You are on page 1of 17

Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.

uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Arbitrarily Combining the Social Network Approach
with the Ethnographic Approach
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication
Networks on the Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications
Research, University of Amsterdam.

Introduction

Simply combining the ethnographic approach to the structural approach of network
analysis is fraught with, at the same time, dangers and potentiality (Knox et al., 2006).
Using hyperlink analysis and textual data gathered during a situation on the Singapore
blogosphere as a case study I ask, could a combination of the two create a ‘better’
picture or will it result in the metaphor being mistaken for the ‘real’? Lin et al. (2006)
using the structural social network analysis approach have defined the Singapore
blogosphere as a “community with no obvious central topic”, and stated that it was a
rather closed network, or rather closed off from the wider global network of bloggers.
The ethnographic approach tends to take a very different position arguing, “It is rarely
that we find a community that is absolutely isolated, having no outside contact. At the
present moment of history, the network of social relations spreads over the whole
world, without any absolute solution of continuity anywhere (Radcliffe-Brown,
1940:224).” This paper addresses the inadequacies of using hyperlink analysis or the
ethnographic approach alone when uncovering online networks. Arbitrarily
combining the two approaches will highlight the theoretical problems, benefits and
limitations. Using a situation in 2006, I extracted a corpus of 29 blog posts. Using the
social network approach I ask, which blogs are the keyplayers? Using the
ethnographic approach, I ask what discourses and styles of discourse appear in the
Singapore blogosphere?

Social network analysis seeks to trace the flow of information that passes through a
network of relations. As actors make use of computer networks the computing
networks are “clear indicators of communication structures within society” (Garrido
& Halavais, 2003). Garrido and Halavais argue, “A map of the communication
network is roughly isomorphic to the structure of the relationships among the users
(2003).” Creating a Website or blog, the blogger ties their own efforts to those with

Draft – Not for Citation 1
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

similar interests using hyperlinks. Designing and placing a hyperlink is an act that
requires a certain level of hypertext mark-up language (html) knowledge and as
Adamic and Adar (2001) state, a form of cognitive, social or structural connection
between the blogs. Jackson (1997) and Kling (2000, cited in Garrido & Halavais,
2003) indicate, “Hyperlinks represent reasonable approximations of social
relationships.” I have targeted blogs using hyperlink network analysis uncovering the
keyplayers of the Singapore blogs with higher levels of ‘closeness centrality’ and
‘betweenness centrality’ (de Nooy et al., 2005) to assess which blogs are more
‘important’ to the flow of information. A blogs position indicates whether it has
access to information and better opportunities to spread information.

Social Network Analysis

Deleuze and Guattari (2004) present us with a model of knowledge and perception
known as rhizome. The rhizomatic model of knowledge according to Cavanagh
(2007:43) results in a network model that appears to be chaotic. The rhizomatic
network works on the principles that any point in the network can be and is connected
to every other point in the network. The logic of the connection in the rhizomatic
network is movement. A connection is the sprouting off in a new line. The lines may
appear to be random as they do in hyperlink analysis but they do have a purpose.
Hyperlinked culture has as its main aim ‘intertextual evolution’ (Dreyfus, 2001)
whereby all possible associations and linkage is enabled regardless of how tenuous
they may appear. Resulting in a disordered knowledge and enabling a new form of
knowledge to emerge. The main point with Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic
network is that there is no hierarchy; no node takes precedence over another. The
order is in constant flux with total inclusiveness. The flow of information however
pre-dates the existence of the nodes. The nodes are interruptions in the flow. The
nodes merely channel the flow of information. Cavanagh (2007:47) argues that the
main concern regarding the utility of Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic network is
that it is a philosophical position rather than a method for studying hyperlinks. In
Deleuzian terms, the Internet itself is the node in the flow of information and
knowledge exchange.

