Identity and collective action via computer-mediated communication: A review and agenda for future research

Abstract

Since the start of large-scale waves of mobilisation in 2011, the importance of identity in the study of collective action via computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been a source of contention. Hence, our research sets out to systematically review and synthesise empirical findings on identity and collective action via CMC from 2012 to 2016. We found that the literature on the topic is broad and diverse, with contributions from multiple disciplines and theoretical and methodological approaches. Based on our findings, we provide directions for future research and propose the adoption of an integrative approach that combines the study of identity and networks to advance our understanding of collective action via CMC. This review contributes to the crossroad of social movement, collective action, communication and media studies. Our results also have practical implications for the organisation of collective action in a society characterised by the pervasive influence of CMC.

Strategic Framing and Social Media Engagement: Analyzing Memes Posted by the German Identitarian Movement on Facebook

“…Political institutions and others had already classified the GIM as right wing (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, 2019); the strategic framing this study identified and the ethno-pluralistic topics can be seen as a modern version of racism: cultural racism (e.g., Bruns et al, 2015;Elgenius & Rydgren, 2019;Schmidt, 2017;Virchow, 2015). Frames such as Anti-migration and Recruiting for the GIM prove that the GIM clearly used its Facebook page to initiate offline collective action (Harlow, 2011;Priante et al, 2018;Virchow, 2015). However, there are no indicators showing how successful they have been at reaching these goals.…”

“…These new dynamics have been described using the concept of connective action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012;Priante et al, 2018). Among the characteristics of connective action are the use of general instead of political content frames, hence, frames that can be personalized and adapted to various situations; the use of digital media and social networks with less formal ties, bringing distant people closer together; and self-organization without central or leading actors (see also Anduiza et al, 2014;Bennett, 2012).…”

Social Identification and Collective Action Participation in the Internet Age: A Meta-Analysis

“…While group identification was found as the strongest antecedent of collective actions in previous studies (Priante et al, 2018;van Zomeren et al, 2008), the increased use of digital platforms that gave rise questioning the mechanisms of collective actions led to a need for the current study. Besides, studies on this topic are diverse with contributions from multiple disciplines that use various theoretical and methodological approaches.…”

“…Collective action is defined as the joint conduct of group members who aimed to improve the position of their own group or to reach a common group goal (Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). The well-known approaches of collective action are based on the findings that social identification is either the strongest predictor of collective action participation or play an essential role in mobilization and participation (e.g., Drury & Reicher, 2009;Jost et al, 2012;Klandermans, 1997;Priante, Ehrenhard, van den Broek, & Need, 2018;Stürmer & Simon, 2004;van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). For instance, The Elaborated Social Identity Model of Crowd Behavior (ESIM; Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2000Reicher, 1996) posits that collective actions are fundamentally group phenomenon and characteristically intergroup encounters because only shared self-categorization provides definitions of appropriate and possible conduct, and in turn, enable people to act collectively.…”

“…We conducted a meta-analysis of the recent studies between 2011 and 2020 which examined digitally-mediated collective actions (e.g., Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Hong Kong, Yellow Vest, and Gezi Park protests). In the previous studies, group identification appeared as the strongest predictor of collective actions (for a meta-analytic review see van Zomeren et al, 2008), including those which were organized through digital platforms (for a systematic review see Priante et al, 2018). If the assumption that social identification has lost its crucial role in collective action is valid, we should expect that social identification would have a small effect size in predicting participation in collective actions organized through digital technologies (e.g., Facebook and Twitter).…”