臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

2010年12月開始，阿拉伯的春天已經影響了北非和阿拉伯世界裡多個國家,目前為止已造成了四個國家政權的推翻。然而，較早的實例可以回溯到摩爾多瓦和伊朗在2009年大選之後所引起的｢推特革命｣。這顯示了一個事實，也就是社群媒體與網站可以從娛樂性工具變成政治性工具和社會價值，亦或是成為在世界各地的示威者與推動者。在科技技術典範轉變的現代使得抗議活動出現了多種不同的方式，但本文的討論範圍認為在資通訊技術的發展下可能導致更多的抗議活動。更明確的說，本文將討論在現今世界各地的資訊社會背景下，社群網站在吸引新的使用者加入抗議活動上是否有所幫助或造成重創，以及它是如何引發的抗議活動。
本文的核心問題圍繞在「擴散」以及重點是如何利用資通訊技術在擴散數量上造成影響，而在人口特徵和變動的結果上影響使用資通訊技術的又是什麼。在試圖回答這些問題時將會利用次級資料與較以前的第一手資料。本研究分析的案件，主要是阿拉伯聯盟中最近發生抗議浪潮的國家，同時也包含摩爾多瓦所提供的相關數據。在本研究中，大多數的數據、報表和其他形式的數據是使用2009年到2011年之間的資料。本文結果顯示，國家的資通訊技術的發展水平與抗議擴散之間沒有任何有效的關聯性。在個人層次上，我們發現主要數據顯示，更高層次的新社群媒體的使用並不能確定抗議擴散會有比較高程度的展現。因此，社群網站的使用似乎只是增加革命消息的推動，而不是成為抗議的一種方式

Started in December 2010, the Arab Spring has impacted multiple countries in northern Africa and the Arab world and so far caused the fall of the government in four countries. However, earlier instances, such as the “Twitter Revolutions” that followed the 2009 general elections in Moldova and Iran, showed the fact that in the right hands, social media and social networking sites can go from being a tool for entertainment to a tool of political and social value and an enabler of protesters around the world.
The technological shift in paradigm happening today impacts protests in different ways, but the scope of this paper will be to consider ICT development can lead to more protests. More clearly put, the paper will discuss whether social networking sites can help or damage attracting new crowds and how it can trigger protests, in the context of the information society present today throughout the world.
The central questions of this paper revolve around diffusion and are focusing on how the use of ICT is influencing diffusion in numbers, in demographic characteristics and what are the effects of ICT use over the results of the movements. In attempting to answer these questions, several sets of secondary data will be used, but also a previous set of first hand data. The analysis cases that are subject to this research mainly consist of the Arab League nations, where the majority of the recent wave of protest happened, while also looking at Moldova and Iran, where data is available and relevant. Most of the datasets, reports and other forms of data that will be used in this research have a timeline between 2009 and 2011
Results of this paper show that ICT development levels at a national scale do not have any kind of effect on the diffusion of protest. At an individual level, we found using our primary data that a greater level of use for new social media does not determine a higher diffusion of protests among our subjects. Thus, the use of social networks seems to be a way of propelling the message of the revolution, not the protest itself.

書名頁 i
論文口試委員審定書 ii
授權書 iii
中文摘要 iv
Abstract v
Acknowledgements vi
Table of contents vii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
I. Introduction 1
1.1. Recent cases of ICT mediated protests 2
1.1.1. Moldovan Twitter Revolution - 2009 2
1.1.2.Iranian Twitter Revolution - 2009 4
1.1.3.The Arab Spring 5
1.2. Planes of analysis and research topics 8
II. Literature review 11
2.1. How is diffusion influenced by the use of ICTs? 12
2.1.1. What is diffusion 12
2.1.2. Diffusing a new type of participation 13
2.2. Are ICTs helping or hampering diffusion and attracting more protesters? 15
2.3. Did social empowerment change the demographics of new protesters? 20
2.4 Remarks 26
III. Research methodology 27
3.1. Data sources 29
3.2. A predicted model 41
IV. Results &; Findings 44
4.1 National level global dataset 44
4.2 Moldova Data 53
4.3 Other protesting data analysis 63
4.3.1 Blogger Arrests 63
4.3.2 Iranian Protests 65
4.3.3. Use of Twitter during the Arab Spring 67
V. Discussion 70
5.1 Using technology in protests 70
5.2 The Twitter Revolution 72
5.3 Limitations and future developments 77
VI. Reference list 78

1.Adams, A., Blandford, A. &; Lunt, P. (2005). Social empowerment and exclusion: a case study on digital libraries. ACM Transactions on CHI. 12:2. pp.174-200. Retrieved from: http://www.uclic.ucl.ac.uk/annb/docs/aaabplToCHIpreprint.pdf.
