Searching for ideological divisions in Indian society using political Twitter conversations*
In fulfillment of an honors degree in Science, Technology, and International Affairs in the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
I dedicate this work to the amazing women in my family, who have spent their entire lives transcending societal boundaries: from my great grandmother, "Big Nani" who courageously crossed from Sindh to Bombay with her children and the clothes on her back, to my curious and intellectual aunts that always strove for independence, my Nani, who is just hilarious and endlessly selfless, and my own mother, who constantly pushes me to work hard and appreciate my education.
Any information used from this site can be cited using:
Chatlani, Shalina Haresh. "Extrapolating Ideological Divisions in the Indian Public Sphere through Political Twitter Conversations." Thesis. Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 2017. Shalina Chatlani, 24 Apr. 2017. Web. Shalinachatlani.com/research.
Acknowledgments and Short Foreword
I’m grateful for the help and advising received throughout writing this thesis from my advisor, Irfan Nooruddin, his student and an expert in social media analytics, Jason Morgan, and Marc Smith from the Social Media Research Foundation, whose counseling was invaluable.
Investing in cultural sensitivity for myself and for the United States...
The summer before writing this report, my original research question was remarkably different. Originally, I sought to determine ways in which actors within India might leverage social media in order to reach out to the West, to collect data on these methods, and propose a more effective form of online engagement for the U.S. State Department. As the daughter of two first generation Indian immigrants that had extensively traveled to India in her past, I thought that I already maintained adequate insight into India’s population to write this thesis. After arriving in India and speaking to leaders in upwards of 20 NGOs in Mumbai, I realized that I really didn’t understand the society much at all. To my surprise, I discovered that these NGOs did not desire to or could not reach out to the West for engagement or funding purposes. After further investigation, discussions with prominent journalists, and meetings with social media experts in Mumbai, I discovered that the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act precluded many of the organizations in India from effectively reaching and receiving support outside India’s borders. Thus, my research question changed entirely. Instead of assuming that groups within India would of course want to reach out to a nation like the United States, I realized that I ought to actually understand the various social, political, and religious contexts that might inform whether groups within India would like to be active outside the nation or not. So, I developed a methodology that would allow me to actually see and not assume sentiments from members in the Indian public sphere. I propose that this type of approach is one that the U.S. State Department ought to take as well when it is reaching out to other nations in order to avoid offense, ignorance, and faulty assumptions directed toward the populations of other nations.
On June 3, 2014, India’s Central Intelligence Bureau delivered to the Prime Minister’s Office a disparaging report, detailing the efforts of foreign funded NGOs to “take down” Indian development projects (Intelligence Bureau of India 2014). The report, which was leaked to the media, paints a picture of nefarious foreign donors that “cleverly disguise their donations,” as humanitarian aid projects (TNN 2014). The writers claim that their “identified” donors had infiltrated Indian development through NGOs, as a way to “build a record against India” and serve the “strategic policy interests of Western Governments.” The bureau points towards anti-nuclear, anti-coal, and anti-GMO movements within the nation as being a product of covert Western intrusion, intended to derail India’s economic progress—with a stated GDP impact of 2-3% per year (TNN 2014). Whether or not the information in the report could be determined true, it is clear that the nation’s government—under the recently sworn in BJP Prime Minister, Narendra Modi—is highly skeptical of NGOs and their ability to “shape policy debates in India.”
Since 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs under the BJP has used this act to investigate and strip over 9,000 NGOs of their licenses to receive foreign funding, citing a failure to meet financial reporting standards. The Times of India wrote that the specific number of NGOs denied licenses, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, had actually risen to 20,000 out of India’s total 33,000 NGOs, after these groups had all allegedly failed to complete the proper reporting paperwork. And, several hundred more are still under investigation (Aghekyan et. al. 2016). Following these cancellations, several targeted groups and human rights watchdogs, like the United Nations, have spoken out against the legislation for constituting a potential human rights violation (Aravind 2017).