Draft – Not for Citation 2
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Knox et al. (2006) argue that American Social network methods map roles
comprehensibly and this results in the incorrect assumption that they have delineated
the ‘real’ social structures. Although it provides a counter measure to the
encroachment of rational choice theory in American social sciences the problem is
that it ends up reinforcing a view of relations that are very far removed from the
everyday experiences of people. Knox et al. argue that Social Network Analysis’
focus on structuralism has in recent years shifted to attempts at developing a cultural
approach. This shift in focus has come about because of the study of social
movements by researchers such as Ansell (1997), Bearman (1995), Gould (1995), and
Mische (2003). For Knox et al. the problem is that other methods of social research
are either quantitative or qualitative. The network produces a unique situation unlike
the graphs, charts and diagrams of statistical data. The network according to Knox et
al. results in a position because of its use as a method, metaphor and form, of being
the sign and the signifier, the referent and the representation. This they argue opens up
potential benefits and new horizons but is also potentially dangerous. Similar to Knox
et al. (2006) I will arbitrarily add the anthropological or ethnographic approach to the
structural approach of American Social Network Analysis. I intend to conduct a two-
tiered approach in the hope that it sheds light on the methodological issues raised in
doing so.

I chose the Singapore blogosphere as a case study as it is, according to others (Lin et
al, 2006 and Hurst 2006), an isolated and distinct network. In adherence with Nadel
(cited Cavanagh, 2007) the important factor is to not to arbitrarily demarcate a unit of
analysis to study. By reducing the social to the network, it allows for the unit of
analysis studied to materialise throughout the process of conducting the research. The
network will be discovered using empirical evidence rather than imposed by the
researcher at the beginning.

Social Network Analysis is a formal, mathematical technique of analysing relational
data. It is concerned with the contacts, ties and connections, group attachments and
meetings (Scott, 2000:3). “The relations are not the properties of the agents
themselves, but of systems of parts; these relations connect pairs of agents into larger
relational systems.” (Scott, 2000:3). The appropriate method for the analysis of

Draft – Not for Citation 3
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

relational data is network analyses that are qualitative measures of network structures.
Emphasis is on the ‘structure’ of social action. “Structures are built from relations”
(Scott, 2000:4). Social meaning constructed by the group members of the network
based on the perceptions and experiences of the context in which they are operating.
Paths of connections run between the groups and these paths divide the groups into
distinct regions. Lack of paths separates regions from each other (Scott, 2000:11).
Paths run within the regions but not between the regions. These regions are
constraints or boundaries. These boundaries are the ‘forces’ that determine group
behaviour.

American Social Network Analysis on the other hand prefers to work with the concept
of the ‘network’ as a geographical metaphor instead of a structural metaphor. Garrido
and Halavais (2003) argue that, “A map of the communication network is roughly
isomorphic to the structure of the relationships among the users.” Emphasis is on the
communicative aspect of the network therefore seeing the ties as facilitators and not
constraints or boundaries. The communicative basis of the network leads to the
erosion of the distinction between organisational networks and interpersonal ones
(Scott, 2000:33-36). It is more concerned with ‘intensity’ and ‘strength’ not
‘reciprocity’ and ‘durability’. The focus is on a form of social capital that facilitates
action while at the same time arguing that individual components retain their pre-
existing identities (Cavanagh, 2007).

Actor-Network theory defines the social as a series of conduits or bridges that
facilitate the flow of information, resources and ideas around a society. Actor-
Network theory is primarily concerned with an investigation of power. It is concerned
with the way that ideas and beliefs form and develop in a society. Power emerges
from interaction, which, similar to society and the social order is something that is
always in process. This is different to the anthropological concentration on structures
that are fixed and rigid over time. For Actor-Network theory society is temporarily
situated, it can be activated and de-activated and is in a state of constant creation and
re-creation. Actor-Network theory is not so much a theory rather it is a set of
procedures to aid in the investigation of the social. It is a methodology not a method.
The points or nodes in a network are potentially equal in terms of power. The ‘forces’

Draft – Not for Citation 4
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

that shape the interaction and the network are themselves generated by the network in
the interplay of the component parts that comprise the network (Cavanagh, 2007:33-
34). The power of a network resides in the interactive and generative mechanism of
the network itself. The network according to Actor-Network theory behaves as if it is
a thing, a separate phenomenon from the component parts that make it up. Actor-
Network theory networks are not only comprised of people and personal connections
but also texts, objects and a diverse array of material. The network as a whole, the
materials, the nodes, the links, and the images do not possess fixed properties so
agency is a property of the initial goal that resulted in the creation and formation of
the network (Cavanagh, 2007:37).

