Crawling from the Margin and Breaking the Silence: LGBTQ Networked

Counterpublics, Advocacy, and Social Media

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Imran Mazid

August 2017

© 2017 Imran Mazid. All Rights Reserved.

This dissertation titled

Crawling from the Margin and Breaking the Silence: LGBTQ Networked

Counterpublics, Advocacy, and Social Media

by

IMRAN MAZID

has been approved for

the School of Media Arts & Studies

and the Scripps College of Communication by

Wolfgang Sützl

Assistant Professor of Media Arts & Studies

Scott Titsworth

Dean, Scripps College of Communication

ii Abstract

MAZID, IMRAN, Ph.D., August 2017, Media Arts & Studies

Crawling from the Margin and Breaking the Silence: LGBTQ Networked

Counterpublics, Advocacy, and Social Media

Director of Dissertation: Wolfgang Sützl

The purpose of this study is to examine how LGBTQ nonprofit organizations in the US and Canada use and for advocacy and dialogic relationship building. Specifically, this study investigates four broad aspects of social media use: (a) message strategy, (b) dialogic communication principle, (c) social media engagement, and (d) communication professionals’ perceptions of the use of social media. The study employs explanatory sequential mixed method research, a design that focuses primarily on quantitative analyses and conducts qualitative investigation to generate a better understanding of the quantitative results. The sample size for this study is 71 nonprofit organizations. The results reveal that LGBTQ nonprofits use social media mainly for no- advocacy messages. This study also illuminates that organizations employ three advocacy tactics—public education, media advocacy, and coalition building—more frequently than other advocacy tactics. Furthermore, these organizations use the dialogic loop principle more prominently than other dialogic principles. The dialogic loop and useful information to media principles elicit more user response, engagement, and advocacy from social media users. Interviews reveal that nonprofit organizations use social media for three primary purposes: (a) cross-promotion of their digital content, (b) to inform people ongoing activities, and (c) fundraising.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Wolfgang

Sützl, who supported me during the dissertation writing process. He was gracious, modest, and above all kind. He listened to my concerns and guided me through the dissertation journey. His critical feedback helped me sharpen my arguments. Dr. Sützl, I want to thank you for making yourself available and for encouraging me to keep moving.

I also sincerely acknowledge the support and feedback of my committee members. I want to extend my gratitude to Prof. Steve Howard, Prof. Parul Jain, and Prof. Krisanna

Machtmes for providing continuous guidance and necessary feedback. I am proud to say that my committee members were compassionate and showed patience during my writing process. I further want to thank my friend, Zulfia Zaher, who believed in me and encouraged me to think visually. Finally, I want to thank the faculty members in the

School of Media Arts & Studies and the Patton College of Education for their continuous support.

iv Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgments...... iv List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Rationale for the Study ...... 4 Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the Study ...... 6 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Analysis of Literature ...... 8 LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations as Networked Counterpublic ...... 8 Theoretical Framework ...... 10 Habermas and public sphere...... 11 Transforming codes, performing legitimacy: Social media and networked counterpublics...... 13 Analysis of Literature ...... 17 LGBTQ and the formation of counterpublic...... 18 Beyond exploitation and euphoric celebration: The murky relationship between social media and social change...... 23 The terrain of nonprofit advocacy...... 27 Social media and nonprofit advocacy...... 31 Social media engagement...... 33 Dialogic relationship...... 40 Chapter 3: Research Design ...... 45 Research Questions ...... 51 Sample for Content Analysis ...... 52 Data Collection for Content Analysis ...... 54 Coding Schemes for Content Analysis ...... 54 Measurement ...... 57 Reliability ...... 58 Chapter 4: Results ...... 59 Organizational-level Analyses ...... 61 Quantitative Phase ...... 63 Summary of Quantitative Phase ...... 93

v Qualitative Phase ...... 94 Routine use of social media...... 95 Social media for advocacy...... 100 Relationship building...... 106 Strength of social media for communication...... 110 Limitations of social media for communication...... 112 Challenges for organizations...... 115 Strategic content creation and management...... 118 Summary of Qualitative Phase ...... 125 Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Results ...... 127 Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 131 Implications of the Research ...... 134 Research & theoretical implications...... 134 Practical implications...... 137 Suggestions for future research...... 138 Limitations of the study...... 139 Strengths of the study...... 139 Conclusion ...... 140 References ...... 143 Appendix 1: Coding Scheme for Advocacy Tactic ...... 177 Appendix 2: Coding Scheme with Examples for Advocacy Tactic ...... 178 Appendix 3: Coding Scheme for Dialogic Relationship...... 180 Appendix 4: Dialogic Features (Facebook) ...... 182 Appendix 5: Interview Protocol ...... 184 Appendix 6: Sample Nonprofit Organizations in the USA ...... 188 Appendix 7: Sample Nonprofit Organizations in Canada ...... 191 Appendix 8: IRB Approval ...... 193

vi List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Procedures for the Explanatory Sequential Research Design ...... 56

