Content uploaded by Michelle Shumate
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michelle Shumate on May 11, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
The North/South Divide in NGO
Hyperlink Networks
Michelle Shumate
Department of Speech Communication
University of Illinois
Lori Dewitt
Department of Communication
Salisbury University
Globalization and communication scholars have argued that technology is transforming
the ‘‘third sector’’, the set of organizations that are not-for-profit and non-governmental
(NGOs). This research examines the local and global linkages among a hyperlink net-
work of 248 HIV/AIDS NGOs. This research examines the north/south NGO divide in
the context of these new technology-based associations. Results suggest that the north/
south divide is as great a concern in the virtual world as it is in the physical one. This
research implies that globalization theorists’ argument that communication technologies
break down economic and geographic barriers may be overstating the empirical reality.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00402.x
According the 2006 UNAIDS report, approximately 40 million people globally are
living with HIV and approximately 4.5 million contracted the virus in 2006. There
are currently 17 times more HIV cases in the global south (i.e., Africa, Asia, Latin
America, Eastern Europe) than in the global north (i.e., North America, Western
Europe, Oceania). It goes without saying that the regions most devastated by this
pandemic have the fewest internal resources to deal with it. Thus, connections
between those working in the global north to address HIV/AIDS and those organ-
izations indigenous to the global south have important implications for the global
ability to address this disease.
Case studies abound of non-profit, non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs)
use of information communication technologies (ICTs) to cross vast distances. The
Zapatista movement, an indigenous movement in Chiapas, Mexico, somewhat
famously used ICTs to alert activists in the global north of their plight and was
able to influence their government indirectly through the governments of the global
north (Castells, 1997; Ronfeldt, Arquilla, Fuller, & Fuller, 1998). In another case
study, Juris (2004) argues that the global justice movement demonstrates that
NGOs using ICTs are performing ‘‘globalization from below,’’ due to the truly
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 405
global distribution of the movement’s network. However, successful use of ICTs has
not been universal because some NGO movements have not changed the scope of
their network connections. For example, Dubash and Oppenheimer (1992) note
that the sustainable development movement in the global south has been character-
ized as local, grassroots and non-influential in international governance, while the
sustainable development movement in the global north has been characterized as
policy-centered, influential in international governance and out of touch with the
plight of the global south. As such, the global south and the global north have few
connections in the sustainable development movement. Research on the Zapatista
movement, the global justice movement and the sustainable development movement
represent three views of the way that NGO networks, facilitated by ICTs, are trans-
forming or not transforming interorganizational relationships around the globe.
The purpose of this research is to explore the way that NGO networks are
structured across the globe. In particular, we examine the role of region and the
north/south divide in shaping hyperlink networks. As such, this research will make
two contributions to the literature. This research moves current NGO research on
the north/south divide beyond the case study approach of examining a NGO or
single movement. As such, it promises to test some of the conclusions of these case
studies. Second, we examine a hypothesis posed in globalization research, namely
that Internet technology is transforming spatial relations (Castells, 1996; Rutherford,
2000). Specifically, we define transformed spatial relations as similarity in the relative
position of NGOs in the global hyperlink network irrespective of location.
This research is organized as follows: First, NGOs are defined, and the literature
surrounding their use of technology is discussed. Second, we introduce the current
literature on globalization and the transformation of spatial relations. Third, we
introduce hypotheses concerning the influence of spatial relations on the hyperlink
network. Fourth, the method, analysis and results of this study are discussed. Fifth,
the implications of this study are highlighted.
Literature Review
This research, following Khagram, Riker and Sikkink (2002), defines NGOs as ‘‘pri-
vate, voluntary, nonprofit groups whose primary aim is to influence publicly some
form of social change’’ (p. 6). The growth and increasing influence of NGOs makes
them prime subjects for study (Anheier & Themudo, 2005). The number, size, pro-
fessionalism, speed, density and complexity of transnational advocacy networks,
a type of NGO network, have grown dramatically over the past four decades (Keck
& Sikkink, 1998). Because of the growth of this sector, and because of their increasing
influence both domestically and internationally (Boli & Thomas, 1997; Khagram,
Riker, & Sikkink, 2002), these organizations and their relationships are important
areas of study for organizational communication scholars.
The use of ICTs has dramatically influenced the NGO sector. These changes
include the nature of membership (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2005), protest (Scott
406 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
& Street, 2000), media coverage (Downing, 2001), and the dispersion of membership
across space and time (Shumate & Pike, 2006). Increasingly, ICTs are providing new
ways for organizations to cooperate with one another
1
.
One important technology for NGOs is the organizational website. Rogers and
Marres (2000) and Ackland and Gibson (2004) note that NGOs frequently use
websites to promote cyberactivism, to provide information to publics and, to link
to other organizations. A NGO’s website is its virtual presence.
This research examines a network of HIV/AIDS NGO websites. HIV/AIDS NGOs
include activist, research, service, and membership organizations (Altman, 1999;
Jo
¨nsson & So
¨derholm, 1995). Despite their differences in approaches, a common
issue unites these organizations into an issue industry (see Shumate, Fulk & Monge,
2005). While these NGOs are unique in the short history of their issue and industry
(i.e. 1983 to present), the international interest and legislative bodies surrounding
that industry, and the extent of private/public funding for this issue, this sector is
similar to other NGO sectors in their use of technology and motivations for a NGO
network (Patton, 2002).
Hyperlink Networks
In June 2006, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Penn-
sylvania held the ‘‘Hyperlink Society’’ conference. The rationale for the conference
stated that hyperlinks are not only the means for connecting creative works together,
but they establish which people and ideas have the right to be heard and their ranking
in matter of importance. They assert that links have intrinsic value and serve to pri-
vilege some ideas, people, and organizations over others (The Hyperlinked Society,
2006). This deeper meaning for hyperlinks provides a justification for assessing this
connective form of communication. Websites can be viewed as unique entities and
hyperlinks as symbolic of the relationships between the entities (Ding, Zha, He,
Husbands, & Simon, 2004; Park, 2003). Hyperlinks are evidence of the interrelated
nature of a community of organizations (Ackland & Gibson, 2004; Wellman, 2001) and
these hyperlink networks are of increasing interest and importance (Thelwall, 2005).
Hyperlink networks have been characterized as the ‘‘heart’’ of the Internet, a stra-
tegic marketing tool, and a reflection of human culture (Dysart, 2002; Giuffo, 2002;
Pennock, Flake, Lawrence, Glover, & Giles, 2002). Hyperlink networks have meaning
and are fundamental elements of community creation. Foundational to the under-
standing that hyperlinks represent communities is their intentionality. These links do
not happen automatically or at random. The decision to link one organization with
another is a strategic communicative choice (Bach & Stark, 2004; Dysart, 2002;
Garrido & Halavais, 2003; Jackson, 1997; Kleinberg, Lawrence, Lawrence, Pennock,
Lawrence, Giles et al., 2001; Tremayne, 2004).