Data preparation steps:
Step 1: Cleaning up the data
When working with large datasets, it’s important to filter out any noise in the data that may affect the accuracy of the results. Particularly, when collecting data over long periods of time, one should make sure that there is no duplicate information. Before starting to manipulate the data in NodeXL into a graph format, tweets collected in each topic area were manually checked to make sure that the data was actually applicable. Then, the study used the “prepare data” option to merge, but not count, duplicate edges so that any duplicate tweets that were exchanged between the two same users would be eradicated.
Step 2: Calculating graph metrics for value-based filtering
NodeXL’s graph metrics option allows the researcher to calculate important features for vertices like in-degree and out-degree, eigenvector centrality, and betweenness, among other factors. These elements narrow down vertices to users that are active in online discussions and interacting with other users. After determining these characteristics, the study a feature in NodeXL called “value-based filtering,” which allows certain data that fall below a threshold to be filtered out of the results.
Step 3: Applying group clustering algorithm
Finally, in order to form the actual groups the study chose a group clustering option to show a division in communities. The research chose the Clauset-Newman-Moore group clustering option, because the algorithm is made for “detecting community structure,” and it is much more efficient than Girvan-Newman algorithm. The latter option takes a hierarchical approach, based on edge betweenness, while the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm is computationally more efficient (Rodrigues et. al. 201). Further, this model makes sure that there are many edges in the communities, and only a few edges between the individual groups, in order to really showcase the divisions (Clauset, Newman and Moore 2004). To understand the mathematical model behind the Clauset-Newman-Moore algorithm refer to the study from Clauset, Newman and Moore 2004.
NodeXL, From: Stateofdigital.com
The search on NodeXL was limited to "FCRA" to prevent a return that would have been very clearly skewed. Of course, when choosing terms to use in the search there will always be the risk of personal bias affecting the results. However, since the experiment is primarily being conducted to identify group clustering across ideological spectrum, a more generalized term to search was favorable. The sample size for the study included 6751 users with 10,145 edges between them. Once the graph was laid out, the quantity of groups was limited based on the number of vertices each of them had. Further, group 1 was eliminated because it was a group of isolates, or users unconnected to other users with only self loops. Therefore, the graph displays groups 2 through 15, all of which have more than 100 vertices in each of them. Group 2 is the largest with 788 vertices, while Group 15 is the smallest with 124 vertices. The sample size as represented within clusters on the graph is 4832 users with 7262 edges. After finding the clusters and visually laying them out, autofill columns were used to label each group with its most frequently used hashtags. In order to assess the homophily theory and see whether groups converged based on similar interests, each cluster was viewed more closely.
Looking at these connections, it seems that there are three types of divisions on how these communities are discussing the legislation. As demonstrated by the graph. The groups that are shown with their connections, as well as the hashtags, show that there is are affinities around ideas of nationalism, democratic freedoms, and religion. The way these groups are collecting appears to confirm the homophily theory as presented by Choi, Sang, and Woo Park, as well as conclusions put forth on community cluster formation by Smith, Rainie, Shneiderman, and Himelboim in their 2014 Pew Research Center study.
Groups appear to organize around their views of nationalism, democratic rights, and religion.
There are more groups that appear to favor the consequences of the FCRA for reasons of religion and nationals, than to dislike them for reasons of democratic freedoms.
For a closer look at the graph and access to tweets go to NodeXL Graph Gallery and look up the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. At this site, sentiment analysis and other features are available.
First the limitations...
While it’s important to understand the limitations in interpreting conclusions, social network analysis as a field has been heavily observed and offers a valuable tool for understanding how individuals, users, activists, and other groups can cluster around ideas. This research is not proposing an overall conclusion about how individuals in the Indian public sphere may divide on certain issues, but offering valuable insight into how clusters may form. The number of users is thus enough to make conjectures on views of the nation’s populace; however, since social media are globalized platforms with users around the world, the research cannot offer definitive conclusions, but provide an extremely powerful tool.
Social network analysis to enhance outreach abroad...