According to Castells (2000), networks are comprised of personal contacts, places,
technologies and functions. Those within the network select the elements and
therefore there is exclusion. Networks are exclusionary and particular, therefore not
universal. Again, the network transcends or goes beyond the component parts that
comprise the network. The network is an actor in its own right and yet it is still
dependent on all parts according to Castells (2000). The heterogeneity of all the parts
is vital for its continuation. Networks operate globally and global imperatives make
them globally orientated in order to maintain the dominant interests of the elite.

For Hardt and Negri (cited Cavanagh, 2007) the network form is the dominant form of
power in modern society. They argue that the social network is – plural, inclusive and
yet always contested and it enables action by the component parts rather than the
network as a whole. They posit that the network has no central power relation and that
“one essential characteristic of the distributed network form is that it has no centre. Its
power cannot be understood accurately as flowing from a central source or even
polycentric, but rather as distributed variably, unevenly, and indefinitely.” (Hardt &
Negri, cited Cavanagh, 2007:42) The network behaves somewhat like a swarm, which
may appear to be uncoordinated. However, communication is not the top-down
decision-making model but is communication between the various component parts
that comprise the network. This leads to the problem of Hardt and Negri’s ‘swarm’
seemingly arguing that the network acts and yet it is agency without an agent
(Cavanagh, 2007:43).

Draft – Not for Citation 5
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Knox et al. (2006) argue that network methods map roles comprehensibly and results
in the incorrect assumption that they have delineated the ‘real’ social structures. It
ends up reinforcing a view of relations that are unlike the everyday experiences of
people. Knox et al. argue that Social Network Analysis’ focus on structuralism has in
recent years shifted to attempts at developing a cultural approach. This shift in focus
has come about because of the study of social movements by researchers such as
Ansell (1997), Bearman (1995), Gould (1995), and Mische (2003).

Hyperlink Network Analysis

No network is ever truly ‘isolated’. However, Lin et al. (2006) have conducted
attempts at defining a core group of users who continually return to a particular site of
online interaction. They used various techniques to visualise and extract these
communities. Lin et al. (2006) used blog ranking and their social connections, via
hyperlinks of various types to devise a visual representation of blog communities.
They established communities by assessing the level of mutual awareness through the
various actions of bloggers, such as commenting on each others sites or using
trackbacks to inform the writer of an article that they have linked to it. Lin et al.
(2006) have defined the Singapore blogosphere as a “community with no obvious
central topic”, and stated that it was a rather closed network, or rather closed off from
the wider global network of bloggers. Hurst (2006) using the same data as Lin et al.,
created for the WWW 2006 Workshop, highlighted the same group of blogs as Lin et
al. (2006). I collected an initial list of political blogs or seeds by engaging with the
blogosphere. I started by gathering a large set of political blog addresses, or URLs, by
downloading a list of political blogs1 compiled by myself and a group of Singapore
bloggers and others.

I used computer-assisted measurements for this research, namely issuecrawler 2 and
Pajek to construct the following graphs.

1
List available http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pQcRq80yuyWXeqpakIg2ibA viewed 02/08/2007
2 http://www.issuecrawler.net/index.php

Draft – Not for Citation 6
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Figure 1. Singapore Political Blogosphere measured in July 2007. All network closeness
centralisation score of 0.38627 and a betweenness centralisation score of 0.08783. Blogs
grouped together by colour.

Using the same approach as Lin et al. (2006) what resulted was more akin to an ego-
network. It appears isolated from the wider global blogosphere with no links to blogs
of other countries appearing. It is also important to point out that the resulting
‘network’ based on the more quantitative aspects of Social Network Analysis
generates a representation that results in upwards conflation. I return to this in the
discussion below.