Many earlier scholars have identified communicative acts as those which hold
meaning for the receiver (Burke, 1965; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
Numerous hyperlinks into a site can establish trust (Palmer, Bailey, & Faraj, 2000)
and authority (Charkrabarti et al., 1999; Kleinberg, 1999). To link to another website
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 407
is to validate them, giving the linked organization legitimacy or endorsement
(Biermann, Golladay, Greenfield, & Baker, 1999; O’Neil & Ackland, 2006; Vreeland,
2000). Refusing or neglecting to link to another organization carries its own signif-
icant message. Rogers and Marres (2000) explain that the linking of one organization
to another and the degree to which linking is reciprocal is the way in which organ-
izations acknowledge each other.
2
Previous hyperlink research has investigated academic networks, inter-
governmental networks, and networks formed within specific countries. Thelwall
(2002, 2003) has used qualitative methods to investigate academic networks in order
to differentiate specific intentions motivating hyperlinking and to evaluate the qual-
ity of the linked sites. Park, Barnett, and Nam (2002a, 2002b) studied hyperlink
networks in Korea to determine which types of organizations have websites in the
most central positions and what factors influence user assessment of website cred-
ibility. Barnett and Sung (2005) examined the role that culture plays in the posi-
tioning of websites in international networks. A vast number of other applications
have been reviewed by Park and Thelwall (2003) and include e-commerce, social
movements, interpersonal communication as well as interorganizational and in-
ternational communication contexts. These studies have established the value of
academic inquiry into the formation, structure and meaning of hyperlink networks.
Hyperlinks play an important role in political and collective action communi-
cation. Ackland, O’Neil, Bimber, Gibson, and Ward (2006) stress those hyperlinks
‘‘help to establish the structure and boundaries of political communication on the
web’’ (p. 4). A hyperlink network serves to connect both members of the NGO issue
network and non-members to other members of the network through informal
organizing strategies. Members of this interorganizational collective are those NGOs
engaged in activities related to an issue (e.g., AIDS, human rights). Hyperlinks pro-
vide a powerful way for both members and non-members (e.g., NGOs engaged in
another issue, publics) to locate and make sense of the number of NGOs working on
an issue. Once an interorganizational hyperlink network is created, non-members
interested in an issue as well as members can navigate among organizational mem-
bers easily. Additionally, search results for hyperlinked organizations are enhanced.
For example, Google’s search algorithm uses number of links to establish the rank
order, relative importance and validity of websites (Brin & Page, 1998; Henzinger,
2001; Vreeland, 2000).
We argue that the creation of a hyperlink network is best explained by collective
action theory (Bimber, Flanigan & Stohl, 2005; Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge &
Ryan, 1996; Olson, 1965). Collective action theory poses that individuals and organ-
izations rationally contribute to public goods which they could not create alone and
which are accessible to publics. Examples of traditional public goods include public
radio, parks, and union membership (see Hardin, 1982; Knoke, 1990; Olson, 1965).
Fulk et al. (1996) and Bimber et al. (2005) extend public goods definitions to include
information and computer-mediated public goods respectively. There are two key
factors that define public goods, jointness of supply and impossibility of exclusion
408 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
(Olson, 1965). Hyperlink network meet both of these criteria. A hyperlink network is
characterized by jointness of supply, since once the hyperlink network is utilized by
one individual to search the issue network, the public good is not diminished for
others. The hyperlink network is also characterized by the impossibility of exclusion,
since as long as individuals have a computer and internet connection, the hyperlink
network is accessible to them. The purpose of this study is not to empirical verify that
hyperlink networks are a public good, as one would not empirically verify that public
radio or a park is a public good. Instead, we examine the rational nature of con-
tributions to this public good and how such contributions are influenced by spatial
relationships among NGOs.
Contributions to a hyperlink network involve not only the choice of whether to
contribute and the level of that contribution, but also to which other members to
link. In other words, a NGO’s choice to hyperlink to other NGOs involves the choice
of which other NGOs to link. Additionally, when a NGO chooses to contribute to
a hyperlink network, they contribute both the webspace they use to hyperlink to
others and the connections that they have to others.
A structural signature
3
is a term used to identify the unique pattern of contri-
butions that is predominant in a network (Contractor, 2006). As such, this study
examines the network of relationships among HIV/AIDS NGOs by comparing the
observed structural signatures in a hyperlinked network to a distribution of random
networks. The purpose of this examination is to determine if the hyperlink network
incorporates NGOs within that network in an identifiable pattern. In order to
understand these hypotheses, consider the null hypothesis that the NGO hyperlinks
occur at random. In this case, some connections between actors with various attrib-
utes are likely to occur by chance alone. By chance some NGOs will have more ties to
other NGOs and by chance some reciprocal ties among NGOs are likely. However,
this research investigates the propensity of structural signatures in the network that
occurs beyond what would occur in a network by chance alone. In each of the
hypotheses described below, a particular structural signature is hypothesized based
upon existing theory and research. While a random network would certainly have
some of these structural signatures, in each case the hypothesized relationship is
tested against a distribution of random networks to determine if the propensity of
this structural signature occurs more frequently or less frequently than would be
expected by chance alone.
In Figure 1, three networks with six nodes and six links are visualized. In the first
network on the left, the links occur at random. There are some reciprocated links.
Some actors receive more ties than others and some actors receive no ties at all.
However, all of these links are simply random chance. In contrast, the middle pane
demonstrates a network that is characterized by the reciprocity structural signature.
There are more reciprocal ties in this idealized network than would occur through
chance alone. The final network, displayed in the right pane, demonstrates what
a network that is characterized by an actor attribute-based structural signature might
look like. In this network, shaded nodes are more likely to receive ties than would
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 409
occur by chance alone and non-shaded nodes are less likely to receive ties than would
occur by chance alone. While each of these networks represent idealized networks,
they demonstrate that various networks may result through the same number of
contributions (e.g., 6 links) and the same number of actors contributing (e.g., 6
actors) to the hyperlink network. In other words, each actor’s contributions are
characterized by to whom they link.
Actor reciprocity
Actor reciprocity denotes a structural signature in which two NGO mutually link to
one another. Networks with actor reciprocity have a larger number of reciprocated
ties than would be expected by chance alone. Monge and Contractor (2003) argue
that reciprocating network relations is best explained by social exchange (Aldrich,
1982) and resource dependency (Pfeffer & Salanick, 1978) theories. In essence,
reciprocal ties are evidence that two actors seek mutual benefits by engaging in
a relation. In the case of hyperlinks, reciprocal links enhance the recognition of each
member of the dyad in search results. Reciprocal links lead publics from one NGO’s
website back to a website which recognized the NGO. While reciprocal linking causes
the NGO to bear some cost, since many non-reciprocated links can be a measure of
relative website authority in some search algorithms
4
(Kleinberg, 1999; Rogers &
Marres, 2000), such a relationship must be viewed by the NGOs involved as bene-
ficial if the reciprocity structural signature is more prevalent than by chance alone.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: There will be a greater amount of reciprocity among NGOs in the hyperlink network than
what would occur by chance alone.