Within the vast amount of literature on the digital age and international politics, scholars have already extensively explored and affirmed that the Internet has completely transformed government-citizen relationships, interactions between nations, and national security concerns (Simmons 2013) (Sikkink 2009). Kahler goes further than Grewal in saying that “networks” have emerged as the “dominant social and economic metaphor” in the post 1980s world. While cross-border networks aren’t really new, he writes that the technological change, economic openness, and demands for transnational political collaboration,” have expanded online networks to the furthest corners of the world, and it has resulted in a challenge toward the conventional hierarchical structure of international political organizations (Kahler 2009). Globalization at the turn of the century had already changed concepts of nation-states and boundaries. He says that an analysis of networks and their “theoretical contribution should not be overlooked,” because they “offer a means to investigate” the relations between agents and structure in international politics (Kahler 2009).
But still relatively new to scholarly research, the field of digital diplomacy deserves greater attention. Both academics and government officials are now trying to determine the most effective methods of influencing populations abroad with the swipe of their keys, but have yet to fully understand the best methods of outreach over the Internet, given that the audience is widely diverse in ethnicity, belief systems, and cultural norms. Khatib describes in depth the U.S. Digital Outreach Team, and specifically the ways that the U.S. government has been able to use online communications technologies to directly engage with citizens in the Middle East as apart of ‘public diplomacy 2.0’ (Khatib et. Al 2012). A variety of scholars have discussed strategies for effective diplomacy for decades and Cowan and Arsenault even developed a widely accepted model for diplomatic efforts that have been applied to digital diplomacy (Cowan & Arsenault 2008). And, many have written about the nuances of the U.S. government’s Statecraft Agenda and whether our outreach efforts to more harm than good (Ross 2011). But still, Dr. Pauline Kusiak wrote in 2012 for the Strategic Studies Institute Monograph that one of the biggest challenges facing the U.S. government, particularly given its Statecraft Agenda, would be fully understanding the diverse cultures, identities, and beliefs systems that dot an increasingly digitally connected world (Kusiak 2012). She says that if the U.S. cannot figure out how to tailor its public diplomacy efforts to better understand diverse populations before deciding to engage, it will no longer be able to maintain its influence abroad. This is especially applicable to digital diplomacy, in which messages to the world are transferred instantaneously and often without much overview. By observing how individual actors use digital diplomacy techniques, while working with populations on the ground, government regimes may better learn how to interact with populations abroad.
Where this research fits in...
It is evident that with the emergence of new media, the U.S. State Department must reorient its foreign policy strategies in order to accommodate the emergence of new and valid actors in the international system. Not only must the U.S. recognize that the public, and not just the government, holds power. It must also recognize the important, but significantly varied sociopolitical and cultural contexts of different regions in order to more effectively reach audiences that are critical to the government’s agenda. This research proposes social network analytics and sentiment analysis as a valuable prerequisite to targeted engagement with different regions. For instance, study 1 demonstrates that there are portions of the Indian public sphere that not only support the end of foreign funding for NGOs in the state, but actively believe in Western attempts to infiltrate the nation and send missionaries to “convert” Hindus in the nation. Without this fundamental understanding, that could only be garnered from studying real world statements from actual citizens in a nation, could the state department recognize the extent to which many aspects of the Indian public sphere rejects Western intrusion. By the same token, study 1 also demonstrates that there are factions of liberal citizens, students, journalists, and activists, that not only oppose the FCRA, but also excessive overreach by the modi government. When trying to determine which parts of Indian society to reach out to, this type of analysis will show the types of groups that might be more accepting of Western values.
Addressing the clear moral dilemma...
While social media and network analysis can serve as incredibly powerful tool of foreign policy and strategic outreach, it should not be abused. In looking at the background of the FCRA for example, it is evident that U.S. intrusion in India highly influenced sentiments of Western skepticism. In targeting populations within any region, those using social network analysis in the government or any other agency must recognize the consequences of perceived overreach by the public. The consequences of distrust may make the possibility of international engagement more difficult than originally anticipated. Rather, this type of methodology offers an opportunity for government officials to actively and more critically learn about, take into account, and address the various cultural, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds that may exist within another nation’s public, as well as strive to address them in a manner that is not offensive. Social media is a powerful tool for immediate and widespread engagement to target audiences, but it can also have a horrible side effect if used ignorantly. Further, it’s important to note that the responsibility of using such technology for ethical purposes is entirely on the shoulders of the user.
