
confirms that $6,663 (Good Pin, Feb 5) of the $11,639 were raised on Good Pin alone. A tweet
by @Calgaryrants reveals that the cause was spear headed by @dollhouseyyc who raised
$3,550 for the cause. @dollhouseyyc is Marc Doll, a local realtor. His account ranks 57/698 in
betweenness centrality in the mentions network and was a vocal participant for the event.
$2,510 of the $3,550 @dollhouseyyc raised can be attributed to donations online – over 2/3rds!
Not only was this event organized over social media as a way of connecting people, but it pitted
Alberta political parties against each other, re-enforcing collective identities. @dollhouseyyc’s
tweets are all marked #abparty, signifying that he was participating for the Alberta Party.
@dollhouseyyc and @Calgaryrants’s influential positions in the Calgary civic-sphere
undoubtedly played a key role in raising the money. Both of the accounts high betweenness
centrality show that they were connecting users throughout the civic-sphere network, and
those who do not engage frequently, in an effort to raise money for charity.
59
Further, what is revealed from Foodapalooza by @Calgaryrants, is the use of hashtags to create
topical networks surrounding the event and its discourse. #ablegcares and #yyctwittercares
show up cumulatively 117 times in a query using DMI-TCAT. While #ablegcares dies off after
November 28th 2014, #ableg persists, acting as a what Bruns (2008) calls a “localized-public
sphere.” The use of #ableg in tweets creates a community of users who are engaged with
specifically the Alberta Legislature. One tweet by @Calgaryrants uses hashtags rather than
mentions to address users in order to raise support:
“Ok #ableg tweeps... Any tips on #ablib and #abndp supporters in #yyc that have big appetites
and want to help join a charity event Nov 26?” (@Calgaryrants, Nov 1)
Rather than this being a specific mention to another user to ask how to get involved,
@Calgaryrants uses the #ableg to ask all of the users participating in the conversation.
@Calgaryrants is not just talking to his followers on Twitter, but rather to all people searching
for content using #ableg, #ablib, or #abndp. The use of #ablib and #abndp address directly the
Alberta Liberal party conversation and
Alberta New Democratic Party
conversation. In this way
@Calgaryrants is addressing two
separate collectives in an effort to
Figure 4: Charity on Twitter. Top to bottom: (@Calgaryrants, 2014, engage them both. The efficacy of the
November 12), (@SinAspen, 2014, November 12).
hashtag as a connective tool was also
supported by survey results: 9/48 respondents acknowledged that they came to interact with
60
individuals they did not know outside of Twitter via a hashtag search. Instead of another user
being the intermediary connecting two others, a hashtag, a conversation connects these
citizens. Moreover, hashtags were used to show the emerging identity of Calgarians and Twitter
users who were donating via the platform. During the fundraising the hashtags #Ablegcares and
#yyctwittercares emerged, both denoting a different collective’s support.
These hashtags are indicative of people participating in a collective action framework. They are
associating a group, those concerned with the Alberta Legislative, or Calgary Twitter users, with
an action, donations to Foodapalooza. Hashtags whether ephemeral like #ablegcares (as seen in
@SinAspen’s reply tweet – figure 4), or established ones like #ableg, allow for users who would
otherwise not interact with each other to establish civic-links via keyword searches.
@Calgaryrants was not only able to share information and experience, but he was able to
organize and mobilize individuals via Twitter to – in part – raise $11,639 for Inn From the Cold
(@innfromthecold, November 26). ). Analyzing the connective logic of active users in the
mention network served to identify civic-links between citizens originating from initially uni-
lateral communication. Moving on I will be analyzing bi-lateral communication on Twitter in the
form of re-tweets and replies, looking for instances of civic-links which aim at organizing,
mobilizing and solidifying collective identities.
Civic-links: An examinations of Re-tweets and Replies
Having addressed which users are promoting content and trying to engage others, the next step
was to assess the promotion of views which others deemed to be important (top re-tweet
chains), and bi-lateral communication (replies). Although re-tweets are not direct conversations
61
between users they denote an increased form of engagement, as the user has deemed a tweet
worthy of repeating to their followers. The most re-tweeted tweets indicate which events or
issues were most important to those engaging in the Calgary civic-sphere. They reveal a “best
of” list in the Calgary civic-sphere. Inherent in re-tweeting is the promotion of information,
opinions, and/or experiences, and the potential for providing mutual support and/or solidifying
collective identities. Re-tweets create additional exposure for other tweets by disseminating
the content to more users. Tweets which were centered on a specific issue and/or provide
commentary, rather than simply sharing information, were considered to be attempts at
solidifying collective identities. They were categorized as such not because of the initial tweet
itself, but in the re-tweets by other users. My intent was to analyze what type of content is
most important to Tweeting Calgarians, looking for instances which aim to provide solidifying
collective identities, or mobilize and/or organize other citizens. These tweets illustrate how
citizens use Twitter to create and draw on collective frames – like Foodapalooza’s
#yyctwittercares. Further, they illustrate the patterns of connective action which facilitate civic
discourse. Two sets of data were used in the following analysis; the Calgary civic-sphere and the
poppy query. Using the cleaned data sets of re-tweet chains (10 or more re-tweets) I evaluated
the content of each of the 54 chains.
Of these top 54 re-tweets 43 were identified to be solidifying collective identities, 13 aimed at
organizing citizens, and one at mobilizing citizens. (Full list of re-tweets as well as categorization
of civic-links can be found in Appendix D). Of the 54 top re-tweets, 31 were produced by news
media, 12 of which were news stories focused on non-political events or instances. For
example, the fifth highest re-tweet chain (50 times) was @CBCCalgary informing Twitter users
62
of a lockdown at SAIT polytechnic. These informative re-tweets further show the prominence of
the CBC, Metro Calgary, and news media personalities on Twitter. When asked type what
accounts respondents “mostly follow” 37/46 identified “news,” “pundits,” or “reporters,”
among the accounts they follow the most. Of these 37 respondents, five identified that they
communicate with News Media the most. News media and other prominent actor’s tweets
which were re-tweeted frequently were found to facilitate dialogue. The top-retweets selection
mirrored the previous analyses’ findings, showing that news media accounted for the majority
of top re-tweet chains. Unlike the previous analyses’ the remaining chains were dominated by
citizen accounts, like @Crackmacs and @davecournoyer. For instance, @Crackmacs produced
the #1st, 6th, and 21st most re-tweeted tweets. The importance of these frequent interactions by
those engaging in the Calgary civic-sphere with prominent actors – news media and otherwise –
can be seen in: one, the dialogue they create surrounding specific issues and events. And two,
in the amplification prominent accounts facilitate for tweets authored by accounts peripheral
to the network. Moving forward my analysis will illustrate both of these effects.
The top re-tweets show us which topics are important to twitter users in the Calgary civic-
sphere. For example, @davecournoyer posted a tweet linking16 to an article by CRED17 on
Alberta’s oil taxation policies in comparison to Norway’s. His tweet added commentary, saying
“This would be nice,” (@davecournoyer, Nov 9, 2014) referring to Norway’s $905 billion in
taxation saved for a Government Pension fund. @davecournoyer is the account of Dave
16
Link provided here: http://t.co/oHMwWi77G9
17
CRED: Conversations of Responsible Economic Development is a “non-partisan collection of business owners,
academics, landowners and everyday residents of British Columbia who support responsible economic
development.” (CRED, 2013)
63
Cournoyer, a political writer and blogger who has 11.6K followers on Twitter. He is currently
covering the 2015 Alberta provincial election’s preamble, primarily under the hashtag #abvote.
His website informs users on the current political landscape in Alberta for the coming election
and provides his commentary on both federal and provincial policies and events (Daveberta,
2015). His tweet ranked 7th of the 54 re-tweet chains with 41 re-tweets over a period of 6 days.
In the 27 replies to the original Tweet a respectful dialogue ensues, addressing the issue on
Alberta oil taxation and the caveats of comparing a province to a country. Here we find
deliberation which is solidifying collective identities around a specific topic – Alberta oil taxation
and royalties. Although not all dialogue created by re-tweets remains respectful, a central actor
in the Calgary civic-sphere can facilitate deliberative instances between citizens. Re-tweets by
central actors provide additional exposure/ amplification for tweets initially written by
peripheral actors. In the following examples we will see how a re-tweet from bridging actors
(high betweenness centrality) or actors with a large number of followers (amplification
potential) helped disseminate information which drew on a collective identity in the Calgary
civic-sphere.
The Collective and Connective: How to (help) catch a poppy thief
@davecournoyer’s tweet sparked controversy, whereas the top re-tweet chains produced a
unanimous reaction on the Calgary civic-sphere. The community gathered together surrounding
two particular poppy box thefts in Calgary to disseminate a picture (Figure 5) and a video of the
perpetrator. These re-tweet chains ranked 4th and 6th overall, respectively (cumulatively re-
tweeted 98 times). When taking into account all of the re-tweets, tweets associated with the
64
theft ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (re-tweeted 546 times cumulatively). The poppy thief was clearly
the most important issue to Calgarians in the civic-sphere in November. @Producer_Gal
identified the culprit with a
photo (Figure 5) on
November 6th at 18:06,
ranking 4th in total re-
tweets. @Producer_Gal is
an employee of CTV Calgary,
tweeting the picture only 3
hours after the theft. Eleven