Figure 1 Illustration of 3 networks with six nodes. The first network is random. The second
network demonstrates the reciprocity structural signature. The third network demonstrates
a structural signature which favors choice of the gray nodes.
410 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
Globalism, globalization and the transformation of spatial relations
One of the purposes of this research is to investigate how spatial relationships impact
the structural signatures of hyperlinks among HIV/AIDS NGOs. The relationships
among organizations and states around the globe have been the topic of social
scientific inquiry for over 50 years. In the 1950s, the realities of differences in the
development of different countries and regions around the world became apparent.
Arising from this view, modernization theory or developmentalism sought to explain
‘‘the process through which a traditional or pretechnological society passes as it is
transformed into a society characterized by machine technology, rational and secular
attitudes, and highly differentiated social structures’’ (O’Connell, 1979, p. 13). While
modernization theory represents a differentiated set of conceptual models (see Black,
1976 for an overview), two themes unite these models into a perspective. First, most
modernization theorists similarly define the characteristics of a modern state. A
modern state is democratic, has a pluralistic civic culture, has citizens who partic-
ipate in their own governance, has an economy developed so much that citizens have
leisure time, and has citizens who feel that they can affect change in their government
(Almond & Verba, 1963). Traditionally, modernization theories argue that states
must develop along a predetermined set of stages in order to become a modern state.
For example, Lerner (1958) argued that all states must pass through three stages:
urbanization, literacy and developing a participatory media. The emblematic mod-
ern state is the United Kingdom (Almond & Verba, 1963).
In response to modernization theory, two critiques developed. The first critique
was that of world systems analysis (Wallerstein, 1974). World systems analysis
critiqued modernization theory on four bases (Wallerstein, 1996b). First, modern-
ization theory assumed a general pattern of social development, in which third
world states would follow the pattern set out by first world states and would end up
as clones of first world states in the end. Second, modernization theory ignored the
processes that led third world states to their current configuration. Third, mod-
ernization theory ignored the history of the entire system or the world, including
the influences that states had on one another. Fourth, modernization theory con-
tended that economic, political and sociocultural arenas were independent and
therefore the political and sociocultural did not impact economic development
directly.
In contrast, world systems analysis (Wallersein, 1974; 1996a, 1996b, 2000a,
2000b) argued that there were not predetermined steps to development. Instead,
there were a set of relationships between states that varied over time, but became
stable around 1640 (Wallerstein, 2000a). Core countries had advantages in agricul-
tural capitalism that remained in industrial capitalism. Periphery countries devel-
oped weaker state systems and had weaker economies. Semi-periphery countries play
a larger political role than economic, ensuring the political position of the core.
Wallerstein argues capitalism has operated in the context of a world economy since
1640. In modern information societies, world systems researchers note that the same
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 411
system of core, semi-periphery and periphery countries endures with little mobility
among the three (Chase-Dunn & Grimes, 1995). For example, Barnett and Salisbury
(1996) found that the structure of the modern telecommunication network is con-
sistent with world systems theory. Thus, the logic of capitalism created the world
system and continues to stabilize the positions within it.
A second critique of modernization theory arose from globalization researchers
(Appadurai, 2001; Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1991; 2000; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt &
Perrington, 1999; Huntington, 1996). While modernization theory assumed that
the world order and modernity ended with the ‘‘modern’’ states of the 1960s,
globalization theorist argued that something new was occurring. Most argued that
the end of the cold world created a new era marked by advancing technologies, new
organizational forms, shifting responsibilities for nation-states and corporations,
and a greater connectedness among people across space and time (Stohl, 2005).
These globalization arguments were again critiqued from the perspective of world
systems analysis on many grounds including that since 1640 there had been an
interdependent global system. However, while world systems analysis provides
important critiques of both globalization research and modernization theory, it
fails to provide an alternative model. Indeed, Wallerstein (1996b) concedes that
world-systems analysis is in a slow decline, in part because it can not provide more
than a critique. In sum, he argues ‘‘world system analysis is precisely not a theory or
a mode of theorizing, but a perspective and a critique of other perspectives’’ ({32).
While world systems analysis provides a powerful check to the argument that
globalization is transforming spatial relations, it does not offer an alternative. So,
while world systems analysis provides an important critique to many of these
claims, this research will empirically investigate the claims made by globalization
researchers.
The purpose of this research is to investigate globalization researchers’ claim that
ICTs have enabled the transformation of spatial relations among NGOs. Case studies
including those surrounding the Zapatistas (Castells, 1997; Ronfeldt, Arquilla, Fuller,
& Fuller, 1998), the landmine ban movement (Rutherford, 2000) and the anti-
deforestation movement (Bendell & Murphy, 2000) have argued that the use of these
technologies have led to the transcendence of the north/south divide among NGOs.
This research extends these case studies by examining the hyperlink network among
NGOs in the global north and global south.
The majority of NGOs are based in Western Europe and North America, exclud-
ing Mexico (Boli & Thomas, 1999; Sikkink & Smith, 2002). The divide between
northern NGOs and southern NGOs has been discussed extensively over the last
decade. Scholars, utilizing resource dependency theories (Pfeffer & Salanick, 1978),
have argued that northern NGOs have greater power and access to resources than
southern NGOs. This power differential has impacted interorganizational networks
of NGOs.
Smith, Pagnucco, and Lopez (1998), in one of the few empirical investigations of
interorganizational ties between northern and southern NGOs, found that southern
412 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
human rights international NGOs were more concerned with collective interests
while northern human rights international NGOs were more concerned with indi-
vidual rights. Dubash and Oppenheimer (1992) and Ahmad (2006) argue that
northern and southern NGOs use distinctive strategies in organizing. Southern
NGOs are more likely to concentrate on local and grassroots efforts, while northern
NGOs are more likely to focus on national and international policy-making. As such,
southern NGOs are less likely to seek to represent coalitions or to form coalitions
beyond very local and grassroots organizing. Indeed, Nelson (2002) suggests that
northern and southern NGOs have only formed mutual partnerships after consider-
able pressure from international governance organizations, like the World Bank.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: Northern NGOs are more likely to hyperlink to other northern NGOs than by chance
alone.
NN
NN
H3: Southern NGOs are less likely to hyperlink to other southern NGOs than by chance alone.
