New technologies have brought a number of new social phenomena, visible in peer production and open collaboration amongst others (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006; Levine and Prietula, 2013). The natural tendency to cooperate with others, typical for our species, has been amplified by new communication channels and platforms, resulting in the rapid growth of “collaborative society” (Jemielniak and Przegalinska, 2020).
The new social organization relies on novel kinds of structures: a-hierarchical or heterarchical large networks with little formal leadership. They are visible e.g., in the social organization of Wikipedia, the largest collaborative movement of humankind, openly rejecting traditional forms of organizing while relying on different, emergent communication, and decision-making patterns (Jemielniak, 2014; Shaw and Hargittai, 2018), as well as in other Free and Open Source (FOSS) initiatives (Lakhani and Von Hippel, 2003; Ciesielska, 2010; Chełkowski et al., 2016). It is worth mentioning that the new organizations, based on radically different social networks and division of work, can be very successful: Wikipedia is beyond any doubt the most popular encyclopedia in the world, Linux is the leading server operating system, Android is the dominant mobile phones operating system, etc.
Another example of new movements enabled by technology and new social networks is “citizen science”: self-organized activists cooperate to make scientific discoveries or perform applied science in ways that would typically not be accepted or done at traditional knowledge institutions (Lis and Stasik, 2017; Strasser et al., 2019). They successfully lead to independent actual innovations, as well as support the scientific community in its discoveries and exert social pressure on governments and municipalities, e.g., by monitoring smog or radiation and informing the larger public about the problem (Brown et al., 2016; Constant, 2018).
Similarly, new social movements online based on a remix culture result in a redefinition of creator-consumer boundaries (Hill and Monroy-Hernández, 2013; Milner, 2013). Even the communities formed around contemporary graphic meme consumption form specific ways of identity enactment, social bonding, gatekeeping and inclusion, often with a significant socio-political impact besides ironic entertainment (Silvestri, 2015; Huntington, 2016). In a much different, and yet somewhat similar area, blockchain technology and its network of participants are redefining how we deal with finance, contract validation, and data validity assurance, to name just a few (De Filippi, 2018).
Some more disturbing manifestations of new technologies and social networks are visible in the rise of anti-intellectual sentiments and the erosion of trust in social institutions in general and in science in particular (Pechar et al., 2018). We are facing an epistemic crisis (Dahlgren, 2018). Misinformation initiatives are able to spread through modern types of social networks and have a real impact (consider anti-vaxxers, human-induced climate change deniers and flat-Earthers) (Dahlstrom and Rosenthal, 2018; Samantray and Pin, 2019).
The new technologies bring major changes also to other key social phenomena: enactment of trust in society (Latusek and Vlaar, 2018), perception of ownership and commons (Kostakis, 2018; Hergueux and Jemielniak, 2019), expression of emotions and intimacy (Das and Hodkinson, 2019), or politics (Benkler et al., 2018; Chmielewska-Szlajfer, 2018), to mention just a few. Even the very primal rituals of how people choose life or sex partners have been radically affected by online dating networks (Alhabash et al., 2014; Rosenfeld, 2018). The landscape of social networks is getting more and more complicated also due to the rapid emergence of bots, as well as avatars increasingly differentiated from human representations (Przegalinska, 2015; Przegalinska et al., 2019).
These evolving phenomena, behaviors, and social structures already pose a significant challenge to social sciences. Yet, an even greater one comes from the fact that social networks and interactions online bring on absolute information and data overflow. As social scientists we are facing a paradox: never before in history have we had access to this much information about human behavior, and yet dealing with the oversupply is a problem in itself.
Naturally, access to troves of available data can also be a great opportunity (Conte et al., 2012; McCarthy, 2016; Lazer and Radford, 2017). It is not a coincidence that social sciences become datified (Millington and Millington, 2015), and that data scientists, or even physicists and software engineers make bold forays into the territory formerly reserved for sociologists, basically because of the data access.
The challenge, however, is that the data never speak for themselves (Dourish and Cruz, 2018). In fact, it is quite safe to assume that just relying on Big Data, especially without some deeper social network understanding may be very misleading. This is so not only because of the spurious correlations (Vigen, 2015) which may make even projects with such great promise as Google Flu fail miserably (Harford, 2014). Making sense of and from Big Data is simply very difficult (Hartung, 2018).
