The Fuzziness of Inclusion/Exclusion: Network Gatekeeping Theory

Karine Barzilai-Nahon

Reported by: Amanda Beacom & Cuihua (Cindy) Shen

Karine Barzilai-Nahon is an assistant professor at the University of Washington Information School. She studies information policy and politics, particularly information control and gatekeeping, the digital divide, and e-government and e-business in comparative analysis. Recent work has focused on network gatekeeping theory, digital divide metrics, the organizational impact of digital natives, and the development of the concept of “cultured technology” to understand information control in secluded communities.

In her seminar presentation, Professor Barzilai-Nahon used network gatekeeping theory to examine inclusion, exclusion, and power in networks. Network gatekeeping theory, which Barzilai-Nahon has proposed and developed in a series of recent publications, departs from other approaches to information control and gatekeeping in several ways. First, it recognizes three means of exercising power in social networks: (1) decisions; (2) non-decisions; and (3) inactions that shape preferences and awareness. Previous research has emphasized decision-making by elites as a means of exerting power in social interactions. Barzilai-Nahon argues that while decision-making may be an easier mechanism for researchers to observe, non-decisions and the shaping of preferences and awareness are also significant tools for controlling information in networks.

Second, network gatekeeping theory gives equal weight to gatekeepers and the “gated,” which Barzilai-Nahon defines as “the entity subjected to gatekeeping.” In a comprehensive review of gatekeeping theories across a range of scholarly disciplines, Barzilai-Nahon found that most research has focused on the gatekeeper, and little attention has been paid to the concept of the gated. Network gatekeeping theory identifies four attributes of the gated that affect information control in networks: (1) their political power relative to the gatekeeper, an attribute commonly studied in political science; (2) their information production ability, an attribute of traditional interest to economists; (3) their relationships with the gatekeeper, a major focus of social network analysts; and (4) their alternatives in the context of gatekeeping, which is of particular interest to Barzilai-Nahon.

To consider the gated’s alternatives is to acknowledge potential fluidity in the boundaries between gatekeeper and gated in social networks. These fuzzy boundaries are a third distinct feature of network gatekeeping theory. In her seminar presentation, Barzilai-Nahon argued that there is a dynamic flow of power between the identities of the gatekeeper and the gated, and that elite status is transient. According to network gatekeeping theory, a gated actor may become a gatekeeper when the gated possesses the capability to control information and the appropriate social context exists. Gatekeeping is a dynamic status dependent upon social context. Barzilai-Nahon used the example of the Huffington Post to illustrate gatekeeper-gated dynamics. In the social context of its readers, the Huffington Post may be viewed as a gatekeeper of information, but in other contexts, such as that of news sources or of all non-readers, the Huffington Post may be viewed as a gated actor. New information and communication technologies offer novel contexts for gatekeeper-gated dynamics.

Finally, Barzilai-Nahon pointed out that fluidity or fuzziness exists not only in gatekeeper-gated status but also in the broader question of whom or what is included or excluded in social networks. Barzilai-Nahon argued that inclusion/exclusion often reflects self regulation and the social norms of specific contexts. As a member of one network, we may highlight only certain characteristics of ourselves and exclude others. For example, in a professional network, an actor may not discuss a family vacation, whereas in a friend network, an actor may share vacation photos but not work projects. Information control occurs across multiple social dimensions and spheres, and therefore an actor may be included in one social network, and excluded in another, or be a gatekeeper in one network, and the gated in another.

Discussion

  • Macy: When it is fuzzy, you throw someone out. So you identify the deviant and exclude them (e.g., trolls in a forum), which help identify the inclusion criteria.
  • Capra: Huffington Post only serves as gatekeeper for those who read huffpost. Arianna Huffington already adopted the political culture (selected by the culture as the gatekeeper). She appeals to a certain group and the group selects her. Now she is influencing the group. The gatekeeper emerged. It is not the mob, it is the elite.
  • If elites exist ,why would there be the fuzziness of inclusion/exclusion? Because elites would like to dominate, and a lot of self-regulation processes take them to different paths. Unintended outcomes.
  • Taplin: There used to be gatekeepers and no alternatives (if movie is made but without a distributor, then the movie doesn’t exist) . Now there are gatekeepers and alternatives. You can put the movie on Youtube. The role of gatekeepers has changed – there are multiple dimensions of power.
  • Macy: “never having to say sorry” (love story) is not love, but power. the structure guarantees that it will happen – power.
  • Borner: this is an active view of gatekeeping. But there are also passive ways of gatekeeping.
    • Barzilai-Nahon: It’s difficult to operationalize passive gatekeeping. Passive gatekeeping gets to the second dimension of power.
  • Tongia – it is interesting to see what is excluded – what is taken out.
  • Barzilai-Nahon: Google is a gatekeeper when it exercises info control, but it can be gated in other circumstances (such as in China)
  • Butts:  In social network theory, brokerage (Burt’s argument) and exchange theory is very similar to your argument. What you have is equilibrium of gatekeepers in different contexts.  Gatekeeping is a global property, not local property. It also depends on the structure of the network (context) where people are embedded.
  • Castells: you are talking about press and internet, this is just one type of gatekeeping. But there are other forms of gatekeeping, like in a club.  Journalists are previously the powerful gatekeepers, but now journlaism crumbles. What is happening is a transformation of gatekeeping, and the gatekeepers. It is still unfolding. We don’t know for sure yet.
  • Macy – Nature open review experiment in 2006 is a good example.
  • Tongia – am I not the biggest gatekeeper for myself? We tend to look at gatekeepers from the supply side perspective.

Additional readings:

Barzilai-Nahon K. (2009). Gatekeeping: A critical review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 433-478.

Barzilai-Nahon K. (2008). Towards a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring
information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9),1493-1512.