2.Anderson, K., Revolution in the Digital Age: Egypt’s Facebook Revolution and Internet Freedom. Digital Commons @ CalPoly, Communication Studies, 2011. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/comssp/63.
3.Atton, C. (2003). Reshaping Social Movement Media for a New Millenium. Social Movement Studies, 2: 1.pp. 3-15.
4.Bekkers, V.J.J.M. (1994) Nieuwe vormen van sturing en informatisering, Delft: Eburon
5.Bennett, D. &; Fielding, P. (1999). The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape, e-advocates Press, Merrifield, VA
6.Bennett, W. L. (2003). Communicating global activism. Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. Information,Communication &; Society, 6: 2, pp. 143–168.
7.Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
8.Boncheck, M. (1997) From Broadcast to Netcast: The Internet and the Flow of Political Information, Communication Books, Seoul.
9.Bonchek, M. S. (1995). Grassroots in cyberspace: recruiting members on the internet or do computer networks facilitate collective action? A transaction cost approach, paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 6 April 1995.
10.Boslaugh, S. (2007). Secondary Data Sources for Public Health, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
11.Boyd, D. M., &; Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.
12.Calenda, D. &; Meijer, A. (2011). Political Individualization. Information, Communication &; Society 14:5, pp 660-683.
13.Carty, V. (2010). New information communication technologies and grassroots mobilization. Information, Communication &; Society, 13: 2, 155-173.
14.Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA
15.Chang, W.Y. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media Culture Society 27: 925
16.Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 44(Supplement): S95–S120.
17.Delli Carpini M.X., Cook FL and Jacobs LR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. Annual Review of Political Science 7(1): 315–344.
18.Earl, J. (2010). The dynamics of protest-related diffusion on the web. Information, Communication &; Society, 13: 2, 209-225.
19.Ems, L. (2009). Twitter use in Iranian, Moldovan and G-20 summit protests presents new challenges for governments. Paper presented at the CHI 2010 Workshop on Microblogging, 2010. Retrieved from: https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~julia/accepted-papers/Lindsay_Ems_MBW_sub.doc
20.Fisher, D. R. &; Boekkooi, M. (2010). Mobilizing friends and strangers. Information, Communication &; Society, 13: 2, 193-208.
21.Freelon, D. G. (2011). Theorizing the MENA revolutions: Some preliminary data. Presented at the Theorizing the Web conference, College Park, MD, 9 April.
22.Frissen, P. H. A. (1999). Politics, governance, and technology: A postmodern narrative on the virtual state. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Galston, W. A.
23.Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking Politics.Cambridge University Press, New York.
24.Garrett, R. K. (2006). Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication &; Society, 9:02, pp. 202-224.
25.Hampton, K., Lee, C.J. &; Her, E.J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media &; Society. 13:7, pp. 1031-1049.
26.Hampton, K. (2011). Comparing Bonding and Bridging Ties for Democratic Engagement: Everyday Use of Communication Technologies within Social Networks for Civic and Civil Behaviors. Information, Communication &; Society 14:4, pp. 1031-1049.
27. Hampton KN, Livio O, Goulet LS. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication 60:4 pp. 701–722.
28.Hartmann, Michael, (2007): The Sociology of Elites, Oxon: Routledge
29.Healy, D. (1997). Cyberspace and Place, in Porter, D. (ed.) Internet Culture. New York: Routledge
30.Heller, K., R. Price, S. Reinharz, S. Riger &; A. Wandersman (1984) Psychology and Community Change: Challenges of the Future (2nd edn). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
31.Hofheinz, A. (2005). The Internet in the Arab World: Playground for Political Liberalization. Internationale Politik und Gesselschaft. March, 78-96.
32.Howard, P. (2008). WIAReport 2008. National Science Foundation
33.Fox, J.A. (1994). Latin America's Emerging Local Politics. UC Santa Cruz: Center for Global, International and Regional Studies. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/62d8n834.
34.Jordan, T. &; Taylor, P. A. (2004) Hacktivism and Cyberwars: Rebels with a Cause, Routledge, London
35.Kamarck, E. C., Nye, J. S. &; Visions of Governance in the 21st Century (Program) (2002). Governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age, Cambridge, MA, Washington, DC, Visions of Governance in the 21st Century; Brookings Institution Press
36.Katz, R. (1984). Empowerment and Synergy: Expanding the Community’s Healing Resources. Prevention in Human Services 3(2–3): 201–26.
37.Kavanaugh, A., Isenhour, P., Godara, J., Cooper, M. (2005) Detecting and Facilitating Deliberation at the Local Level. Online Deliberation 2005 / DIAC-2005. Retrieved from: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/2947057/detecting-and-facilitating-deliberation-at-the-local-level.