Aghekyan, Elen, Jennifer Dunham, Bret Nelson, Shannon O’ Toole, Sarah Repucci, and Vanessa Tucker. Freedom in the World 2016: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. NEW YORK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Web. Google Books. Pg. 311.
Ali, Zulfiqar, and Nashia Ajaz. "Role of Social Media in Indo-Pak Relations: Applying Agenda Setting." J. Asian Dev. Stud 3.1 (2014): 36-43. Academia. Web. Pg. 37.
Aravind, Indulekha. "Foreign Funds: NGO Takes Home Ministry to Court." The Economic Times. Bennet, Coleman & Co., 9 Jan. 2017. Web. 3 Feb. 2017.
Banday, Mohamad Tariq, and Muzamil Mattoo M. "Social Media in E-Governance: A Study with Special Reference to India." Social Networking SN 02.02 (2013): 47-56. Web.
Bandyopadhyay, Kaustuv Kanti. "Civil Society at Multiple Crossroads in Asia." Development in Practice 23.5-06 (2013): 644-52. Google Books. Web.
Belair-Gagnon, Valerie, Smeeta Mishra, and Colin Agur. "Reconstructing the Indian Public Sphere: Newswork and Social Media in the Delhi Gang Rape Case." Journalism, vol. 15, no. 8, 2014, pp. 1059-1075
Bhalla, Nita. "U.S. Voices Concern over India Action against Ford Foundation, Greenpeace."Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 25 Apr. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <>.
Bhatnagar, Gaurav Vivek. "NGOs Take to Social Media to Slam FCRA Licence Cancellation." The Wire. The Wire, 16 Dec. 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <>.
Blackwill, Robert D., Naresh Chandra, and Christopher Clary. The United States and India: A Shared Strategic Future. Rep. N.p.: Council on Foreign Relations; Aspen Institute India, 2011. Print.
Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M. Digital Diasporas: Identity and Transnational Engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.
Chaturvedi, Anumeha. "Demonetisation Rules Social Media, Most Netizens Leaning in Favour." The Economic Times. Economic Times, 03 Dec. 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.
Choi, Myunggoon, Yoonmo Sang, and Han W. Park. "Exploring Political Discussions by Korean Twitter Users: A Look at Opinion Leadership and Homophily Phenomenon." Aslib Journal of Information Management, vol. 66, no. 6, 2014, pp. 582.
Clauset, Aaron, M. E. J. Newman, and Cristopher Moore. "Finding Community Structure in very Large Networks." Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics, vol. 70, no. 6 Pt 2, 2004, pp. 066111, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111.
Cowan, Geoffrey, and Amelia Arsenault. "Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616.1 (2008): 10-30. Web.
Cull, Nicholas J (2013) The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/misr.12026
Duijn, Marijtje A. J. Van, and Jeroen K. Vermunt. "What Is Special About Social Network Analysis?" Methodology 2.1 (2006): 2-6.Google Scholar. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. ( 2007 ), “The benefits of facebook 'friends': social capital and college students' use of online social network sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1143 - 1168 .
Express News Service. "Narendra Modi Takes Oath as India’s 15th Prime Minister." The Indian Express. The Indian Express, 26 May 2014. Web. 3 Feb. 2017. Modi was sworn in just weeks before the IB report was delivered to the PMO.
Ewbank, Ann D. "Library Advocacy through Twitter: A Social Media Analysis of #savelibraries and #getESEAright." School Libraries Worldwide, vol. 21, no. 2, 2015.