SS
SS
Table 1 Descriptive statistics by region
Region Number
of Nodes
Indegree
Centrality
Outdegree
Centrality
Africa 25 96 (M= 3.84) 117 (M= 4.68)
Asia 10 30 (M= 3.00) 52 (M= 5.20)
Australia/N. Zealand,
Pacific Islands
15 66 (M= 4.40) 89 (M= 5.93)
Eastern Europe 8 32 (M= 4.00) 68 (M= 8.50)
Middle East 3 4 (M= 1.33) 15 (M= 5.00)
North America 89 895 (M= 10.06) 642 (M= 7.21)
South and Central America,
Mexico and the Caribbean
17 53 (M= 3.12) 108 (M= 6.35)
Western Europe 78 435 (M= 5.58) 523 (M= 6.71)
Missing 3 29 (M= 9.67) 26 (M= 8.67)
Total 248 1640 (M= 6.61) 1640 (M= 6.61)
Northern 182 1396 (M= 7.67) 1254 (M= 6.89)
Southern 63 215 (M= 3.41) 360 (M= 5.71)
Density = 0.027
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 413
H4: Northern NGOs are more likely to hyperlink to southern NGOs than by chance alone.
NS
NS
H5: Southern NGOs are less likely to hyperlink to northern NGOs than by chance alone.
SN
SN
Combined, these hypotheses suggest that contributions to the NGO hyperlink
network are more likely to be made by northern NGOs than southern NGOs.
Inter-regional NGO ties
Keck and Sikkink (1998) argue that national and regional differences in networks are
important. They contend that such differences are often obscured by the north/south
divide debate. Indeed, Shumate, Fulk and Monge (2005) found that common region
predicted alliances between HIV/AIDS International NGOs. In similar fashion, we
expect that common region may predict the pattern of hyperlink ties among
a broader group of HIV/AIDS NGOs. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Table 2 Summary of ERGM results and hypothesis tests
Structural Signature Description of
Structural Signature
ML Estimate
(SE)
Hypothesis
Supported?
Arc The likelihood of one NGO of
have a hyperlink tie to another NGO
23.65 (0.02) NA
Reciprocity The likelihood that two NGOs
will hyperlink to each other.
1.92 (0.11) Yes
Northern to Northern The likelihood that a northern
NGO will have a hyperlink tie
to another northern NGO.
0.17 (0.04) Yes
Southern to Southern The likelihood that a southern
NGO will have a hyperlink tie
to another southern NGO.
20.10 (0.03) Yes
Northern to Southern The likelihood that a northern
NGO will have a hyperlink tie
to a southern NGO.
0.24 (0.03) Yes
Southern to Northern The likelihood that a southern
NGO will have a hyperlink tie
to a northern NGO.
20.38 (0.03) Yes
Same Region The likelihood that a NGO will
have a hyperlink tie to another
NGO in their same region.
0.04 (0.07) No
414 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
H6: NGOs will be more likely to form hyperlinks to other NGOs in their same region than
would occur by chance alone
and
etc.
Asia Asia
W.
Europe
W.
Europe
Method
Sample
This study utilized a 1-network sampling method (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). First,
the authors obtained a list of all organizations from the 2003 volume of the Yearbook
of International Organizations (Union of International Associations, 2003) whose
aims and descriptions included HIV, AIDS or SIDA
5
. This yielded a total of 71
organizations with valid websites (89% had a valid website). Then, two research
assistants independently used Google ‘‘links to’’ to identify all the organizations that
linked to these 71 HIV/AIDS international NGOs. Each of these websites was exam-
ined and all HIV/AIDS related organizational names and websites were recorded.
This yielded a total of 248 HIV/AIDS NGO websites. These organizations were
located in every region.
Procedures
This research used a combination of webcrawler data and researcher coded data.
During the fall of 2005, the researchers used a webbot called SOCSCIbot to crawl the
websites of the 248 domains. SOCSCIbot 3 crawls up to 5000 websites per domain
and records all hyperlinks (Thelwall, 2004).
In addition to the webcrawler data, three graduate students and the primary
investigator recorded the region of each of the 248 HIV/AIDS NGOs. Alta Vista’s
Babelfish (AltaVista, 2006) was utilized to translate pages from unfamiliar languages.
In cases where such a translation was unsuccessful or the author could not determine
the origin of the websites, the data was indicated as missing (n= 3).
Measures
Region
Utilizing the coding scheme established by Smith (1997), eight regions
were recorded. These were Africa, Asia, Middle East, Australia/N. Zealand/Pacific
Islands, Europe (West), Europe (East), North America (excluding Mexico), South
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 415
and Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The sample was unevenly distrib-
uted across these regions. There were more HIV/AIDS NGOs in the sample located
in North America (n= 89, 35.9%) and Western Europe (n= 78, 31.5%), than in
Africa (n= 25, 10.1%), Asia (n= 10, 4.0%), the Middle East (n= 3, 1.2%), Australia/
N. Zealand, Pacific Islands (n= 15, 6.0%), Eastern Europe (n= 8, 3.2%), and South
and Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean (n= 17, 6.9%). There were 3
(1.2%) HIV/AIDS NGOs for whom region could not be identified. This data was
recorded as missing.
Northern/Southern NGOs
Northern NGOs were identified as HIV/AIDS NGOs headquartered in North Amer-
ica (excluding Mexico), Western Europe and Australia/N. Zealand, Pacific Islands.
Southern NGOs were identified as HIV/AIDS NGOs headquartered in any other
region. As expected based upon previous research (Sikkink & Smith, 2002), there
were more northern NGOs (n= 182, 73.4%) than southern NGOs (n= 63, 25.4%).
Analysis
First, descriptive statistics were created to provide an overview of the data. These
descriptive statistics included the indegree centrality distribution, or the distribution
of the number of hyperlinks received by each NGO, and the outdegree centrality
distribution, or the distribution of the number of hyperlinks from each NGO.
Additionally, the density, or the ratio of observed hyperlinks to possible hyperlinks
(i.e. the number of hyperlinks that would result if every website in the sample were
connected to every other website in the sample), is reported.
In order to test the hypotheses, this study used Exponential Random Graph
Modeling using Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood Estimates (Robins, Pattison,
Kalish, & Lusher, 2007). This method, like Pseudo-likelihood p* modeling (Con-
tractor, Wasserman & Faust, 2006; Monge & Contractor, 2003; Palazzolo, 2005),
examines the probability of certain structural signatures, or subgraphs, within the
larger network. The basis of the analysis is to determine if the structural signatures
occur more often than by chance alone by simulating a distribution of random
networks of the same size as the observed network. Then the prevalence of the
hypothesized structural signature observed is compared to the distribution of the
hypothesized structural signatures of the simulated networks. Like in multiple
regression analysis, multiple structural signatures can be estimated simultaneously
and shared variance can be removed. The benefit of this technique is that it most
closely suits the interdependency of network observations and has been shown to
produce more reliable estimates than Pseudo-likelihood p* modeling. We used
PNET (Wang, Robins, & Pattison, 2006) to perform this analysis.
For the purposes of hypothesis testing, we created an exponential random graph
model that included all the hypothesized structural signatures and the arc structural
signature. The arc structural signature examines the probability that an actor will link
to another actor. In sparse networks, the arc structural signature is used as a control
416 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
variable for the sparcity of network ties. The model was estimated until all the
parameters converged, indicated by a tvalue of less than 0.1 for each parameter
(Snijders, Pattison, Robins & Handcock, 2006). In this application, the t–statistic is
equivalent to:
t = observed mean- sample mean/ standard deviation
For hypotheses 1, 2, 4 and 6, the hypothesis was supported if the maximum likeli-
hood was positive and greater than twice the magnitude of the standard error. The
distribution of these network statistics is unknown. Network statistics, unlike para-
metric statistics, are not generally normally distributed and are not independent.
