Digital technology and voice: How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization

Abstract

Digital technologies, and the affordances they provide, can shape institutional processes in significant ways. In the last decade, social media and other digital platforms have redefined civic engagement by enabling new ways of connecting, collaborating, and mobilizing. In this article, we examine how technological affordances can both enable and hinder institutional processes through visibilization-which we define as the enactment of technological features to foreground and give voice to particular perspectives and discourses while silencing others. We study such dynamics by examining #SchauHin, an activist campaign initiated in Germany to shine a spotlight on experiences of daily racism. Our findings show how actors and counter-actors differentially leveraged the technological features of two digital platforms to shape the campaign. Our study has implications for understanding the role of digital technologies in institutional processes as well as the interplay between affordances and visibility in efforts to deinstitutionalize discriminatory practices and institutions.

Full text

1
Digital technology and voice:
How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization
Ali Aslan Gümüsay
University of Hamburg and Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society Berlin
Mia Raynard
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business
Oana Albu
Department of Management, Communication and Society, Copenhagen Business School
Michael Etter
King’s Business School, King’s College London
Department of Management, Communication and Society, Copenhagen Business School
Thomas Roulet
Judge Business School & Girton College, University of Cambridge
Abstract: Digital technologies, and the affordances they provide, can shape institutional
processes in significant ways. In the last decade, social media and other digital platforms
have redefined civic engagement by enabling new ways of connecting, collaborating, and
mobilizing. In this article, we examine how technological affordances can both enable and
hinder institutional processes through visibilization—which we define as the enactment of
technological features to foreground and give voice to particular perspectives and discourses
while silencing others. We study such dynamics by examining #SchauHin, an activist
campaign initiated in Germany to shine a spotlight on experiences of daily racism. Our
findings show how actors and counter-actors differentially leveraged the technological
features of two digital platforms to shape the campaign. Our study has implications for
understanding the role of digital technologies in institutional processes as well as the
interplay between affordances and visibility in efforts to deinstitutionalize discriminatory
practices and institutions.
Keywords: Affordances, Digital technology, Institutional theory, Platforms, Social media,
Social movements, Visibility
Accepted Version forthcoming as
Gümüsay, A. A., Raynard, M., Albu, O., Etter, M. Roulet, M. (2022). Digital technology and
voice: How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization. In Gegenhuber et
al. (eds), Institutional perspectives on digital transformation: Research in the Sociology of
Organizations. Emerald.

2
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, large protests against ethnic violence have erupted around the
world—particularly in the United States, where the death of Black Americans including
George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have unleashed a flood of criticism and civil unrest.
Amidst the escalating anger and calls of “No justice, no peace,” social injustice and racial
divisions have taken center stage. What the expansive scope and momentum of movements
such as #BlackLivesMatter have taught us is that digital technologies—and particularly
social media—are changing the face of politics and activism (Ouellette & Banet-Weiser,
2018). Individuals, organizations, and activist groups are increasingly taking to social media
and other digital platforms to raise awareness of systemic racism and to call for the
deinstitutionalization of this deeply ingrained problem (Gantt Shafer, 2017; Matamoros-
Fernández, 2017).
Digital platforms are online, on-demand systems that have the potential to harness
and create large scalable networks of users and resources (Castells, 1998). By providing
expansive and immediate connectivity (van Dijck, 2013), digital platforms have become
sites of interaction, debate, and conflict that represent a heterogeneity of “norms, values,
expectations, and concerns” (Etter et al., 2018, p. 61). Disparate communities—each with
their own interests and agendas—are able to come together and engage in various forms of
co-creation, ranging from spontaneous (Albu & Etter, 2016) to more orchestrated iterations
(Etter & Vestergaard, 2015; Gegenhuber & Naderer, 2019). Such new ways of connecting,
collaborating, and mobilizing (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; Vaast & Kaganer, 2013)
have facilitated an aggregation of “voices” in ways that can significantly shape institutional
processes (Etter et al., 2019; Roulet, 2020; Scheidgen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020). As
certain voices are aggregated, they are foregrounded and made visible—while others are
pushed to the background, potentially becoming unseen and unvoiced (Hudson et al., 2015).

3
Thus, the act of making something visible involves an interplay between discursive
openness and discursive closure, because the struggle to promote a particular view of reality
often has the effect of subordinating equally plausible ones (Clemente & Roulet, 2015;
Deetz, 1992; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004).
Our interest in this article is to explore the implications of digital technologies for
voice, visibility, and institutions. Specifically, we aim to understand how technology can
enable and hinder institutional processes through visibilization—which we define as the
enactment of technological features to foreground and give voice to particular perspectives,
positions, and discourses while silencing or subordinating others. We do so by examining
the emergence of #SchauHin, a campaign in Germany that sought to bring daily experiences
of systemic racism into the public sphere. Drawing upon multiple data sources and first-
hand accounts from those involved in the campaign, we unpack the various ways in which
users effected visibilization and influenced the development of the campaign and its goal of
contributing to the deinstitutionalization of systemic racism. By showing how users
differentially used and appropriated technological features to open and close discourses, this
study aims to advance research at the intersection of technology and institutional theory in
two ways.
First, it contributes to a relational understanding of technology by emphasizing its
affordances, i.e., “the action possibilities and opportunities that emerge from actors
engaging with technologies” (Faraj & Azad, 2012, p. 238). Digital platforms create
opportunities to mobilize power and collective action, not through their “objective” features
but through their ability to enable expansive, immediate connectivity and the distributed
creation and dissemination of content and knowledge (van Dijck, 2013). In our case,
initiators and supporters of the campaign engaged in a discursive struggle with “counter-
actors” who sought to disrupt mobilization—with each side enacting platform properties in

4
radically different ways. By showing how this struggle played out, our study extends
understandings of “affordances-in-practice” (Costa, 2018) and shows how users “reconcile
their own goals with the materiality of a technology” (Leonardi, 2011, p. 154).
Second, the study sheds further light on how technology can influence institutional
processes (Hinings et al., 2018) by zooming in on a specific affordance of technology:
visibility. Visibility is conceptualized as a “root-affordance” on which other affordances are
built (Treem et al., 2020, p. 45; cf. also Flyverbom et al., 2016). Our case builds on this
conceptualization by examining how platform features are activated by different sets of
actors. Specifically, we show how activation can, on the one hand, generate visibility by
opening up discourses about daily racism; and, on the other, obscure visibility through the
manipulation of content and sowing confusion (Etter & Albu, 2020; Treem et al., 2020). In
addition, we show how digital platforms have their own “enactment” properties—as the
algorithms and hidden information architectures embedded in digital platforms (Hansen &
Flyverbom, 2015) can curate and make some knowledge, behaviors, and preferences visible
and others less so. Thus, visibility, as an affordance, has both relational and strategic
qualities that are enacted in the process of “seeing and being seen” (Brighenti, 2007, p.
325). Our case illuminates these qualities and their implications for enabling or hindering
reflection and the critique of intangible aspects of institutions––in our case, systemic
racism.
On a practical level, our article demonstrates how digital technologies—and
platforms in particular—have fundamentally altered civic engagement. Not only do these
platforms have the potential to amplify and silence voices (Clemente & Roulet, 2015; Etter &
Albu, 2020), they can also facilitate or hinder reflection on and action towards taken-for-
granted practices and arrangements.

5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Institutional Processes, Visibility, and Digital Platforms
It can be argued that the emergence, change, and decline of institutions requires
institutionalized practices and arrangements to be made visible (Clemente & Roulet, 2015;
Washington & Ventresca, 2004). Studies of institutional emergence, for example, have
shown that increasing visibility of the limits or general failings of present institutional
arrangements can lead to a mobilization of power and collective action by “champions of
new practices and forms” (Schneiberg & Lounsbury, 2017, p. 284; see also Hoffman, 1999;
Rodner et al., 2020; Zietsma et al., 2017). As practices become habits and objectively
accepted by the masses, they become visible, and in other terms identifiable (Tolbert &
Zucker, 1999). Such visibility has also been shown to trigger processes of
deinstitutionalization—notably by prompting reflexivity and (re-)examination of taken-for-
granted arrangements and social practices (Dacin & Dacin, 2008; Maguire & Hardy, 2009;
Seo & Creed, 2002).
While visibility can enhance the salience of certain practices, voices, and meanings
that are manifested in institutional arrangements (Clemente & Roulet, 2015), it may also
subordinate or divert attention away from others. This subordination of alternative ways of
“doing” or “being” often contributes to processes of institutional maintenance because the
voices of marginalized actors are suppressed or pushed into obscurity (Hudson et al., 2015;
Mair & Martí, 2009). In this way, visibility and obscurity represent two sides of the same
coin—with both shaping institutional processes in significant ways.
Within institutional scholarship, the concept of visibility is often only implicitly
acknowledged – in part because institutional arrangements are understood to be supported by
intangible sets of beliefs and values (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) or by discursive productions
that are not necessarily accessible to or consumable by all parties (Phillips & Oswick, 2012).