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 1976. N.p.: Government of India, 1976. PDF. http://jhpolice.gov.in/sites/default/files/ForeignContributionRegulationAct_1976.pdf
Grewal, David. “Defining network power” (pp. 17-43). In Network Power: the Social Dynamics of Globalization. Yale: New Haven, 2008.
Hansen, Derek L., et al. Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 2010.
Harel, David, and Yehuda Koren. A Fast Multi-Scale Method for Drawing Large Graphs, ACM, 2000, doi:10.1145/345513.345353.
Hayden, Craig. “Social Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy, and Network Power.” Kalathil, Shanthi, ed. Diplomacy, Development, and Security in the Information Age. Washington: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, 2013. Print.
Healey, Christopher, and Siddarth Ramaswamy. "Twitter Sentiment Visualization." Twitter Sentiment Visualization. North Carolina State University, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2017.
Howard, Phillip, “Lineages of the Digital State” in The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford, 2011, pg. 57-83.
"India: Number of Social Network Users 2021 | Statistic." Statista. Statista, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <>.
Intelligence Bureau. Concerted Efforts by Select Foreign Funded NGOs to 'take Down' Indian Development Projects. Rep. no. IR/IS No. 002. Scribd, 15 June 2015. Web. 4 Apr. 2017. <>.
Iyer, P. Vaidyanathan. "Demonetisation: Rs 14 Lakh Crore in Old Notes Are Back, Only Rs 75,000 Crore out."The Indian Express. The Indian Express, 10 Jan. 2017. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.
Jain, B. M. India-US Relations in the Age of Uncertainty: An Uneasy Courtship. N.p.: B. M. Jain, 2016. Print.
Kayser, Victoria, and Antje Bierwisch. "Using Twitter for Foresight: An Opportunity?" Futures 84 (2016): 50-63. Web. 22 Dec. 2016.
Kearn, David W. "Toward Alliance Or Ambivalence: A Theoretical Assessment of U.S.-India Relations." India Review, vol. 13, no. 2, 2014, pp. 129-148, doi:10.1080/14736489.2014.904153.
Khatib, Lina, William Dutton, and Michael Thelwall. "Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Case Study of the US Digital Outreach Team." Middle East Journal, vol. 66, no. 3, 2012, pp. 453-472, doi:10.3751/66.3.14.
Khedkar, Gayatri. "Impact of Demonetization Drive, the Good, the Bad & the Ugly." Market Express. Market Express, 07 Mar. 2017. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.
Kiruthiga, V., and R. Magesh. "Upshot of Demonetization in India." International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology 03.11 (2016): 4788-790. Web.
Kumar, S. V., and T. S. Kumar. "demonetization and Complete Financial Inclusion." International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, vol. 6, no. 12, 2016, pp. 1703.
Kusiak, Pauline. "Culture, Identity, and Information Technology in the 21st Century: Implications for U.S. National Security." Strategic Studies Institute Monograph = (2012): n. pag. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
Mohan, Rohini. 2015. “Government versus NGOs: FCRA to Protect Transparency and Prevent Misuse of Foreign Funds.” Times of India, June 2. Accessed June 3, 2015.
Narayan, Sunetra Sen, and Shalini Narayanan. India Connected: Mapping the Impact New Media. Sherman Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2016. Google Books. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.
Natarajan, Kalathmika. "Digital Public Diplomacy and a Strategic Narrative for India."
Pal, Joyojeet, and Andre Gonawela. "Political Social Media in the Global South." Social Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2016): 587-93. Web.
Pozzi, Federico A., and Safari Technical Books. Sentiment Analysis in Social Networks. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2017.
PTI. "FCRA Licences of 20,000 NGOs Cancelled." Times of India. Bennet, Coleman & Co., 27 Dec. 2016. Web. 3 Feb. 2017.
PTI. "PM Narendra Modi Becomes Most Followed Indian on Twitter." The Indian Express. The Indian Express [P] Ltd., 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
PTI. "No Hope of Breakthrough in Ties with India under Modi: Sartaj Aziz." The Hindustan Times. The Hindustan Times, 8 Oct. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
PTI. "‘Twitter Accounts for Only 17% of Indian Social Network Users." The Hindu. The Hindu, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Dec. 2016. <>.