Figure 5 @Producer_Gal's tweet of a poppy box theft. Tweeted at 18:06.
(@Producer_Gal, 2014, November 6) Re-tweeted 56 times.
replies to the original tweet all
unanimously condemned the act and/or advocated for the apprehension of the accused. The
2nd highest re-tweet chain was @CTVCalgary's coverage of the event, including a video of the
culprit broadcast on the nightly news. Similarly, all 27 replies to @CTVCalgary’s tweet
condemned the culprit. Both of these Tweets pre-date any online or offline publications by 22
hours, getting the information out sooner to the public. The 6th highest re-tweet was a video of
the same thief, tweeted by the user @Crackmacs on November 7th. The tweet linked to a
YouTube video of the culprit taking the poppy box on November 6 th. Although re-tweets do not
necessarily organize or mobilize citizens to participate in politics or civic concerns, it does utilize
the collective identity of Calgarians and Canadians and the connective power of Twitter to
disseminate pertinent information. If we return to the Social graph by mentions, we can see
65
the network implications of the re-tweets chains by @Producer_Gal and @Crackmacs.
Highlighted in blue are each individual user who re-tweeted @Producer_Gal’s tweet, and in teal
@Crackmacs’s tweet. Node sizes for both were set to a minimum of 20 to increase their
visibility. All other node sizes are representative of in-degree (incoming mentions):
66
Figure 6: Calgary civic-sphere mentions and Re-tweet graph:
Node Size: In-coming mentions (Exception: Teal and blue - set size for visibility)
Node Color: Betweenness centrality (Exception: Teal and blue - set color for visibility)
Label Size: Total mentions
Teal Nodes: Users who re-tweeted @Crackmacs's November 7th tweet
Blue Nodes: User who re-tweeted @Producer_Gal's November 6th tweet
As noted before, the spatial proximity of each node shows us who is interacting with whom
frequently. Here we see a cluster of re-tweets surrounding @Producer_Gal, showcasing users
who primarily interact with @Producer_Gal. The blue nodes further away from @Producer_Gal
act as connectors and amplifiers in their respective communities spatially close to them. These
twitter users are disseminating information in different communities than @Producer_Gal, to
their unique followers, and thereby increasing the exposure of her Tweet. These nodes are
users like @CTVCalgary and other CTV related accounts. They are connected in the Calgary
civic-sphere network because they more frequently discuss issues of civic or political concern.
In contrast, we can see that @Crackmacs's interactions mainly surround its node, with few re-
tweets occurring further away from it. This illustrates an important finding: the re-tweets by
users spatially proximate to @Crackmacs do not regularly participate in the Calgary civic-
sphere, as they do not mention, nor are they being mentioned by others in the sphere. This
means that @Crackmacs is a facilitator of connective action by being highly between the larger
Calgary civic-sphere and these peripheral citizens.
Using three re-tweet chains as examples we can see connective action at work; how
information passes through a network, facilitating action. In keeping with the November 6th
2014 re-tweets I will look at the most prominent ones: @Producer_Gal’s picture of the culprit,
and @Crackmacs and @CTVCalgary’s video. When we look at how these three re-tweet chains
became so popular we find notable nodes which make up the majority of the each re-tweet
67
chain's exposure. The total exposure for @Producer_Gal’s tweet was 116,06018 users, for
@CTVCalgary’s tweet was 90,76219, and for @Crackmacs’s was 200,10620; for a total of 406,928
additional Twitter users exposed to these three poppy thief related tweets. This additional
exposure is the “follower network” that the mentions graph does not visually represent. A clear
pattern emerges when looking at the progression and success of re-tweets: when users with
high betweenness centrality and/or a high follower count re-tweet a tweet early on, the initial
tweet goes on to be largely more successful. The most notable user which re-tweeted
@Producer_Gal’s picture was @CTVCalgary (Highlighted in dark red in Figure 6). The account
has 61,582 followers and a ranks 100th/ 30621 nodes in betweenness centrality. Of the 116,060
additional Twitter users who saw @Producer_Gal’s tweet, @CTVCalgary accounted for 53%22 of
the tweets exposure. Moreover, a rank of 100th in betweenness centrality shows us is that
@CTVCalgary is in the top 1/3rd of users who disseminate tweets to different communities
within the mention network. The tweet went on to be re-tweeted 56 times. The most
important node in @Crackmacs’s re-tweet chain is @Wbrettwilson, located in the bottom of
figure 6. @Wbrettwilson is the Twitter account of entrepreneur and Dragons Den panelist Brett
Wilson. Who, as of November 24th had 117,981 followers and represented approximately 59%23
18 th
Total followers as of November 24 2014: 116,060. (See Exposure in Appendix C: Glossary, for full implications
of exposure. See Appendix D: Top Re-tweets: Total exposure for calculation)
19 th
Total followers as of November 24 2014: 90,762. (See Exposure in Appendix C: Glossary, for full implications of
exposure. See Appendix D: Top Re-tweets: Total exposure for calculation)
20 th
21
The remaining nodes/users in the social graph by mentions (2,781) have 0 betweenness centrality.
22
53.06%
23
58.959%
68
of @Crackmacs’ exposure. @WBrettWilson was the 6th account to re-tweet the video of the
culprit and ranks 14th/306 in betweenness centrality. Moreover, their followers have very little
overlap: by using a tool called “Twiangulate” we see that of their cumulative 136,640 followers
they only have 33 in common (Twiangulate, 2015a, March 19). The majority of Brett Wilson’s
mentions in the network are from this re-tweet chain. This reveals that he is not frequently
being mentioned by users in the Calgary civic-sphere, but rather acts as a bridging account from
the civic-sphere to peripheral citizens. The tweet went on to be re-tweeted 42 times over a 3
day period. In the case of @CTVCalgary’s re-tweet, the most important user was @Crackmacs.
The account was the first to re-tweet @CTVCalgary, with 10,392 followers at the time and
represented 11%24 of the tweet’s exposure. But where it lacked in followers it made up for in
network positioning, ranking 12th in betweenness centrality. Further, the overlap of followers
between the two accounts is only 34 users (Twiangulate, 2015b, March 19). Like with the
previous example @Crackmacs’s acts as an important bridge from those actively participating in
the Calgary civic-sphere to peripheral citizens. The tweet went on to be re-tweeted 43 times
over a period of 2 days. High betweenness centrality in conjunction with a large number of
followers greatly increases the dissemination of Tweets to new communities and within its
own. All of the aforementioned tweets and re-tweets drew on the collectively shared
admiration of veterans.
The culmination of both the connective logic and collective frameworks is exemplified on
November 9th by the highest re-tweet chain of the entire data selection. On November 9th
24
11.449%
69
@Crackmacs tweeted another picture of the same culprit stealing another poppy box (Figure 7).
The tweet benefited from a re-tweet
by Mayor Naheed Nenshi, who had
195,227 followers, and ranked 3rd in
betweenness centrality. Mayor Nenshi
was the 6th account to re-tweet
@Crackmacs’ tweet, which went on to
Figure 7: @Crackmacs' tweet of the same culprit stealing a second poppy accumulate 244 re-tweets over 2 days –
box. (@Crackmacs, 2014, November 8)
186 of which occurring on November
8th. The total exposure of the tweet was an additional 333,47325 twitter users, with @Nenshi
accounting for 59%26 of the tweet’s amplification. Two days later the Calgary Police announced
the culprit’s names was Dwayne Soroka, and on November 19th he was arrested and charged
for the theft of eight poppy boxes (Calgary Police Service, 2014). According to The Calgary Sun’s
article, “the police named Soroka [on] Nov. 10 as their suspect in the poppy box thefts, thanks
to tips from the public” (Passifiume, 2014, November 21). Although it is not possible to show a
causal relation between Twitter and the arrest of Dwayne Soroka, the platform undoubtedly
used an existing network structure to disseminate important information to Calgarians.
25 th
26
59.235%
70
Re-tweet chains not only show us a connective logic at work in how Tweets become popular,
but which accounts act as bridges from the Calgary civic-sphere and peripheral citizens.
Accounts like @Crackmacs and @WBrettWilson connect citizens who otherwise do not
participate often in civic related matters. Whereas accounts like @CTVCalgary and @Nenshi
provided amplification to tweets authored by less central users. The information being shared
pertaining to Dwayne Soroka’s thefts relied on multiple collective frames; Calgarians,
Canadians, veterans, and charity. The top poppy re-tweets all called on Canadians to help find
Dwayne Soroka, organizing individuals outside of Twitter, similar to a community watch. The
response to these poppy thefts and the collective identity offline is best exemplified in the
community’s response. According to David Howard, representative of the Canadian Legacy
Project and CTV News donations increased substantially after these thefts:
“CTV NEWS: Ironically the thefts may actually be boosting donations thanks to an
infuriated public.
David Howard: When the poppy boxes are stolen, people tend to give more.
CTV NEWS: 1 million poppy boxes have already been distributed, in Calgary alone as
volunteers struggle to deliver more.
David Howard: We had these deaths on Canadian soil [referring to the shooting of
Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and Cpl. Nathan Cirillo in October.] and this is, a tragic,
that these events have taken place. The positive of it is Canadians have rallied around
our military, they’ve rallied around our veterans.” (CTV Calgary Staff, 2014b, November
7).
All types of actors participated in organizing this collective; traditional news outlets like
@CTVCalgary and @Producer_Gal; political actors and civic institutions like @Nenshi and
@StopCrimeYYC; and citizens like @Crackmacs, @WBrettWilson, and all of the other smaller
71
accounts which re-tweeted the information. They all worked together to share Dwayne’s
picture and video, connecting users active within the Calgary civic-sphere network and
peripheral users who do not engage as frequently in civic concerns. The culmination of this
information sharing was an online and offline community watch and an increase in poppy fund
donations; facilitated by key actors within the network.
Replies: Civic discourse, civic-links, and connective tools
Whereas the top-retweet chains concerning the poppy thief elucidated civic-links aimed at
organizing a nearly universal collective, instances found in replies were more controversial. As
mentioned before, a majority of replies were not captured by the DMI-TCAT analysis due to
their exclusion of #YYC. Of
the 471 conversations
captured I will be focusing
on the actors who most
frequently engaged others.
The replies that were
captured revealed
deliberative instances
Figure 8: Central News Cluster from Reply to Status ID graph. See figure 2 for context. pertaining to specific
Node Size: Total Replies. Node Color: Total followers (grey for less, red for more).
municipal issues, civic-links
which provided mutual support for civic causes, and collective identities solidified by citizens,
news media, and political actors. The replies network showed a cluster of interactions between
72
@BillGraveland, @DonBraid, @MetroCalgary, @CBCCalgary and other news and citizen related
nodes (Figure 8). These interactions show that not only are there inter-media interactions, but
citizen accounts are interacting frequently with news media and their personalities. To take a
closer look I will focus on some of the notable citizen accounts in Figure 8: @DSolberg,
@BlairCalgary, @GregGinYYC, and @NotNenshi.
All of this content is politically or civically oriented and discusses events, decisions, or topics
that concern all citizens. For example, @DSolberg reveals her backing for the Wild Rose Party
with her response of “#FeedDerrick” (@DSolberg, 2014, November 12). The tweet is in
response to @SheilaTaylorYYC’s support of Derrick Jacobson (As seen below in Figure 9), the
WRP participant in @Calgaryrants’s Foodapalooza. @DSolberg also tweets the link to Good Pin
where her followers can donate. This tweet is an example of providing mutual support to the
WRP’s participants in Foodapalooza. Moreover, it illustrates the rich connective nature of the
Tweet by providing hyperlinks to the event itself, links to another supporter of the WRP, and in
using the WRP hashtag thereby contributing to the meta-WRP conversation. In the case of
@BlairCalgary, we find that the account is promoting the effects of direct democracy. The
tweet in figure 9 is publicizing the 89% approval rate from a survey the City of Calgary
conducted through March and April on whether or not to add a bike lane to Bowness Road (City
of Calgary, 2014). The link in the tweet directs users to the City of Calgary website outlining the
now passed changes. Here @BlairCalgary is informing others of the deliberative process that
73
took place which resulted in the bike lane’s implementation.
Figure 9: Replies from users to others concerning civic events, discussions, and decisions. From left to right, top to bottom:
(@DSolberg, 12 November, 2014), (@BlairCalgary, 28 October, 2014), (@GregGinYYC, 1 November, 2014), (@NotNenshi, 21
November, 2014).
The Tweet from @GregGinYYC is in response to a tweet by @DruhFarrell, city councilor. Her
tweet claimed that the City of Calgary has the highest debt per capita in Canada, (@DruhFarrell,
2014, November 1), and therefore, should not entertain the idea of borrowing money to pay
for the city’s growth costs (Dormer, 2014, October 30). @GregGinYYC’s reply is providing
mutual support for the councilor’s position that more debt is not the answer. Further, the
account is attempting to incorporate @Ward4Ward1 in the conversation by addressing the city
councilor directly – as denoted by a mention at the end of the tweet. Not only does the
platform allow for citizens who agree with city councilors and municipal decisions, but instances
of dissent and push-back are found as well. The citizen behind the account @NotNenshi voices
their dissatisfaction with the mayor by creating an entire account dedicated to criticizing
Nenshi. Their tweet (Figure 9) replies to a @CalgaryHerald article titled “Faster snow plowing
would cost taxpayers millions” (Southwick, 2014, November 19), with a suggestion on how to
raise the money for faster snow plowing. The tweet cites bike lanes and bureaucracy as
unnecessary financial expenditures. While it is debatable if the account’s picture and opinions
74
would be considered over the line, it does none-the-less contribute to civic discourse by
providing a contrary viewpoint to municipal decisions.
The replies network shows that the most active in responding to tweets was the user
@CalgarySenate. This is the account of Larry Heather, one of the candidates in the 2013
election who ran for mayor. His Twitter account self-identifies as “Looking out for the 1857
Calgarians who voted for issues I represented” (@CalgarySenate, 2014). The account frequently
engages with others on the platform in opposition of Mayor Nenshi. He holds no position in
Calgary politics, and is acting as a concerned citizen. @CalgarySenate engaged 40 times with
citizens in the Calgary civic-sphere to defend his own views on creation, the municipal budget,
abortion politics, bike lanes, and a number of other issues. The use of #yyc, #ableg, and #yyccc
(Calgary City Council) in the majority of his responses indicates that he is cognizant that he is
participating in the larger discourse surrounding these hashtags. All 40 tweets include #yyc and
#yyccc, while the #ableg was used 16/40 times. @CalgarySenate engaged in 15 different civic
conversations on Twitter. The account has a clear agenda and does not shy away from
controversy. While civic-links which create bonds between citizens were not found, the
frequency of replies (40) and mentions (130 out-going, 41 in-coming) show that Larry Heather
uses Twitter to promote his platform through dialogue.
All of these aforementioned citizens are doing more than just sharing information or
experiences. Their interactions on Twitter illustrate knowledge of civic topics and events
outside of the platform, and further, are providing mutual support to other actors on Twitter. In
the re-tweets section, replies network, and these examples, we see that news media plays a
75
large role in facilitating discourse by posting tweets on specific topics, which users then voice
their opinion on. These citizens are using Twitter to engage in specific issues, proposed policies,
and municipal decisions; they are using the platform for its ease of access to politicians, news
media, and other concerned citizens to create dialogue. These are the everyday discussions and
deliberative instances which when aggregated illustrate a “democratic demand” on Twitter.
What then is the worth of these civic-links on Twitter to everyday users of the platform? How
do people perceive themselves as citizens, and are they empowered by their interactions?
Citizen Agency: What is the value of these civic-links on Twitter?
Having illustrated hashtags and mentions are being used to organize citizens, and some of the
collective identities’ represented on the Calgary civic-sphere, it was important to understand
what these interactions meant to individual citizens. Just because citizens are interacting with
media and politicians, doesn’t necessarily mean they feel empowered doing so. The following
section will address the value of Twitter regarding civic empowerment and participation online
and offline. When asked in the survey, “Can you recall an interaction on Twitter that made you