6
Many foundational pillars of institutional arrangements are taken for granted, which makes
their very nature invisible, even for those who enact them. Recently, however, studies have
begun to emphasize visible material manifestations of institutions as “part of the way in
which social processes and organizations are enacted and stabilized” (Monteiro & Nicolini,
2015, p. 61). Practices typically have, for example, a material aspect (Jones et al., 2013) that
makes them visible to others (Boxenbaum et al., 2018) and, further, makes an actor’s
engagement with an institution visible and the monitoring of practice diffusion possible
(Chandler & Hwang, 2015). Another stream of related research has shown how actors make
their beliefs and values “seen” by voicing them (Cornelissen et al., 2015). Together, these
streams of research suggest that actors’ discursive productions are a reflection of their
interaction with institutions (Meyer et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020); and that through
reflexive interactions, audiences may become aware of the structures underpinning
institutions (Gray et al., 2015; Raynard et al., 2020).
Whereas the visibility of practices, voices, and meanings has traditionally been
limited by the “spatial and temporal properties of the here and now,” the development of
information technologies has brought “a new form of visibility” (Thompson, 2005, p. 35). By
enabling expansive connectivity, decentralized content creation, and distributed content
aggregation, social media and other digital platforms have opened up opportunities for a
wider range of actors to affect institutional processes (Etter et al., 2018). Marginalized actors,
for example, are able to leverage diverse media to air grievances and raise awareness of
endemic problems and social injustices (Harmon, 2019; Toubiana & Zietsma, 2017). Thus,
whereas visibility and voice had previously been understood as a privilege of the large and
powerful—i.e., those with high status, positions of authority, or control over important and
extensive resources (Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Roulet, 2020), social media has leveled the
playing field to some extent (Etter et al., 2018, 2019; Seidel et al., 2020). In particular, digital

7
media platforms have provided an influential “podium” for marginalized actors (Wright et
al., 2020), while making large and powerful actors more vulnerable to intensive and
widespread scrutiny (Daudigeos et al., 2020; den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). In this sense,
institutional arrangements may be more easily challenged or maintained, even by marginal
actors.
Another important change brought on by social media is that it has increased the
velocity of content dissemination by enhancing the speed and direction of communication
(Castelló et al., 2016; Etter et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). Hidden practices and events can
be made public, often instantaneously or with very short time lags (Thompson, 2005). An
illustrative example can be seen in how social media has enabled widespread exposure of
police violence against Black people, thereby generating awareness and triggering collective
mobilization (Ramsden, 2020). The increased velocity of content dissemination has, thus,
helped overcome temporal and spatial distance by enabling direct engagement with
communities who would otherwise have remained difficult to reach through traditional
channels (Breuer et al., 2015; Heavey et al., 2020).
As a result of this change in scope and velocity, social media discourses have become
increasingly intrusive, unwieldly, and hard to control (Altheide, 2013; Wang et al., 2020).
Indeed, the fluid and diffuse nature of social media communities make the control of content
and exposure highly challenging (Etter et al., 2019; Roulet, 2020). As Heavey and colleagues
(2020, p. 1494) point out, “because communication boundaries are porous on social media,
messages targeted at one audience may spillover to others and have a raft of unintended
consequences.” Thus, while digital platforms can help actors open up discourses in ways that
can mobilize collective action and tackle problematic aspects of institutions (Albu & Etter,
2016; Thompson, 2005), they can also lead to discursive closure, both intentionally and
unintentionally (Etter & Albu, 2020).

8
In the next section, we build upon the above-presented insights on visibility and
institutional processes, situating them within an affordance-based perspective on technology.
We then pull together insights from these different areas of research to develop the concept of
visibilization.
Technological Affordances and Visibilization
The widespread adoption of digital platforms for organizing has raised compelling questions
about the ways in which these technologies affect processes of coordination and collaboration
(Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019; Gegenhuber & Naderer, 2019; Leonardi, 2014; Leonardi &
Vaast, 2017; Madsen, 2016; Seidel et al., 2020; Treem & Leonardi, 2013). The visibility
afforded by digital platforms is commonly assumed to facilitate the transmission of
information. However, recent studies also suggest that such visibility may have negative
implications, as it paradoxically generates closure through information overload (Chen &
Wei, 2019) and algorithmic distortion (Etter & Albu, 2020). It is thus important to elucidate
how visibilization gives voice to particular perspectives, positions, and discourses while
silencing or subordinating others. This is particularly important in order to further unpack the
dark side of, or the negative social consequences associated with, digitalization (Trittin-
Ulbrich et al., 2021).
To gain a richer understanding that takes nuanced forms of visibility into account, we
adopt an affordance perspective that pays particular attention to socio-materiality (Leonardi,
2012). From such a standpoint, it is the interplay or imbrication (Leonardi et al., 2013) of the
separate but interacting actors—be they social (i.e., users) or material (i.e., digital
platforms)—that facilitates the opening and closure of discourses. The material features of
technologies (e.g., deleting, adding, or sharing functions) enable particular ways of creating
and diminishing the visibility of discourses. At the same time, social actors or users—having
different intentions and capabilities—can affect visibility in ways that open up or close down

9
discourses. For example, through their use of these technologies, social actors can coordinate
activities, persuade public opinion, or disturb collective action through negative, anti-social,
thrill-seeking behavior (Cook et al., 2018). Thus, it is the relational interplay between
features and contextual use that gives visibility to voices.
Recently, scholars have highlighted that visibility should also be understood from the
receiver’s perspective, namely for whom content becomes (in-)visible (Treem et al., 2020).
Indeed, some communication is only visible to a small in-group or to actors who inhabit a
semi-public sphere; while being invisible to many others. For social movements and activists,
these questions are important, as content can be targeted at small or even hidden groups for
reasons of coordination (Albu, 2019; Uldam & Kaun, 2018); or it can be targeted at larger
audiences with the aim of mobilization (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Again, it is the
interplay between features and contextual use that shapes the different forms of visibility and
closure.
Furthermore, scholars have highlighted the mediating role of algorithms as central to
the forms of visibility and opaqueness specific to digital platforms (Milan, 2015). Algorithms
can be understood as “sets of coded instructions” (Dijck & Poell, 2013, p. 5) or “formalized
rules embedded in technological artifacts” (Coretti & Pica, 2018, p. 73) that have an
“entangled, complex, and dynamic agency” (Glaser et al., 2021, p. 2) given the co-
constitution of technological features and social practices. Algorithms impact what becomes
visible as much as what becomes invisible on social media (Hansen & Flyverbom, 2015).
They do so by performing “sorting, filtering, and ranking functions” (Neumayer & Rossi,
2016, p. 4) that steer attention and interactions (Dijck & Poell, 2013), or over-represent
certain forms of interaction and devalue others (Bucher, 2012; Gillespie, 2014; Rieder, 2012).
Research has shown that algorithms may work against users’ aims of making certain
discourses visible (Poell & van Dijck, 2015) while closing others (Etter & Albu, 2020;

10
Uldam & Kaun, 2018). Indeed, organizations that run social media platforms are often profit-
oriented and have designed algorithms to provide visibility to certain content with the goal of
increasing user engagement for purposes of data collection and advertising (Gillespie, 2014).
Overall, then, we understand the visibilization process as one accomplished by the
interplay of openness and closure. This emerges from the interaction of specific digital
platform features (e.g., Twitter hashtags powered by algorithms, wiki open pages, etc.) and
human actors’ contextual intentions and use (e.g., the democratic participation and freedom
of speech promoted by activists). Visibilization, in other words, is accomplished by human
and non-human actors (Latour, 1996)—including the underlying algorithmic and
informational architectures of digital platforms (e.g., trending hashtags, newsfeeds). This
affordance-based perspective sensitizes scholars to the interplay between the materiality of
technology and users’ varying intentions, the combination of which can enhance or obscure
the visibility of practices, voices, and meanings that underpin institutional arrangements.
METHODOLOGY
Research Context
The features of particular technologies, combined with their contextual use, create diverse
forms of (in-)visibility. To better understand these patterns, we traced the emergence of the
#SchauHin campaign in Germany which sought to raise awareness of systemic racism in
everyday interactions. As the campaign touched upon the highly debated issue of racism in
German society, it attracted the attention of counter-actors, who sought to preempt and hinder
its development. We selected the #SchauHin campaign as a paradigmatic case study
(Flyvbjerg, 2006), which provides a window into understanding technological affordances
and their potential role in institutional processes. The nature and development of the
campaign, in particular, provided an opportunity to examine how digital platforms generate
both visibility and closure for different discourses. We focused on a 16-month period from