Rafael, Vicente L. "The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines." Public Culture, vol. 15, no. 3, 2003, pp. 399-425, doi:10.1215/08992363-15-3-399.
Rainie, L. and Smith, A. ( 2012 ), "Social networking sites and politics", available at: (accessed July 10, 2013).
Reis Pinheiro, Carlos A., et al. Social Network Analysis in Telecommunications. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J, 2011.
Rodrigues, Eduarda M., et al. Group-in-a-Box Layout for Multi-Faceted Analysis of Communities, 2011, doi:10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.139.
Ross, Alec. "Digital Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy." American Diplomacy (n.d.): 217-21. Web.
Ruparelia, Sanjay. "‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’: The Restructuring of Power in Modi's India." South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 38.4 (2015): 755-75. Web.
Scott, John. Social Network Analysis. SAGE, Los Angeles, 2013.
Sen, Siddhartha. "Some Aspects of State-NGO Relationships in India in the Post-Independence Era." Development and Change 30.2 (1999): 327-55. Web.
Shepard, Wade. "After Day 50: The Results From India's Demonetization Campaign Are In." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 03 Jan. 2017. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.
Singh, Partap, and Virender Singh. "Impact of Demonetization on Indian Economy." International Journal of Science Technology and Management 5.12 (2016): 625-35. Web.
Simmons, Beth A. "Preface: International Relationships in the Information Age." International Studies Review 15.1 (2013): 1-4. Google Scholar. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.
Smith, Marc, Lee Rainie, Ben Shneiderman, and Itai Himelboim. Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Rep. Pew Research Center, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 3 Apr. 2017. <>.
Srivas, Devirupa MItra and Anuj. "Revealed: How Ford Foundation Got the Modi Government to Back Off." The Wire. The Wire, 01 Nov. 2016. Web. 04 Apr. 2017. <>.
Tan, Christine, and Cheang Ming. "After Demonetization Chaos, India Slowly Returning to 'normalcy': SBI Chair." CNBC. CNBC, 06 Mar. 2017. Web. 04 Apr. 2017.
Tikku, Aloke. "Rules Framed: Civil Servants Not Allowed to Criticise Govt on Social Media." The Hindustan Times. The Hindustan Times, 19 July 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Tkacheva, Olesya, Lowell H. Schwartz, Martin C. Libicki, Julie E. Taylor, Jeffrey Martini and Caroline Baxter, “Cyberactivists, Social Media, and the Anti-Mubarak Protests in Egypt,” in Internet Freedom and Political Space. Rand Corporation, 2013, pg. 43-70.
TNN. "Foreign-funded NGOs Stalling Development: IB Report." Times of India. Bennett, Coleman & Co., 12 June 2014. Web. 2 Feb. 2017.
Udanor, Collins, Stephen Aneke, and Blessing O. Ogbuokiri. "Determining Social Media Impact on the Politics of Developing Countries using Social Network Analytics." Program, vol. 50, no. 4, 2016, pp. 481-507, doi:10.1108/PROG-02-2016-0011.
Uhl, André, Nina Kolleck, and Edgar Schiebel. "Twitter Data Analysis as Contribution to Strategic Foresight-The Case of the EU Research Project: Foresight and Modeling for European Health Policy and Regulations.”European Journal of Futures Research 5.1 (2016): n. pag. Google Scholar. Web. 22 Dec. 2016.
"UN Rights Experts Urge India to Repeal Law Restricting NGO's Access to Crucial Foreign Funding." United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. OHCHR, June 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.
Xu, W. W., Y. Sang, S. Blasiola, and H. W. Park. "Predicting Opinion Leaders in Twitter Activism Networks: The Case of the Wisconsin Recall Election." American Behavioral Scientist 58.10 (2014): 1278-293. Web. 22 Dec. 2016.
Yang, Song, Franziska Keller, and Zheng, Lu (Professor of Sociology). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Examples. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, 2016.