feel more empowered as a citizen of Calgary?” 25 of 48 respondents answered yes or described
a time they felt empowered. 13 responded specifically “No”, or negatively to the question – the
remainder were blank or not applicable. Overall this paints a positive picture for deliberative
interactions on Twitter in the Calgary civic-sphere. But most importantly, what Twitter aids
citizens in doing was revealed in the following questions: one, “Can you recall a time where
Twitter helped you organize support for a cause important to you?” And, of the respondents
that interact with activist organizations on Twitter that they affiliate with outside of the
76
platform, “how did you first hear about/ start interacting with said organization”. Question one
revealed instances where citizens felt they got some use from the platform in an organizational
and even mobilizing capacity. And the second established a temporal sequence which shows
instances where Twitter facilitated a citizen’s online engagement preceding their offline
participation with said organization.
The previous analyses focused on the ostensible effects of using Twitter to organize others. In
contrast, the survey addresses how the organizers felt Twitter aided their cause – how effective
they felt the platform was in achieving their goal. Responses to the survey revealed a few
politicians use for the platform, finding it a good resource for engaging others and even
recruiting volunteers. Respondent 1 recognizes Twitter as “one” part of their approach in their
2010 and 2013 election campaign. They used it to “build awareness” (Respondent 1, 2014) and
attract volunteers. They recognize that the impact was more as an information sharing tool
saying, “[Twitter] led to the attraction of volunteers; however most volunteers came through
personal networks developed outside of Twitter.” Later in the survey, they identify that the
people they communicate most with on the platform are those who they met through Twitter.
Although Twitter didn’t produce large numbers of volunteers for Respondent 1, it did connect
them with citizens they otherwise would not have reached. Similarly, respondent 7 asserts that
the platform was used “extensively” to engage citizens, when they ran for MLA in the Alberta
provincial election in 2012. They too recognized that they communicate most with those who
they met through the platform; rather than it simply being an extension of offline communities.
Respondent 7 identifies that the connective tool that leads them to new Twitter users most
often is the hashtag. When asked “What type of Twitter accounts do you mostly follow,” they
77
responded with a conversation centric, rather than user centric, answer: “#ableg, #abpoli,
#cdnpoli, #wrp, #pcaa, #abndp, #ablib, #abparty, #cafe racer, #motogp #wsbk, [and] #bsb.”
Here popular conversations like #ableg and #abpoli are connecting respondent 7, rather than
just influential users, like @Crackmacs or @Nenshi. When asked how respondents came to
interact with individuals on Twitter they had not known previously, 9/40 responded that it was
through a hashtag search. Respondent 22 also conveys the importance of conversation with
citizens, saying that “In the 2012 provincial election we utilized Twitter extensively to connect
with potential supporters and to draw attention to issues prevalent in the constituency.”
(Respondent 22, 2014). Respondents 1, 7, and 22 show that politicians use the platform to open
dialogue and garner interest in their campaigns, and, in small numbers attract much needed
volunteers. They use both conversation centric and user centric approaches to discuss issues
with individuals.
Respondent 33 provides a less politicized event they used the platform to organize, an
unconference called “EdCampYYC”. According to EdCampYYC’s website in 2014, 29 educator
“Tweeps” were recruited via Twitter (EdCampYYC, 2014). EdCampYYC has been going on since
2013, which according to respondent 33 has “brought together over 300 educators to an
unconference with crowd sourced topics of interest and facilitators.” They used Twitter to hold
“Tweet ups where volunteer organizers came together to do parts of that planning.” Not only
did the platform connect educators on Twitter, but it distributed the responsibilities of
organizing the event, and crowd sourced topics of interest. In this way Twitter played a crucial
role in both organizing the event, in their crowd sourcing topics, and in mobilizing individuals to
physically show up to EdCampYYC. Respondent 33 goes on to say that they use the platform
78
often to meet people and then plan conferences with those interested in attending.
Respondents 18, 21, 29, 32, and 37 also all asserted that Twitter had aided them in organizing
support for causes important to them. Respondent 29 affirms that “Twitter has been
instrumental in supporting numerous causes and issues… It’s a powerful tool when used with
consideration and planning;” this is corroborated by Respondent 21 who agrees that Twitter
“can be ONE effective tool in organizing.” Respondent 32 acknowledges a similar function for
Twitter in an organizational and mobilizing capacity. They use the platform to help organize
local events such as, “WordCamp Calgary 2014, Pixels and Pints meetings, Local industry lunch
and beers, Calgary Tweet-ups, The yycPhotobook project, yycApps.com [and] 1CalgaryCenter.”
Further, respondent 32’s latter responses identify that they first started interacting with these
organizations over Twitter and Facebook, which then led “to collaborations and meetings a[t]
local meet-ups and events.” Both of these citizen respondents (32 and 33) recognize that
Twitter facilitated meaningful connections with others via civic-links, culminating in physical
events. Not only were they engaging in civic discourse, but used the platform to facilitate civic
participation. In these cases Twitter even acted as the primary medium through which their
events were conceived and actualized.
Not only were instances of civic participation offline facilitated by Twitter, but for some citizens
Twitter was the starting point of their civic engagement. When asked the question “Do you
follow any activist organizations on Twitter that you affiliate with outside of Twitter” 30/48
respondents answered “Yes.” Of the respondents that answered “Yes” to participating offline,
13 said they first heard about/ started interacting with the organization online. 7 attributed a
mix of online and offline to their involvement, with the remaining 6 identifying they were
79
involved with the organization previously. That means that 48% of respondents attribute – at
least in part –their offline participation with organizations as being facilitated by Twitter. One
specific instance demonstrates how Respondent 18 used the platform to get involved with Bike
Calgary, get connected with like-minded individuals, and show their support for biking in
Calgary. Respondent 18 identifies that they began following Bike Calgary on Twitter and then
became a member. Their response to the accounts they mostly follow indicate that they use
the platform for more than just civic related issues; they follow online and offline friends, video
game companies, acquaintances, and city agencies. Their average interaction with news media,
political organizations or actors are between 1-3 times a week. They are by no means using the
platform frequently to engage in discourse, however, they have used it to feel more
empowered as a citizen of Calgary. They identify organizing support for Calgary cycle tracks as
an empowering use of Twitter. As they recall, the Calgary Stampede had provided bike tents to
shelter bikes, but no rack underneath them. Using Twitter they addressed the Calgary
Stampede asking to remedy this issue, seeking help from The Calgary Folk Fest as well. “And in
five days or so, the Stampede finally provided bike racks.” Respondent 18 used Twitter as
another avenue to address a civic issue of concern to them. They recognize it as another way to
get in contact with decision makers. Their response illustrates a citizen’s journey on the
continuum from engagement, to solidifying collective identities, to participating via Twitter.
Their engagement online with Bike Calgary led them to get involved with the organization and
facilitated a(n) – albeit small – solution to a problem.
Respondent 17’s response illustrates how Twitter was used to connect them with those in
decision making positions, how they used the platform to discuss civic-concerns with their
80
municipal representative Sean Chu, and then get involved in offline activities. They too identify
that their engagement started online, which “then progressed to offline activities” (Respondent
17, 2014) with activist organizations. They contact political actors, news media, and political
organizations on average between 5 and 10 times a week and feel empowered when are
responded to: “[I] have had several conversations with Sean Chu, who is my municipal
councilor. every question asked has been promptly answered, with a couple receiving further
attention and responses” (Respondent 17, 2014). Further, their responses show that they seek
out individuals they do not know offline in an effort to engage in civic concerns. Like
respondent 18, Twitter got this individual engaged in civic concerns, facilitated meaningful
conversations, and connected them with civic organizations, then progressing to participation
offline. Although this by no means the norm on Twitter, these instances show how the platform
is being used to do more than just provide citizens with information. According to citizens,
Twitter and the sharing of information and experiences has connected them with other citizens,
political actors, and news media to facilitate meaningful conversations in ways they would not
have had otherwise.
Conclusion
The analysis above has painted a glowing picture of interactions on Twitter. The examples used
might make it seem that this case study is arguing that the platform only contains respectful
deliberation, civic engagement and participation, and a direct line to decision makers. Let it be
clear that this is not the case. As self-identified political actors Respondent 1 and 6 assert, the
platform can still get “really ugly very quickly” (Respondent 6, 2014), and is “best used to
81
connect, but not deliver information to achieve a particular result” (Respondent 1, 2014). Some
respondents replied they were less likely to contact political actors or organizations again due
to a lack of response (6/48). Further, the above analysis is a result of surveying those already
engaged in civic conversations online, which pre-supposes some level of interest and
willingness to participate. However, in this context, multiple respondents asserted that the
platform was an effective tool in organizing and mobilizing individuals online when used in
conjunction with other methods. Further, instances of sharing information and experience were
shown to have different effects. Some may be a mundane attempts at self-promotion, whereas
the poppy thief's picture and video were used engage and unify a collective of Calgarians on
Twitter. The online community came together to act as a community watch, sharing pertinent
information with a specific aim - the apprehension of Dwayne Soroka. When accounting for
only the top 3 re-tweet chains concerning the poppy thief, this community watch included over
540,000 Twitter users. In instances like these network positioning and News media were
important in exposing these civic-links. Users like @Crackmacs, who had only 10,392 followers
contributed to amplifying re-tweet chains because of their high betweenness centrality – they
connected peripheral citizens to the main civic discourse on the platform. Further, in their own
re-tweet chain, @Crackmacs was able to successfully share information on the theft, by
mentioning important actors with high follower accounts, like @Nenshi, @WBrettWilson, and
@StopCrimeYYC. Both the overall network structure and follower counts played an important
role in disseminating the information to different citizens. The network structure revealed
accounts like @Crackmacs, @Calgaryrants, @WBrettWilson, and @Haggisman57, acted as
topical bridges to the Calgary civic-sphere. Due to a wide topical range of their tweets – not all
82
political – they attracted citizens, and thereby exposed them to some political content, as well
as their other interests. By looking at those users other citizens contacted the most (in-coming)
mentions we saw that News media’s coverage of events or issues provided deliberative sites for
citizens. Indeed, all three metrics illustrated News Media and their correspondent’s importance
on Twitter. While the platform did allow for alternative voices, news media made up a
significant portion of the content creation and dialogue.
Tweets which drew on the collective identities or pertinent issues facilitated the most civic
communication. Top-retweets and replies revealed instances of citizen engagement and some
deliberation on Twitter, as well as an ease of access to those in decision making positions. Users
like @CalgaryTransit, @StopCrimeYYC, @Nenshi, and @Jimprentice were engaged frequently
by citizens, with respondents reporting positive and productive interactions. Citizens felt more
connected to the city of Calgary, like Respondent 37 and their 6 year old son’s interest in C-
trains, and the platform’s “help [to] bridge the gap between a public service and a young
citizen.” (Respondent 37, 2014). Even small instances where citizens concerns were
communicated, addressed, and fixed were identified – like Respondent 18’s installation of bike
racks at the Calgary Stampede. While these do not have a revolutionary effect, they do
illustrate how the platform connects citizens to elected officials and those in decision making
positions. They are examples of how the platform makes a “porous” city governance, one which
is – at least partially – amenable to citizen’s concerns and demands.
Not only did the findings of this study show that Twitter is being used to help citizens engage in
civic concerns, but to participate in organizing and mobilizing others as well. Users like
83
@Ownyourvote, @VoteKit, and @davecournoyer, show that the platform can be used to aid
citizens in staying informed on local and provincial politics. These accounts are created
specifically to facilitate civic conversation and educate citizens on important political issues.
These 3 citizens have taken it upon themselves to curate civic and political news for others.
@Calgaryrants’s “Foodapalooza” showed how the connective power of the platform can be
used to raise funds for a charity important to him. The use of #Foodapalooza created an ad hoc
community surrounding the event. He connected with citizens over Twitter to raise funds by
mentioning influential users in the Calgary civic-sphere, and by addressing collectives with the
use of hashtags – “Ok #ableg tweeps... Any tips on #ablib and #abndp supporters…”
(@Calgaryrants, November 1). Hashtags proved to be a powerful connective link, establishing
persisting meta-conversations like #Ableg and #ablib. They were used by citizens as keyword
searches to aggregate content and find individuals concerned with the same issues.
@Calgaryrant’s Foodapalooza is an example of how both hashtags and mentions can be
constructive mechanisms.
Re-tweets and the civic survey showed that Tweets were often used to organize events and live
tweet at physical locations, employing these constructive mechanisms. EdCampYYC was
conceptualized, organized, and actualized via Twitter by connecting like-minded individuals
interested in Education – an example of a topic based localized-sphere mobilizing. Not only did
citizens use Twitter to connect and mobilize, but, some citizen’s engagement with civic and/or
political organizations began online. For these citizens Twitter not only incubated their civic
engagement but was where it was born. Respondents asserted that Twitter had helped them in
– albeit small amounts – attract volunteers for political campaigns, community events, and
84
issue based meet-ups. Thirteen respondents, or 27%, identified that their participation with an
organization they now affiliate with offline started online. And 20 (41%), identified that it was a
mix of both online and offline interactions that contributed to their participation. These
numbers should by no means be extrapolated to the larger population, but they do show how
civic-links of information and experience sharing can progress to creating collective identities
online, and eventually facilitate offline participation. Coleman (2013) argues that Social
Networking Systems have “yet to develop constructive mechanisms of helping people to
determine effective solutions in the face of scarce resources” (p.279). The above examples
show contrary evidence to this claim, that Twitter can be used as a constructive mechanism for
civic issues important to citizens, reducing the costs of engagement and participation.
The case study of the Calgary-civic sphere elucidated two theoretical concepts that illustrate
how publics connect, discuss, and participate. Citizens contacted civil institutions and those in
decision making positions with political frames to advocate for small changes. The instances
where changes were implemented are examples of successful subactivism. As Bakardjieva
(2009) asserts, these are a "refraction of the public political area in the private personal world"
(p.92). Due to the incorporation of social media into many users everyday life, researchers can
more easily uncover occurrences of subactivism online. These tools allow citizens to organize
more efficiently with others they would otherwise not have connected with. As we saw with
EdCampYYC, low levels of organizational resources were mitigated by Twitter, allowing those
interested in education to discuss the topic online and then meet up for an unconference.
Crowd-sourcing topics of discussion mitigate the "stresses of the organizational dilemma of
getting individuals to overcome resistance to joining actions where personal participation