11
September 2013 until December 2014—however, we continued to observe the case and
collect data until June 2020. The idea for the campaign was initially discussed on Twitter,
and then moved to Titanpad—a digital, real-time collaborative text editing and writing
platform that existed from 2010 to 2017. Although Titanpad facilitated a deeper engagement
and development of ideas amongst organizers and supporters, counter-actors soon gained
access and began disrupting development efforts. In response to this disruption, the campaign
moved, again, back to Twitter – which, as a micro-blogging and social network platform,
offered a very different set of technological features than Titanpad.
Due to the fact that the campaign moved across different digital platforms, and
because groups of users appropriated the same technological features in divergent ways,
#SchauHin provides an illuminating case in which to study how technology shapes
institutional processes. For our purposes, it is an ideal context for understanding visibilization
and how the appropriation of platform features can create discursive openness and closure.
Data Sources
This study draws on both internal and external data sources of the campaign. We were given
access to #SchauHin organizers’ internal documents and data files, which included internal
memos, strategy documents, and email exchanges. This data amounted to over 2,000 pages of
visuals and text. We also examined data from the Titanpad platform and took screenshots at
various points in time. Additionally, we examined the #SchauHin and #SchauHin2 Twitter
profiles, manually screening 800 tweets with the hashtag #SchauHin. To supplement this
data, we collected an additional 18 media articles and 14 videos that covered the campaign.
Data Analysis
To understand how the different groups of users utilized technological features to influence
the campaign with its goal of drawing attention to systemic racism, we employed a

12
qualitative analytic approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). As our case could be classified
as a digital social movement, we were initially interested in how the digital nature of the
social movement impacted organizing and mobilization. However, the emergence of counter-
actors that sought to disrupt #SchauHin alerted us to the struggle over visibility; and the
potential role that digital platforms may play in shaping this visibility. As we collected
further data, and as the #SchauHin campaign progressed, we identified commonalities and
differences in how users were enacting various technological features. These patterns
prompted us to reflect upon how the features of Titanpad and Twitter impacted the struggle
over establishing #SchauHin—and, how they affected to the campaign’s broader goal of
raising awareness of systemic racism.
To organize our data and emerging insights, we structured key events along a
chronological timeline. We, then, examined the content generated on Titanpad and Twitter,
mapping it onto the timeline to get a better understanding of how the campaign developed,
and the actors involved. We also drew on internal documents and media reports to help make
sense of the activities and struggles that unfolded.
Once we were confident that we had identified and understood how different platform
features and their enactment enabled or hindered the development of the campaign, we
sought to gain a deeper understanding of how and why. Our coding and discussions
converged upon the importance of visibility, specifically in terms of the perspectives,
opinions, and content that supported the campaign, and those that detracted or diverted
attention away from it. We noted four features, in particular, that actors engaged with to
generate or obscure visibility. These included the adding/editing/deleting of content, the use
of hashtags, the creation of profiles, and the trending topic algorithm. While the nature and
levels of visibility can be somewhat idiosyncratic to the platforms, we focused on broader

13
indications of visibility such as the volume of interactions, as manifested in discussions,
tweets, likes, profile follows, as well as the trending of messages. We then examined how
visibility shaped discursive openness and closure by foregrounding particular perspectives
and positions, while silencing or subordinating others.
FINDINGS
The emergence and development of #SchauHin was marked by an ongoing struggle between
the supporters of the campaign and counter-actors who actively tried to prevent and disrupt
mobilization efforts. Central to this struggle was the visibility of communicated content—an
affordance that was differentially appropriated by users to enable, facilitate, or hinder the
development of the campaign. As supporters tried to generate visibility and open up
discourse around daily racism, counter-actors sought to hinder such efforts by obscuring
content and enacting discursive closure. Below, we begin with a short overview of how the
campaign started. We, then, describe how four digital platform features were differentially
used by each group of actors to accomplish divergent aims. We highlight, in particular, how
the interplay between different technological features and their contextual use shaped the
struggle around visibility and invisibility.
Initiating the Campaign
The idea for the #SchauHin campaign emerged during a conference at the Friedrich Ebert
Foundation in Berlin on September 2, 2013. Activists, bloggers, and journalists came
together to discuss topics such as blogging about sexism and racism, the role of the mass
media, and the differences between the mass media, social media, and the blogosphere. One
central theme that repeatedly emerged was the lack of visibility of stories and experiences
from people confronting racism. One panelist suggested creating a hashtag to start a
conversation and allow people to share their experiences of daily racism:

14
“Can I make a suggestion first? The issue is racism and sexism. This is actually the
ultimate opportunity, where these different blogospheres on the internet have possibly
just come together, where probably people from both areas and even more are watching
the livestream. Maybe in the livestream you can discuss what kind of hashtag could be
used for everyday racism as a topic. And ‘everyday racism’ is too long, so something
shorter please.”
Panel discussion “Rassismus & Sexismus ab_bloggen” (blog_away racism
and sexism),
Conference participants took up this call and began enlisting people to help find an
appropriate and catchy name for the hashtag, which could be used to draw attention to
systemic racism in day-to-day encounters:
Looking for a hashtag for everyday racism. Got ideas? #abbloggen
— (@laprintemps) September 2, 2013
The @kuebra is looking for a Twitter hashtag to flag up everyday racism. Any ideas?
#abbloggen — (@LaviniaSt) September 2, 2013
Within four days after the conference, people had tweeted multiple suggestions including
#MeinSchland (MyGermany), #keinRassistaber (notaRacistbut) und #rausschrei (outcry).
Below are a few examples of how people engaged in the call to find a hashtag:
@hanhaiwen @kuebra #meinschland and #rausschrei are the ones I like best.
#keinRassistaber is also good, but a bit too long.
— (@Sassyheng) September 6, 2013
The #-everyday racism suggestions included: #allrass #DeinRassismus
#zumausderHautfahren #AFD #keinRassistaber. What do you think of #meinschland?
— (@kuebra) 6 Sep 2013
As more and more people began participating in the search for a hashtag, organizers made the
decision to move the conversation to the open platform Titanpad. As a web editor, Titanpad
provided a way to make views and information visible through written exchange. This
effectively enabled more in-depth discussions and engagement. Organizers announced the
switch to Titanpad in a tweet:

15
The search for a hashtag for everyday racism in Germany continues. Here:
http://t.co/Fd4vFdB5a3 Ideas?
— (@kuebra) September 6, 2013
The move to Titanpad marked the beginning of the planning phase of the campaign, as
organizers sought to generate visibility for it and open up discourse. Once the planning phase
was complete, the organizers launched the campaign by moving to Twitter. Each of these two
platforms provided different technological features, which were differentially used by
supporters and counter-actors. Table 1 provides an overview of the technological features and
summarizes how they were activated to accomplish divergent ends.
=== Please insert Table 1 around here ===
Feature 1: Adding, Editing, and Deleting Content
The Titanpad platform allowed users to add, edit, and delete content—however, this feature
could be used for fundamentally different purposes. Whereas organizers and supporters used
it to generate visibility for the campaign and its goal of ending systemic racism, counter-
actors used it to hinder such efforts. Specifically, the adding, editing, and deleting features of
Titanpad were used, on the one hand, to aggregate ideas and voices—generating visibility for
the outcomes of such collaborative efforts. Yet, on the other hand, they were also used to
distort and alter content in ways that created confusion and obscured visibility.
Generating visibility and discursive openness. Because the Titanpad link could be shared
openly, it created an opportunity for people to join the conversation. Anyone with the link
could comment, add suggestions, and edit or delete content. With the move to Titanpad, there
were more coordinated efforts to come up with a hashtag. Several additional hashtags were
proposed and discussed—e.g., #auf180, #SchauHin, #jederfremd, or #rausschrei. After each
proposed hashtag, users were free to add comments and respond to others’ comments. Below
is an example of one such exchange that took place on September 6, 2013:

