Analyzing The Social Web Pdf

[Dallas Themshirts]

Toqualitative researchers, social media offers a novel opportunity to harvest a massive and diverse range of content without the need for intrusive or intensive data collection procedures. However, performing a qualitative analysis across a massive social media data set is cumbersome and impractical. Instead, researchers often extract a subset of content to analyze, but a framework to facilitate this process is currently lacking. We present a four-phased framework for improving this extraction process, which blends the capacities of data science techniques to compress large data sets into smaller spaces, with the capabilities of qualitative analysis to address research questions. We demonstrate this framework by investigating the topics of Australian Twitter commentary on climate change, using quantitative (non-negative matrix inter-joint factorization; topic alignment) and qualitative (thematic analysis) techniques. Our approach is useful for researchers seeking to perform qualitative analyses of social media, or researchers wanting to supplement their quantitative work with a qualitative analysis of broader social context and meaning.

Many social media platforms can be considered as textual corpora, willingly and spontaneously authored by millions of users. Researchers can compile a corpus using automated tools and conduct qualitative inquiries of content or focused analyses on specific users (Marwick, 2014). In this paper, we outline some of the opportunities and challenges of applying qualitative textual analyses to the big data of social media. Specifically, we present a conceptual and pragmatic justification for combining qualitative textual analyses with data science text-mining tools. This process allows us to both embrace and cope with the volume and diversity of commentary over social media. We then demonstrate this approach in a case study investigating Australian commentary on climate change, using content from the social media platform: Twitter.

Collecting social media data may be more scalable than traditional approaches. Once equipped with the resources to access and process data, researchers can potentially scale data harvesting without expending a great deal of resources. This differs from interviews and surveys, where collecting data can require an effortful and time-consuming contribution from participants and researchers.

Social media analyses may also be more ecologically valid than traditional approaches. Unlike approaches where responses from participants are elicited in artificial social contexts (e.g., Internet surveys, laboratory-based interviews), social media data emerges from real-world social environments encompassing a large and diverse range of people, without any prompting from researchers. Thus, in comparison with traditional methodologies (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007; Lietz & Zayas, 2010; McKechnie, 2008), participant behavior is relatively unconstrained if not entirely unconstrained, by the behaviors of researchers.

These opportunities also come up with challenges, because of the following attributes (Parker et al., 2011). Firstly, social media can be interactive: its content involves the interactions of users with other users (e.g., conversations), or even external websites (e.g., links to news websites). The ill-defined boundaries of user interaction have implications for determining the units of analysis of qualitative study. For example, conversations can be lengthy, with multiple users, without a clear structure or end-point. Interactivity thus blurs the boundaries between users, their content, and external content (Herring, 2009; Parker et al., 2011). Secondly, content can be ephemeral and dynamic. The users and content of their postings are transient (Parker et al., 2011; Boyd & Crawford, 2012; Weinberg & Pehlivan, 2011). This feature arises from the diversity of users, the dynamic socio-cultural context surrounding platform use, and the freedom users have to create, distribute, display, and dispose of their content (Marwick & Boyd, 2011). Lastly, social media content is massive in volume. The accumulated postings of users can lead to a large amount of data, and due to the diverse and dynamic content, postings may be largely unrelated and accumulate over a short period of time. Researchers hoping to harness the opportunities of social media data sets must therefore develop strategies for coping with these challenges.

Although researchers may be interested in examining the entire data set, it is often more practical to focus on a subsample of data (McKenna et al., 2017). Specifically, we advocate dividing the corpus along a dimension of relevance, and sampling from spaces that are more likely to be useful for addressing the research questions under consideration. By relevance, we refer to an attribute of content that is both useful for addressing the research questions and usable for the planned qualitative analysis.

