1. Social Capital and the
Networked Public Sphere:
Implications for Political
Social Media sites
Marius Rohde Johannessen
Department of Information Systems
University of Agder, Norway

2. Outline
• The networked public sphere
• Social capital
• Findings from example case
• Summary
2

3. The short version
• Working public spheres can be a positive
contribution to democracy
• Social
capital can contribute to explain why some
are more likely to participate than others
• Participation increases social capital
• …therein lies the paradox…
3

4. Why is this interesting?
• Needto conceptualise the Public Sphere in a modern
context of networks, Internet and social media
• Needto explore and understand how we can get
more people to contribute in democratic debates
• Avoid elitist democracy
4

5. Background and motivation
• Publicsphere often used, seldom explained in
eParticipation studies
• Need for further exploration
• What is a public?
• When does a forum become a public sphere?
• How is a public sphere created and maintained?
• Are there different types of public spheres?
• If so, what are the consequences for democracy?
• How can we explain who participates?
5

6. The Public Sphere - definition
• Habermas: “that domain of our social
life in which such a thing as public
opinion can be formed”
• A mediating layer between
government and citizen
• Circular: Receives and provides information
• Autonomous from state and economic
power – for citizens by citizens
• Disappeared with mass media?
Photo: Wikimedia commons
6

7. The Networked Public Sphere
7

8. Analysing the Public Sphere
• Dahlberg’s criteria
• Autonomy from state and economic power
• Rational-critical discourse: no dogmas
• Self-reflective and critical participants
• Understand the others’ perspective
• Make all information known
• Everyone equally entitled to participate
• Network society
• Points out the importance of connecting different
spheres to disseminate ideas and arguments
• Allows us to visualise connections between
mulitple networks, actors etc
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/3853946554/ 8

9. Analysing the Public Sphere (2)
• Gemeinschaft community
• ’’Organic’’ communities, constructed by the participants
• Based on common interests, views
• Reciprocal ties. Participants help each other out
• With networked media everyone can “hide” in their own small enclaves
• The challenge is to connect them and engage them in social debate
• Weak or strong Public Sphere?
• Strong: Enlightened individuals, constructing shared meaning through
membership in the “cosmopolitan society”
• Weak: Freedom of the press, the public’s right to access information and
act as a check on government
9

10. Social Capital
• The glue that binds society together:
• Trust & reciprocity
• Individual, institutional. Giving something back
• Bridging social capital
• Connection between groups
• Bonding social capital
• Connections within a group – community formation
• Maintained social capital
• Keep connections also when physically apart
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2365568058 10

11. Bridging and bonding social capital
A core of active members Bridges between
bonds the community different communities
Weak bonding. Few people in the community actually interacting with each other 11

12. Example case
• MyLabour: a Norwegian political party’s online community
• Objectives: inform, facilitate debate, information sharing
• Zones for local groups
• Structure similar to blogs
• To what degree is this a public sphere?
12

13. Case findings
Theory Concept Case observations
Public sphere Dahlberg’s criteria Partially present: autonomous discussions, inclusive
debates, some reflection and some rational-critical
discourse
Network society Ties between internal core actors and between different
zones contribute to maintain a networked community
Gemeinschaft Metacommunication and tone between participants
community contribute to Gemeinschaft
Weak/strong Has aspects of strong public sphere, but not all of them
Social Capital Bridging A total of ten people contribute in more than one zone,
acting as bridges.
Bonding Each zone has a core community that contributes
regularly, and who seem to know each other
Trust & reciprocity Plays a big role. Trusting relations and reciprocal actions
contribute to participants’ staying. Lack of reciprocity
makes participants leave.
Maintained social A fair proportion of the participants only meet online, but
capital still address each other as if they have a “real”
relationship
13

14. Summary
Public
Public
Public
Sphere(s)
Sphere(s)
Sphere(s)
Contributes
Participates
“Controls”
Social media Representative
Physical spaces Democracy/
Society Traditional media government
Social
capital
14

15. Thank you for listening!
marius.johannessen@uia.no
http://egovthesis.wordpress.com
15