16
“auf180+1” is an interesting suggestion, I think! [editorial note: in German “auf180” means that a
person is at 180 (degrees), i.e., boiling, furious.] Short, succinct, symbolizes the anger, the rage
associated with everyday racism. +1! thanks, just occurred to me because I often feel that way about
this topic. Ilikealot!+1 +1 is about the anger you feel? I think that is connected to it, but it shouldn't be
in the foreground. It's more about the injustice that is connected to racism --> injustice? Auf180 shows
a reaction, a feeling — this includes the injustice, the grief and all that, but it is the result, not the
cause? Well, it is not absolutely necessary for the hashtag to describe the cause, is it? It is quite
powerful when the hashtag symbolizes: This happens every damn day, this is reality, this makes us sad,
angry — and: This is unfair. Schaut hin — open your eyes. Apropos: #Schauhin would also be a good
suggestion :) You save two characters with Auf180 to describe the incident compared to Schauhin The
only problem: It doesn’t mention racism but still good, I find it somehow ‘more exciting’ > why are
you at 180? > read on, eye-opener
I would prefer #Schauhin
1
, because it contains a request to open your eyes. I find that great! +1 even
better if we had something with activity #TuWasDagegen [editorial note: do something about it] is
quite long Schauhin is concise, short and not a direct attack but pointing out. great! +1 oh well, I also
think Schauhin is great! active! challenging! and it makes the problem so clear, because people always
just close their eyes when it comes to everyday racism. and “just open your eyes” is something I often
use in the context of racism/sexism! Yes, SchauHin is actually not that bad. I’m torn between #Auf180
and #SchauHin#Auf180 would mean anger and means that you don’t want to accept it. A little
resistance. A little more aggressive.
#SchauHin I like even better.
- abblocken. inspired by the event “abbloggen,” because the aufschrei hashtag [editorial note:
#outcry, referring to sexism] doesn't mean that it’s about sexism and was quite clear. +1
- Rausschrei - pro: Strong +contra: Too close to Aufschrei /Another thought: The combination of the
R of racism + Aufschrei) is too close to the “raus” (out) in “Ausländer raus” (foreigners out), right, I
did not consciously realize that. scratch scratch
-Maybe search for Reinschrei completely independent of aufschrei? Otherwise the trolls will come
immediately and it will be the same discussion as with other words, wouldn't it be? Trolls will come
anyway, but the connection to aufschrei is not obvious to me, does not have to be here, definitely
attracts them faster...my concern is that the hashtag dies right at the beginning (it doesn't last long
enough because of aufschrei. sorry)s
- Diversity perhaps? As a challenge to the understanding of integration as assimilation?
As the above exchange illustrates, there were lively debates about the pros and cons of
different terms and their potential to be adopted by others to generate visibility for the
campaign. After the discussion, the organizers decided to conduct a vote on the hashtag
names proposed. Users were instructed to vote by typing a “+1” after the suggested hashtag
that they liked most. The proposed hashtag #SchauHin received the most votes and was
therefore selected as the name for the campaign. An excerpt from September 6, 2013 shows
the call for votes, and the report of the final results:
1
Schau hin translates literally to “look there” or more colloquially to “open your eyes”

17
“Dear all,
Collect hashtag suggestions for everyday racism here, evaluate, and decide quickly :)
If “scratch” is written THREE TIMES after a word, then we drop it.
I’ll copy favorites to the top, less discussed ones to the bottom.
Deadline: 3.45 PM (German time). Otherwise things will get out of hand :) Soo, we have enough suggestions now.
I’ll list the top suggestions (you are welcome to help me) and with a +1 you can mark your agreement (no
comments, the comments can be inserted below):
The voting ends at 3.55 (4 PM is tooo late):
- Abblocken +1+1
- Rausschrei +1
- Auf180 +1+1+1+1+1 +1+1+1+1+1
- AllRass +1+1+1+1
- SchauHin +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
- Rassismus247+1
- Tagesrassismus+1“
Obscuring content and facilitating discursive closure. When the discussion on Titanpad
moved to the subject of when the hashtag should be launched, trolls gained access and began
hindering coordination by adding off-topic content as well as nonsensical, derogatory or
antagonistic comments (spam). The following is one example of such trolling content—
which involved making racist, antisemitic and sexist remarks:
“penis hahan :DDDDDDDDDD
hello where isd the acction against natzis? xDD :DDDDDDDDDDDDD
t. Spurdo Spöhnke
snibeda snab :DDDDDDDD9gag army was here
:DDDD
fug :D:D:D:D:D
What is this about?
xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Everyday racism is nicecreated by Jews. You have to know!
I have enough books here.
+My name is Renate Kracht-Böning, I was always waiting for Krautchannel, PENIS VAGINAL-STEEP LOL. I am
13 and would like to have intercourse with Overageguys (HOOKERS KIDS KNOWN NOTHING OF MY SEXUAL
COMPLIMENASd
Heil Lucke!
NAZIS here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTue3jEaOKEasd
SAW
SAW
SAW
SAW
SAW
SAW
SAW
SAWd“

18
These trolls were counter-actors, in that they participated by creating confusion and diverting
attention to drown out or silence voices. Such destructive activities were afforded by the open
editing function of the Titanpad platform. The organizers of the campaign tried to manage
trolls by deleting their content, warning users, and re-focusing the discussion. Figure 1
provides a screenshot of such efforts, showing a highlighted section with the comment: “Nazi
propaganda was deleted here” (added rounded rectangle 1). However, this was later followed
by additional derogatory and insulting comments.
=== Please insert Figure 1 around here ===
The right side of Figure 1 shows a chat in which organizers and supporters openly discussed
how to manage trolls (added rounded rectangle 2). One user asked whether “Everyone can
delete everything that OTHERS are writing?” (added rounded rectangle 3) and received an
affirmative response—thus illustrating how Titanpad’s features for adding, editing, and
deleting afforded discursive closure and silencing.
In light of the challenges of managing trolls and the difficulty of agreeing upon a
launch date for the hashtag, some users suggested to just go ahead—as the timing was not
that important. Organizers agreed with the suggestion and launched the hashtag on Twitter
without waiting for the final results of the vote.
Feature 2: Hashtagging
The Twitter feature of hashtagging enables users to categorize content and conversations
under a linguistic marker. This feature effected visibilization in very different ways. On the
one hand, it was appropriated by supporters to increase the visibility of racist norms, beliefs,
and practices—which could now be grouped and amalgamated under the hashtag #SchauHin.
On the other hand, it was appropriated by counter-actors to obscure visibility through the

19
misappropriation of the hashtag in an attempt to redirect content and silence anti-racist
discourse (i.e., discursive closure).
Generating visibility and discursive openness. The hashtag #SchauHin was publicized on
Twitter in early September 2013, along with a call for people to share their experiences of
racism in their daily lives:
And the hashtag for (or rather against) everyday racism saw the light of day at 3.55 PM:
#SchauHin. - http://t.co/Fd4vFdB5a3
— (@kuebra) September 6, 2013
The hashtag was immediately picked up, as users began to share their experiences of micro-
racism in day-to-day encounters. Table 2 provides examples of some of the experiences that
were shared in the tweets. Users tweeted about a variety of personal experiences—be they in
the workplace, schools, or universities, or during encounters with strangers, government
agencies, or real estate agents—making visible the systemic nature of these various acts. By
providing an umbrella term and a way to bring together and amalgamate content, the hashtag
opened the discourse and provided supporters an opportunity to amplify the visibility of daily
racism.
=== Please insert Table 2 around here ===
Obscuring content and facilitating discursive closure. Similar to what happened on
Titanpad, counter-actors engaged in disruptive efforts to hinder the campaign and its goal of
drawing attention to systemic racism. Counter-actors misappropriated the hashtag, using it in
association with racist tweets and content. In the organizers’ internal documents and in media
reports, these were referred to as attempts to “hijack the hashtag” (e.g., Meissner, 2014). For
instance, in a news article about far-right extremism and social media, Nasman (2015) notes:

20
“Well, it seems far-right groups have begun hijacking hashtags and overwhelming the
discussion with far-right views. Take the anti-racism hashtag #schauhin, for example.”
Oftentimes, the subversive nature of counter-actors’ tweets were not immediately obvious.
For example, they were often ambiguous or phrased in a similar style as the tweets from
#SchauHin supporters—pointing out, for example, seemingly negative experiences, personal
restrictions, and changes that the tweets’ authors opposed:
“I’m not allowed to see the hair of the headscarf girls. #schauhin”;
“I can’t get my kebab with pork. #schauhin”;
“Haribo is now also available in Halal! #schauhin”;
“I feel marginalized as an NPD voter. #schauhin.”
2
By tweeting content that was irrelevant, belittling, and antagonistic to the overarching
purpose of the campaign, counter-actors distracted and diverted attention away from the
“relevant” and focal content of the campaign. In this way, trolls and their counter-efforts
sought to obscure and thus close down anti-racist discourse.
Feature 3: Creating a Profile
Generating visibility and discursive openness. When Twitter users create a profile, they
create a kind of business card, brand, or biography of who they are and what is important to
them. The organizers of the #SchauHin campaign created a profile for the movement to
explain what the campaign was about, what its goals were, and how people could get
involved and engaged. Using the same Twitter profile name and handle as the hashtag
#SchauHin, organizers sought to create a “go-to” profile page to further increase visibility
2
The NPD is an extreme far-right party in Germany

21
and recognition for the campaign. Figure 2 shows the Twitter profile picture, which
prominently features the hashtag.
=== Please insert Figure 2 around here ===
The profile page was used to tweet, retweet, like, and respond to other tweets with the
hashtag #SchauHin—thereby generating and amplifying visibility for the campaign. As
people began following the new profile page to stay informed, the profile page provided a
way to focus attention and amalgamate a wider range of content relevant to the goal of
ending systemic racism. It also provided a link to the #SchauHin website. In this way, the
profile page contributed to opening discourse about daily racism.
Obscuring content and facilitating discursive closure. Counter-actors tried to disrupt the
campaign through the creation of profile pages that were similar in name and visual design.
One profile, for instance, just added a “2” to the end of the account handle, calling itself
@SchauHin2. It used the same logo and a similar color palette as @SchauHin. Figure 3
provides a screenshot of the profile page, where the text in the added rounded rectangle
reads: “Join in: Use the hashtag #SchauHin for all national tweets against a foreign
takeover. Let's create solidarity and unity!”
Importantly, while a Twitter handle must be unique, a Twitter name does not have to be. So,
while the Twitter profile itself is @SchauHin2, the account’s owners call themselves
SchauHin. Again, there is a conflation: the two profiles advocate effectively opposite views
while having the same name and looking very similar. Hence, counter-actors used the feature
of creating a profile to divert attention away and obscure the original #SchauHin campaign.
As Figure 3 shows, the SchauHin2 Twitter profile gathered a fair amount of attention and
involvement—with over 150 followers, and more than 1200 (re-)tweets with over 6000 likes.

22
=== Please insert Figure 3 around here ===
Due to these profiles and tweets by counter-actors, the #SchauHin organizers were aware of
the need to clearly communicate the meaning of the hashtag and reinforce the goal of the
campaign. In an interview, one of the organizers of the #SchauHin campaign explained how
the emergence of these “fake” profiles highlighted the significance of the campaign:
“The Twitter accounts existed very early on at the beginning of the hashtag (...) And
as I said, the racist tweets underscore the point of #SchauHin. How else can this ugly
face of our society be demonstrated so clearly? And the zeal of the racists says a lot
about these people: They want to prevent a debate on racism at all costs and focus on
their own agenda. I think these desperate attempts only show the relevance of this
debate. So: No, the campaign has not been subverted and it is not a turning point—
these tweets are nothing new. The point of #SchauHin is well known. These tweets only
make this debate more important."
Initiator of #SchauHin in an interview with Focus Online (Rohler 2014)
Feature 4: Trending
Trending is an automated Twitter feature supported by underlying algorithms that draw
attention to topics deemed “hot” or that are generating “buzz” within a certain timeframe. It
is determined by a combination of three criteria: popularity, novelty, and timeliness. By
automatically identifying and flagging trending hashtags, Twitter foregrounds these hashtags
and increases their visibility—while indirectly backgrounding others. As occurred in the case
of hashtags and profile pages, the trending feature impacted visibilization in very different
ways, leading to both discursive openness and closure.
Generating visibility and discursive openness. When the organizers launched the campaign,
they encouraged supporters to start tweeting under the hashtag—as a way to generate a large
number of tweets in a short period of time. #Schauhin became a trending topic in Germany
on the day of its initiation and remained on the list for three days. Figure 4 shows a
screenshot of the Twitter trends for Germany. In other words, the Twitter algorithm identified
it as one of the most used and discussed hashtags on Twitter in Germany.

23
=== Please insert Figure 4 around here ===
As a trending topic, #SchauHin attracted the attention of several print media outlets in
Germany, such as Süddeutsche Zeitung, Tagesspiegel, and Stern. Several articles noted the
quantity of tweets in a very short timeframe and used this to deduce its significance (e.g.,
Adeoso, 2013). According to some, the trending of the hashtag provided clear indications of
the existence of systemic racism. Visibility was therefore increased to audiences outside
Twitter. As one user noted: How can you say that there is no #racism in Germany: the
hashtag #schauhin has only existed for 8 hours and already it is the second most frequent
tweet” — (@petrasorge) September 6, 2013. The trending topic feature on Twitter thus
helped amplify the visibility of the campaign and its goal of contributing to end systemic
racism.
Obscuring content and facilitating discursive closure. Counter-actors’ efforts to obscure the
campaign by appropriating the #SchauHin hashtag had the unintended effect of adding to the
overall number of tweets that “fed into” Twitter’s trending algorithm. In other words, fake
profiles and the content generated by trolls contributed (albeit largely unintentionally) to
enhancing the visibility of the #SchauHin campaign. As noted above (see Figure 4), the
@SchauHin2 profile tweeted or retweeted over 1200 times and liked tweets over 6000 times
in the first year. Thus, on one level, counter-actors’ disruptive efforts generated discursive
closure (i.e., they diverted attention, created confusion, and drowned out anti-racist
discourse). Yet, on another level, they unintentionally amplified visibility because the attempt
to “hijack” the original #SchauHin hashtag paradoxically contributed to making it a trending
topic on Twitter in Germany.

24
Summary: The Struggle for Visibility
Both Titanpad and Twitter were used to plan and execute the #SchauHin campaign. On both
platforms, counter-actors that opposed the goal and efforts of drawing attention to everyday
acts of racism tried to disrupt #SchauHin. On Titanpad, counter-actors and trolls were very
effective in hindering coordination and planning. As soon as they gained access to the open
platform, they were free to delete and edit relevant content, as well as add irrelevant,
derogatory or antagonistic content. Moreover, they could do this whilst remaining fairly
anonymous. Such counter-efforts took on a different form on Twitter because of its different
features. While counter-actors and trolls were also free to add content, Twitter’s features did
not allow them to delete or edit content other than their own. In addition, Twitter allows for a
clear attribution of content to specific accounts or Twitter handles. Despite this attribution,
however, counter-actors have identified creative ways to mask it – such as, in our case,
creating profiles that mirrored the actual #SchauHin account or posting tweets that mimicked
aspects of the campaign’s content and styles of argumentation. As our case showed, the
struggle between organizers/supporters and counter-actors played out quite differently on
Titanpad and Twitter. These differences were, in large part, due to variations in the
affordances provided by each platform.
In the following months, the discursive struggle between supporters and counter-actors
continued. As counter-actors ramped up their efforts to close and silence anti-racist discourse,
#SchauHin organizers planned and then executed a campaign to “reclaim the hashtag”—
encouraging Twitter users to again tweet more about their experiences of daily racism (cf.
Figure 5). Thus, the struggle for visibility continued.
=== Please insert Figure 5 around here ===

25
DISCUSSION
Social media and other digital platforms have fundamentally transformed ways of
connecting, collaborating, and mobilizing (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015; Etter & Albu,
2020; Vaast & Kaganer, 2013). They have become sites of interaction, debate, and conflict—
allowing individual voices to be aggregated in ways that can simultaneously generate
discursive openness and closure. In this article, we sought to understand how digital
technology—and platforms in particular—can enable and hinder institutional processes
through what we refer to as visibilization, i.e., the enactment of technological features to
foreground particular perspectives, positions, and discourses and give voice to them, while
silencing or subordinating others.
By adopting an affordance-based lens to the #SchauHin movement, we were able to
identify how the contextual use of platform features by human actors impacted the visibility
of discourses that sought to draw attention to and counter systemic racism. By examining the
struggle between supporters and counter-actors, we highlighted the different implications of
the affordance of visibility. We showed how a particular technological feature can be
interpreted and used in radically different ways to make content more or less visible. The
tweeting feature on Twitter, for example, can be assigned very different meanings and
opportunities for action. In our case, supporters of #SchauHin used this feature to generate
visibility and discursive openness, whereas counter-actors used the same feature to obscure
visibility and fuel discursive closure (Deetz, 1992; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004).
Our empirical case was one of discursive struggle between groups of actors with opposing
interests and agendas. One group sought to use the digital platforms to mobilize action
against everyday acts of racism by making deeply ingrained practices and behaviors visible.
Their efforts, however, were met with resistance from counter-actors, who used the same