Algorithms also produce an informal advantage for qualitative analysis. As mentioned, it is often infeasible for analysts to explore large data sets using qualitative techniques. Computational models of content can allow researchers to consider meaning at a corpus-level when interpreting individual datum or relationships between a subset of data. For example, in an inspection of 2.6 million tweets, Procter et al., (2013) used the output of an information flow analysis to derive rudimentary codes for inspecting individual tweets. Thus, algorithmic output can form a meaningful scaffold for qualitative analysis by providing analysts with summaries of potentially disjunct and multifaceted data (due to interactive, ephemeral, dynamic attributes of social media).

Once the corpus is organized on the basis of relevance, researchers can extract data most relevant for answering their research questions. Researchers can extract a manageable amount of content to qualitatively analyze. For example, if the most relevant space of the corpus is too large for qualitative analysis, the researcher may choose to randomly sample from that space. If the most relevant space is small, the researcher may revisit Phase 2 and adopt a more lenient criteria of relevance.

We chose to explore user commentary of climate change over Twitter. Twitter activity contains information about: the textual content generated by users (i.e., content of tweets), interactions between users, and the time of content creation (Veltri and Atanasova, 2017). This allows us to examine the content of user communication, taking into account the temporal and social contexts of their behavior. Twitter data is relatively easy for researchers to access. Many tweets reside within a public domain, and are accessible through free and accessible APIs.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity (Schneider, 2011). Steps to prevent and mitigate the damaging consequences of climate change require changes on different political, societal, and individual levels (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006). Insights into public commentary can inform decision making and communication of climate policy and science.

We employed our four-phased framework as shown in Fig. 2. Firstly, we harvested climate change tweets posted in Australia in 2016 and compiled a corpus (phase 1). We then utilized a topic modeling technique (Nugroho et al., 2017) to organize the diverse content of the corpus into a number of topics. We were interested in topics which commonly appeared throughout the time period of data collection, and less interested in more transitory topics. To identify enduring topics, we used a topic alignment algorithm (Chuang et al., 2015) to group similar topics occurring repeatedly throughout 2016 (phase 2). This process allowed us to identify the topics most relevant to our research question. From each of these, we extracted a manageable subset of data (phase 3). We then performed a qualitative thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2006) on this subset of data to inductively derive themes and answer our research question (phase 4).Footnote 2

Flowchart of application of a four-phased framework for conducting qualitative analyses using data science techniques. We were most interested in topics that frequently occurred throughout the period of data collection. To identify these, we organized the corpus chronologically, and divided the corpus into batches of content. Using computational techniques (shown in blue), we uncovered topics in each batch and identified similar topics which repeatedly occurred across batches. When identifying topics in each batch, we generated three alternative representations of topics (5, 10, and 20 topics in each batch, shown in yellow). In stages highlighted in green, we determined the quality of these representations, ultimately selecting the five topics per batch solution

The next step was to organize the collection of tweets into distinct topics. A topic is an abstract representation of semantically related words and concepts. Each tweet belongs to a topic, and each topic may be represented as a list of keywords (i.e., prominent words of tweets belonging to the topic).

To address sparsity concerns, we adopt the non-negative matrix inter-joint factorization (NMijF) of Nugroho et al., (2017). This process uses both tweet content (i.e., the patterns of co-occurrence of terms amongst tweets) and socio-temporal relationship between tweets (i.e., similarities in the users mentioned in tweets, whether the tweet is a reply to another tweet, whether tweets are posted at a similar time) to derive topics (see Supplementary Material). The NMijF method has been demonstrated to outperform other topic modeling techniques on Twitter data (Nugroho et al., 2017).

Deriving many topics across a data set of thousands of tweets is prohibitively expensive in computational terms. Therefore, we divided the corpus into smaller batches and derived the topics of each batch. To keep the temporal relationships amongst tweets (e.g., timestamps of the tweets) the batches were organized chronologically. The data was partitioned into 41 disjoint batches (40 batches of 5000 tweets; one batch of 1506 tweets).

3a8082e126