2026/01/01 by Axel Bruns, Katharina Esau, Kateryna Kasianenko +4 · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Arts and Humanities · #Social Media and Politics #Discourse Analysis in Language Studies #Information Systems Theories and Implementation
paper · doi:10.1017/nws.2026.10040
openalex publication_date 2026/01/01 · openalex created_date 2026/07/31 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
Abstract The study of polarization in social networks is complicated by conceptual confusion: key forms of polarization include issue, ideological, affective, interactional, interpretive, and perceived polarization, but consensus remains elusive on which of these concepts are most important, how they are interrelated, and whether they should be considered problematic. In this article, we show how the communicative practices of the various actors in a given public debate can be analyzed to reveal the networked structures of discursive alignments and divergences and assess the degree of alliance or opposition between them, and how this analysis in turn provides a basis for the identification of polarization and its potential diagnosis as destructive. We address the challenge of assessing polarization by introducing the new analytical approach of practice mapping. Conceptually supported by practice theory, practice mapping advances beyond conventional social network analysis by no longer grounding its network analysis only in the direct network ties made by participants in social networks, but conceptualizing each participant’s broader patterns of action and interaction within the social network (including their engagement with other participants, but also their information sourcing, language choices, and other qualities of their participation) as that participant’s unique communicative practice—and then constructing and mapping the network of similarities between these practices for all participants. This serves as a key step towards identifying and analyzing patterns of polarization in public discourse. To illustrate this approach, we apply it to public posts on Facebook about the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia. Our practice mapping was able not only to clearly identify the deeply opposed Yes and No campaigns, but also to show substantial distinctions between the highly centralized and unified No camp and the loose and uncoordinated discursive alliances supporting the Yes camp. Using this case study, we demonstrate the utility of practice mapping in assessing polarization in social networks.