26
platforms to divert and hinder mobilization—e.g., by creating content that was off-topic,
antagonistic, derogatory, or confusing. By analyzing how actors differentially enacted a
variety of technological features, we captured the nuanced ways in which platforms can be
strategically used to formulate, disseminate, or obscure content—making visible or invisible
the meanings, practices, and structures that underpin institutional arrangements.
Our study contributes to research at the intersection of technology and institutional
theory in two ways. First, we contribute to understandings of how technological affordances
influence discursive struggles. Concretely, we showed how digital platforms have opened up
opportunities and ways for a wide range of actors to gain voice—notably, through enabling
an aggregation of individual voices that might otherwise have been marginalized or silenced
by more powerful actors. Second, we further our understandings of how technology can
enable or hinder institutional processes through the process of visibilization.
Platform Features, Visibility, and Institutional Processes
We contribute to a relational understanding of technological affordances—particularly
focusing on the affordance of visibility and its implications for institutional processes. As
digital platforms have become “essential infrastructures” for collaborating and organizing
(Bohn et al., 2020; see also Friederici et al., 2020; Logue & Grimes, 2021), they are
important in the toolkit of institutional entrepreneurs and those who seek to mobilize power
or resources to shape institutions (Maguire et al., 2004). Using the #SchauHin case, we
illustrate how platform users—by strategically selecting what they showed and how they
showed it—were able to instrumentally influence mobilization and the aggregation of voice
(Clemente & Roulet, 2015; Etter & Vestergaard, 2015).
Different features of platforms can significantly impact institutional arrangements. In
this way, insights from our study speak to recent calls to examine and theorize the interplay

27
between technology and (de-)institutionalization (Logue & Grimes, 2021; Rijmenam &
Logue, 2020). Our findings illustrate how this interplay is not only shaped by technological
affordances, but also by unintended consequences that may be rooted in platform features. In
our case, counter-actors sought to impede the #SchauHin campaign and its goal of
deinstitutionalizing racism. The technological feature of hash-tagging affords various actors
with contradicting interests to foreground their interpretation and suppress that of others of a
particular issue of contestation (e.g., daily racism). Our analysis has shown how this process
is enacted in a complex and dynamic socio-material process, whereby the visibilization and
obscuring of content contributes to (de-)institutionalizing processes. In our case, however, the
efforts to enact technological features to divert attention and sow confusion through counter-
activists had partially the opposite effect. Specifically, their addition of content (despite being
racist, antisemitic and sexist, nonsensical, etc.) paradoxically increased the visibility of the
campaign and supported its efforts towards deinstitutionalization by contributing to the
overall number of tweets with the #SchauHin hashtag. This phenomenon resonates with
research at the intersection of institutional theory and paradox studies (Gümüsay et al., 2020;
Smith & Tracey, 2016), showing how technological affordances can generate paradoxical
outcomes depending on actors’ attempts to effect institutions. Relatedly, there is a possible
socio-technical paradox that may be explored at the intersection of the open culture sought by
activists and the discursive closure sought by destructive trolls. Certain platform features may
encourage open organizing (Dobusch & Schoeneborn, 2015), which is the very factor that
attracts practices that effectively hijack such openness.
Digital platform features offer actors a wide variety of opportunities that may have
important implications for maintaining or disrupting institutional arrangements (Logue &
Grimes, 2021). For example, hashtagging on Twitter provides a way to categorize and
amalgamate content in ways that amplify visibility and voice. It enables individuals or

28
marginalized actors to raise awareness of endemic problems and collectively mobilize against
highly institutionalized practices and beliefs. However, hashtags may be vulnerable to being
“hijacked” by counter-actors who seek to disrupt mobilization efforts (Albu & Etter, 2016)
and maintain institutional arrangements. An understanding that technological features are not
objective things-in-themselves but rather ‘things for us to use’ may enable scholars to
appreciate how potential struggles play out through the way technological features are
enacted. A natural corollary of this is that platforms cannot be examined in isolation from the
way that actors mobilize them.
Thus, an important implication is that social media and other digital platforms are
reshaping power dynamics in significant ways—not only by giving voice to peripheral actors,
but also by making the practices and actions of powerful actors subject to widespread
scrutiny (Etter & Vestergaard, 2015; Gillespie, 2010, 2018). Power and institutions have been
a central and recurring theme in institutional research (Lawrence & Buchanan, 2017) and we
can expect social media to play an important role in altering power relationships between
individuals, groups, and organizations (Etter et al., 2019). Future research could further
unpack how digital platforms might affect institutional processes differently compared to
mobilization and coordination efforts that take place physically or face-to-face – i.e., where
connectivity and interaction are more limited by temporal and spatial constraints. In addition,
future research could examine further the entanglement of digital and analog domains around
institutions (Gümüsay & Smets, 2020).
Visibility struggles and technological affordances
Our case showed how the interplay between material features and contextual use by
supporters and counter-actors influenced the visibility of content in ways that generated both
discursive openness and closure. On the Titanpad platform, for example, actors could add and

29
delete specific content to open up or close down discourse by aligning or misaligning it with
a particular perspective, position, or stance. On Twitter, supporters of #SchauHin generated
and amalgamated content to fuel discursive openness; while counter-actors generated
opposing or confusing content to generate discursive closure. In this way, platforms
constitute social spaces where actors might engage in a struggle around meaning-making
(Albu & Etter, 2016; Etter & Albu, 2020).
Yet, at the same time, platforms themselves have agency with regard to what they
make visible or invisible (Leonardi, 2012). Although users actively appropriate and adapt
platform technologies for their particular interests and agendas, the properties and
architectures of these platforms also shape content and usage (Costa, 2018). They may even
do so in ways that implicitly support practices like trolling and harassment (Massanari, 2017).
Twitter and Facebook, for example, have been criticized for fueling ideological polarization
(Dylko et al., 2017), disinformation (Tucker et al., 2018), and filter bubbles or echo chambers
(Pariser, 2011) that decrease the likelihood of encountering ideologically cross-cutting
content. In response to such criticisms, there have been attempts to alter certain aspects or
features of digital platforms. An illustrative example would be Twitter’s move to flag tweets
with warnings and public interest notices—most notably, flagging several of former US
President Donald Trump’s tweets for “glorifying violence.” By flagging a tweet, Twitter
requires users to take an extra step of clicking a “view” button to access the tweet. Moreover,
users are restricted from directly retweeting or “liking” the tweet. This move by Twitter has
generated intense debate and mixed responses especially in Silicon Valley. Whereas some in
the tech industry praised this feature, others cautioned that such interventions move digital
platforms into the sphere of political activism and influence. Thus, despite some platforms’
claims of being apolitical, they are rarely ever neutral (Costa, 2018; Gümüsay & Reinecke,
2021)—as their features are often based on opaque algorithmic systems of content

30
moderation and user governance designed to orchestrate relationships in favor of advertisers
or competent manipulators (Gillespie, 2010, 2018).
CONCLUSION
Digital platforms provide infrastructures for expansive and immediate connectivity. They
have become arenas of interaction that facilitate, regulate, and shape communication between
ever-shifting coalitions that form and dissolve around each issue (van Dijck, 2013). Using the
case of #SchauHin, we have shown how technology—and digital platforms in particular—
can influence discursive struggles and contestation around highly institutionalized practices,
beliefs, and behaviors. Our study thus joins the call for a better appreciation of how digital
technology interacts with institutions and how it can fundamentally transform ways of
mobilizing to effect change (Hinings et al., 2018). It does so by underscoring the importance
of and the struggle around generating visibility; and by disentangling how actors’ contextual
intentions and use of digital technological features enable or undermine processes of
visibilization.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the editorial team of this special volume, in particular Thomas
Gegenhuber, and our two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We would also
like to express our appreciation to #SchauHin for offering us data access. Finally, we would
like to thank the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society for open access funding support.

