Гуманитарные науки. Вестник Финансового университета

Расширенный поиск

Социальная напряженность и возможность оценки ее влияния через анализ социальных медиа

Полный текст:


Данная статья посвящена вопросу возможности анализа и мониторинга социальной напряженности в современном обществе через изучение цифровых следов пользователей социальных медиа. В рамках статьи представлены ключевые аспекты социальной напряженности, проанализированы современные достижения по использованию социальных медиа в исследовательских целях и оценены возможности их применения с учетом текущих социально- экономических условий. Кроме того, в данной работе рассмотрен подход к оценке уровня социальной напряженности при возникновении кризисной ситуации.

Об авторе

Д. А. Котов
Аналитическое агентство Vox populi; Финансовый университет

Дмитрий Алексеевич Котов — генеральный директор, аналитическое агентство Vox populi; старший преподаватель департамента социологии, Финансовый университет


Список литературы

1. Merton R.K. Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster; 1968.

2. Häusermann S. Socioeconomic inequality and the rise of populism: A political-economic approach. Swiss Political Science Review. 2018;(24):351–374.

3. Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. London: Profile books; 2012.

4. Stoker G.Why politics matters. London: Springer; 2019.

5. Cullen F.T., Wright J.P., Blevins K.R. Taking stock: The validity of self-report data in offender research. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2006.

6. Snyder D.K., Kelly J.R.Psychological costs of participation in a political campaign. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1976;(6):270–281.

7. Klandermans B.Identity politics and politicized identities: Identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political Psychology. 2014;(35):1–22.

8. Brewer M.B., Kramer R.M. The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual review of psychology. 1985;(36):219–243.

9. Gurr T.R.Why men rebel. New York: Routledge; 2011.

10. Klandermans B.The Social Psychology of Protest. Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 1997.

11. Runciman W.G.Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1966.

12. Tufekci Z. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2013.

13. Alesina A., Glaeser E.L. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

14. World Bank. Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: Reversals of fortune. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group; 2020.

15. Jungherr A., Jurgens P., Schoen H. Why the pirate party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: A response to Tumasjan A., Sprenger T.O., Sandner P.G., Welpe I.M. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Social Science Computer Review. 2012;(30):229–234.

16. Heaney M.T., Rojas H. Ethnicity, race, and nationalism in global perspective. New York: Polity Press; 2011.

17. Wilson G.K.The politics of truth and reconciliation in South Africa: legitimizing the post-apartheid state. New York: Routledge; 2016.

18. Krastev I.After Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2017.

19. Galtung J.Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research. 1990;(27):291–305.

20. Inglehart R., Norris P. Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

21. Hutchinson E., Mulvale J.P., Chaiyasit W.Climate change, conflict and health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2014;(107):222–224.

22. Mouat D.A., Lourie M.A. Disproportionate exposure to air pollution from vehicles in low-income and minority communities: A review of the relevant literature and environmental justice interventions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;(17):6286.

23. Coenders M., Lubbers M., Scheepers P. Online discussion on Twitter: How affective and deliberative threads differ. Social Science Computer Review: 2019;(37):383–399.

24. Esser F., Hanitzsch T., еds. Handbook of comparative communication research. New York: Routledge; 2012.

25. Coser L.The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1956.

26. Tufekci Z., Wilson C. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of communication. 2012;(62):363–379.

27. Tufekci Z. Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. 2014;8(1):505–514.

28. Llorente A., Garcia-Herranz M., Cebrian M., Moro E. Social media fingerprints of unemployment. PloS one. 2015;(10):1–13.

29. Bollen J., Mao H., Zeng X.Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science. 2012;(1):1–8.

30. Campbell A., Converse P.E., Rodgers W.L. The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1976.

31. Schmidt A., Harrison J. The social climate in the aftermath of the attacks in Paris: An analysis of online comments. European Journal of Communication. 2015;(30):179–196.

32. Schmidt A., Rizk R., Thies F. The refugee crisis in Europe: A text analytic approach to understanding social media reactions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2021;(47):2498–2517.

33. Craig R.T., Zhang Y., Amazeen M.A. Big data and protest: The social media pulse during Ferguson. New Media & Society. 2020;(22):1479–1499.

34. Chen Y., Zhang X. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences. 2014;(275):314–347.

35. Liu Y., Li S., Sun X. A comprehensive review of social media sentiment analysis research from 2009 to 2018. International Journal of Information Management. 2019;(49):356–364.

36. Bleiweiss A. A Hierarchical Book Representation of Word Embeddings for Effective Semantic Clustering and Search. Portugal: In ICAART; 2017.

37. Choi D., Han J., Chung T., Ahn Y.Y., Chun B.G., Kwon T.T. Characterizing conversation patterns in reddit: From the perspectives of content properties and user participation behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2015 acm on conference on online social networks. 2015;(11):233–243.

38. Conover M.D., Ferrara E., Menczer F., Flammini A.The digital evolution of Occupy Wall Street. PloS one. 2013;(8):7–41.

39. Chen W., Wang Y., Yang S., Yang J. Political action awareness in social media: A case study on the 2010 congressional election in the United States. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2012;(9):1–16.

40. Tufekci Z. Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication. 2013;(63): 363–382.

41. Drury J., Cocking C., Reicher S. Everyone for themselves? A comparative study of crowd solidarity among emergency survivors. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2009(48):487–506.


Для цитирования:

Котов Д.А. Социальная напряженность и возможность оценки ее влияния через анализ социальных медиа. Гуманитарные науки. Вестник Финансового университета. 2023;13(3):32-38.

For citation:

Kotov D.A. Social Tensions and the Possibility of Assessing their Impact Through the Analysis of Social Media. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2023;13(3):32-38. (In Russ.)

Просмотров: 46

Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2226-7867 (Print)