Beyond Technological and Organisational Determinism

When researching a physically decentralised social network or a network made up of
individuals who form a network but are not necessarily members of a formal
organisation, how do you avoid organisational as well as technological determinism?
To argue that the network and hierarchy are determining the culture is to have slipped

Draft – Not for Citation 7
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

into organisational determinism. Someone or something, like a law or the digital
divide which is not engaged in the online network, may still retain power in shaping
the online network by working as an external constraint. To avoid organisational
determinism the researcher must consider broader social, culture and political
phenomenon in which the blogosphere is contextualised. The intention of this
research is to construct fieldwork that does not simply result in organisational
determinism. The next concern is that of ‘Technological Determinism’ – that
technology influences society but is not in turn affected by society. This is an idea
founded on two assumptions: Technology progresses from less to more advanced
configurations or rather that technological progress proceeds from lower to higher
levels of development and social institutions must adapt to the ‘imperatives’ of the
technological base.

Determinism is an interpretation of history, “which makes it seem as though the end
of the story was inevitable from the beginning by projecting the abstract technical
logic of the finished object into the past as a cause of development” (Feenberg, 1992).
This is similar to Actor-Network theory that argues that the goals that initiated the
formation of the network resulted in the nature of the network. Determinism confuses
our understanding of the past and limits our imagination or ability to envisage
different futures.

Feenberg (1992) argues that technology is a social object, technology is more than its
explainable functions, and it has interpretable meaning. Technology has ‘social’
meaning and a ‘cultural horizon’. It might be argued that once the ‘object’ is fixed in
its design, that it becomes a debate over the ‘goals’ and that the engineer has the last
word. The focus on goals by managers, engineers, strips technology of its social
context. However technology is a historically evolving phenomenon.

What the object is for the groups that ultimately decide its fate determines what it
becomes as it is redesigned and improved over time. Technology then can only be
studied by studying the situation of the various groups involved. In this instance the
cultural situation of Singapore is important when conducting an ethnographic study of
the Singapore blogosphere.

Draft – Not for Citation 8
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Ethnography

The ethnographic approach enables the researcher to ascertain what the network
boundaries are as defined by the process of attaining access. It also enables the
classification of situations (Mische & White, 1998). The ethnographic researcher
takes part in the everyday experiences as a blogger uncovering meanings pertinent to
those involved.

This approach enabled me to overcome the ‘ego-network’ of my initial data collection.
While engaging daily with the others online I was aware of who can gain access to the
self-declared ‘socio-political blogosphere’ uncovered in figure 1 above. Self declared
political groups in Singapore tend to focus on discussions framed within the dominant
ideological focus of the Singaporean government.

Political talk in Singapore takes place within the ‘discourse of communitarianism’.
The discourse of communitarianism is enshrined in the language of; ‘shared values’,
‘national interest’, ‘good government’, ‘survivalism’, ‘pragmatism’, ‘political stability,
‘collective interests, ‘social stability’, ‘conservative’ and, ‘economic growth’ (Chua,
1997) of the Singapore government. The discourse of globalism or anti-globalisation
has made inroads into the online discourse of the Singapore blogosphere (see
appendix 1). According to Fairclough (2003: 159), “styles are the discoursal aspect of
ways of being, identities.” Fairclough (2003) goes on to argue that
styles/identification is distinct from discourse/representation and genres/action but are
not independent. Fairclough (2003) highlights different types of modality, which can
be associated with different types of exchange and speech functions. He highlights the
characters of politicians, management gurus, experts, priests and academic styles of
speech. Therefore, by limiting my initial collection of blogs to those who engaged in
the above speech styles I was assigning the boundary of the network based on the
discourse of the self-proclaimed political elite.

The researcher encountered blogs that are essentially political in nature and yet did
not appear on the initial list of self-proclaimed political blogs. Individuals approached
me via email and co-authored blogs before finally setting blogs up on their own. I

Draft – Not for Citation 9
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

was then able to harvest a list for the Singapore Gay and Lesbian blogosphere from
Sayoni Speaks (http://blog.sayoni.com/). The addresses of the Singapore Social
blogosphere came from the Singapore Social Media Directory
(http://sgsocialmediadir.wikispaces.com/).

