The Role of New Media in Protest Organisation

The Concepts

Following from the research question and its sub-questions, three main concepts can be identified that will help to explore the use of social media within the organisation process of the protest. These are interactivity, awareness and mobilisation. In the course of this research, the results of the findings and discussion will be related to these three concepts.

1. Interactivity – How do social movement organisations use the features for interactivity of social media?

Interactivity is one of the main features of social media and has been described by Rafaeli as “a natural attribute of face-to-face conversation, but it has been proposed to occur in mediated communication settings as well” (1988: 110). Therefore interactivity is not only found in direct communication between humans, but also takes place through media. Especially social media have the attribute of interactivity, as they are built on the possibility for direct communication. McMillan distinguishes between three dimensions: user-to-user interactivity, user-to-document interactivity and user-to-system interactivity (McMillan, 2006: 209).

User-to-user interactivity in new media means communication between humans through a layer of technology between the interacting partners and finds expression in e-mails, chat, SNS message walls and so on. This type of interactivity is also known as computer-mediated-communication (CMC). Users project the rules and norms of interpersonal interaction also on communication through media (McMillan, 2006: 211), yet it is not constrained by time and space. Four models are possible in mediated communication; the monologue (one-way, sender controlled – information distribution), the feedback (the receiver is able to reply), the responsive dialogue (awareness of previous messages) and the mutual discourse (receiver and sender role become interchangeable) (McMillan, 2006: 213).

User-to-document communication described how people interpret and make sense of media messages and also how they interact with content creators. What is special about this type of communication in new media is that the audience can also become content creators themselves. Once again, four models can be recorded: packaged content (mass media tradition, assumes relatively passive audience), content-on-demand (customisation of content), content exchange (all participants can be sender or receiver) and co-created content (all participants create content) (McMillan, 2006: 216-17).

The third type of interactivity is user-to-system interactivity and explores how people interact with their computer or other new media devices (smartphones for example). Some communication systems can create the feeling of co-presence between the participants, although they are not in the same physical space. This type of communication also includes the interaction with hypertexts and links or the interaction with website interfaces. Once again, four different models can be explored: computer-based interaction (computer will present information, humans act to it), human-based interaction (assumes more active individual, e.g. using databases), adaptive interaction (computer in control, but adapts to humans’ skill level, e.g. advanced gaming) and finally flow (high user activity, computer becomes transparent, e.g. virtual reality systems) (McMillan, 2006: 220-221).

These dimensions of interactivity have been used as the basis for other studies on interactivity. Atkinson (2008) used user-to-document interactivity to explore the production of alternative media by social movement networks among audiences and producers, while Liu (2003) integrated items of McMillan into the development of a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Nevertheless, also critique on McMillan’s categorisation can be found. Richards (2006) critises that although McMillan acknowledges that interactivity can be both an activity and a property, she does not interrelate the two and ignores the motivations of the user with regard to the content. Richards continues his study by presenting different forms of content production within the categories of activity and property of interactivity. Still, these do resemble McMillan’s three levels of interactivity. Despite Richards’s criticism, the levels of interactivity described above seem to be an appropriate categorisation for analysis in this research study, as especially social media present possibilities for the use of all three categories. Although this research study touches with more emphasis on user-to-user interactivity, also the other forms of user-to-document and user-to-system interactivity are accounted for.

As these possibilities indicate, interaction through new media can result in direct communication between the participants. In the case of new media use by NGOs, this means that the organisations have the facility to create a vivid virtual exchange with their constituency based on this direct communication that comes as close as possible to real-life face-to-face communication. This can increase both external communications, but also internal communications (Della Porta & Mosca, 2005: 168). Social network sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, allow for immediate communication between participants through, for example, wall posts that can be developed into individual comment threads and shared among the users of a social network (Bennett & Segerberg, 2009: 4). According to Della Porta & Mosca, established and richer organisation will be more hesitant to adopt CMC and use it similar to old media of communication (2005: 169). In support of that, it has been argued by Bennett that resource-poor organisations are more “defined in important ways by their web presence” (2003: 145), than established organisations. This is confirmed by Tarrow (2003: 31), who argues that established NGOs continue to rely on face-to-face communication and traditional communication strategies. Kavada confirms that face-to-face contact is helpful in establishing long-term interpersonal relations and creating a “tangible reality” (Kavada, 2010: 115), yet she argues that offline contact also often leads to and strengthens online contact (2010: 115).