85
costs." (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012, p.748). By organizing the event on Twitter first, individuals
had a say in the content of the unconference. These groups are examples of connective action
at work, they were examples of "digital media as [an] organizing agent" (Bennett and
Segerberg, 2012, p.742) connecting citizens who otherwise not have. While these are not
events which took place in a contentious political environment like Bennett and Segerberg's los
indignatos, they still begin with personal action frames which are facilitated by many weak
social ties to mobilize citizens to act.
The findings of this research from a societal perspective mirror previous findings in Computer
Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere. The internet can and is being used to connect
individuals to engage in civic related discourse. But, only about 10% of the #YYC collection
pertained to civic discourse. Twitter acted as a parapolitical/prepolitical domain, which
encouraged engagement. Localized publics appeared around specific topics, some of which
revealed instances of subactivsm. However, the primary uses of Twitter were for sharing and
information seeking purposes. Instances of civic-links aimed at sharing experience and
information far out-weighed those which organized and mobilized. While Twitter did allow
individuals to engage with others to discuss issues important to them, news media was the
primary vehicle. Citizens were prompted by articles, leading to discussion of political events and
issues. At the core of my findings are the ways in which Twitter which aided citizens in
establishing "solidarity among strangers" (Garnham, 2007, p.202). It elucidated instances
where citizens felt active and empowered by the platform, contributing to a civic dialogue
online and a civic culture. By looking beyond formalized public spheres, Twitter revealed itself
to act as a bridge between everyday life and those in decision making positions.
86
Further Discussion
With Twitter and big data as still emerging topics in research, there are considerable
methodological discussions at hand; in collection, analysis, and visualization. With the
development of “Twitter bots” finding out how to spot them in data and what their uses are
will be important to scholars. Especially when large data sets are being analyzed, understanding
their patterns will be crucial in ensuring data quality. What I have called “hashtag co-opting” –
the use of tending hashtags with irrelevant content to increase a tweet’s visibility – and how to
identify these instances in data are of the up-most importance to scholars collecting data based
on hashtags. Data collection for everyday discourse and place specific data proves to be tricky.
A researcher wants, to a certain extent, for discourse to shape their data. At the same time, a
purely hashtag based approach limits the conversations only to those employing the use of a
hashtag. Conversely, data collected using keywords skew the data collected to only represent
those topics, people, or concepts, and may collected data which is not pertinent to a
researchers goals. Collection of data based on a geo-location is still in its infancy. Most Tweets
are not geo-coded, making the data set for a specific city or region very small. Although DMI-
TCAT now allows for geo-tagged collection it is still not a viable collection method if a
researcher aims to be representative of the overall discourse. Issues of citizen’s visibility are not
just limited to online versus offline, but in the way citizen’s code, or tag, their tweets. By
understanding the everyday practices and conventions of Twitter users researchers can ensure
their data collection methods reveal pertinent and encompassing data.
87
Identifying these localized-publics spheres on Twitter are of primary concern to scholars
studying digital interaction and culture. And with tools like DMI-TCAT and Gephi visualizing
these networks of interactions have become much easier. However, with Gephi’s analytics,
layout, and ranking, a lot of the final network visualization is up to the researcher. While each
researcher aims at conveying the most accurate representation of their data, there will still be
inevitable differences and misunderstandings. Large data sets make changing data – like the re-
tweet chains shown in Figure 6, and the “reply network” – extremely tedious and time
consuming. Scholarship on accurate yet digestible data visualization is an emerging field, and
necessary to provide researchers with guidelines when using network visualization software. In
this research, justifications were given for every step, but I would argue conveying these
choices were disjunctive to the reader. For this further conventions in writing might be needed.
Further, collecting data and analyzing civic agency, empowerment, and efficacy surrounding
everyday interactions painted a positive picture for citizen-to-decision-maker interactions, but
what of these interactions during elections? To no surprise, respondents involved in politics
asserted that Twitter was often used to attack them and others. Would citizens report the same
positive interactions during an election period? Would they feel as empowered? Taking a
citizen-centric approach during an election may show how issues can shift on politicians, and
possibly reveal situations where politicians were forced to amend their stance on an issue.
Further, this collection was only done over a month. As such, much of the larger issues with
Calgary, Alberta, and Canadian politics were not captured. The collection just missed the
shooting of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, which opened a nation-wide dialogue on domestic policy,
veteran’s issues, and terrorism. Collections over longer periods of time may reveal instances
88
where everyday negotiations facilitated meaningful change at a national level. Some citizens
argued that Twitter was particularly useful during the 2013 floods in Calgary. Understanding
how the platform can be used in emergency situations is already an emerging area of Twitter
scholarship. Studies in this field should especially focus on the use of hashtags to provide
information, whether governments or relief agencies “proper” hashtags were searched, or if
secondary, user created hashtags disseminated the most pertinent information.
And finally, the use of “civic-links” in analyzing everyday discourse. I have operationalized these
links to evaluate online culture to show literal “links”, whether they be mentions, re-tweets,
hyperlinks, likes, re-blogs, etc. As Dahlgren (2005) asserts, the Internet has been widely shown
to facilitate these motivations. But I argue that their inherent motivations also provide a basis
on which to evaluate citizen’s attempts at creating a civic culture. They allow researchers to
understand the motivations behind civic communication, whether it be information sharing,
providing mutual support, or organizing groups, each of these show a different level of civic
communication. The inherent value of this categorization system is that it recognizes the
various levels of civic communication, deliberation, and action. It allows for normative and
alternative definitions of engagement and participation in civic issues and events. Civic-links are
an inclusive model for understanding how everyday interactions over social media platforms
might gestate instances of subactivism, and potentially even formal political engagement and
participation.
89
Appendix A: Civic Co-hashtags
Civically oriented co-hashtags (frequency of 50 or more):
#Oilandgas [50], #Housing [50], #Oilsands [51], #Changeisinyourhands [52], #Education [56],
#Satire [56], #yycliving [59], #tyyz [60], #yycwalk [65], #abhealth [66], #smbyyc58 [68], (Social
Media Breakfast) #muslims [69,] #yycroads [69], #bcpoli [70], #muslim [71], #abgov [73 ],
#poppy [76], #onpoli [79], #nenshi [82], #uspoli [85], #topoli [96], #cndpoli [116], #community
[125], #npdyyc [140] (National Philanthropy Day), #yycca [147], #cnn [157], #Judaism [157],
#Bbc [159], #Islam [161], #Sikh [161], #Christianity [162], #Pcaa [162], #Yyctransit [164],
#Lestweforget [167], #Yyccrime [198], #Yycbe [224], #Abed [263], #Wrp [268], (Wild Rose Party)
#Yycbike [285], #Abpoli [493], #Cdnpoli [495], #Cbc [1,544], #Yyccc [1,790], #Ableg [2,141]
(Pertaining to the Alberta Legislative).
90
Appendix B: Survey Questions
Link to the survey questions: http://goo.gl/forms/fXNUjIhYwh
Transcribed Questions:
Establish what type of information the participant is receiving on Twitter, who they choose to
associate with/follow
 What type of Twitter accounts do you mostly follow? (Friends or acquaintances offline,
celebrities, news, sports personalities, informational services, etc.)
o Allow text box
The phrasing allows for participants to identify causes important to them rather than
specifically political causes. Some answers may reveal politically natured engagement that the
participant wouldn't initially deem as political.
 Can you recall a time where Twitter helped you organize support for a cause important to you?
I.e. the sharing of information, rallying financial support, organizing volunteers, organizing a
protest, etc.
o Text Box Available
Is the participant engaged in politics or charity organizations outside of Twitter. Did they get
involved via Twitter or other means?
 Do you subscribe to any activist organizations on Twitter that you affiliate with outside of
Twitter? I.e. Volunteering, financial support, moral support/agreement etc.
o Yes
o No
o If Yes, how did you first hear about/ start interacting with said organization?
Empirical information on who they communicate with, rather than just follow.
 Who do you communicate most with on Twitter? (Mention, reply, retweet, etc.)
o Organizations (E.g. The Mustard Seed Foundation)
o Institutions (E.g. City of Calgary )
o Online friends or acquaintances (People you met through Twitter)
o Friends or acquaintances you know offline as well (People you knew before Twitter)
o News Media (E.g. The Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, people affiliated with the news, etc.)
91
o Public figures (Political)
o Public figures (Popular)
o Other (participant defined)
How often are they engaging with politically natured Twitter accounts. (As identified by the
participant themselves).
 In a week, on average, how often do you interact with News Media, Political Organizations, or
Political Actors on Twitter? (Mention, reply, retweet.)
o 0
o 1
o 1-3
o 3-5
o 5-10
o 10-20
o 20+
Addresses self-identified civic agency on Twitter
 Can you recall an interaction on Twitter that made you feel more empowered as a citizen of
Calgary?
Meant to survey how people view the platform as a means for political engagement, as well as
documenting instances of self-identified political engagement.
 Do you feel that Twitter provides more possibilities for you to take political action? (Whether it
be by volunteering, giving financial aid, engaging in public discussion on or outside of Twitter, as
an information source for political events, as a way to pose your opinions of political events,
etc.)
o Provide a text box
Addressing instances and methods of connection between individuals, groups, and political
actors.
For the purposes of clarity, I will be referring to different user accounts to show online
connections/ interactions. Users @Mike and @Laura are individual accounts. User @Group will
represent any organizations, companies, or institutions using Twitter. User @PoliticalActor, will
represent anyone you identify as someone involved in politics.
Does an individual use a network hub to interact with other politically inclined individuals. Do
they recognize other user’s ability to connect them with organizations, political actors, or other
92
interested individuals? Are those interactions sustained offline as well? Did their interaction
offline precede Twitter?
 In your conversations on Twitter have you ever used another Twitter account as an intermediary
to continue a topic of conversation with another user? (That is, have you replied, commented
on, or retweeted a tweet of @Mike’s which led to a discussion or interaction with @Laura,
@Group, or @PoliticalActor?)
o Yes
o No
o If Yes, was the conversation with someone you knew previously outside of Twitter?
 Have you ever interacted with (replied to, retweeted, or mentioned) another Twitter user you
did know, which led to an interaction with one you didn't previously know.
Meant to address further Twitter situated interaction.
 Do you interact with other individuals on Twitter you do not know outside of the platform? (Do
you talk to @Laura, but not know her offline?)
Identifying interaction with participant-identified political actors
 Do you follow any political actors, Mayors, City Council Members, Political commentators etc.
o Yes
o No
o If Yes, Have you ever Tweeted @them and received a response?
Assessing the likely-hood of continued interaction
 If you have contacted a political actor or organization, did the response/ lack of response make
you:
o More likely to do it again (Because they responded)
o More likely to do it again (Because of a lack of response)
o Have no effect
o Less likely to do it again (Because they responded)
o Less likely to do it again (Because of a lack of response)
93
Appendix C: Glossary
Amplification: Based on the amount of followers a Twitter account has; more followers means
a greater amplification potential. Amplification happens when a Twitter account with a large
follower count re-tweets the content of another twitter user, thereby amplifying the reach of
the original tweet. It may also occur when a user replies to another’s tweet, thereby exposing
the conversation to all of their followers.
Betweenness Centrality: “takes all the pairs of nodes in a network and counts the shortest
paths connecting them. The betweenness centrality of a node is basically the proportion of
shortest paths that cross that node. The higher this proportion, the more central is the node…
Central nodes usually act as bridges or bottlenecks” (Caldarelli & Catanzaro, 2012, p.86). This
concept is important in social networks because it show how frequently a node (or in this case
Twitter user) has interacted with other users, particularly other user who do not engage
frequently with other users in the network. The higher the betweenness centrality, the more
people they have a potential to connect.
In-Degree: The number of in-bound links to a specific node. It should be noted that for the
purposes of this study, multiple in-coming links from another node were not consolidated into
one in-bound degree. This was done because each interaction from each node was important
to measure, as they may represent another instance of a civic-link or attempt at interaction on
Twitter.
Out-Degree: The number of out-bound links from a specific node. It should be noted that for
the purposes of this study, multiple out-going links from another node were not consolidated
94
into one out-bound degree. This was done because each interaction from each node was
important to measure, as they may represent another instance of a civic-link or attempt at
interaction on Twitter.
Degree: The total number of in-bound and out-bound links of a specific node; the combination
of in-degree and out-degree.
Exposure: In this case the term is being used in the broadest sense, it represents the total
number of Twitter users who have seen a tweet due to an interaction (re-tweet or reply) of a
user they follow. In the case of re-tweets, if user X follows user Y, who then re-tweets a tweet
from user Z, user X has been exposed to user Z’s tweet via user Y. The exposure of re-tweet
chains are calculated by adding up the number of followers of each user who re-tweeted a
tweet. (e.g: If user @Re-tweeter1 and @Re-tweeter2 each have 50 followers, and they re-tweet
user @OriginalTweet, then the additional exposure due to the re-tweets of @Re-tweeter1 and
@Re-tweeter2 is another 100 Twitter users.) It should be noted however, that this calculation
does not account for follower which overlap. If a user follows both @Re-tweeter1 and @Re-
tweeter2, they will be counted twice in the metric. Exposure is also referred to as the "reach"
of a tweet; how far it can go in a social network.
In the case of replies, if user X replies to the mention of user Y, then all of user X’s followers will
be exposed to the original tweet of user Y. Replies to tweets are tweeted from another users
account, and thereby show up on their feed, visible to all of their followers. This means a reply
from a user with a larger follower count will provide more exposure to the initial tweet.
95
Modularity: Segments the individual nodes into communities based on which nodes are
interacting with each other. Modularity shows which sub-communities interact with each other
frequently.
Re-tweet Chain: All of the re-tweets by various users originating from a single Tweet. A re-
tweet is by a singular user, whereas a re-tweet chain is all of the users who re-tweeted the
content. DMI-TCAT allows us to see when each re-tweet happened and thereby establish a
temporal logic of these chains.
DMI-TCAT Tools and Metrics Used
Co-hashtag graph (Visualized in Gephi):
“Produces an undirected graph based on co-word analysis of hashtags. If two hashtags appear
in the same tweet, they are linked. The more often they appear together, the stronger the link
(‘link weight’).
Use: explore the relations between hashtags, find and analyze sub-issues, distinguish between
different types of hashtags (event related, qualifiers, etc.).” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
Export all tweets from selection (Visualized in Excel):
“Contains all tweets and information about them (user, date created, ...).
Use: spend time with your data.” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
List each individual retweet (Visualized in Excel):
“Lists all retweets (and all the tweets metadata like follower_count) chronologically.
96
Use: reconstruct retweet chains.” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
Social graph by mentions (Visualized in Gephi):
“Produces a directed graph based on interactions between users. If a user’s mentions another
one, a directed link is created. The more often a user mentions another, the stronger the link
("link weight"). The "count" value contains the number of tweets for each user in the specified
period.
Use: analyze patterns in communication, find ‘hubs’ and ‘communities’, categorize user
accounts.” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
Social graph reply to status id (Visualized in Gephi):
“Produces a directed graph based on interactions between users. If a tweet was written in reply
to another one, a directed link is created.
Use: analyze patterns in communication, find "hubs" and "communities", categorize user
accounts.” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
User activity + visibility (tweet+mention frequency) (Visualized in Excel):
Lists usernames with both tweet and mention counts.
Use: see whether the users mentioned are also those who tweet a lot. (Borra & Rieder, 2014).
User stats (individual) (Visualized in Excel):
97
“Lists users and their number of tweets, number of followers, number of friends, how many
times they are listed, their UTC time offset, whether the user has a verified account and how
many times they appear in the data set.
Use: get a better feel for the users in your data set.” (Borra & Rieder, 2014)
98
Appendix D: Top Re-tweets.
The following format will be used:
1. Original Twitter Account: Original Tweet Content. (Number of times Re-tweeted)