Figure 4. From Left to right: Singapore Gay and Lesbian blogosphere: Closeness Centralisation = 0.38918,
Betweenness Centralisation = 0.16183; Singapore Social blogosphere: Closeness Centralisation = 0.34469,
Betweenness Centralisation = 0.08866.

I then combined the two lists of blogs to the initial list along with a Malaysian group
and a Christian group. Using these blogs as seeds, I was then able to compile a list
that generated the following graph.

Draft – Not for Citation 10
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Figure 3. The Singapore Blogosphere 2008: Contains 1,239 nodes. The size of the
node represents the Betweenness Centrality (BC), the larger the node the larger
the BC score. The black lines refer to the hyperlink connections between the nodes.

To the left of the graph are English-speaking bloggers and to the right are Malay-
speaking bloggers. It is clear from the graph and confirmed by further Social Network
Analysis that the Singapore blogosphere is comprised of two distinct factions (see
Appendix 2 for a further breakdown of the top 50 key players in table 2, ranked
according to Betweenness Centrality in the Singapore blogosphere of June 2008 and
figure 4 further illustrating the two distinct factions).

Discussion

The two distinct factions comprised of English-speaking bloggers and Malay-
speaking bloggers with limited cross-linking occurring is evidence of the cultural
context of Singapore shaping the online network. This is however not to simply
ignore the influence of other generative mechanisms. It is evident that the choice of

Draft – Not for Citation 11
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

blogging technology used by the bloggers is also having an effect on how the
blogosphere is breaking down into two factions. The English-speakers use technology,
such as Blogspot, Wordpress, and Livejournal while the Malay-speakers tend to
favour alternative providers such as Blogdrive.

The Singapore blogosphere on this occasion acted not simply as a means of
reinforcing the discourse of ‘communitarianism’ or ‘globalism’ (Chua, 1997) but also
managed to amplify criticisms of that discourse. It was criticism of the justification of
the government to know what the public is or wants. The most important political and
social issues faced by the Singapore public, as defined by the ‘public’ and not
mediated by a state controlled press, will continue to find space and expression in the
Singapore blogosphere, retaining the potential to engender democracy.

The Singapore blogosphere is not a “community with no obvious central topic” (Lin
et al., 2006). When seen through the cultural lens of the ethnographic approach what
emerges is a ‘public’ engaged in oppositional discourse. Using the same approach as
Lin et al. (2006) what resulted was more akin to an ego-network. It appears isolated
from the wider global blogosphere with no links to blogs of other countries appearing.
The motivations or the will of those involved in the initial stages are evident at the
beginning of the narrative but the boundaries are the ‘discovered’ structural elements
of the network. Agency becomes structure; and then agency is a mere epiphenomenon
of the network. The so-called quantitative elements of social network analysis runs
the risk of reducing the network into a metaphor for ‘the masses’ when conducting
hyperlink analysis; in turn reducing its own efficacy into that of an advanced polling
system of online networks. The shift in focus to a cultural approach within Social
Network Analysis will undermine the structural dominance. However, it will not
overcome the problem of upward conflation and the reduction of the agent to that of
an epiphenomenon.

If as Dewey (1927, cited Kelly & Etling, 2008) argues, “The outstanding problem of
the Public is discovery and identification of itself.” The problem for Social Network
Analysis is to ensure that it does not conflate that public that is appearing in the
blogosphere with the wider social structural elements, be they structures resulting

Draft – Not for Citation 12
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

from the technology and institutional generative mechanism or cultural forces, be they
ethnicity, race or nationalism.

There is no hierarchy; no node, (be that a blog, technology, ethnicity or cultural
mechanism), takes precedence over another. The order is in constant flux with total
inclusiveness. Singapore society and the flow of information pre-date the existence of
the Internet and specific applications within it such as the blogosphere. These nodes
are interruptions in the flow of information. The nodes merely channel the flow of
information. How is the Singapore blogosphere affecting that flow?