38. Kellner, D. (2004). Globalization, technopolitics and revolution, in Foran, J. (ed.), The Future of Revolution: Rethinking Radical Change in the Age of Globalization, Zed Books, New York, pp. 180–194
39.Korotayev, A.V., Zinkina, J.V. (2011). Egyptian revolution: a demographic structural analysis. Entelequia. Revista Interdisciplinar, 13, pp. 139-165.
40.Langman, L. (2005). From virtual public spheres to global justice: a critical theory of international social movements. Sociological Theory, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 42–74
41.Leung, L.; (2009). User-generated content on the internet: an examination of gratifications civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media Society 2009 11: 1327
42.Lin N, Erickson BH, eds. (2008) Social Capital: An International Research Program. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Lipsky, M. (1968). Protest as political resource. American Political Science Review, 62:1144–58.
44.Mehra, B., Merkel C., and Bishop,A.P.,: (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media Society 2004 6: 781
45.Meijer, A., Burger, N., Ebbers, W. (2009). Citizens4Citizens: Mapping Participatory Practices on the Internet. Electronic Journal of e-Government. 7:1 pp. 99-112
46.Miyata, K., Ikeda, K. &; Kobayashi, T. 2008. “The Internet, Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Gender in Japan”, ch. 10 in Lin, N. &; Erickson, B. Social Capital: An international Research Program, Oxford University Press
47.Morozov, E., (2009). Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution”. Dissent 56 (4) Fall 2009
48.Mungiu-Pippidi A., Munteanu, I. (2009). Moldova's "Twitter Revolution". Journal of Democracy – Vol. 20, (3), July, p. 138
49.Myers, D. J. (1994). Communication technology and social movements: contri- butions of computer networks to activism. Social Science Computer Review, 12:2, pp. 251–260.
50.Naughton, J. (2001). Contested space: the internet and global civil society, in H. Anheier, M. Glasius &; M. Kaldor (eds), Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 147–168.
51.Norris, P. (2000). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
52.O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from: www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228.
53.Pascu, C., Osimo, D., Ulbrich, M., Turlea, G. and Burgelman, J.C. (2007). The potential disruptive impact of Internet 2 based technologies. First Monday, 12: 3, Retrieved from: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_3/pascu/index.html.
54.Patterson , S., Kavanaugh, A. (1994). Rural Users Expectations of the Information Superhighway. Media Information Australia. 74, pp. 57-61.
55.Pillay, K, Maharaj, M. (2004). An Overview of Web 2.0 Social Media as a tool for advocacy, paper presented at the Southern African Computer Lecturers' Association conference: Scoring IT Education Goals in 2010. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, June 2010.
56.Price, V., &; Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online Deliberation and its Influence. IT and Society, 1, pp. 303- 328.
57.Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone, Simon and Schuster, New York
58.Rapoza, J. (2006). What Web 2.0 means to you. eWeek, 23:1, pp. 38.
59.Roberts, A., Ash, T.G., (2009). Civil Resistance and Power Politics. The Experience of Non-violent Action from Ghandi to the Present. Oxford University Press.
60.Schuler, D. (1996). New Community Networks: Wired for change. Addison Wesley, New York.
61.Sellen, A.J. and Harper, R.H.R. (2002). The Myth of the Paperless Office, Cambridge: MIT Press.
62.Serbanuta, C., Chao, T., Takazawa, A. ( 2009). Save the tweets so you can understand the birds. iConference 2010, Champaign, Illinois
63.Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., Jr., &; Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, pp.531–565.
64.Shapiro, J. S. (1999). Loneliness: paradox or artifact?. American Psychologist, vol. 54, pp. 782–783
65.Van Laer, Jeroen and Van Aelst, Peter(2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Information, Communication &; Society, 13: 8, 1146 — 1171
66.Wheeler, D.L. (2006). Empowering Publics: Information Technology and democratization in the Arab World – Lessons from Internet cafes and beyond. Oxford Internet Institute, Research Report No. 11, July.
67.Wilhelm, A. G. &; Ebrary Inc. (2000). Democracy in the Digital Age Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace, Routledge, New York;
68.Williams and Associates. (2011). Egyptian Public Opinion Survey April 14 – April 27, 2011. The International Republican Institute. Salem, MS
69.Zhou, X., Wellman, B., Yu, J. (2011). Egypt. The First Internet Revolt. Peace Magazine, 27:3, pp.6-10.
70.Zimmerman, M.A., Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen Participation, Perceived Control and Psychological Empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16:5, pp. 725–50.
71.Zimmerman, M.A., Israel, B.A., Schulz, A., Checkoway, B. (1992). Further Explorations in Empowerment Theory: An Empirical Analysis of Psychological Empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20:6 pp. 707–27.