31
REFERENCES
Adeoso, M.-S. (2013). #SchauHin ist der neue #Aufschrei. https://www.fr.de.
https://www.fr.de/kultur/schauhin-neue-aufschrei-11283216.html
Albu, O. B. (2019). Dis/Ordering: The Use of Information and Communication Technologies
by Human Rights Civil Society Organizations. In V. Consuelo & T. Kuhn (Eds.),
Dis/organization As Communication: Exploring the Disordering, Disruptive and
Chaotic Properties of Communication (pp. 151–171). Routledge.
Albu, O. B., & Etter, M. (2016). Hypertextuality and Social Media: A Study of the
Constitutive and Paradoxical Implications of Organizational Twitter Use.
Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 5–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915601161
Altheide, D. L. (2013). Media Logic, Social Control, and Fear. Communication Theory,
23(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12017
Barberá-Tomás, D., Castelló, I., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing
through Visuals: How Social Entrepreneurs Use Emotion-Symbolic Work for Social
Change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1789–1817.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1488
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information,
Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Bohn, S., Friederici, N., & Gümüsay, A. A. (2020). Too big to fail us? Platforms as
systemically relevant. Internet Policy Review.
https://policyreview.info/articles/news/too-big-fail-us-platforms-systemically-
relevant/1489
Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R. E., & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an Articulation of
the Material and Visual Turn in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 39(5–6),
597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772611
Breuer, A., Landman, T., & Farquhar, D. (2015). Social media and protest mobilization:
Evidence from the Tunisian revolution. Democratization, 22(4), 764–792.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.885505
Brighenti, A. (2007). Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences. Current Sociology,
55(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107076079
Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on
Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Nielsen, F. Å. (2016). Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social
Media: The Networked Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12145
Castells, M. 1942-. (1998). The rise of the network society (Reprinted). Blackwell.
Chandler, D., & Hwang, H. (2015). Learning From Learning Theory: A Model of
Organizational Adoption Strategies at the Microfoundations of Institutional Theory.
Journal of Management, 41(5), 1446–1476.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315572698

32
Chen, X., & Wei, S. (2019). Enterprise social media use and overload: A curvilinear
relationship. Journal of Information Technology, 34(1), 22–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396218802728
Clemente, M., & Roulet, T. J. (2015). Public Opinion As a Source of Deinstitutionalization:
A “Spiral of Silence” Approach. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 96–114.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0279
Cook, C., Schaafsma, J., & Antheunis, M. (2018). Under the bridge: An in-depth examination
of online trolling in the gaming context. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3323–3340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817748578
Coretti, L., & Pica, D. (2018). Facebook’s communication protocols, algorithmic filters, and
protest. In M. Mortensen, C. Neumayer, & T. Poell (Eds.), Social Media Materialities
and Protest: Critical Reflections (pp. 72–85). Routledge.
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting
communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of
Management Review, 40(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0381
Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and
context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641–3656.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818756290
Dacin, M. T., & Dacin, P. A. (2008). Traditions as institutionalized practice: Implications for
deinstitutionalization. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-
Andersson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 327–
351). SAGE.
Daudigeos, T., Roulet, T., & Valiorgue, B. (2020). How Scandals Act as Catalysts of Fringe
Stakeholders’ Contentious Actions Against Multinational Corporations. Business &
Society, 59(3), 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318756982
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An Examination of Differences Between
Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation*. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(2), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization developments in
communication and the politics of everyday life. State University of New York.
den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist
groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review,
32(3), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.25275682
Dijck, J. van, & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding Social Media Logic. Media and
Communication, 1(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70
Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The
communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8),
1005–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12139
Dylko, I., Dolgov, I., Hoffman, W., Eckhart, N., Molina, M., & Aaziz, O. (2017). The dark
side of technology: An experimental investigation of the influence of customizability
technology on online political selective exposure. Computers in Human Behavior, 73,
181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.031
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

33
Etter, M. A., & Vestergaard, A. (2015). Facebook and the public framing of a corporate
crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 163–177.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2013-0082
Etter, M., & Albu, O. (2020). Activists in the dark. Social Media algorithms and collective
action. Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961532
Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D’Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring
Organizational Legitimacy in Social Media: Assessing Citizens’ Judgments With
Sentiment Analysis. Business & Society, 57(1), 60–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316683926
Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social Media and the Formation of
Organizational Reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0280
Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In P.
M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social
interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). Digital Age| The Management of
Visibilities in the Digital Age—Introduction. International Journal of
Communication, 10(0), 98–109.
Friederici, N., Meier, P., & Gümüsay, A. A. (2020). An opportunity for inclusion? Digital
platform innovation in times of crisis. Pioneers Post.
https://www.pioneerspost.com/news-views/20200616/opportunity-inclusion-digital-
platform-innovation-times-of-crisis
Gantt Shafer, J. (2017). Donald Trump’s “Political Incorrectness”: Neoliberalism as
Frontstage Racism on Social Media. Social Media + Society, 3(3),
2056305117733226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117733226
Gegenhuber, T., & Naderer, S. (2019). When the petting zoo spawns into monsters: Open
dialogue and a venture’s legitimacy quest in crowdfunding. Innovation, 21(1), 151–
186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2018.1481753
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms.’ New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A.
Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society
(Vol. 167, pp. 167–193).
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the
Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.
Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N., & D’Adderio, L. (2021). The Biography of an Algorithm:
Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations. Organization Theory, 2(2),
26317877211004610. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211004609
Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. (Shaz). (2015). From Interactions to Institutions:
Microprocesses of Framing and Mechanisms for the Structuring of Institutional
Fields. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 115–143.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0299

34
Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2021). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias
to imagining alternatives. Journal of Management Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12709
Gümüsay, A. A., & Smets, M. (2020). New hybrid forms and their liability of novelty. In M.
L. Besharov & B. C. Mitzinneck (Eds.), Organizational Hybridity: Perspectives,
Processes, Promises—Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 69, pp. 167–
187).
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2020). “God at work”: Engaging central and
incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management
Journal, 63(1), 124–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0481
Hansen, H. K., & Flyverbom, M. (2015). The politics of transparency and the calibration of
knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22(6), 872–889.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414522315
Harmon, D. J. (2019). When the Fed Speaks: Arguments, Emotions, and the
Microfoundations of Institutions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(3), 542–575.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218777475
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Kyprianou, C., & Risius, M. (2020). How do strategic leaders engage
with social media? A theoretical framework for research and practice. Strategic
Management Journal, 41(8), 1490–1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3156
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and
transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1),
52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the U.S.
Chemical Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.
https://doi.org/10.5465/257008
Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Creed, W. E. D. (2015). Power and Institutions: Stones in
the Road and Some Yellow Bricks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3), 233–238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614565240
Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Anthony, C. (2013). The immateriality of material practices in
institutional logics. In M. D. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics
in action, Part A (Vol. 39, pp. 51–75). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–
381. JSTOR.
Lawrence, T. B., & Buchanan, S. (2017). Power, Institutions and Organizations. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook
of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 477–506). SAGE.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance,
Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies. MIS Quarterly,
35(1), 147–167. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What
Do These Terms Mean? How are They Related? Do We Need Them? In P. M.
Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and Organizing: Social
Interaction in a Technological World (pp. 25–48). OUP Oxford.

35
Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory
of Communication Visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0536
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise Social Media: Definition,
History, and Prospects for the Study of Social Technologies in Organizations. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12029
Leonardi, P. M., & Jackson, M. H. (2004). Technological determinism and discursive closure
in organizational mergers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(6),
615–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410564587
Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social Media and Their Affordances for Organizing: A
Review and Agenda for Research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150–188.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0144
Logue, D., & Grimes, M. (2021). Platforms for the people: Enabling civic crowdfunding
through the cultivation of institutional infrastructure. Strategic Management Journal,
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3110
Madsen, V. T. (2016). Constructing Organizational Identity on Internal Social Media: A Case
Study of Coworker Communication in Jyske Bank. International Journal of Business
Communication, 53(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627272
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and Deinstitutionalization: The Decline of DDT.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461993
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159610
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study
from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
Massanari, A. (2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance,
and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807
Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: The mediation and circulation of an
Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information,
Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130
Meissner, M. (2014). #SchauHin—Gegen Rassisten und Hashtag-Räuber.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/medien/kampagne-auf-twitter-schauhin-
gegen-rassisten-und-hashtag-raeuber/11134204.html
Meyer, R. E., Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M. A., & Boxenbaum, E. (2018). The Role of Verbal
and Visual Text in the Process of Institutionalization. Academy of Management
Review, 43(3), 392–418. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0301
Milan, S. (2015). When Algorithms Shape Collective Action: Social Media and the
Dynamics of Cloud Protesting. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622481