a. Justification for why it was classified – or not – as an instance of an organizing,
mobilizing, or solidifying collective identity civic-link.
Top 54 Re-tweets from October 28t,h 2014 to November 24th, 2014:
These Re-tweets were produced using the Calgary civic-sphere query and the “poppy query” to
attain re-tweets chains with a frequency of 10 or more. Each re-tweet chain will show the
original tweet, how many times it was re-tweeted according to DMI-TCAT, which query it was
acquired from, and why or why not it was categorized as a civic-link.
1. @Crackmacs: The same guy stole ANOTHER poppy fund box. He has a very unique jacket keep
an eye out #yyc #yeg #Calgary @nenshi http://t.co/3V3XdrugqE. (244) [From: Poppy query]
a. This tweet was categorized as an instance of organizing citizens. The hyperlink above is a
security picture of the poppy box thief talking the charity box. In this instance I have
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @Crackmacs
is informing the public in an attempt to bring this thief to justice. It is an online form of
community watch, using the connective power around one specific issue – veteran’s
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @Crackmacs is solidifying
collective identities.
2. @CTVCalgary: VIDEO: Camera catches liquor store poppy box thief. Do you recognize the
culprit? http://t.co/wxRTg1aSH1 #yyc http://t.co/yw7ffsfUZo. (137) [From: Poppy query]
security video of the poppy box thief talking the charity box. In this instance I have
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @CTVCalgary
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @CTVCalgary is solidifying
3. @JDfromCJAY: This dick stole a poppy box. Pass it on and hopefully we can nab him. VIDEO:
http://t.co/faDsOwFnnp #yyc . http://t.co/Ja7YD4xvfW. (67) [From: Poppy query]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @JDfromCJAY
99
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @JDfromCJAY is solidifying
4. @Producer_Gal: Poppy box theft! Surveillance shows this guy ripping off poppy funds from SW
liquor store. #YYC #ctvcalgary #poppy http://t.co/2d5B4KAAJB. (56) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture
@Producer_Gal is informing the public in an attempt to bring this thief to justice. It is an
online form of community watch, using the connective power around one specific issue
– veteran’s funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic
@Producer_Gal is solidifying collective identities.
5. @CBCCalgary: Main building at SAIT remains in lockdown but no threats have been discovered
so far. #yyc #cbc http://t.co/7BMO3QmN52. (50) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
a. This tweet was not categorized as organizing or mobilizing. The tweet and
corresponding picture aims at promoting important news to Calgarians, rather than
facilitating action around a particular incident or discourse on a specific civic topic.
6. @Crackmacs: VIDEO of the Poppy Fund thief - lets find him! https://t.co/XrP0fPzBzd #yyc
#Calgary #yyccc @nenshi @jannarden @WBrettWilson @StopCrimeYYC. (42) [Query: Calgary
civic-sphere]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this video @Crackmacs is
informing the public in an attempt to bring this thief to justice. It is an online form of
funding being stolen. This re-enforces further the connective power and collective
identity of Twitter users in Calgary concerned with the theft.
7. @davecournoyer: This would be nice. http://t.co/lkLmNTdGpY #ableg #yeg #yyc
http://t.co/oHMwWi77G9. (41) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
8. @LydiaNeufeldCBC: AC express still on runway #yeg airport. Emerg landing. Tire blew on takeoff
from #yyc. #cbc http://t.co/1OqfJY9XMf. (38) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
9. @CBCCalgary: A C-Train has collided with the City Hall platform in downtown #yyc. Expect
delays in the area. (Mike Moynihan/#CBC) http://t.co/kbVFCGZ3e6. (37) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
100
facilitating action or discourse around a specific topic or particular incident.
10. @MKubinec: The sod turning for the Calgary Film Centre is complete. Great project with huge
benefit to Alberta! #ableg #yyc http://t.co/847W2S2vAZ. (35) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
corresponding picture aims at promoting important news to Calgarians. The tweet was
however, focused on a specific issue – raising awareness and support for the Calgary
Film Center. Therefore it was classified as solidifying collective identities.
11. @erin_reesy: My Dad always carves superheroes for Hallowe'en this year being no exception!
@nenshi #yyc #nenshi #supernenshi http://t.co/7fwmLRsYmB. (35) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
corresponding picture are a commentary on the mayor of Calgary, Naheed Nenshi. The
amount of Re-tweets further shows Nenshi’s centrality in the Calgary Twitter civic-
sphere, but does not aim at facilitating action. The tweet was however, focused on a
specific issue –commenting on the Mayor’s performance. Therefore it was classified as
solidifying collective identities.
12. @HRotf: RT @TonyHerald: Council likely to tap reserves for tree pruning replanting after
'Snowtember' http://t.co/OOPrszZNQB #yyc #yyccc. (32) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
facilitating action around a specific topic or particular incident. Interestingly, the tweet
re-tweeted the most isn’t the original by @TonyHerald, but by @HRotf, showing the
amplification potential of a re-tweet.
13. @nicolesaxton: Plz catch this loser! "@Producer_Gal: Surveillance shows this guy ripping off
poppy funds from SW liquor store #YYC http://t.co/GLZ5MfJcLp”. (31) [From: Poppy query]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture
@nicolesaxton is informing the public in an attempt to bring this thief to justice. It is an
online form of community watch, using the connective power around one specific issue
– veteran’s funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @nicolesaxton
is solidifying collective identities.
14. @cbcarch: Prentice on way to newser with 2 new mlas. #ableg #cbc #yeg #yyc
http://t.co/6pOT6cwTC5. (30) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
15. @ThankASoldier: These two guys have stolen Poppy boxes from two different stores in #YYC
Someone has to know them http://t.co/szOp8UWNk7. (30) [From: Poppy query]
101
security picture of two different poppy box thieves talking charity boxes. In this instance
I have classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture
@ThankASoldier is informing the public in an attempt to bring these thieves to justice. It
is an online form of community watch, using the connective power around one specific
issue – veteran’s funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic
@ThankASoldier is solidifying collective identities.
16. @ChikTam: “The same guy stole ANOTHER poppy fund box. He has a very unique jacket keep an
eye out #yyc #yeg #Calgary http://t.co/qAGxCoD85y” JERK! (27) [From: Poppy query]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @ChikTam is
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @ChikTam is solidifying
17. @DonBraid: I have it confirmed that #WRP MLAs Ian Donovan and Kerry Towle are quitting the
caucus. #ableg #yyc #yeg #abpoli. (26) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
facilitating action. The tweet does however, address party politics in the Alberta
Legislature and therefore surrounds a particular interest. The comments on the Re-
tweet chain by other users shows a solidifying of collective identities, as people
comment on the state of Alberta politics.
18. @CalgaryPolice: Alleged #yyc Poppy Box Thief Arrested. http://t.co/hDNibvefHC
http://t.co/J8dEWOvBWH. (25) [From: Poppy query]
facilitating action. The tweet does however, address the poppy box thefts in Calgary and
therefore surrounds a particular issue – veterans fund poppy box thefts. It was
therefore categorized as solidifying collective identities.
19. @McRitchTwit: Hey @CalgaryTransit thank you for putting #LestWeForget on the busses and
trains in #YYC IT is seen and incredibly appreciated. @nenshi. (25) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
a. This tweet was not categorized as organizing or mobilizing. The tweet rather was
expressing gratitude for Calgary Transit’s tribute to Canadian veterans. This tweet also
uses @nenshi to promote its content. The Tweet is focused around a specific topic and
therefore solidifies collective identities.
20. @GlobalCalgary: Second poppy theft in Bowness at Bow Liquor http://t.co/6ShkQH9Tca #yyc
http://t.co/IG6SD18O1n. (21) [From: Poppy query]
a. This tweet was not categorized as an instance of organizing citizens. The hyperlink
above is a security picture of the poppy box thief talking the charity box. The tweet does
102
however, surround a specific issue – veteran’s funding being stolen. The comments on
the story are therefore solidifying collective identities.
21. @Crackmacs: On the topic of homelessness; #yyc #yyccc #ableg #cdnpoli
http://t.co/acBugonTx1. (19) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
a. This tweet was not categorized as organizing or mobilizing, as it did not call for action.
The tweet did however center on a specific issue, and therefore was solidifying
collective identities. (Veteran’s issues)
22. @JimPrentice: Cheering for Alberta. On to the Grey Cup! #yyc #yeg #ableg
http://t.co/3uNv8F4wo9. (19) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Jim Prentice’s support for Alberta football teams/ Prentice politics)
23. @ChrisVarcoe: So the Wildrose have now lost four byelections and three MLAs (Anglin Towle
and Donovan) in the past month. #ableg #yyc #wrp. (19) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Alberta Legislature and the Wild Rose Party)
24. @calgarysun: WANTED: This man could be behind as many as nine poppy fund thefts in Calgary.
Know him? http://t.co/MxaqEha0ym #yyc http://t.co/Zj0QSn5EnV. (19) [From: Poppy query]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @calgarysun
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @calgarysun is solidifying
25. @metrocalgary: Sandy Beach Bridge first of 3 pedestrian spans to re-open after #yycflood
http://t.co/GUW1aI1PK0 #yyc #yyccc #yycbike http://t.co/wxRtP1hMXg. (18) [Query: Calgary
civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Calgary bike community, as designated by #yycbike).
26. @SUNDamienWood: Photo courtesy City Liquor. Image from CCTV footage. Man walks in about
2 p.m. Thursday swipes their poppy box. #yyc http://t.co/OZc5oacy0a. (18) [From: Poppy query]
therefore surrounds a particular issue – veterans fund poppy box thefts.
27. @CBCCalgary: The #CBC table helping to spread the #npdyyc love. Let's hit 1000 tweets #yyc
http://t.co/JhCKEOxDjK. (16) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
103
a. This tweet was classified as organizing, mobilizing, and solidifying collective identities, as
it call others to participate further on and off twitter, as well as is centered on a specific
issue. The picture associated with the tweet was of a fundraiser for National
Philanthropy Day. (Run by Associated Fundraising Professionals). Because the tweet was
aimed at promoting awareness and contributions for this specific event while it was
happening, and included the #ndpyyc (NDP Calgary) I have categorized it as organizing,
mobilizing, and solidifying collective identities.
28. @CJAY92: That shithead #yyc poppy thief is still on the loose & he keeps stealing boxes. Pass the
video on! We'll get 'em. http://t.co/8kInTazWJV. (16) [From: Poppy query]
classified this as an instance of organization; by disseminating this picture @CJAY92 is
funding being stolen. In this way, surrounding a specific topic @CJAY92 is solidifying
29. @Craig_Larkins: Awesome meeting @nenshi at the @CdnLiverFdtn #LIVERight gala. #yyc
#Calgary #cbc http://t.co/BKyr5mH8RD. (16) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
30. @calgaryherald: John Larter with today’s editorial cartoon: http://t.co/sCRkUHQwkg #yyc
#ableg http://t.co/loMfICnNwU. (14) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Euthanasia and Alberta Health Services).
31. @CTVCalgary: Recording of Calgary poppy box theft sparks national outrage
http://t.co/cO6dIrSbAu #yyc http://t.co/oVPPJ0WMlx. (14) [From: Poppy query]
32. @CBCCalgary: Here is a picture of downtown right now as crews investigate a possible gas leak.
More details to come. #yyc #cbc http://t.co/2CMSpizL9D. (13) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
facilitating action or discourse around a specific topic or particular incident.
33. @RanitaCharania: Inspired by all the philanthropists in the room today. Amazed by the
generosity in #yyc #NPDyyc http://t.co/0zpGKMzlgC. (13) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
104
collective identities. (The NDP’s fundraising for National Philanthropy Day) The tweet
was sent after the fundraising event was finished, and therefore not a call to action.
34. @calgarykiaguy: G20 Seating Arrangements Leaked #cdnpoli #toronto #g20 #montreal #ottawa
@pmharper #yyc #yeg #yvr #satire #halifax http://t.co/KnGPwJTtgZ (13) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
collective identities. (A satirical perspective of the Canadian standing in the G20).
35. @calgaryherald: A developing story: Two Wildrose MLAs jump ship and join the PCs #ableg #yyc
#yeg http://t.co/f3JL58FVp4 http://t.co/ap4VnENpvI. (13) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Wild Rose Party defects and Alberta politics)
36. @CBCCalgary: Anglin says the Wildrose Party is "infested" with weeds and has lost sight of its
principles. #yyc #cbc. (12) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
37. @DonBraid: The emerging Prentice style; he’d rather not fight but don’t cross him. Column
http://t.co/ZH87RaqPmz #ableg #yyc #yeg #abpoli #cdnpoli. (12) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
38. @metrocalgary: Calgary’s Inglewood neighbourhood recognized as one of Canada’s top five
‘great places’ http://t.co/sEsJk9MwbZ #yyc #yyccc. (12) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (The community of Inglewood being voted Canada’s top
neighbourhood in 2014 in a national competition)
39. @CalgaryCoop: Thanks to #yyc generosity #Stuffabus collected 80 000 pounds of food for
@CalgaryFoodBank this year! #YYCcares http://t.co/eY3NUmTK5z. (12) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
collective identities. (Calgary’s generosity as a city, collecting donations for the food
bank)
40. @XL103Calgary: Mayor Nenshi just dropped by & we had a chance to chat with him. #StuffABus
#nenshi @nenshi #yyc http://t.co/KC7fkpO2zg. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
105
collective identities. (Calgary’s generosity as a city, collecting donations for the food
bank)
41. @CTVBradMacLeod: Car vs C-Train. Downtown train service stopped after a car slides into a