References

Adamic, L. A. and Adar, E. (2001). You are what you link. 10th annual International
World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong. Retrieved June 19: 2001.
Ansell, C. K. (1997). "Symbolic Networks: The Realignment of the French Working
Class, 1887–1894." AJS 103(2): 359-90.
Bearman, P. S. (1993). Relations into rhetorics: local elite social structure in Norfolk,
England, 1540-1640, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers.
Cavanagh, A. (2007). Sociology in the Age of the Internet, Open University Press.
Chua, B. H. (1997). Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. New
York, Routledge.
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (2004). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,
New York, Continuum International Publishing Group.
de Nooy, W. et al. (2005). Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2001). On the Internet, London, Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse textual analysis for social research.
London, Routledge.
Feenberg, A., (1992) Subversive Rationalisation: Technology, Power and Democracy,
Inquiry, 35: 3 / 4.
Garrido, M. and Halavais, A. (2003). Mapping networks of support for the Zapatista
movement. In McCaughey, M. & Ayers, M.D. (2003). Cyberactivism: Online
Activism in Theory and Practice, Routledge.
Gould, R. V. (1995). Insurgent Identities: Class, Community, and Protest in Paris
from 1848 to the Commune, University Of Chicago Press.
Hurst, M.W. (2006). Interactive Map of the Blogosphere.
http://datamining.typepad.com/data_mining/2006/07/interactive_map.html.
Jackson, M.H. (1997). Assessing the structure of communication on the World Wide
Web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1): 1997.
Kelly, J. and Etling, B. (2008). Mapping Iran’s Online Public: Politics and Culture in
the Persian Blogosphere. Research Publication No. 2008-01, The Berkman
Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series.

Draft – Not for Citation 13
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Knox, H. and Savage, M. et al. (2006). "Social networks and the study of relations:
networks as method, metaphor and form." Economy and Society 35(1): 113-140.
Lin, Y.R., Sundaram, H., Chi, Y., Tatemura, J., Tseng, B. (2006). Discovery of blog
communities based on mutual awareness. Third Annual Workshop on the
Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics, at the 15th
Annual World Wide Web Conference-WWW: 2006-03.
Mische, A. (2003). "Cross-talk in Movements: Reconceiving the Culture-Network
Link." Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective
Action: 258–280.
Mische, A. and White, H. (1998). Between Conversation and Situation: Public
Switching Dynamics across Network Domains. Social Research, Vol.65, No.3.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. (1940). ‘On Social Structure.’ Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 70(1-12).
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Sage.

Draft – Not for Citation 14
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks on the
Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Appendix 1.

Discourse and Styles of Discourse

Discourse Styles of Discourse
Discourse of Communitarianism Occurrences Occurrences
(Frequency %) (Frequency %)
Anti-Social Cohesion Politician 49 (27%)
Questions the Discourse 50 (25%) Personal 39 (22%)
Disagrees with Social Cohesion 24 (12%) Citizen 28 (16%)
Sarcasm 18 (9%) Academic 22 (12%)
Total 94 (47%) Journalist 19 (11%)
Social Cohesion Activist 10 (5.5%)
Agrees with Social Cohesion 19 (9.5%) Expert 9 (5%)
Democracy 8 (4%) Lawyer 2 (1%)
Accountability 5 (2.5%) Priest 1 (0.5%)
Refers to the Greater good 3 (1.5%)
Total 35 (18%)

Discourse of Globalism

Globalism
Supports Globalism 12 (6%)
Progress and Technology 11 (5.5%)
Inevitable 6 (3%)
Knowledge Based Economy 4 (2%)
Competing on a Global Scale 4 (2%)
Consumerism 4 (2%)
Processes 1 (0.5%)
Total 42 (21%)
Anti-Globalism
Disagrees with Globalisation 6 (3%)
Social Justice 6 (3%)
Negative Interpretations 5 (2.5%)
Unfair 4 (2%)
Welfare 4 (2%)
Rights 3 (1.5%)
Total 28 (14%)

Table 1. The occurrence and frequency of the nine styles of discourse and two forms of discourse
with subsets.