However, as a guide for researchers who may not be familiar with these statistical
techniques, it may be helpful to consider that if the network statistics were normally
distributed, an estimate that was twice the magnitude of the standard error would
approximate p ,0.05 (see Snijders et al., 2006). For hypotheses 3 and 5, the hypoth-
esis was supported if the maximum likelihood estimate was negative and greater than
twice the magnitude of the standard error.
Results
This research examines both the distribution of contributions and the prevalence of
structural signatures within the hyperlink network. First, descriptive statistical anal-
ysis about indegree and outdegree centrality of hyperlinks was conducted (see
table 1). The average indegree and outdegree centrality for an in the network was
6.61. The average indegree centrality for northern NGOs was 7.67, while the average
indegree centrality for southern NGOs was 3.41. The average outdegree centrality for
northern NGOs was 6.89 and the average outdegree centrality for a southern NGO
was 5.71. Figure 2 displays the distribution of indegree and outdegree centrality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43
Degree Centrality
Number of Nodes
Indegree Centrality
Outdegree Centrality
4
Figure 2 Indegree and outdegree centrality distribution of HIV/AIDS NGO websites
hyperlinks
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 417
scores for the NGOs in the network. As can be seen in the figure, the distribution of
both indegree and outdegree centrality resembled a reverse-J shaped distribution.
Few NGOs reported a high number of hyperlink ties to other NGOs or from other
NGOs in the sample. The overall density of the network was 0.027, indicating a sparse
network of ties among the websites in comparison to the potential number of hyper-
links that could be present. Variations among NGOs are examined during hypothesis
testing.
Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be a greater number of reciprocal ties
among NGOs in the hyperlink network than would be expected by chance alone.
This hypothesis was supported (ML Estimate = 1.92, SE = 0.11). This means that
the HIV/AIDS hyperlink network was characterized by the reciprocity structural
signature.
Hypotheses 2 through 5 addressed the structural signatures of contributions
among northern and southern NGOs. Hypothesis 2 stated that northern NGOs
would be more likely to link to other northern NGOs than by chance alone. This
hypothesis was supported (ML Estimate = 0.17, SE = 0.04). Hypothesis 3 stated that
southern NGOs would be less likely to link to other southern NGOs than by chance
alone. This hypothesis was supported (ML Estimate = -0.10, SE = 0.03). Hypothesis 4
stated that northern NGOs would be more likely to hyperlink to southern NGOs
than by chance alone. This hypothesis was also supported (ML Estimate = 0.24, SE =
0.03). Finally, hypothesis 5 stated that southern NGOs would be less likely to hyper-
link to northern NGOs than by chance alone. This hypothesis was supported (ML
Estimate = -0.38, SE = 0.03). In combination, these results confirm that Northern
NGOs were more likely to hyperlink to other NGOs than by chance alone and that
Southern NGOs were less likely to hyperlink to other NGOs than by chance alone.
Hypothesis 6 stated that NGOs would be more likely to hyperlink to other NGOs
in their same region than would occur by chance alone. This hypothesis was not
supported (ML Estimate = 0.04, SE = 0.07). This means that NGOs were not more
likely to have hyperlinks within the same region than would occur by chance alone
taking into account the other factors within the model.
Discussion
The purpose of this research is to explore structural signatures within the NGO
hyperlink network. The outdegree centrality distribution indicated that levels of
contribution to the hyperlink network (i.e. inclusion of hyperlinks to other NGOs)
varied. Additionally, the indegree centrality distributions revealed that a few organ-
izations received a large number of hyperlinks and most organizations received very
few hyperlinks. Upon examining the structural signatures within the hyperlink net-
work, three results emerged. First, we found that the reciprocity structural signature
occurred more frequently than would be expected by chance alone. Additionally, we
found that northern NGOs contributed more to the hyperlink network than would be
expected by chance alone and that southern NGOs contributed less to the hyperlink
418 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
network than would be expected by chance alone. Finally, we failed to find support for
the within region structural signature. Each of these results is discussed in turn.
First, this research found that the NGO hyperlink network had more reciprocal
ties than were likely to occur by chance alone. Monge and Contractor (2003) argue
that reciprocal relationships are evidence that resource/social exchange influence the
pattern of relationships. This means that NGOs are aware of which organizations
hyperlink to them and are more likely than by chance to reciprocate. Such reciprocity
supports the argument that to hyperlink is a strategic communication choice
(Jackson, 1997).
Additionally, these results demonstrate that, despite the enthusiasm of some
globalization researchers (for example see Castells, 1997; Juris, 2004; Rutherford,
2000), hyperlink networks are shaped by the north/south divide. Similar to work
done by Boli and Thomas (1999), Smith (1997) and Castells (1997), we found the
majority of HIV/AIDS NGOs in our sample were from the global north. Addition-
ally, we found that these NGOs were more likely than by chance alone to form ties
with other NGOs from the global north. Drawing from Rogers and Marres (2000),
we note that such a pattern reinforces the legitimacy of northern NGOs, drawing
these NGOs toward the center of the issue network. In contrast, southern NGOs were
less likely than by chance alone to link to other southern NGOs. Furthermore,
northern NGOs were more likely than by chance alone to link to southern NGOs,
although the tendency was reversed from southern to northern NGOs. Consistent
with Smith, Pagnucco, and Lopez (1998), this research finds that northern NGOs are
more likely to link to NGOs internationally.
Results indicating that northern NGOs were more likely than by chance alone
to contribute to the hyperlink network and that southern NGOs were less likely
than by chance alone to contribute to the hyperlink network support Dubash and
Oppenheimers (1992) and Ahmad’s (2006) argument that northern and southern
NGOs have distinctive strategies. In general, they argue that southern NGOs are
more likely to concentrate on local and grassroots efforts, while northern NGOs
are more likely to focus on national and international policy-making. As such,
southern NGOs are less likely to seek to represent coalitions. Specifically, southern
NGOs were less likely to form relationships beyond those with very local and grass-
roots NGOs, unlikely to be represented in hyperlinks. In contrast, northern NGOs
are more actively seeking to create a hyperlink network that raises the visibility of
their issue to national and international policy makers. Thus, there may be greater
incentives for northern NGOs to make investments in a hyperlink network, while
southern NGOs may not be motivated by similar incentives. The prevalence of
language differences, education level, resource level and cultural differences are
alternatives that may also contribute to differences in hyperlinking behavior in the
global south and global north (Barnett & Sung, 2006).
