Taming Big Data

Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter provide an unprecedented amount of qualitative data about organizations and collective behavior. Yet these new data sources lack critical information about the broader social context of collective behavior—or protect it behind strict privacy barriers. In this article, I introduce social media survey apps (SMSAs) that adjoin computational social science methods with conventional survey techniques in order to enable more comprehensive analysis of collective behavior online. SMSAs (1) request large amounts of public and non-public data from organizations that maintain social media pages, (2) survey these organizations to collect additional data of interest to a researcher, and (3) return the results of a scholarly analysis back to these organizations as incentive for them to participate in social science research. SMSAs thus provide a highly efficient, cost-effective, and secure method for extracting detailed data from very large samples of organizations that use social media sites. This article describes how to design and implement SMSAs and discusses an application of this new method to study how nonprofit organizations attract public attention to their cause on Facebook. I conclude by evaluating the quality of the sample derived from this application of SMSAs and discussing the potential of this new method to study non-organizational populations on social media sites as well.

[1]  Christopher A. Bail,et al.  Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream , 2014 .

[2]  Scott A. Golder,et al.  Digital Footprints: Opportunities and Challenges for Online Social Research , 2014 .

[3]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  C. Bail.  The cultural environment: measuring culture with big data , 2014, Theory and Society.

[5]  John Peloza,et al.  The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action , 2014 .

[6]  Kevin Lewis,et al.  The Structure of Online Activism , 2014 .

[7]  D. Blei,et al.  Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of U.S. government arts funding , 2013 .

[8]  Petko Bogdanov,et al.  Introduction—Topic models: What they are and why they matter , 2013 .

[9]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[10]  Stephen R. Barnard,et al.  Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age , 2012, New Media Soc..

[11]  G. Miller,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological the Smartphone Psychology Manifesto on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science the Smartphone Psychology Manifesto Previous Research Using Mobile Electronic Devices What Smartphones Can Do Now and Will Be Able to Do in the near Future , 2022 .

[12]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[13]  Andrew J Copas,et al.  Evaluation of Respondent-driven Sampling , 2012, Epidemiology.

[14]  N. C. Schaeffer,et al.  Improving Response Rates in Telephone Interviews , 2011 .

[15]  Andrew J. Perrin,et al.  Social Theory and Public Opinion , 2011 .

[16]  Mark Dredze,et al.  You Are What You Tweet: Analyzing Twitter for Public Health , 2011, ICWSM.

[17]  G. King,et al.  Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences , 2011, Science.

[18]  J. D. McCarthy,et al.  Replacing Members with Managers? Mutualism among Membership and Nonmembership Advocacy Organizations in the United States1 , 2011, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Twitter mood predicts the stock market , 2010, J. Comput. Sci..

[20]  P. Howard,et al.  Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring? , 2011 .

[21]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Probabilistic topic models , 2011, KDD '11 Tutorials.

[22]  Jon Agnone,et al.  Organizational Diversity in the U.S. Advocacy Sector , 2008 .

[23]  Brooks C. Holtom,et al.  Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research , 2008 .

[24]  M. Traugott,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research , 2007 .

[25]  W. Gamson.  Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media , 2007 .

[26]  L. H. Turner,et al.  Measuring Social Movement Organization Populations: A Comprehensive Census of U.S. Environmental Movement Organizations , 2007 .

[27]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[28]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  5. Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling , 2004 .

[29]  Ruud Koopmans,et al.  Discursive Opportunities and the Evolution of Right‐Wing Violence in Germany1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[31]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Social Implications of the Internet , 2001 .

[32]  D. Snow,et al.  Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment , 2000 .

[33]  E. Singer,et al.  The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[34]  Donald Tomaskovic-Devey,et al.  Organizational Survey Nonresponse , 1994 .

[35]  M. Crask,et al.  MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATE A META-ANALYSIS OF SELECTED TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING RESPONSE , 1988 .

[36]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Handbook of Survey Research , 1985 .

[37]  J. D. McCarthy,et al.  Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.