To mitigate these issues, some researchers propose to combine Big Data usage in social networks analysis with qualitative approaches (Halavais, 2015). Indeed, relying on qualitative insight allows adding context to quantitative datasets, which becomes particularly important when the datasets' raw power is overwhelming (Babones, 2016). This is why Thick Big Data, that is deeply quantitative analysis conducted in parallel with deeply interpretive one, is so attractive (Jemielniak, 2020). Yet, due to silosing and bunkerization typical for academia, most scientists specializing in Big Data are not proficient in ethnographic approaches and vice versa.
It is time to address these ambiguities. Our goal is addressing the new phenomena related to social networks, by relying on new forms of collecting and analyzing data, and by experimenting with novel and combined methodologies. We welcome a wide array of topics, challenging the current understanding of social science, bringing new knowledge about human behavior, both online and offline, in social networks of old and new types so that we discover new ways of conducting research on social networks, both in a quantitative and qualitative way.
Statements
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Funding
Working on this article was possible thanks to grant No. PPN/BEK/2018/1/00009 from the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AlhabashS.HalesK.BaekJ.-H.OhH. (2014). J. Effects of race, visual anonymity, and social category salience on online dating outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 22–32. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.016
2
BabonesS. (2016). Interpretive quantitative methods for the social sciences. Sociology50, 453–469. 10.1177/0038038515583637
3
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4
BenklerY.NissenbaumH. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue*. J. Polit. Philos. 14, 394–419. 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x
5
BrownA.FrankenP.BonnerS.DolezalN.MorossJ. (2016). Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. J. Radiol. Prot.36, S82–S101. 10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/S82
6
ChełkowskiT.GloorP. A.JemielniakD. (2016). Inequalities in open source software development: analysis of contributor's commits in apache software foundation projects. PLoS ONE11:e0152976. 10.1371/journal.pone.0152976
7
Chmielewska-SzlajferH. (2018). Opinion dailies versus Facebook fan pages: the case of Poland's surprising 2015 presidential elections. Media Cult. Soc. 40, 938–950. 10.1177/0163443718756065
8
CiesielskaM. (2010). Hybrid Organisations. A Study of the Open Source – Business Setting. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
9
ConstantN. (2018). Role of citizen science in air quality monitoring, in Urban Pollution, eds CharlesworthS. M.BoothC. A. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons), 303–312. 10.1002/9781119260493.ch23
10
ConteR.GilbertN.BonelliG.Cioffi-RevillaC.DeffuantG.KerteszJ.et al. (2012). Manifesto of computational social science. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.214, 325–346. 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01697-8
11
DahlgrenP. (2018). Media knowledge and trust: the deepening epistemic crisis of democracy. Javnost Public25, 20–27. 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819
12
DahlstromM. F.RosenthalS. (2018). Third-person perception of science narratives: the case of climate change denial. Sci. Commun. 40, 340–365. 10.1177/1075547018766556
13
DasR.HodkinsonP. (2019). Tapestries of intimacy: networked intimacies and new fathers' emotional self-disclosure of mental health struggles. Soc. Media Soc.5. 10.1177/2056305119846488
14
De FilippiP. D. F. (2018). Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2867sp
15
DourishP.CruzE. G. (2018). Datafication and data fiction: narrating data and narrating with data. Big Data Soc.5. 10.1177/2053951718784083
16
HalavaisA. (2015). Bigger sociological imaginations: framing big social data theory and methods. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18, 583–594. 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008543
17
HarfordT. (2014). Big data: a big mistake?Significance11, 14–19. 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2014.00778.x
18
HartungT. (2018). Making big sense from big data. Front. Big Data1:5. 10.1089/big.2012.1503
19
HergueuxJ.JemielniakD. (2019). Should digital files be considered a commons? Copyright infringement in the eyes of lawyers. Inform. Soc.35, 198–215. 10.1080/01972243.2019.1616019
20