Finally, while we included region as one measure of the complexity that might
exist beyond the north/south divide, as argued by Keck and Sikkink (1998), we found
that the north/south divide played the most significant role. There was not support
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 419
for the hypothesis that there would be a relationship between hyperlinking and being
in the same region. These findings are contrary to those of Shumate, Fulk and
Monge’s (2005) study of alliances among HIV/AIDS NGOs. We believe there are
at least three possible explanations for the lack of support for this hypothesis. First,
Shumate, Fulk and Monge examined formal alliances between organizations while
we examined hyperlinks. Hyperlinks do not denote formal cooperative relationships.
As such, these ties may be governed by different theoretical mechanisms. Second,
Shumate, Fulk and Monge utilized a different network analysis technique which may
yield different results. They used multiple regression quadratic assignment procedure
to examine the relationships between attributes and networks, while this study used
exponential random graph modeling. As they acknowledge in their paper, multiple
regression quadratic assignment procedure is less than ideal, and we fulfill their call
for future research to use more advanced network methods as they have become
available. Finally, Shumate, Fulk and Monge did not consider the north/south divide
in their research. It may be that the north/south divide also plays an important role
in formal alliances, but that is beyond the scope of the current research.
Implications
This research sought to test the assertion that ICTs are breaking down the global
north/south divide. We argued that hyperlink networks are a public good and that
contributing to the hyperlink network is a form of collective action that is marked by
structural signatures. The results of this research suggest that contributions to the
hyperlink network reflect a) strategic choice in which participants are aware of whom
hyperlinks to them and b) a tendency for the global north contribute to the hyperlink
network more than the global south.
When considering the problem of global AIDS (Patton, 2002; UNAIDS, 2006),
the pattern of relationships online between HIV/AIDS NGOs is disconcerting. AIDS
is a global problem that crosses borders and whose impact in the global south is
especially acute. Relationships among NGOs, indicated in part by hyperlink relation-
ships, represent one organizational structure that may be part of a larger solution
including the participation of businesses, governments and social institutions. If
northern NGOs, as suggested by Dubash and Oppenheimers (1992) and Ahmad
(2006), are primarily concerned with framing the problem and advancing policy
solutions, then southern NGOs failure to contribute to a public good with these
NGOs is troublesome. As Justice (1987) showed, policymaking by donor agencies
and international health coalitions that does not have substantial input from recip-
ients can lead to poor implementation outcomes. So, this leads us to consider the
question, why are there more likely to be ties from NGOs in the global north to the
global south than by chance alone but not visa versa?
There are at least two competing explanations. First, modernization theory
would suggest that southern NGOs are part of a less developed civic culture (Almond
& Verba, 1963). As such, they are less likely to participate in collective actions
420 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
because these organizations have not developed to the extent where such action
would be valued. Given enough time, resources, and support from northern NGOs,
southern NGOs will ‘‘catch-up’’.
But as with modernization theory’s broader claims, world systems analysis
(Wallerstein, 1974; 1996a) seems to suggest that this is a short-sighted view. The
current divides that exist between northern and southern NGOs have historical
causes. Southern HIV/AIDS NGOs have not always been treated as partners by
northern NGOs. For example, in the 1990s many northern HIV/AIDS NGOs
attempted to form the International Coalition of AIDS Service Organizations with
the assumed participation and without the consent of the African AIDS service
organizations (Gorenker, Coate, Jo
¨nsson & So
¨derholm, 1995; Shumate, Fulk &
Monge, 2005). Until 2003, the largest funding for African AIDS programs came
from the United States Agency for International Developments and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation (Berry, 2007), instead of multilateral organizations or
local agencies. This funding arrangement is another indicator of such dependence.
Thus, historical dependencies may explain why southern NGOs do not hyperlink to
either the northern NGO who hyperlink to them or to one another.
Some researchers have suggested that the good cause, sheer will and lowering
costs of ICTs will make northern and southern NGO collective action more likely
(for example see Bray, 2000). However, such technologies do little to overcome
historical divides. As long a system of dependency exists between those in the global
north and those in the global south, which according to world systems analysis is the
inevitable consequence of capitalism (Wallerstein, 2000a), a divide between northern
and southern NGOs is likely despite technological innovations. As long as the divide
exists, it is the responsibility of northern NGOs to seek to understand and incorpo-
rate views from the perspective of those in the global south when influencing public
policy.
Limitations and Future Research
Four limitations must be acknowledged in this study. First, the websites that were
examined were all from organizations concerned with HIV/AIDS. It can be theo-
rized, but not known, that the hyperlink networks of organizations involved in other
issues would display the same tendencies. Future research should investigate the
hyperlink networks focusing on other social issues. Second additional factors such
as NGO size, scope of activity, dominant language and resources may provide pos-
sible explanations for the global network. Future research should examine these
possibilities. Third, this research uses a 1-network sampling strategy (Wasserman
& Faust, 1994) to determine which NGOs to include in the network starting from
a sample of HIV/AIDS international NGOs. A 1-network sampling strategy takes
a core network and then includes all nodes that are linked to the nodes within the
core network in the sample. Other sampling strategies may have yielded different
results. Future research should compare these results with networks gathered
through alternative methods. Finally consistent with previous research on NGOs
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 421
(Boli & Thomas, 1999; Smith, 1997), we categorized NGOs based upon the region in
which they are headquartered. However, as noted both by Keck and Sikkink (1998)
and some scholars engaging in world systems analysis (see Chase-Dunn & Hall, 1997
for a discussion), national differences within world region may play an even more
important role. Additionally, the location of NGOs in global cities verses less urban
environments may play an additional role in the network configuration of NGOs
(see Knox, 1995; Sassen, 2001). Future research should examine these alternatives.
Finally, Nelson (2002) contends that cooperation between northern and south-
ern NGOs is unlikely without pressure from intergovernmental organizations, like
the World Bank or UNAIDS. As such, it is up to governmental organizations to
regulate the practices of NGOs in order to reap the benefits of these transnational
networks. Future research should investigate the role that intergovernmental organ-
izations play in hyperlink networks.
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to explore the structural signatures of contributions
to NGO hyperlink networks. This research made two contributions to the literature.
First, this research confirms some of the results of previous case study research on the
north/south divide. Second, this research challenges the globalization hypothesis that
ICTs are eliminating the north/south divide. Instead, we demonstrate that hyperlink
behavior reinforces some of the same tendencies that existed before the advent and
cost reduction of internet technologies.
This research examines one type of interorganizational communication relation-
ship. This research implies that interorganizational communication is shaped by
both the desire to improve the visibility of issue networks and the influences of
NGO location. Although many issues are of great concern on a global scale, the
collective action to bring awareness, service, and policy change concerning these
issues is shaped by historical global divides. This finding should be of concern to
both academics and policy-makers.
This research has affirmed the vast and troubling discrepancy between northern
and southern HIV/AIDS NGOs. It goes without saying that the regions most dev-
astated by this pandemic have the least internal resources deal with it. It is important
that academic inquiry examines these social inequities and provides validation for
future programs and policies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tom Hollihan, Ed Palazzolo, Kevin Real and Noshir
Contractor for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We
extend special posthumous thanks to Roger Silverstone for his comments on a draft
of this manuscript. In addition, the authors would like to thank Justin Lipp and Vijay
Dandumudi for their work in data collection. This manuscript was previously
422 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
presented at the 2006 International Communication Association Conference in
Dresden, Germany.
