摆脱家庭控制?政治组织之间的合作及其选民在社交媒体上的支持

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1007/s11077-024-09553-6
Paul M. Wagner, Arttu Malkamäki, Tuomas Ylä-Anttila
{"title":"摆脱家庭控制?政治组织之间的合作及其选民在社交媒体上的支持","authors":"Paul M. Wagner, Arttu Malkamäki, Tuomas Ylä-Anttila","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09553-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Coalitions that engage in political advocacy are constituted by organisations, which are made up of individuals and organisational subunits. Comparing the coalitions formed by organisations to the those formed by their constituent parts provides a means of examining the extent to which their coalition memberships are aligned. This paper applies inferential network clustering methods to survey data collected from organisations engaging in Irish climate change politics and to <i>X</i> (formerly twitter) data extracted from both the primary accounts of these organisations and the accounts of the individuals and subunits affiliated with them. Analysis of the survey-based organisation-level policy network finds evidence of an outsider coalition, formed by non-governmental organisations, labour unions and left-leaning political parties, and an insider coalition formed by the two main political parties in government, energy sector organisations, business and agricultural interests, scientific organisations, and government bodies. An analysis of the <i>X</i>-based account-level endorsement network finds evidence for a nested coalition structure wherein there are multiple distinct communities, which largely align with the organisation-level coalitions. Most interestingly, the largest and most active community is formed by accounts affiliated with the organisations with agricultural interests—the sector most opposed to ambitious climate action in Ireland. The results show how the somewhat disjoint behaviours of formal organisations and their affiliates give rise to nested coalitions, which can only be identified by disaggregating organisations by their constituent parts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaking away from family control? Collaboration among political organisations and social media endorsement among their constituents\",\"authors\":\"Paul M. Wagner, Arttu Malkamäki, Tuomas Ylä-Anttila\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11077-024-09553-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Coalitions that engage in political advocacy are constituted by organisations, which are made up of individuals and organisational subunits. Comparing the coalitions formed by organisations to the those formed by their constituent parts provides a means of examining the extent to which their coalition memberships are aligned. This paper applies inferential network clustering methods to survey data collected from organisations engaging in Irish climate change politics and to <i>X</i> (formerly twitter) data extracted from both the primary accounts of these organisations and the accounts of the individuals and subunits affiliated with them. Analysis of the survey-based organisation-level policy network finds evidence of an outsider coalition, formed by non-governmental organisations, labour unions and left-leaning political parties, and an insider coalition formed by the two main political parties in government, energy sector organisations, business and agricultural interests, scientific organisations, and government bodies. An analysis of the <i>X</i>-based account-level endorsement network finds evidence for a nested coalition structure wherein there are multiple distinct communities, which largely align with the organisation-level coalitions. Most interestingly, the largest and most active community is formed by accounts affiliated with the organisations with agricultural interests—the sector most opposed to ambitious climate action in Ireland. The results show how the somewhat disjoint behaviours of formal organisations and their affiliates give rise to nested coalitions, which can only be identified by disaggregating organisations by their constituent parts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09553-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09553-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

参与政治倡导的联盟由组织构成,而组织又由个人和组织下属单位组成。将组织所形成的联盟与其组成部分所形成的联盟进行比较,可以考察其联盟成员的一致程度。本文将推理网络聚类方法应用于从参与爱尔兰气候变化政治的组织收集的调查数据,以及从这些组织的主要账户和附属于这些组织的个人及子单位的账户中提取的 X(原 twitter)数据。对基于调查的组织层面政策网络的分析发现,有证据表明由非政府组织、工会和左翼政党组成的外部联盟,以及由政府中的两大政党、能源部门组织、商业和农业利益集团、科学组织和政府机构组成的内部联盟。对基于 X 的账户级支持网络的分析发现,有证据表明存在嵌套联盟结构,其中有多个不同的社区,这些社区在很大程度上与组织级联盟相一致。最有趣的是,最大、最活跃的社区是由隶属于农业利益组织的账户组成的,而农业利益组织是最反对在爱尔兰采取雄心勃勃的气候行动的部门。研究结果表明,正式组织及其附属机构的行为在某种程度上是相互分离的,这就产生了嵌套联盟,只有将组织按其组成部分进行分解,才能识别出这些联盟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Breaking away from family control? Collaboration among political organisations and social media endorsement among their constituents

Coalitions that engage in political advocacy are constituted by organisations, which are made up of individuals and organisational subunits. Comparing the coalitions formed by organisations to the those formed by their constituent parts provides a means of examining the extent to which their coalition memberships are aligned. This paper applies inferential network clustering methods to survey data collected from organisations engaging in Irish climate change politics and to X (formerly twitter) data extracted from both the primary accounts of these organisations and the accounts of the individuals and subunits affiliated with them. Analysis of the survey-based organisation-level policy network finds evidence of an outsider coalition, formed by non-governmental organisations, labour unions and left-leaning political parties, and an insider coalition formed by the two main political parties in government, energy sector organisations, business and agricultural interests, scientific organisations, and government bodies. An analysis of the X-based account-level endorsement network finds evidence for a nested coalition structure wherein there are multiple distinct communities, which largely align with the organisation-level coalitions. Most interestingly, the largest and most active community is formed by accounts affiliated with the organisations with agricultural interests—the sector most opposed to ambitious climate action in Ireland. The results show how the somewhat disjoint behaviours of formal organisations and their affiliates give rise to nested coalitions, which can only be identified by disaggregating organisations by their constituent parts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
期刊最新文献
Emancipatory policy sciences or interpretative revisionism: some thoughts on Douglas Torgerson’s The Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell Breaking away from family control? Collaboration among political organisations and social media endorsement among their constituents Shattering stereotypes and the critical lasswell The legacy of Harold D. Lasswell’s commitment to the policy sciences of democracy: observations on Douglas Torgerson’s the policy sciences of Harold Lasswell Co-design in policymaking: from an emerging to an embedded practice
×
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:481959085
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