Table 1. shows that a politician style of discourse occurred on 49 (27%) occasions,
personal 39 (22%), citizen 28 (16%), academic 22 (12%), journalist 19 (11%),
activist 10 (5.5%), expert 9 (5%), lawyer 2 (1%) and priest 1 (0.5%). The most
dominant form of discourse of communitarianism and discourse of globalism was that
of anti-social cohesion which scored 94 (47%) occurrences followed by a discourse of
globalism (42 (21%)), social cohesion (35 (18%)) and anti-globalism (28 (14%)).

Draft – Not for Citation 15
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks
on the Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

Appendix 2.

Top 50 Key players of the Singapore Blogosphere June 2008 by Betweenness
Centrality.

Betweenness Closeness
ID Degree Centrality Centrality Factions2
blogdrive.com 174 53533.926 4279 1
tomorrow.sg 216 51178.59 3929 2
photobucket.com 91 43716.617 4096 1
wordpress.com 111 33384.738 4074 2
technorati.com 120 29589.938 3919 2
sgblogawards.omy.sg 75 29244.604 4471 2
kuncup.blogdrive.com 130 28501.156 4396 1
flickr.com 96 25962.582 4016 2
bloggersg.com 81 19397.098 4058 2
nus.edu.sg 48 19138.492 4624 2
creativecommons.org 102 18930.762 4020 2
klinikminda1.blogspot.com 100 18157.41 4418 1
ads.blogdrive.com 153 17577.324 4554 1
kennysia.com 100 16561.314 4133 2
apple.com 71 16197.214 4056 2
singabloodypore.rsfblog.org 75 15155.418 4192 1
azlina.net 54 12439.063 4324 1
rinaz.net 133 11686.452 4103 2
friendster.com 44 10979.605 4216 2
clappingtrees.com 92 10529.274 4134 2
hendri.squoar.com 86 9688.821 4166 2
yesterday.sg 57 9657.044 4282 2
youtube.com 64 9583.163 4069 2
sabrina.sg 90 9443.527 4109 2
mr-endoh.com 102 9430.799 4163 2
sgblogs.com 100 9320.283 4163 2
design.blogdrive.com 54 9299.348 4394 1
blog.dk.sg 110 9147.646 4166 2
chaosdingo.lah.cc 38 8939.661 4322 2
sgentrepreneurs.com 102 8720.266 4232 2
i-speak.blogdrive.com 29 8460.372 4414 1
limetouch.com 44 8008.385 4233 2
toomanythoughts.org 59 7892.979 4326 2
mrbrown.com 89 7697.419 4215 2
sixapart.com 60 7671.539 4321 2
jason.sg 78 7591.144 4227 2
ping.sg 123 7559.005 4226 2
nadnut.liquidblade.com 95 7376.924 4168 2
feedburner.com 57 7187.758 4273 2
bleongcw.typepad.com 100 7164.742 4217 2
imageshack.us 33 7018.768 4558 1
thunderstorms.blogdrive.com 45 6981.098 4457 1
advertlets.com 42 6706.255 4346 2
blogshopr.com 32 6681.252 4425 1
facebook.com 68 6643.85 4268 2
vantan.org 69 6615.124 4249 2

Draft – Not for Citation 16
Paper presented by Steven McDermott (cssem@leeds.ac.uk) at the Communication Networks
on the Web 18 - 19 December 2008, Amsterdam School of Communications Research,
University of Amsterdam

fastonlineusers.com 41 6577.517 4473 1
exampaper.com.sg 64 6052.812 4197 2
mizi.blogdrive.com 81 5958.695 4596 1
feedjit.com 32 5957.418 4469 1

Table 2. Faction 1 = Links within the Malay-speaking blogs, Faction 2 = Linked to
English-speaking blogs. Total number of blogs ranked is 1,239.

Figure 4. Singapore blogosphere June 2008 as two factions

Figure 4. The list of 1,239 blogs is in the graph above. The red nodes to the left
represent faction 2 in table 2 and are the English-speaking linked blogs. The
blue nodes to the right are faction 1 from table 2 and represent the Malay-
speaking blogs. The red lines between nodes are hyperlinks between the two
factions. Size of node represents Betweenness Centrality score.

Draft – Not for Citation 17