Nevertheless, resources of richer and established NGOs facilitate the effective use the internet (Della Porta & Mosca, 2005: 169), as they can afford trained IT staff for example.

Table 1: Forms of interactivity and its degrees according to McMillan (2006)

Form of interactivity	Degree of interactivity
User-to-user interactivity	Monologue – one way, sender controlled information	Feedback – receiver is able to reply
	Responsive dialogue – awareness of previous messages	Mutual discourse – receiver and sender role are interchangeable
User-to-document interactivity	Packaged content – mass media, for passive audience	Content-on-demand – customisation of content
	Content exchange – all users are sender or receiver	Co-created content – all users create content
User-to-system interactivity	Computer-based interaction – computer present information, user reacts	Human-based interaction – more active individual (databases)
	Adaptive interaction – computer in control, adopts users’ skill level (advanced gaming)	Flow – high user activity, computer becomes transparent (virtual reality systems).

(McMillan, 2006)

2. Awareness – How is social media used to raise awareness for the cause?

A prerequisite for successful protest mobilisation is to raise awareness among the public about the happening of the event and the background of the event. One way to raise awareness is through the distribution of information. In the most obvious way, this takes place over the organisation’s website. This is surely an efficient way if people who are already interested in the organisation need to be informed (Ward, Gibson & Lusoli, 2003: 654). Nevertheless, these visitors, with previous interest in the organisation can potentially be recruited as members more easily (Ward et.al., 2003: 654). Furthermore the personalisation of information is possible, as website can be designed individually for each target group in order to successfully raise awareness (Ward et.al., 2003: 654). By publishing as much information as possible, organisations increase the chance that people read them and may become a more engaged public. Another common means to disseminate information is through e-mail lists and newsletters, but again, only members that have subscribed to those will be reached.

By involving SNS in the distribution of information, NGOs have the possibility to reach groups of the public that would not usually visit their website and do not even need to anymore as all information is provided on the network platform. Thus, the scope of reach is increased to theoretically all members of a SNS. As members of a SNS are usually connected as “friends” or “followers” to other users and are updated about their activities, they would be notified if their friends join a Facebook group, for example. This allows information to be spread virally across the SNS. Other possibilities for NGOs to raise awareness for a larger project would be the creation of smaller events in advance that promote the final protest. These could be either staged through the internet as online activism, or as real-life events, which are additionally promoted online.

Despite the increased effectiveness of social media in raising awareness, traditional media are still an important factor in the distribution of information to a wider public. Especially news media are used to disseminate the message of many social movements (Cottle, 2008: 853, Kavada, 2010). Therefore, despite the possibility of today’s media landscape, allowing organisations to communicate independently from large media outlets, “there is still no avoiding the centrality of mainstream news media for the wider communication of dissent and the pursuit of instrumental or expressive goals” (Cottle, 2008: 854).

3. Mobilisation – How successful is the use of social media in mobilising protesters?

Online tools are used by social movement organisations for a number of purposes. These seem to be especially popular for mobilisation purposes, and related to that community and solidarity building (Kavada, 2010: 102).

Mobilisation is treated as the key concept in this research, as it constitutes the final goal of the movement organisers. The concepts of interactivity and awareness are necessary in order to build up for the largest mobilisation of protesters possible, as a large turn-out is more likely to help achieve the aims of the protest. Regarding mobilisation, the internet allows for specific targeting of groups of audiences or to collect e-mail addresses. As mentioned above, as visitors to the website are usually already interested in and supportive of the organisation’s aims and goals, they could potentially be turned from visitors into actual members (Ward, Gibson & Lusoli, 2003: 654).

