Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control

Abstract

Gatekeeping theories have been a popular heuristic for describing information control for years, but none have attained a full theoretical status in the context of networks. This article aims to propose a theory of network gatekeeping comprised of two components: identification and salience. Network gatekeeping identification lays out vocabulary and naming foundations through the identification of gatekeepers, gatekeeping, and gatekeeping mechanisms. Network gatekeeping salience, which is built on the bases of the network identification theory, utilizes this infrastructure to understand relationships among gatekeepers and between gatekeepers and gated, the entity subjected to a gatekeeping process. Network gatekeeping salience 1 proposes identifying gated and their salience to gatekeepers by four attributes: Introducing Gatekeeping and the Need for a New TheoryThe concept of gatekeeper was first coined by social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947Lewin ( , 1951. His theory of channels and gatekeepers was developed to explain the focal points of social changes in communities. Since Lewin's use of the gatekeeper concept, it has become embedded in various fields of scholarship, including political science, sociology, information science, management, and law (Clayman & Reisner, 1998;Klobas & McGill, 1995;Putterman, 2005;Suchman & Cahill, 1996;Tushman & Katz, 1980). Additionally, it has been applied to practical domains such as journalism (e.g., understanding newspaper editors as gatekeepers), health science, operations research, and technology development (e.g., understanding consultants who provide a Received May 21, 2007; revised February 7, 2008; accepted February 8, 2008 1 Salience refers to the degree to which gatekeepers give priority to competing gated claims. second opinion or function as intermediaries between clients and services) (Beckman & Mays, 1985;Metoyer-Duran, 1993;Shoemaker, 1991; Shumsky & Pinker, 2003).However, as popular as the term has become and as richly descriptive as it is, there is little agreement among the different fields on its meaning and a lack of full theoretical status. Moreover, attention to gatekeeping in the context of information and networks is even rarer (Birnhack & Elkin-Koren, 2003;Deuze, 2001;Dimitrova, Connolly-Ahern, Williams, Kaid, & Reid, 2003;Hargittai, 2000b; Singer & GonzalezValez, 2003;Zittrain, 2006). That is, there is a lack of agreement on who network gatekeepers are and what gatekeeping is; and why should it matter? The first question, depicting who are network gatekeepers and what constitutes network gatekeeping and its mechanisms, calls for a descriptive theory of network gatekeeping identification to explain disputed or undefined constructs and vocabulary. The second question, understanding why these issues should matter, calls for a normative theory of network gatekeeping salience to explain relations among gatekeepers and between gatekeepers and gated 2 to better understand network gatekeeping as it occurs. These two complementary theories constitute a full ...

Raging Against the Machine: Network Gatekeeping and Collective Action on Social Media Platforms

“…As users provide streams of posts, photos and videos, platforms rank, channel, promote, censor, and delete content, facilitating or hindering information flows (Barzilai-Nahon, 2008;Nahon & Hemsley, 2013). This power to shape content is a form of information control enacted at multiple levels and through differing mechanisms, including platform design, algorithmic curation, and active moderation of posted content.…”

“…Though they ultimately achieved only partial success in changing the policy, I was able to find that certain factors did influence the likelihood of an individual member of a campaign finding redress when their content is removed. In particular, Barzilai-Nahon's (2008) typology of networking gatekeeping salience is a good model for assessing which collective action efforts are most likely to be effective in achieving individual user goals. This indicates that the users who are already most able to harness the attention economy of social media platforms are more likely to successfully navigate the content moderation process.…”

Facebook and virtual nationhood: social media and the Arab Canadians community

“…When someone creates a public Facebook page, (s)he functions as a centralized figure who can control the information flow (vertical communication), while other users who like/follow the page do not have the same information privilege because they are non-centralized members (horizontal communication). In this way, the Facebook page creator can be a moderator of information which is directly linked to the networked gatekeeping theory introduced by Barzilai-Nahon (2008). This theory exemplifies a form of vertical communication flow.…”

Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the gatekeeping influence of newspapers’ public Facebook pages

“…Building on gatekeeping theory, we define the social media editor channel as the flow of newspaper items on Facebook that trace back to the publication of these items by the newspaper's social media editors (Barzilai-Nahon, 2008;Shoemaker and Vos, 2009). We refer to all other ways through which newspaper items enter circulation on social media (e.g.…”