The original testing ground for new possibilities
A quick map to demonstrate the variety of indivdiuals Tweeting through #16Azar to 11:08 GMT. Larger spheres are the hours, smaller ones the contributers. Interestingly a large number of individuals have only been active for one or two hours, with relatively few near the middle of the map active over a longer period of time.
Quick and rough look at Tweets using #16Azar as protests continue in Tehran. Growing volume over the last week: Today (to 11am GMT) The rising volume of tweets during the day – 296 to 8174 Rising active users during the day – 85 to 261 per hour (active users counted as those who tweet in … Read More “16Azar” »
Following on from the data posted on the USC Public Diplomacy blog, a few people asked why not include #IranElection – the answer was twofold, first it had so much more traffic it would have dwarfed the others, making distinctions harder to identify. Second, the level of traffic limited the extent to which a user … Read More “What does 1.4 million tweets looks like? The #IranElection data: (update on USC Public Diplomacy blog post)” »
While the enthusiasm for using digital media to engage with individuals around the world shows little sign of abating, interestingly the enthusiasm for discussing hard data about those interactions seems to be lagging behind. While not every Public Diplomat need nor can be expected to have a detailed knowledge of vast spreadsheets with numerous columns and … Read More “Using digital media? Be serious about visualizing the data” »
Matt Armstrong a while back highlighted the issue that America.gov had more followers listing their location as in America, than they did followers from the rest of the world. I mapped the data he collected to demonstrate how the location of those followers could be broken down by region. By way of an update, here’s an … Read More “Update: mapping those following America.gov on twitter” »
Does it matter in Public Diplomacy terms if an organisation with which you partner is heavily criticised in an official report? This post continues from an earlier post on the British Council’s partnership with weapons manufacturer BAE Systems. The earlier post focused on the  considerations which must exist alongside the potential benefits of partnership in … Read More “Cautionary note on partnership in Public Diplomacy (part 2)” »
Quick look at 3D network map. This one of followers of FCO accounts on Twitter, will follow-up with further data. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzxMBl3KSZo] Understanding importance or influence within a network depends in part on perspective; both the way you look at it and what your priorities are. The ability to view the map in 3D is all … Read More “The world is 3D – why not a network map?” »
We live in a networked world. Whether known as family, kinship, tribe, village, neighbourhood, community, work place colleagues, or online social network, they are all networks in the sense of being a series of relationships between different individuals. Social network analysis (SNA) explores the relationship between actors within a network by identifying the points that … Read More “Guest post on Mountainrunner: Introduction to Using Network Maps in Public Diplomacy” »
The response by individuals using Twitter to the Iranian election provides important perspectives for the scholarship and practice of Public Diplomacy. The ability to map and analyze the interaction between Twitter accounts can provide a greater understanding of the response to a specific event, in this case the Iranian election, in a way not possible … Read More “THE IRANIAN ELECTION: FOLLOWING A CONVERSATION” »
The current vogue for conducting Public Diplomacy through ‘partnerships’ and the movement in theory on collaborative / collective action can create some difficult challenges in practice. For those who conduct Public Diplomacy in partnership with BAE Systems, the announcement that BAE Systems faces prosecution over bribery allegations, while as yet unproven, creates awkward questions. This … Read More “A cautionary note on partnership in Public Diplomacy” »