HillB. M.Monroy-HernándezA. (2013). The remixing dilemma the trade-off between generativity and originality. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 643–663. 10.1177/0002764212469359
21
HuntingtonH. E. (2016). Pepper spray cop and the American dream: using synecdoche and metaphor to unlock internet memes' visual political rhetoric. Commun. Stud.67, 77–93. 10.1080/10510974.2015.1087414
22
JemielniakD. (2014). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 10.11126/stanford/9780804789448.001.0001
23
JemielniakD. (2020). Thick Big Data: Doing Digital Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24
JemielniakD.PrzegalinskaA. (2020). Collaborative Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25
KostakisV. (2018). In defense of digital commoning. Organization25, 812–818. 10.1177/1350508417749887
26
LakhaniK. R.Von HippelE. (2003). How open source software works. Res. Policy32, 923–943. 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00095-1
27
LatusekD.VlaarP. W. L. (2018). Uncertainty in interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics of trust: a qualitative study. Eur. Manage. J.36, 12–27. 10.1016/j.emj.2017.10.003
28
LazerD. M. J.RadfordJ. (2017). Data ex machina: introduction to big data. Annu. Rev. Sociol.43, 19–39. 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053457
29
LevineS. S.PrietulaM. J. (2013). Open collaboration for innovation: principles and performance. Org. Sci. 25, 1414–1433. 10.1287/orsc.2013.0872
30
LisA.StasikA. K. (2017). Hybrid forums, knowledge deficits and the multiple uncertainties of resource extraction: Negotiating the local governance of shale gas in Poland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.28, 29–36. 10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.003
31
McCarthyM. T. (2016). The big data divide and its consequences. Sociol. Compass10, 1131–1140. 10.1111/soc4.12436
32
MillingtonB.MillingtonR. (2015). ‘The datafication of everything': toward a sociology of sport and big data. Sociol. Sport J.32, 140–16010.1123/ssj.2014-0069
33
MilnerR. M. (2013). Pop polyvocality: internet memes, public participation, and the occupy wall street movement. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 7:34. Available online at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1949
34
PecharE.BernauerT.MayerF. (2018). Beyond political ideology: the impact of attitudes towards government and corporations on trust in science. Sci. Commun. 40, 291–313. 10.1177/1075547018763970
35
PrzegalinskaA. (2015). Embodiment. engagement and the strength virtual communities: avatars of second life in decay. Tamara J. Crit. Org. Inquiry13, 48–62.
36
PrzegalinskaA.CiechanowskiL.StrozA.GloorP.MazurekG. (2019). In bot we trust: a new methodology of chatbot performance measures. Bus. Horiz. 62, 785–797. 10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.005
37
RosenfeldM. (2018). Are tinder and dating apps changing dating and mating in the USA?, in Families and Technology, ed Van Hooksusan Jennifer King (Cham: Springer), 103–117. 10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_6
38
SamantrayA.PinP. (2019). Credibility of climate change denial in social media. Palgrave Commun.5:127. 10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4
39
ShawA.HargittaiE. (2018). The pipeline of online participation inequalities: the case of wikipedia editing. J. Commun. 68, 143–168. 10.1093/joc/jqx003
40
SilvestriL. (2015). Mortars and memes: participating in pop culture from a war zone. Media War Conflict9, 27–42. 10.1177/1750635215611608
41
StrasserB. J.BaudryJ.MahrD.SanchezG.TancoigneE. (2019). Citizen Science? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci. Technol. Stud.32, 52–76. 10.23987/sts.60425
42
VigenT. (2015). Spurious Correlations. New York, NY: Hachette Books.
Summary
Keywords
online collaboration, collaborative society, citizen science, social movement, big data analysis, social network, peer production, thick data
Citation
Jemielniak D (2020) Researching Social Networks: Opportunities and Challenges. Front. Hum. Dyn. 2:1. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2020.00001
Received
20 January 2020
Accepted
04 February 2020
Published
25 February 2020
Volume
2 - 2020
Edited and reviewed by
Primavera De Filippi, UMR7106 Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches de Sciences Administratives et Politiques (CERSA), France
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Jemielniak.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dariusz Jemielniak dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org
This article was submitted to Social Networks, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Dynamics
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.