Despite these advantages of the internet in terms of mobilisation and organisation of protests, social movement actors cannot only rely on this tool. Additionally, mainstream media, flyers and word of mouth are still crucial for the mobilisation process (Cottle, 2008; Kavada, 2010). Especially as the internet is a pull-medium, meaning that people have to actively engage with the information they are looking for online, mainstream media are important in reaching beyond this “ghettoised community of like-minded” (Cammaerts, 2007: 13). This mediatisation can become so strong that often the actual aims of the social movement become obscured by the focus on the internet and traditional media (Cammaerts, 2007: 2). Yet it has to be remembered that social movements want to gain support, change values and influence politics, and the media can only be a further channel through which the message is brought to the public.

As discussed above, full use of interactivity of SNS can have positive effects for NGOs, as they engage more with their constituencies both in terms of awareness and mobilisation. Yet, a reoccurring debate circles around the question whether computer mediated communication with online contacts can be as emotional and binding as face-to-face contact in the long term and build a community. Diani (2001 in van Aelst & Walgrave, 2004: 98) argues that contact solely based online lacks the basis for trust and a permanent relationship. In this regard, Rucht (2004) differentiates between two forms of mobilisation by social movements. On the one hand he describes qualitative mobilisation, a very personal form of mobilisation, relying on face-to-face contact with a limited number of people for far-reaching effects, rather than influencing the masses (Rucht, 2004: 31). The other form is quantitative mobilisation. Following this strategy, movement organisations aim to mobilise large numbers of people, often in order to influence policy-makers. In the case of the latter, mass media as a disseminator of information, as well as new media, become very valuable and media strategies are inevitable (2004: 32).

Nevertheless, in order to bring many people together, a further aspect is necessary. Natalie Fenton raises the important point that

“Solidarity is crucial in order to create a viable political community. Solidarity is the necessary condition and the essential collective contribution to the well-being of liberty and difference.” (2008: 39).
Only if the collective shares the same ideologies can social change be brought about. The internet and other ICTs can support the creation of global solidarity, with its transnational reach and the possibility for personal communication, that multinational traditional and commercial media cannot (Fenton, 2008: 39). A prerequisite for solidarity is the ability of people to identify with each another, cooperate and not strive for their own advantages. Then a network of either individuals or institution develops, which expresses the political and social bonds between the members. Nevertheless, this network is fluid as are political and social identities (Fenton, 2008: 49). So, in order to bind members to a social movement, especially a global one, the organisations are dependent on the creation of solidarity between themselves and their constituencies. Although the internet can help connect people and help foster solidarity, the anonymity and diversity works against this (Fenton, 2008: 51). Nevertheless, the popularity of SNS could advance the creation of solidarity, as it allows for more personalised communication between movement organisations and singular members of the constituency and also between members of organisations. Therefore, members can feel more valued, and the messaging becomes more effective, than is the case of information distribution through for example mass e-mails. Furthermore, the decreased participation costs for members and facilitated opportunity for participation might pull a former inactive support base to engage more intensively with the issue and thus enforce their identification with the movement (Garrett, 2006: 206).

Parallel to the solidarity needed for a political community, Bennett and Segerberg (2009: 2) raise the point that our society is getting more individualised. They refer this to the globalisation of many economic and social issues. Bennett and Segerberg (2009) argue that in our modern society a large focus lies on the individual with a detachment from traditional social institutions such as the church, parties or unions. This individual engagement finds expression in the participation in multiple causes, which are chosen as part of an individual lifestyle. Thus, to engage the individual with these issues, the concerns are assigned individual meanings. This means for example that the importance of climate action is measured in terms of personal carbon footprints; food consumption is related to the lifestyle choice of Fairtrade products and labour standards to fashion brands.

Individuals seem more interested in issue activism to express their personality than in joining organisations for broad activism. This requires organisations to be in return more open for issue mobilisation, which ICTs play a very important role in. They offer organisations to address interested individuals in a cost efficient and personal way and in return give individuals the control to engage only with issue-related concerns. As individuals can now more easily engage with the issues that are important to them, this may facilitate and promote stronger solidarity among those followers, as they already share certain interests and goals.

This also influences the concept of collective identity, “a perception among individuals that they are members of a larger community by virtue of the grievances they share” (Garrett, 2006: 205). ICTs enable the fostering of collective identity beyond local concerns which can be mobilised for collective action. The grievances about the idleness of international politics with regard to climate change unite not only the people in the UK, but unite people globally.

2.