moving train #yyc #yyctraffic #yyctransit http://t.co/9nhCAwosKU. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
42. @darcyhenton: Elections watchdog called on to investigate donations by Liberal Leader Raj
Sherman via @calgaryherald #ableg #yyc http://t.co/RQ04whjqYJ. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
collective identities. (Alberta politics concerning the Liberal party and potentially illegal
donations, concerns Alberta parties).
43. @cbcarch: Justice min and sol gen Jonathan Denis just elected govt house leader by cabinet.
#ableg #cbc #yeg #yyc http://t.co/HwBtE2JLGA. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Jonathan Denis elected by the PCs as the government’s house
leader by the cabinet, concerns Alberta parties.)
44. @iwaswondering: It's national philanthropy day. So much generosity in #yyc #NPDyyc. (11)
[Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (The NDP’s fundraising for National Philanthropy Day).
45. @bethanyawall: Celebrating all of #yyc's philanthropists today at #npdyyc. Ready for amazing
stories & just a few tears. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
46. @GlobalCalgary: Calgary police arrest alleged poppy box thief: http://t.co/KhV79EP5xN #YYC
http://t.co/NoyTQ4tox8. (11) [From: Poppy query]
47. @Paulatics: The little secret about Grade 12 diploma exams every parent should know
http://t.co/X7uwB4fB1r #yeg #abed #ableg #yyc. (11) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
106
collective identities. (Alberta education policy, and whether or not Grade 12 diplomas
are effective)
48. @cbcarch: This brings PCs to 63 and WR to 14. #ableg #cbc #yeg #yyc http://t.co/yjC9iHf5li. (10)
[Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
facilitating action around a particular incident. Although it does cover a specific civic
topic, it is more informational than inviting discourse.
49. @GlobalEdmonton: RCMP confirms it’s investigating allegations against Alison Redford
http://t.co/SS5ffL9PKr #yyc #yeg #abgov http://t.co/Swe0tnC5Cy (10) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
collective identities. (Concerning Allison Redford’s potential misuse of governmental
funds).
50. @DonBraid: Anglin was sure right about one thing for sure - #WRP caucus was about to boot
him. #ableg #yyc #yeg. (10) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Concerns Alberta parties and the transition of MPs)
51. @DonBraid: #WRP emerges shakily from painful adolescence. Column http://t.co/bS0N176dxA
#ableg #yyc #yeg #pcaa. (10) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Concerns Alberta parties and the transition of MPs)
52. @TBR_Society: Don't know what #GivingTuesdayCa is watch our video find out and see how you
can help! #yyc #yycbe #abed #edchat http://t.co/aFg9woVj06 . (10) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
a. This tweet was categorized as organizing citizens. The tweet is a link to an informative
video on what “Giving Tuesday” is. They attempt to organize around the hashtag
#GivingTuesdayCa and online to donate $10 to the cause. The video informs Canadians
what the charity is, what it does, and how they can help. The video also solidifies
collective identities because it addresses specific communities (Alberta Education
[#abed] and Calgary Board of Education [#yycbe]) in an attempt to engage them.
Because it was not a current physical event, the tweet was not categorized as a
mobilizing link.
53. @lindsmitchell: Feeling inspired but the stories of champions in so many places in #yyc. This
should be celebrated more #npdyyc..lets date to do it everyday. (10) [Query: Calgary civic-
sphere]
107
54. @DonBraid: Of all the #ableg wafflers Advanced Ed minister Don Scott remains the absolute
champ of ducking questions. #abed #yyc #yeg. (10) [Query: Calgary civic-sphere]
collective identities. (Offering an opinion on the Alberta education minister Don Scott)
Total Number of Civic-links
Mobilizing: 1
Organizing: 13
Solidifying collective identities: 43
Top Re-tweet’s Total Exposure
Successful Re-tweet Chains
1. Re-tweet chain of @Crackmacs’s tweet on November 8th; all 244 re-tweet accounts and their
followers in order of first to last re-tweet: @KaliRs (2239); @RobACooper (123); @briangoff
(1791); @misskatsuragi (3018); @DavePascut (45); @KatiaMillette (43); @Monkeyslick (956);
@nenshi (197,568); @Beckys_World (190); @Addleben (57); @loreeeves (145); @elaineel_79
(95); @dan_jagt (312); @jabest (1045); @ames_liz (133); littleshasta (293); @alisonborealis
(1888); @atieBrist (308); @NorbertRosal (76); @WolfSpirit2013 (988); @YYC_Dispatcher (28);
@defiant_infidel (4362); @Krissyssissy (74); @AmyjCraig (34); @universalradio (797); @mes_liz
(133); @walsh_stephanie (244); @jasonriotmaker (393); @newfiehun (1871);
@AdoptionMamma (15); @PerogyGuy (5051); @rvink (435); @erniebearskin (90); @timhoven
(1796); @Flashphrozen (52); @KelleBelleCa (1001); @hallofchristian (359); @Mrspotsie09 (497);
@X929 (17,258); @BlueRaveFinn (836); @Klayoven (1357); @yarnpiggy (697); @petti767 (272);
@dan_reaume (16); @dru86 (58); @dorkboycomics (821); @myrtlejurado (95); @mamajo76
(2697); @MAMB9 (29); @BrettParnell (457); @PeterToupin (838); @Mac__Daddy (960);
@Chuckw12 (799); @slo_burn21 (300); @jaimeturner (422); @sillyhy (76); @SheHarrison (33);
@Bielie83 (45); @stringandbeans (774); @ajcan36 (28); @smallfrenchfry (87); @cgjzj05 (16);
@melodiecampbel2 (527); @coachcarnage (52); @TSnider1136 (302); @HeidiStobert (124);
@rbickell77 (404); @SaitAMSA (17); @potakak (92); @sciuridae1 (206); @muricakcco (212);
@NichollStephen (248); @ccschoening (639); @MyrtsDaughter (29); @MisterBlac (37);
@2Beer1Mouth (304); @urbestlyfe (366); @shawnkearns (141); @Sask80 (27);
@JamesLetkeman (7); @Legalsmurf11 (35); @canadian_stix (217); @PaulNiewinski (245);
@JohnRBirmingham (59); @ehbsea (303); @rmmtenterprises (477); @pasitheap (6);
@CameronAkeith (73); @welloiledgun (59); @debtrumbley (92); @leadershipmat (442);
108
@disloik (309); @KatherineRoosev (109); @kakhuis77 (16); @MightyCarrion (52);
@CraigSorette (245); @RandiBretz (714); @andrewkchisholm (655); @beckyhayton (793);
@eLynn_o (391); @ptutty13 (57); @TamourTanwar (191); @spc0224 (40); @Anala01 (60);
@fmatraji (388); @SportCentral_AB (602); @HollyDoidge14 (95); @ceefie (13); @JillianTheresa
(182); @mayorblaine (208); @agreeableAmir (155); @Don_COi (434); @MsMoxieFox (57);
@jasonlindner86 (359); @kmassina (49); @khara_kc (345); @Mallbro (144); @Geoff404 (159);
@PaintersMuse (15); @CorriStone (36); @MichelleAPriest (4191); @jourdo2k3 (87);
@13defyingravity (117); @Gold_Lion_ (167); @JimWickson (96); @figosmom (159);
@racy1ofakind (40); @greenthumbmama (69); @wmpdll (166); @MisherMash (299);
@CarbonConvoCA (138); @furnituregrrl (376); @averageyyc (33); @lavspga (242); @iknyben
(72); @jcruzfotodotcom (383); @JellybeanCA (12); @Lorelei_Cda (82); @Jasonloney (42);
@_LadyJaime (252); @Avneet_Kaur0900 (59); @yycNorm (26); @LaraLMurphy (85);
@BrianJordan17 (30); @Deidre1588 (54); @sn00pter (77); @yarnsalad (1081); @madein460
(40); @melovesmydogs (29); @ChalmersTracy (124); @itsAllBeenD0ne (28); @cemarshall2 (4);
@nikiyumiko (34); @kristenlouise3 (104); @HeavyRent (60); @mistress_murky (5);
@TaraLeeRx3 (72); @Macgyyver (1219); @lonesomebilydad (1713); @KatieNed (604); @oldfoht
(22); @kkjohal769 (81); @rockymtnlawn (2); @CitywideBrad (122); @ktbaker_horn (42);
@cjsedwards (50); @wonderfulp (224); @Peislandergrrl (30); @YYCWorkingMum (85);
@alejuve1013 (89); @JDfromCJAY (2201); @wndxlori (2678); @seanroofus (783);
@CaptainLakie (260); @DarkKitty83 (26); @uniqueLM66 (24); @skocat (373); @ChuckHdrivers
(123); @stadevene (37); @CandaceLLP (339); @_b3cca (81); @MylesLearning (106);
@JHaleLeonhardt (18); @AmyPandarist (17); @CharlieFranki (8); @Canadiandex (6); @snnc
(262); @22wendyallen (397); @greystlindsay (180); @ShannonGSXR750 (66); @thepugsmummy
(1079); @RapCutieJohn (52); @DonkieOatey (780); @lindsay_hiendl (48); @CatalinaDrey (95);
@GroseAndrew (3356); @JlynNye (9028); @ChefWoodland (149); @SunBrianSwane (643);
@AliyaJ_24 (33); @Redsfreaky (197); @amandajl42 (147); @RawBurrit0 (19); @moregibby
(255); @megs_019 (51); @ComedyEdmonton (758); @balmoral14 (80); @Stefofthehill (61);
@xwingmechanic (8); @johangreg (342); @vek_oilslick (87); @RGBackward3 (140);
@ClaireRobert403 (15); @4kdemaere (13); @omgitstodd (361); @patrodenburg (480);
@jeffHinesyyc (708); @TipiBandela (57); @sydthesquider (5958); @melaniemc1978 (191);
@GordCarter1 (112); @radicalwang (151); @popsicles10 (220); @xtraenergyinc (106);
@j_man_556 (2); @banffmike (120); @AmyWilford (306); @kingchem (359); @ConnorLehniger
(113); @TheLadyClare (32); @cyngirlpierce (63); @kookeez (220); @BraggCreek (108);
@SumairButt5 (127); @Kathrynwalker3 (30); @RealTurkeyLady (5830); @canoeheads (508);
@markboulter (3037); @Wineguy_69 (485); @Ian9003 (143); @ddnaut (38); @poor_choices
(718); @Geeshells (67); @kimpagegluckie (4105): 333,473
2. Re-tweet chain of @CTVCalgary’s tweet on November 6th; all 137 re-tweet accounts and their
followers in order of first to last re-tweet: @Crackmacs (10,392); @littleshasta (291);
@Lloyd_Ash (1,127); @Seda2431 (143); @LearningB4 (153); @Marjan_Lion (560);
@voyagevixen (986); @MastuurYodaa (29); @Donnella_P (232); @RadioKeppler (568);
@ComEnjoylife (1,278); @DCTFTW (175); @shauneworld (53); @LGCalgary (13); @annexw (72);
109
@rlukedavis (509); @WendyLRoberts (174); @CharlieCGY (855); @mutpedersen (91);
@jourdo2k3 (87); @zilchfox (719); @RobACooper (123); @Saltydawg (691); @JellybeanCA (12);
@NorthVanMike (1,012); @oly2426 (69); @fruitbasket75 (63); @tsolakis_george (57); @edartist
(431); @MisterYYC (4,633); @serpentina66 (2,010); @Footballmom2S (1,349); @valueofaloonie
(232); @RebelNDN (1,070); @SKBigBluJetsfan (1,000); @AuAgJVC (5); @WPGGoldenBoy (550);
@rebeccakroetsch (214); @perch35km (596); @TFCFan (1,546); @AmyPandarist (17);
@wndxlori (2,678); @dipr1963 (104); @curtismchale (2,222); @daniwallbanger (10);
@Technopall (123); @Sir_Prudd (202); @Nordizzle100 (112); @HTHLEGO (85); @CatalinaDrey
(95); @GREG_TZ (46); @CPOAlice (138); @DavePascut (45); @Jody242424 (85); @TheLadyClare
(32); @ElishaA913 (300); @HoppyCraig (424); @elaineel_79 (95); @Erynn8 (44);
@ScottyKnows_1 (24); @GoldenPDB (43); @greystlindsay (180); @ChuckHdrivers (123);
@EldonNeu (61); @PhoBoStuDios (51); @dannichan (86); @gmckay27 (28); @kkjohal769 (81);
@lindsaj7 (52); @swoulds (47); @CombinePilot44 (133); @wrythink (76); @Map_Town (307);
@shawnkearns (141); @FieldOfCrosses (32); @GagnonSheila (262); @Yegfit (8,834);
@iheartedmonton (9,142); @Ben_in_yeg (1,729); @downtownmj (123); @TriDeviDiva (656);
@GingerByProxy (495); @ukiebiker (172); @newfiehun (1,871); @jacquelinehudon (196);
@Truth_88 (34); @michelselim (783); @Kris_Fortner (483); @Hammerrrrrr (572); @etziowow
(264); @saysyrahsirah (1,289); @DonRCampbell (10,946); @rod_mk (154); @pro_editor (1,130);
@camt89 (86); @HollieHellcat (410); @kookeez (220); @Reeds29 (875); @GWDker1977 (733);
@PangieMarie (114); @sergang (108); @_AliNaeem (145); @miguelswanchez (31); @jpdubrule
(31); @mmeblueberry (309); @TimmyC62 (361); @TiffanyCurl (551); @yycfoldingcycle (112);
@johangreg (342); @Stott_Me_Up (40); @RVenne (49); @bryanwithoutab (60); @PPMniagara
(83); @johnrbolton1 (601); @BushmanMenno (6); @AltheaGAdams (20); @RMoncrieffBeer (5);
@RealtorsHotLine (3,915); @jenny68199 (0): 90,762
3. Re-tweet chain of @Producer_Gal’s tweet on November 6th; all 56 re-tweet accounts and their
followers in order of first to last re-tweet: @CTVCalgary (61,582); @CTVMorningYYC (5,500);
@littleshasta (291); @Jamesnpaton (303); @ComEnjoyLife (1,278); @Kent_Wilson (4,746);
@Cflames12 (254); @Wolfspirit2013 (988); @greenthumbmama (69); @CTVTaraNelson (2,780);
@Mike_G_YYC (880); @BizDevAthlete (223); @CTVchrisepp (1,853); @C_DIG (8,734);
@NVEINSTITUTE (1,324); @RobinsonCloud (115); @pggibbons (110); @lou_ntanewsyyc (228);
@CheekyLucky (5,212); @chris_woolridge (1,800); @KrimaroMary (95); @skgeorgy (83);
@baseball_layne (78); @TweetsfromTLC (4); @LGCalgary (13); @Mortal_Kasey (24);
@erinyscott (108); @4EVERLEAFER (264); @DominicTerryCTV (421); @rebeccakroetsch (214);
@atahualpayo (707); @everettmoore2 (115); @LisaEisenbeis (104); @HeatherHumeJr (183);
@Grooveyard63 (628); @Libour (383); @RossMcleanSec (699); @KevinBFoster (225);
@PaulChisholm (2,773); @NOtoGMOs (4,136); @mierzwei (4,399); @AMacLeanYYC (1,440);
@skylark_lite (38); @CarolHusband (1,300); @strawberrysnow (755); @tremblayeh (105);
@shawnkearns (133); @minister65 (163); @rillapalooza (161); @JPEastwood (88); @sshaggis
(513); @RyanMuddy1 (397); @lehts_go_krejci (1,716); @lindlangs (44); @KMRvacations (7);
@AltheaGAdams (20): 116,060.
110
4. Retweet chain of @crackmac’s tweet on November 6th; all 42 re-tweet accounts and their
followers in order of first to last re-tweet: @b_rad_peters (149); @transmogrifire (132);
@EngineRevver (144); @SneakyPeteyD (283); @CraigSorette (245); @WBrettWilson (117,981);
@dawngordaneer (760); @MisterSpire (721); @dancesippydance (573); @chickadmd (55);
@allysm (1,474); @curtisjenkins (90); @shawnward643 (1); @Lafarge_Canada (1,066);
@AGoodwin522 (264); @kyleschaub (57); @StacyW1278 (132); @YYCRed (255);
@CanadianGooner (345); @AnnieDanz (2,113); @VillagePetey (511); @sn00pter (77);
@CountryMusicEmo (1,886); @IamCbecks (29); @inducedcoma (186); @uskglasswho (25);
@poohbearyyc (29); @TRudneski (28); @kcturley (57); @paulinaliwski (508); @TravellingShawn
(17); @BEATS_Mario (241); @tml_fan (23); @JLKrog (61); @spunkymunkeymus (67,826);
@photopauly (23); @JohnA_Mac (58); @celticmum0812 (56); @johangreg (343);
@Susan8Susan (544); (Tml_fan was found to have re-tweeted twice. The duplicate was
removed.); @cindi_at_cdh (82); @yyc_forever16 (653): 200,106.
111
References
Bakardjieva, M. (2009). Subactivism: Lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. The
Information Society, 25(2), 91-104. doi: 10.1080/01972240802701627
Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and
analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262-278. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094
Bowman, J. (2013, June 2). Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi Gets Online Hero Status. CBC News.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/06/calgary-
mayor-naheed-nenshi-gets-online-hero-status.html
Bruns, A. (2008). Life Beyond the Public Sphere: Towards a networked model for political
deliberation. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy
in the Information Age. 13(1/2), 65-79. ISSN: 1570-1255
Bruns, A. (2012). How long is a Tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter
using Gawk and Gephi. Information, Communication & Society. 15(9), 1323-1351
Bruns, A., Highfield, T. (2013). Political Networks on Twitter. Information, Community & Society.
16(5), 667-691. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.782328
Bruns, A., & Liang, Y. (2012). Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural
disasters. First Monday, 17(4). doi:10.5210/fm.v17i4.3937
Bruns, A., Stieglitz, S. (2012). Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication Patterns

