Socio-network group formation in the context of evaluating the national projects implementation

This article presents the results of an online research of socio-network group formation within the of national projects’ implementation. By socio-network group formation, we mean the activation and organisation of information and communication interaction of users of online social networks in the context of discussing specific regional problems and developing constructive solutions to solve them.

The database of posts and comments collected from the social network Vkontakte was the empirical basis of the study. The data was collected from 4 most relevant national projects: “Healthcare”, “Housing and urban environment”, “Safe and high-quality highways” and “Education” in 12 regions of the Russian Federation. These projects have been selected according to their socio-cultural modernisation level.

The study has found that each region, according to its socio-cultural modernisation level, has its nature of discussion and solving existing problems, socio-network group formation. In all regions, there is a low level of population satisfaction of projects’ implementation and the specific regional problems solutions. The most pressing problems and barriers specific to each of the national projects have been identified. It has been noted that in most of communities, there is either no feedback on the population complaints or this feedback has the formal replies form that do not lead to real actions by the problem solving actors. National project realisers consider the population only as a recipient, but not as a problem-solving actor (partner). The information posted in official publics is most often declarative in nature.

It has been concluded about the low level of development of regional and municipal administration systems, and the weak understanding of local problems and needs by the federal center.

1. Bedi P. and Sharma C. (2016), “Community detection in social networks”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1178

2. Bogdanov V.S. and Smirnova A.S. (2020), “Problems of sociological measurement of social and network group formation in the context of Russian national projects implementation”, Research result. Series Sociology and management, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 146–168. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2020-6-4-0-9

3. Bourdieu P. (1994), Beginnings [Choses dites], transl. from Fr. N.A. Shmatko, Socio-Logos, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

4. Boyd D. (2008), Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, Buckingham D., MIT Press, pp. 1–26.

5. Castells M. (2004), The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and society, trans. from Eng. A. Matveev, ed. V. Kharitonov, U-factoriya, University of Humanities Publ. House, Yekaterinburg, Russia. (In Russian).

6. Chatfield A. and Reddick, C.G. (2015), “Understanding risk communication gaps through e-government website and twitter hashtag content analyses: the case of Indonesia’s Mt. Sinabung eruption”, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 351–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2014-0086

7. Cornia A., Sehl A., Levy D.A.L. and Nielsen R.K. (2018), Private sector news, social mediadistribution, and algorithm change, University of Oxford, Reuters Institute, UK.

8. Cotterill S. and King S. (2007), “Public sector partnerships to deliver local e-government: a social network study”, Electronic Government, 6th International Conference, EGOV 2007, Regensburg, Germany, September 3–7, 2007, pp. 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_21

9. Kurbangaleeva E.Sh. (2021), “Civil society and activism: stages, problems and forks”, SocioDigger, vol. 2, Is. 3 (8): “Civic activism”, pp. 5–15. (In Russian).

10. Lapin N.I. [Ed.], (2016), Modernisation atlas of Russia and its regions: socio-economic and socio-cultural trends and problems, Coll. sc. work, Comp. and resp. ed., RAS corr. mem. N.I. Lapin, Ves’ mir, Moscow. (In Russian).

11. Mayo E. (2007), The social problems of an industrial civilisation, Routledge, UK.

12. Raskhodchikov A.N. (2021), “Virtual public associations: the power of informal communities”, SocioDigger, vol. 3, Is. 3 (8): “Civic activism”, pp. 44–53. (In Russian).

13. Rheingold H. (1993), The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier, The Electronic Version of The Virtual Community.

14. Shchedrovitskiy P.G. (1993), Essay on the main ideas of systemic-research-activity pedagogy, Essays on the Philosophy of Education, Moscow, Russia, pp. 125–144. (In Russian).

15. Srivastava M. (2013), “Social media and its use by the government”, Journal of Public Administration and Governance, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 161–172. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i2.3978

16. Tikhonov A.V., Akimkin E.V., Bogdanov V.S., et al. (2017), Russia: reforming the power-management vertical in the context of the problems of socio-cultural modernisation of regions: collective monograph, Resp. Ed. A.V. Tikhonov, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

17. Tikhonov A.V. and Bogdanov V.S. (2020), “From “smart regulation” to “smart management”: social issue of feedback digitalization”, Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia, no. 1, pp. 74–81. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250008325-0

18. Wellman B. (2001), “Physical and cyber place: The rise of personalized networking”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.227–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00309