Notes
1 We acknowledge that internet access is not available to all NGOs. See Wilson (2004) for
a discussion of the global digital divide.
2 Rogers and Marres (2000) note that the context of hyperlinks influences there meaning.
For example, some blogs link to other blogs with which they disagree. However, due to
the context of HIV/AIDS NGO websites, hyperlinks are viewed a positive, legitimacy
creating recognition.
3 Structural signature is a new term that is currently being used among social network
analysis scholars to describe the unique patterns prevalent in the network. Previous
terms include network parameters (Monge & Contractor, 2003) and network structures
(Palazzolo, 2005). While the term is used to describe these unique patterns, the meaning
here is synonymous with other terms.
4 Non-reciprocated links enhance the authority weight in Kleinberg’s (1999)’s algorithm
relative to others in the community by not contributing to other websites’ authority
weight. A website that is linked to by many hubs (defined as a website that links to many
authorities), is an authority. If authority ‘‘A’’ links to other authorities ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’,it
contributes its hub weight to the authority weight of ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’. Thus, everyone
benefits by increasing their authority weight. In contrast, if the links from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘B’’
and ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘C’’ are non-reciprocal, then ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’ will gain higher authority weights
than ‘‘A’’, because ‘‘A’s’’ hub weight will increase ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’s’’ authority weight but
not visa versa. Thus, those websites who do not reciprocate links may receive some
relative benefit in search results that they would lose by reciprocating the links.
5Sı
´ndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida
References
Ackland, R. & Gibson, R. (2004). Mapping political party networks on the WWW. Paper
presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, 14–15 April 2004,
University of Melbourne.
Ackland, R., O’Neil, M., Bimber, B., Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2006). New methods for studying
online environmental-activist networks. Paper presented at the 26
th
Annual International
Sunbelt Social Network Conference, 24–30 April, Vancouver.
Ahmad, M. M. (2006). The NGO debate in ‘development’. In M. C. Behera (Ed.), Globalising
rural development: Competing paradigms and emerging realities (pp. 183–208). New Dehli:
Sage.
Aldrich, H. (1982). The origins and persistence of social networks: A comment. In P. Marsden
& N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 281–293). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1965). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five
nations. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Altavista (2006). Altavista Babelfish [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://
babelfish.altavista.com/
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 423
Altman, D. (1999). Globalization, political economy, and HIV/AIDS. Theory and Society,
28, 559–584.
Anheier, H. K., & Themudo, N. (2005). Governance and management of international
membership organization. The Brown Journal of World Affairs,11, 185–198.
Appadurai, A. (2001). Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bach, J., & Stark, D. (2004). Link, search, interact: The co-evolution of NGOs and interactive
technology. Theory, Culture, & Society,21(3), 101–117.
Barnett, G. A. & Salisbury, J. G. T. (1996). Communication and globalization: A longitudinal
analysis of the international telecommunications network. Journal of World Systems
Research,2(16), 1–17.
Barnett, G. A., & Sung, E. (2005). Culture and the structure of the international hyperlink
network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,11, 217–238.
Bendell, J., & Murphy, D. (2000). Planting the seeds of change: Business-NGO relations on
tropical deforestation. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms of endearment: Business, NGOs and
sustainable development (pp. 65–78). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf publishing.
Berry, S. (2007). Funding the fight against AIDS. West Sussex, UK, AVERT. Retrieved on July
11, 2007 from http://www.avert.org/aidsmoney.htm
Biermann, J. S., Golladay, G. J., Greenfield, M. L., & Baker, L. H. (1999). Evaluation of cancer
information of the Internet. Cancer,86, 381–390.
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the
contemporary media environment. Communication Theory,15, 365–388.
Black, C. E. (Ed.). (1976). Comparative modernization: A reader. New York: Free Press
Boli,J.&Thomas,G.M.(1997).Worldcultureintheworldpolity:Acenturyof
international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review,62,
171–190.
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1999). INGOs and the organization of world culture. In J. Boli &
G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental
organizations since 1875 (pp. 13–49). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bray, J. (2000). Web wars: NGOs, companies and governments in an Internet-connected
world. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms of endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable
development (pp. 49–64). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf publishing.
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large scale hypertextual Web search engine.
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems,30, 107–117.
Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and change (2
nd
ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill
Company.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Chakrabarti, S., Dom, B., Kumar, S. R., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Tomkins, et al. (1999).
Hypersearching the Web. Scientific American,280(6), 54–58.
Chase-Dunn, C. & Grimes, P. (1995) World systems analysis. Annual Review of Sociology,21,
387–417.
Chase-Dunn, C., & Hall, T. (1997). Rise and demise: Comparing world-systems. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Contractor, N. (June 29, 2006). Keynote address: From Disasters to WoW: Enabling
Communities with Cyberinfrastructure at the 2
nd
International e-Social Science
Conference, Manchester, UK.
424 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing multitheoretical, multilevel
hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical
example. The Academy of Management Review,31, 681–703.
Ding, C. H., Zha, H., He, X., Husbands, P. & Simon, H. D. (2004). Link analysis: Hubs and
authorities on the World Wide Web. SIAM Review,46, 256–268.
Downing, J. D. H. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dubash, N. K., & Oppenheimer, M. (1992). Modifying the mandate of existing institutions:
NGOs. In I. M. Mintzer (Ed.), Confronting climate change: Implications and responses
(pp. 265–279). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.
Dysart, J. (2002). Making the most of promotional links. Public Relations Tactics,
9(11), 21.
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and
communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory,
6, 60–87.
Garrido, M. & Halavais, A. (2003). Mapping networks of support for the Zapatista
Movement: Applying social-network analysis to study contemporary social movements.
In M. McCaughey & M. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and
practice (pp. 165–184). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giuffo, J. (2002). The web: Unlock those links. Columbia Journalism Review,41,9.
Gordenker, L., Coate, R. A., Jo
¨nsson, C., & So
¨derholm, P. (1995). International cooperation in
response to AIDS. New York: Pinter.
Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,
economics, and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Henzinger, M. R. (2001). Hyperlink analysis for the web. IEEE,5, 45–50.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Jackson, M. (1997). Assessing the structure of communication on the World Wide Web.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication,3(1), article 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
vol3/issue1/jackson.html
Jo
¨nsson, C., & So
¨derholm, P. (1995). IGO-NGO relations and HIV/AIDS: Innovation or
stalemate. Third World Quarterly,16, 459–476.
Juris, J. S. (2004). Networked social movements: Global movements for global justice. In
M. Castells (Ed.), The network society: A cross cultural perspective (pp. 341–362).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Justice, J. (1987). The bureaucratic context of international health: A social scientist’s view.