on Twitter. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 30(3-4), 160-185. ISSN: 1522/8991
Beck, U. (1997). Subpolitics. Organization & Environment. 10(1), 52-65. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/docview/219900525?pq-
origsite=summon
Bennett, L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing
Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science. 644(1), 20-39. DOI: 10.1177/0002716212451428
112
Bennett, L., Segerberg. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital media and the
personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society. 15(5),
742-761. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Calgary Rants. (2014, November 7). Foodapalooza Fundraiser For Inn From The Cold! Retrieved
from: http://www.calgaryrants.com/2014/11/foodapalooza-fundraiser-for-inn-
from.html
@Calgaryrants. (2014, November 12). “Thanks @SinAspen ...you are amazing! @oberhoffner
@albertaaltruist @dollhouseyyc @vsp @innfromthecold #yyctwittercares #yyc
#ablegcares”. [Retrieved from Tweet Tunnel] Retrieved from:
http://tweettunnel.com/reverse3.php?ga=0&b=y&id=42075969&pn=21
@CalgarySenate. (2014).” Past Candidate for the Mayor of Calgary Looking out for the 1857
Calgarians who voted for issues I represented.” [Twitter Profile] Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/CalgarySenate
Calgary Police Service. (2014, November 20). “Alleged Poppy Box Thief Arrested. A man wanted
for numerous poppy box thefts in Calgary has been arrested and charged. On
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014, RCMP arrested Dwayne Shane Soroka, 31, near loydminster,
Alta., without incident. Soroka has been charged with eight counts of theft under
$5,000, however, the investigation continues. There were 18 reported incidents of
poppy boxes being stolen in Calgary since the beginning of November. One other person
has been charged in relation to one of the incidents. We would like to thank the public,
the media and the RCMP for their assistance in this file. [Facebook Post]. Retrieved
from:
https://www.facebook.com/CalgaryPolice/photos/a.10150181806644530.321994.2137
4974529/10152848715674530/?type=1
City of Calgary. (2014). Bowness Road Complete Street Project. The City of Calgary
Transportation. Retrieved from:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Projects/Current-Planning-
Projects/Bowness-Road-Complete-Street-Project.aspx
CBC News. (2015, February 2). Naheed Nenshi Awarded 2014 World Mayor Prize. CBC News.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/naheed-nenshi-awarded-
2014-world-mayor-prize-1.2940729
Coleman, S. (2013). The Internet and the Opening Up of Political Space. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess,
and A. Bruns (Eds.), A Companion to New Media Dynamics. 378-384. Retrieved from:
113
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary/docDetail.action?docID=106
57833
CRED. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from: http://credbc.ca/about-us/
CTV Calgary Staff. (2014a, November 7). Recording of Calgary poppy box sparks outrage. CTV
Calgary. Retrieved from: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/recording-of-calgary-poppy-box-
theft-sparks-outrage-1.2092000
CTV Calgary Staff. (2014b, November 7).CTVY Calgary: Generosity follows poppy theft. CTV
Calgary. [Embedded Video]. Retrieved from: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/recording-of-
calgary-poppy-box-theft-sparks-outrage-1.2092000
Dahlberg, L. (2001) Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A critical

analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 7(1) DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2001.tb00137.x
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and
deliberation. Political Communication. 22(2), 147-162. DOI:
10.1080/10584600590933160
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement. Cambridge: New York
Dahlgren, P. (2012a). Online journalism and civic cosmopolitanism: Professionalism vs

participatory ideals. Journalism Studies, 14(1), 156-171. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.718544
Dahlgren, P. (2012b). Reinventing Participation: Civic agency and the web environment.
Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 4(2), 27. Retrieved from:
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7C
A315371062&v=2.1&u=ucalgary&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Daveberta. (2015). Daveberta – Alberta Politics: About. Retrieved from:

http://daveberta.ca/about/
@davecournoyer. (2014, November 9). “This would be nice. http://bit.ly/1xkQiIw #ableg #yeg
#yyc”. [Retrieved from Twitter] Retrieved from:
https://twitter.com/davecournoyer/status/531690130042814464/photo/1
114
Dormer, D. (2014, October 30). Calgary should investigate borrowing to pay for growth: finance
committee vice-chair. The Calgary Sun. Retrieved from:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/30/calgary-should-investigate-borrowing-to-pay-
for-growth-finance-committee-vice-chair
Dumitrica, D. (2013). Classifying the Internet: Everyday negotiations of technology and social
order. Canadian Journal of Communications. 38(4), 585-609. ISSN: 0705-3657
EdCampYYC. (2014). EdCampYYC: Tweeps Coming to EdCamp. Retrieved from:

https://sites.google.com/site/edcampcalgary/who-is-talking-about-edcamp
Finlayson, G. (2005). Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, UK. ISBN:
9780191517983. Retrieved from:
http://ucalgary.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.cmd=removeFacetValueFilter(Co
ntentType)&s.fvf%5B%5D=ContentType,Journal+Article,f&s.fvf%5B%5D=ContentType,C
onference+Proceeding,f&s.fvf%5B%5D=ContentType,Book+Chapter,f&s.legacyLinking=f
&s.light=t&s.q=habermas+a+very+short+introduction&s.solrQuery=f
Graham, T., Wright, S. (2014). Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of
“Superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19(3). DOI:
10.1111/jcc4.12016
Garnham, N. (1992). The Media as the Public Sphere. In Calhoun C.J. (Ed.) Habermas and the
Public Sphere. 359-371. MIT Press
Garnham, N. (2007). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Global Media and Communication. 3(2),
201-214. Doi: 10.1177/1742766507078417
Good Pin. (2015, February 5). Foodapalooza: Inn From the Cold. Retrieved from:
https://www.good.pn/events/foodapalooza
Greene, B. (2014, March 21). The Top 10 Most-Followed Twitter Accounts. Mashable. Retrieved
from: http://mashable.com/2014/03/21/top-10-twitter-accounts/
Habermas, Jürgen. (2006). The Public Sphere: An encyclopedia article 73 In Durham, M. and
Kellner, D. (eds.), pp. 73-79. Retrieved from:
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I8dPhB88Sx4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=Medi
a+and+cultural+studies:+keyworks&ots=CDYFqCbyfN&sig=my1T79hCJ6lFBuAZzgF2-
8N1oAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
115
Himelboim, I., McCreery, S., Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating
Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-Ideology Exposure on Twitter.
Computer-Mediated Communication. 18(2), 40-60. ISSN: 1083-6101
Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Proceeding of the Forty-Second Hawai'i International

Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42), Los Alamitos. CA: IEEE Press. Retrieved from:
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/honeycutt.herring.2009.pdf
Gomez, R., Trere, E. (2014). The #YoSoy132 movement and the struggle for media
democratization in Mexico. The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies. 20(4), 496-510. DOI: 10.1177/1354856514541744
@innfromthecold. (2014, November 12). “#foodapalooza amazing!!! 209 perogies and $11,639
pledged! #yyc #ablegcares Thank you to all the eaters and donors!” [Retrieved from
Tweet Tunnel] Retrieved from:
http://tweettunnel.com/reverse3.php?ga=0&b=y&pgn=32&id=126713478&pn=3
Jaconmy, M. Heymann, S. Venturini, T. Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph

Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software.
PLoS ONE. 9(6). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
Larsson, A. Moe, H. (2014). Triumph of the Underdogs? Comparing Twitter Use by Political
Actors During Two Norwegian Election Campaigns. SAGE OPEN, p. 2158-2440. DOI:
10.1177/2158244014559015
Moe, H., & Larsson, A. (2012). Methodological and Ethical Challenges Associated with Large-
scale Analyses of Online Political Communication. NORDICOM Review, 33(1), 117-124
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agnostic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745-
758.
Passifiume, B. (2014, November 20). Suspect in Calgary Poppy Box Thefts Nabbed in
Lloydminister. The Calgary Sun. Retrieved from:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/11/20/suspect-in-calgary-poppy-box-thefts-nabbed-
in-lloydminster
Rodan, D., Balnaves, M. (2009). The Role of Social Networking Services in eParticipation. In
Macintosh, A., Tambouris, E. (Eds): Electronic Participation. Springer. pp 175-185
116
Rogers, R. (2009). The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods. Vossiupers UvA, Amsterdam, [Online]
Retrieved from:
http://www.govcom.org/publications/full_list/oratie_Rogers_2009_preprint.pdf
Rogers, R. (2013), Digital Methods. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/xpl/bkabstractplus.jsp?bkn=6517069
Saebo, O., Rose, J., Nyvang, T. (2009). The Role of Social Networking Services in eParticipation.
In Macintosh, A., Tambouris, E. (Eds) Electronic Participation. Springer. 46-54
@SinAspen. (2014, November 12). “$20 each to @oberhoffner @albertaaltruist @dollhouseyyc

@vsp in Foodapalooza #yyctwittercares https://t.co/ehd6QCE4QK @innfromthecold.”
[Retrieved from Tweet Tunnel] Retrieved from:
http://tweettunnel.com/reverse3.php?ga=0&b=y&id=42075969&pn=21
Sysomos. (2014). Inside Twitter: An in-depth look inside the Twitter world. Retrieved from:
http://www.sysomos.com/uploads/Inside-Twitter-BySysomos.pdf
Twiangulate. (2015a, March 19). [Twitter data of followers, followees, combined reach, and
keywords associated with an account’s followers]. Common Twitter Followers of
Crackmacs and WBrettWilson. Retrieved from:
http://twiangulate.com/search/Crackmacs-
WBrettWilson/common_followers/table/my_friends-1/
Twiangulate. (2015b, March 19). [Twitter data of followers, followees, combined reach, and
keywords associated with an account’s followers]. Common Twitter Followers of
Crackmacs and CTVCalgary. Retrieved from: http://twiangulate.com/search/Crackmacs-
CTVCalgary/common_followers/table/my_friends-1/
Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse do online
discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?. Journal of
Communication, 59(1), 40-56. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2008.01403.x
Wright, S. (2012). From “Third Place” To “Third Space”: Everyday political talk in non-political
online spaces. Javnost-The Public. 19(3), 5-20. ISSN: 1318-3222.
Graham, T., Wright, S. (2014). Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of
“Superparticipants”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19(3). DOI:
10.1111/jcc4.12016
117

Everyday Politics On Twitter

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Everyday Politics On Twitter

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2015

Everyday Politics on Twitter:

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY | Communications, Media, and Film Studies

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................... 7

The Public Sphere: Adapted to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) .......................... 10

Civic Communication: Civic-links and Civic Agency .................................................................. 12

Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 16

A Networked Approach ............................................................................................................ 16

The Digitally Native ............................................................................................................... 17

Qualitative Analysis: Diving Deeper .......................................................................................... 19

Research Questions and Rationale ............................................................................................... 22

Research Question 1 (R1).......................................................................................................... 23

Research Question 2 (R2).......................................................................................................... 24

Research Question 3 (R3).......................................................................................................... 24

Civic-links on Twitter: Civic content and connective tools ....................................................... 26

Mentions and Replies ........................................................................................................... 30

Link Sharing and Re-tweeting ............................................................................................... 31

DMI-TCAT and Gephi: How to Capture and Analyze Tweets .................................................... 32

Macro Collection: Defining the Calgary Public Sphere on Twitter ........................................... 34

Additional Queries: Supplementing the “Calgary Civic-Sphere” Query ............................... 36

Meso-analysis: Patterns of Interaction ..................................................................................... 38

Micro-analysis: Re-tweets and Survey on Civic Agency............................................................ 44

Prominent content: Re-tweets ............................................................................................. 44

Survey on Civic Agency: How do citizens use Twitter? ......................................................... 47

An Overview of Statistics .......................................................................................................... 48

Mentions Analysis: Influencers’ Roles in the Calgary Civic-sphere .......................................... 49

Diving Deeper: What role do citizen accounts play? ............................................................ 54

Mentions Analysis: Citizens and Connective Action ................................................................. 56

Civic-links: An examinations of Re-tweets and Replies ............................................................ 61

Replies: Civic discourse, civic-links, and connective tools .................................................... 72

Further Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 87

Appendix A: Civic Co-hashtags ...................................................................................................... 90

Appendix B: Survey Questions ...................................................................................................... 91

Appendix C: Glossary .................................................................................................................... 94

DMI-TCAT Tools and Metrics Used ........................................................................................... 96

Appendix D: Top Re-tweets. ......................................................................................................... 99

Top Re-tweet’s Total Exposure ............................................................................................... 108

References .................................................................................................................................. 112

help is very much appreciated.

networks of interaction made by social media facilitate civic communication?

what are traditionally a marginalized or disinterested demographics an opportunity to engage

debates that they care about.

instances of participation in civic concerns or political activism are integral to a healthy

does democracy work on Twitter?

formed and communicated to those in decision-making positions. Habermas posits that

collective consensus – in effect creating a “democratic demand” (Habermas, 2006, p.73).

debate on issues of public concern, reflexivity, and an agreement to come to consensus on a

some impact on decision-making processes. Although the implication of the democratic

demand on decision-making processes are of the upmost importance, my research focuses on

interact, engage, and participate in politics.

1992). Moreover, Habermas discusses the bourgeois class as enlightened likeminded

market, which elicited political participation (p.360).

communication (CMC) and the conceptual shift of the public sphere.

The Public Sphere: Adapted to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

Applications of Habermas’ public sphere to computer-mediated communication (CMC) has

“normatively seen as comprised of the institutional communicative spaces, universally

of “everyday online discourse” compared to a normative conception of the public sphere. In

an inequitable amount and quality of participation by groups or users; a lack of reflexivity,

deliberative spirit he outlines. Rational-critical deliberation, free from emotion or passion is

seen as an aggregate of multiple conversations, multiple public spheres.

Civic Communication: Civic-links and Civic Agency

communication situates online-mediated discourse as operating as a public sphere. Similar to

based spheres – e-government, advocacy/activist, the prepolitical/parapolitical, and the