36
Monteiro, P., & Nicolini, D. (2015). Recovering Materiality in Institutional Work: Prizes as
an Assemblage of Human and Material Entities. Journal of Management Inquiry,
24(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614546221
Nasman, C. (2015). Far-right extremists in Germany turn to social media to spread their ideas
| DW | 20.07.2015. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/far-right-extremists-in-
germany-turn-to-social-media-to-spread-their-ideas/a-18596467
Neumayer, C., & Rossi, L. (2016). 15 Years of Protest and Media Technologies Scholarship:
A Sociotechnical Timeline. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 2056305116662180.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116662180
Ouellette, L., & Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Special Issue: Media and the Extreme
RightEditor’s Introduction. Communication, Culture and Critique, 11(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcx021
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Viking.
Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and
Directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 435–481.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.681558
Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Social media and activist communication. In C. Atton (Ed.),
The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 527–537).
Routledge. https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/social-media-and-
activist-communication(204b8c0b-feef-4e6a-a412-b2d91bb43e80).html
Ramsden, P. (2020). How the pandemic changed social media and George Floyd’s death
created a collective conscience. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/how-
the-pandemic-changed-social-media-and-george-floyds-death-created-a-collective-
conscience-140104
Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2020). Proudly Elitist and Undemocratic? The
distributed maintenance of contested practices. Organization Studies, 42(1), 7–33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619874462
Rieder, B. (2012). What is in PageRank? A Historical and Conceptual Investigation of a
Recursive Status Index. Computational Culture, 2.
http://computationalculture.net/what_is_in_pagerank/
Rijmenam, M. van, & Logue, D. (2020). Revising the ‘science of the organisation’:
Theorising AI agency and actorhood. Innovation, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2020.1816833
Rodner, V., Roulet, T. J., Kerrigan, F., & Vom Lehn, D. (2020). Making Space for Art: A
Spatial Perspective of Disruptive and Defensive Institutional Work in Venezuela’s
Art World. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1054–1081.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1030
Roulet, T. J. (2020). The Power of Being Divisive: Understanding Negative Social
Evaluations (Illustrated Edition). Stanford Business Books.
Scheidgen, K., Gümüsay, A. A., Günzel-Jensen, F., Krlev, G., & Wolf, M. (2021). Crises and
entrepreneurial opportunities: Digital social innovation in response to physical
distancing. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00222

37
Schneiberg, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Social Movements and the Dynamics of
Institutions and Organizations. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E.
Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp.
281–310).
Seidel, V. P., Hannigan, T. R., & Phillips, N. (2020). Rumor Communities, Social Media, and
Forthcoming Innovations: The Shaping of Technological Frames in Product Market
Evolution. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 304–324.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0425
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional
Change: A Dialectical Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6588004
Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory:
Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 455–466.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016638565
Thompson, J. B. (2005). The New Visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405059413
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R.
Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational
Institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Sage.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1999). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S.
Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying Organization: Theory & Method (pp. 169–184).
Sage.
Toubiana, M., & Zietsma, C. (2017). The Message is on the Wall? Emotions, Social Media
and the Dynamics of Institutional Complexity. Academy of Management Journal,
60(3), 922–953. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0208
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the
Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the
International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679130
Treem, J. W., Leonardi, P. M., & van den Hooff, B. (2020). Computer-Mediated
Communication in the Age of Communication Visibility. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 25(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz024
Trittin-Ulbrich, H., Scherer, A. G., Munro, I., & Whelan, G. (2021). Exploring the dark and
unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda. Organization, 28(1), 8–
25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420968184
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., &
Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A
review of the scientific literature. Political Polarization, and Political
Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature.
Uldam, J., & Kaun, A. (2018). Theorizing civic engagement and social media. In M.
Mortensen, C. Neumayer, & T. Poell (Eds.), Social Media Materialities and Protest:
Critical Reflections (pp. 101–115). Routledge.

38
Vaast, E., & Kaganer, E. (2013). Social media affordances and governance in the workplace:
An examination of organizational policies. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 19(1), 78–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12032
van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605
Wang, M. S., Raynard, M., & Greenwood, R. (2020). From Grace to Violence: Stigmatizing
the Medical Profession in China. Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0715
Wang, X., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. (2019). Faster, hotter, and more linked in: Managing
social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management Review.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0375
Washington, M., & Ventresca, M. J. (2004). How Organizations Change: The Role of
Institutional Support Mechanisms in the Incorporation of Higher Education Visibility
Strategies, 1874–1995. Organization Science, 15(1), 82–97.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0057
Wright, A. L., Meyer, A. D., Reay, T., & Staggs, J. (2020). Maintaining Places of Social
Inclusion: Ebola and the Emergency Department. Administrative Science Quarterly,
0001839220916401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220916401
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & (Bob) Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or Fields?
Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields. Academy
of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0052

39
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Technological features, practices and implications for visibility
Technological features that
impact visibilization process
Organizer/supporter
practices
Counter-actor practices
Adding, editing, and deleting
content
(user-driven)
Generating visibility by creating
content, sharing ideas, and
coordinating activity. For
example, voting, posting,
commenting.
Obscuring and distorting visibility by
spamming or adding off-topic content,
posting derogatory or antagonistic
comments, deleting previously
established content. For example, sexist
and racist slurs.
Hashtagging (user-driven)
Generating and amplifying
visibility by structuring and
collating content to facilitate
search function and content
dissemination. For example,
using a hashtag and creating a
hashtag campaign.
Obscuring visibility by “hijacking” the
hashtag to create confusion and
misinformation. For example, using the
hashtag in association with different
(typically vague or opposing) content.
Creating a profile (user-driven)
Generating and focusing
visibility by creating a “go-to”
place to post and find
information (profile owner or
administrators control the
content)
Obscuring and diverting visibility by
creating a similar profile in terms of style
and name to divert attention away from
original content
Trending (algorithm-driven)
Generating, amplifying and
focusing visibility (intentional –
by encouraging more Tweets)
Aimed at obscuring content, yet
amplifying and focusing visibility
(unintentional—by tweeting to divert
visibility)
Table 2: Selection of #SchauHin tweets
Topic
Tweets
Work
environment
Job: I call and give my name. Sorry, job’s gone, they say. German friend calls, job’s still
available, interview too. #SchauHin
— (@AliCologne) September 6, 2013
#schauhin, if at a job interview the topic is honor killings and forced marriage and not your
qualifications!
— (@NeseTuefekciler) September 6, 2013
Public
agencies
When the official at the asylum office (!) calls Afghan refugees “Taliban rabble.” #SchauHin
— (@Emran_Feroz) September 6, 2013
Girlfriend (Italian citizen born in GER) at a public agency: Employee speaks to her: CAN.....
YOU.....UNDERSTAND.....ME..? #SchauHin
— (@somlu1968) September 6, 2013

40
Police racial
profiling
The constant police checks at Munich Central Station, with no grounds for suspicion. Never
German looking men #schauhin
— (@NiceBastard) September 6, 2013
“You could be an illegal,” a policeman said to me for the 10th time on the train.
#racialprofiling #SchauHin
— (@Emran_Feroz) September 6, 2013
Schools and
universities
A teacher told a classmate of Turkish descent who was chatting in class: “You are a guest in
this country, so behave yourself.” #SchauHin
— (@Janine_Wissler) September 6, 2013
Winter. A friend wants to borrow my gloves for a short time. Teacher: No, she needs them
herself, it's colder here than in Africa” #schauhin
— (@Nisalahe) September 6, 2013
Public
debate
When the media features people saying that the racist murders are the fault of the migrants
themselves. #SchauHin
— (@Ademzca38875303) September 6, 2013
When a friend on FB shares an NPD poster and defends herself by saying that she is against
racists, but the “content” is right #SchauHin
— (@Elifelee) September 6, 2013
Housing
market
A friend of mine didn’t get an appointment to view an apartment until he gave “Becker”
(name of the girlfriend) on the phone #schauhin
— (@vierzueinser) September 6, 2013
When the landlord rejects an American because he would never be able to get along in her
house as a “black.” #SchauHin
— (@_Serapis_) September 6, 2013
Public
setting
12-year-old me on my bike: “ring ring.” Pedestrian turns around and back again. And says
loudly: - For something like this I will not step aside #schauhin
— (@me_l) September 6, 2013
Sentences that start with “I have nothing against you but...” #schauhin
— (@ftmrtgrl) September 6, 2013

41
Figure 1: Titanpad screenshot (rectangles added)
Figure 2: Twitter profile picture
1
2
3

42
Figure 3: SchauHin2 Twitter profile screenshot (rectangle added)
Figure 4: #SchauHin as trending topic on Twitter

43
Figure 5: #SchauHin profile