Social Science & Medicine,25, 1301–1306.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Khagram, S., Riker, J. V. & Sikkink, K. (2002). From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational
advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker & K. Sikkink
(Eds.). Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms
(pp. 3–22) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 425
Kleinberg, J. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM,
46(5), 604–632.
Kleinberg, J., Lawrence, S., Lawrence, S., Pennock, D., Lawrence, S., Giles, C. L., et al. 2001).
The structure of the web, SAINT,291, 5–14.
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Knox, P. (1995). World cities in a world-system. In P. Knox & P. Taylor (Eds.), World cities in
a world-system (pp. 3–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. Glencoe, Ill:
Free Press.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nelson, P. (2002). Agendas, accountability, and legitimacy among transnational networks
lobbying the World Bank. In S. Khagram, J. Riker & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world
politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 131–154). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
O’Connell, J. (1976). The concept of modernization. In C. E. Black (Ed.), Comparative
modernization: A reader (pp. 13–24). New York: Free Press.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Neil, M. & Ackland, R. (2006). The structural role of nanotechnology-opposition in online
environmental-activist networks. Paper presented to 26th International Sunbelt Social
Network Conference, 24–30 April, Vancouver.
Palazzolo, E. T. (2005). Organizing for information retrieval in transactive memory systems.
Communication Research,32, 726–761.
Palmer, J., Bailey, J., & Faraj, S. (2000). The role of intermediaries in the development of trust
on the WWW: The use and prominence of trusted third parties and privacy statements.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,5(3), article 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
vol5/issue3/palmer.html
Park, H. W. (2003). Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social
structure on the web. Connections,25, 49–61.
Park, H. W., Barnett, G. A. & Nam, I. Y. (2002a). Hyperlink-affiliation network structure of
top websites: Examining affiliates with hyperlinks in Korea. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology,53(7), 592–601.
Park,H.W.,Barnett,G.A.&Nam,I.Y.(2002b).Internationalhyperlinknetworks
among websites in South Korea. Network and Communication Studies,16(3-4),
155–174.
Park, H. W., & Thelwall, M. (2003). Hyperlink Analyses of the World Wide Web: A review.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,8(4), article 7. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/
vol8/issue4/park.html
Patton, C. (2002). Globalizing AIDS. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Pennock, D. M., Flake, G. W., Lawrence, S., Glover, E. J., & Giles, C. L. (2002) Winners
don’t take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web. Proceeding of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(8), 5207–5211.
Retrieved December 10, 2006 from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.032085699.
426 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
Pfeffer, J. & Salanick, R. (1978). The external control of organization: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper Row.
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, D., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to
exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks,29,
173–191.
Rogers, R., & Marres, N. (2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for
understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public
Understanding Science,9, 141–163.
Ronfeldt, D., Arquilla, J., Fuller, G. E., & Fuller, M. (1998). The Zapatista social netwar in
Mexico. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rutherford, K. (2000). The landmine ban and NGOs: The role of communication
technologies. Transnational Associations,2, 60–73.
Sassen, D. S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo: Princeton University Press.
Scott, A., & Street, J. (2000). From media politics to e-protest. Information, Communication,
and Society,3, 215–240.
Shumate, M., Fulk, J. & Monge, P. R. (2005). Predictors of the international HIV/AIDS INGO
network over time. Human Communication Research,31, 482–510.
Shumate, M., & Pike, J. (2006). Trouble in a geographically distributed virtual network
organization: Organizing tensions in continental direct action network. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication,11, 802–824.
Sikkink, K. & Smith, J. (2002). Infrastructures for change: Transnational organizations,
1953-1993. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world politics:
Transnational social movements, networks and norms (pp. 24–44). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, J. (1997). Characteristics of the modern transnational social movement sector. In
J. Smith, C. Chatfield & R. Pagnucco (Eds.), Transnational social movements and global
politics: Solidarity beyond the state (pp. 42–58). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Smith, J., Pagnucco, R. & Lopez, G. A. (1998). Globalizing human rights: The world of the
transnational human rights NGOs in the 1990s. Human Rights Quarterly,20, 379–412.
Snijders, T. A. B., Pattison, P. E., Robins, G. L., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). New specifications
for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology,36, 99–153.
Stohl, C. (2005). Globalization theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational communication theory & research (pp. 223–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Hyperlinked Society (2006). Conference homepage. Retrieved December 10, 2006 from
http://hyperlinkedsociety.asc.upenn.edu
Thewall, M. (2002). The top 100 linked pages on UK university web sites: High inlink counts
are not usually directly associated with quality scholarly content. Journal of Information
Science,28, 483–491.
Thelwall, M. (2003). What is this link doing here? Beginning a fine-grained process of
identifying reasons for academic hyperlink creation. Information Research,8(3), article 1.
http://informationr.net/ir/8-3/paper151.html
Thelwall, M. (2004). SocSciBot3 [Computer software]. Retrieved from: http://
socscibot.wlv.ac.uk/
Thelwall, M. (2005). Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical
framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
57, 60–68.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association 427
Tremayne, M. (2004). The web of context: Applying network theory to the use of hyperlinks
in journalism on the web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,81, 237–253.
UNAIDS. (2006). AIDS epidemic update 2006. Geneva: UNAIDS.
Union of International Associations. (2003). Yearbook of International Organizations.
Brussels: Union of International Associations.
Vreeland, R. (2000). Law libraries in cyberspace: A citation analysis of World Wide Web sites.
Law Library Journal 92, 49–56.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system I. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1996a). The global possibilities, 1990-2025. In T. K. Hopkins & I. Wallerstein
(Eds.), The age of transition: Trajectory of the world system 1945-2025 (pp. 226–243).
London: Zed Book.
Wallerstein, I. (1996b). The rise and future demise of world-systems analysis. Paper presented at
the 91
st
Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 16, New York.
Wallerstein, I. (2000a). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for
comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History,14, 387–415.
Wallerstein, I. (2000b). World-systems analysis. In The essential Wallerstein (pp. 71–103).
New York: The New Press.
Wang, P., Robins, G., & Pattison, P. (2006). PNET: Program for the simulation and
estimation of p* exponential random graph models. Melbourne: University of
Melbourne.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watzlawick, P., Beavins, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication.
New York: Norton.
Wellman, B. (2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science,293, 2031–2034.
Wilson, E. J. (2004). The information revolution and developing countries. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
About the Authors
Michelle Shumate is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her research explores social networks
within and between organizations, especially focusing on interorganizational com-
munication networks among NGOs.
Address: Department of Communication, 244 Lincoln Hall, MC-456, 702 South
Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801
Lori DeWitt is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication &
Theater Arts at Salisbury University. Her research examines the transmission and
reception of ideological messages and their role in the formation of social identity.
Address: Department of Communication & Theater Arts, 1101 Camden Avenue,
Salisbury, MD 21801
428 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (2008) 405–428 ª2008 International Communication Association
