Everyday Talk on Twitter: Informal Deliberation About (Ir-)responsible Business Conduct in Social Media Arenas

IF 6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Business & Society Pub Date : 2022-12-09 DOI:10.1177/00076503221139838
Daniel Lundgaard, M. Etter
{"title":"Everyday Talk on Twitter: Informal Deliberation About (Ir-)responsible Business Conduct in Social Media Arenas","authors":"Daniel Lundgaard, M. Etter","doi":"10.1177/00076503221139838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has damped initial promises for democratic deliberation in social media arenas. Empirical studies find only low degrees of direct reciprocal interaction among participants, a lack of consensus orientation, and accelerated forms of communication that fail to meet traditional ideals of deliberation. In line with recent literature, we argue that traditional deliberative ideals are too narrow to embrace the potential contribution of social media for deliberation about (ir-)responsible business conduct. Instead, we propose to conceptualize social media as arenas for everyday talk, that is, everyday communication practices through which participants informally discuss and express opinions about current issues, thereby contributing to a broader deliberative system. In adopting this lens, we ask: How can everyday talk in social media contribute to deliberation about (ir-)responsible business conduct? Drawing on the latest insights from online deliberation studies, we develop a framework for evaluating everyday talk and propose that its deliberative quality depends on social media appropriate forms of justification, interactivity, equality, and civility. We apply this framework with an analysis of 260,224 tweets about the role of business in climate change. Based on our findings, we critically discuss how everyday talk in social media can contribute to deliberation at the intersection of business and society.","PeriodicalId":48193,"journal":{"name":"Business & Society","volume":"62 1","pages":"1201 - 1247"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business & Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221139838","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Recent research has damped initial promises for democratic deliberation in social media arenas. Empirical studies find only low degrees of direct reciprocal interaction among participants, a lack of consensus orientation, and accelerated forms of communication that fail to meet traditional ideals of deliberation. In line with recent literature, we argue that traditional deliberative ideals are too narrow to embrace the potential contribution of social media for deliberation about (ir-)responsible business conduct. Instead, we propose to conceptualize social media as arenas for everyday talk, that is, everyday communication practices through which participants informally discuss and express opinions about current issues, thereby contributing to a broader deliberative system. In adopting this lens, we ask: How can everyday talk in social media contribute to deliberation about (ir-)responsible business conduct? Drawing on the latest insights from online deliberation studies, we develop a framework for evaluating everyday talk and propose that its deliberative quality depends on social media appropriate forms of justification, interactivity, equality, and civility. We apply this framework with an analysis of 260,224 tweets about the role of business in climate change. Based on our findings, we critically discuss how everyday talk in social media can contribute to deliberation at the intersection of business and society.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
推特上的日常谈话:关于在社交媒体领域负责任的商业行为的非正式审议
最近的研究削弱了最初在社交媒体领域进行民主审议的承诺。实证研究发现,参与者之间的直接互动程度很低,缺乏共识导向,沟通形式加快,无法满足传统的审议理想。根据最近的文献,我们认为传统的审议理想过于狭隘,无法接受社交媒体对审议负责任商业行为的潜在贡献。相反,我们建议将社交媒体概念化为日常谈话的场所,即参与者非正式讨论和表达对当前问题的意见的日常沟通实践,从而为更广泛的审议系统做出贡献。在采用这种视角时,我们会问:社交媒体上的日常谈话如何有助于思考负责任的商业行为?根据在线审议研究的最新见解,我们制定了一个评估日常谈话的框架,并提出其审议质量取决于社交媒体适当形式的正当性、互动性、平等性和文明性。我们将这一框架应用于对260224条关于企业在气候变化中的作用的推文的分析。基于我们的研究结果,我们批判性地讨论了社交媒体上的日常谈话如何有助于商业和社会交叉点的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Business & Society
Business & Society BUSINESS-
CiteScore
14.80
自引率
11.40%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Business & Society publishes original research, book reviews, and dissertation abstracts relating to business ethics, business-government relations, corporate governance, corporate social performance, and environmental-management issues. Manuscripts relating to the field of business and society in general are also published. Submissions of theoretical/ conceptual work as well as empirical studies are encouraged. Business & Society is the first peer-reviewed scholarly publication devoted exclusively to the field of business and society, and it is the official journal of the International Association for Business and Society (I.A.B.S.), the only independent professional association dedicated to business and society teaching and research.
期刊最新文献
The Interplay of Market Choices and Social Mission: Learning From B2B Social Enterprises in Emerging Economies Measuring the Social Impact of Social Enterprises–Scale Development and Validation Silent Steering: How Public Actors Indirectly Influence Private Stakeholder Engagement The Engagement and Disengagement of Heterogeneous Stakeholders: A Relational Practice Perspective on Strategy Development Is Technology Uniquely Placed to Solve Our Problems? An Examination Into Technosolutionism, What It Entails and What It Predicts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1