Table 2: Key Facebook Metrics of LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and

Canada...... 60

Table 3: Key Twitter Metrics of LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada

...... 60

Table 4: Frequency of Advocacy Tactics Employed on Facebook and Twitter by LGBTQ

Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 64

Table 5: Frequency of Advocacy Strategies Employed on Facebook and Twitter by

LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 65

Table 6: Dialogic Principles Employed on Facebook Messages by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 65

Table 7: Dialogic Principles Employed on Twitter Messages by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 68

Table 8: Core Dialogic Principles Employed on Facebook by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 72

Table 9: Core Dialogic Principles Employed on Twitter by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada ...... 72

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Likes) on Facebook ...... 86

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Comments) on Facebook ...... 86

vii Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Shares) on Facebook ...... 87

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Favorite) on Twitter ...... 87

Table 14: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Replies) on Twitter ...... 88

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Retweets) on Twitter ...... 89

Table 16: Cross-tabulation of Advocacy and Dialogic Principle on Facebook ...... 90

Table 17: Cross-tabulation of Advocacy Strategies and Dialogic Principle on Twitter ... 90

Table 18: Summary of Themes and Coding Categories ...... 98

viii List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: Explanatory-sequential mixed method research process ...... 46

Figure 2: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (likes) on

Facebook ...... 73

Figure 3: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (comments) on

Facebook ...... 74

Figure 4: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (shares) on

Facebook ...... 75

Figure 5: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (favorite) on

Twitter ...... 76

Figure 6: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (replies) on

Twitter ...... 77

Figure 7: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (retweets) on

Twitter ...... 78

Figure 8: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (likes) on

Facebook ...... 79

Figure 9: Decision tree dialogic principle and associated public reactions (comments) on

Facebook ...... 79

Figure 10: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (shares) on

Facebook ...... 80

Figure 11: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (favorite) on Twitter ...... 81

ix Figure 12: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (replies) on

Twitter ...... 81

Figure 13: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (retweets) on Twitter ...... 82

Figure 14: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (response) on Facebook and

Twitter ...... 83

Figure 15: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (user engagement) on

Facebook and Twitter ...... 84

Figure 16: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (user advocacy) on

Facebook and Twitter ...... 85

x Chapter 1: Introduction

Though more than 10 million Americans identify as , , bisexual, , and (LGBTQ) individuals (Gates, 2017), they are subject to discriminatory policies, biased social practices, and even physical violence. In 2017, more than 130 bills in 30 states are being debated to curtail LGBTQ rights or enact discriminatory policies in the name of religious freedom (Human Rights Campaign,

2017). For example, Texas Senate Bill 6 bans local governments from enforcing non- discriminatory ordinances that protect transgender people (Freedom for All Americans,

2017). The bill also restricts trans people from using restrooms or changing facilities that align with their . On April 13, 2017, Republicans in North Carolina introduced House Bill 780 (Uphold Historical Marriage Act) that defies the Supreme

Court rule on same-sex marriage and attempt to reinstate state’s ban on same-sex marriage (NCLEG, 2017). Similar bills that violate the protection of LGBTQ individuals and discriminate people based on their sexual orientations (Freedom for All Americans,

2017) are in discussion. President Trump’s administration has withdrawn support from the federal guidelines that protected trans students’ right to use restrooms that match their gender and (Somashekhar, Brown, & Balingit, 2017). President Trump also signed the ‘Revocation of Federal Contracting Executive Orders’ that weaken the protection of LGBTQ workers (White House, 2017). Such scenario reveals discriminatory policies that perpetuate structural violence to LGBTQ people.

LGBTQ people face continuous exclusionary social practices that marginalize their lived experiences. The Pew Research Center (2016a) reports that a third of

Americans believe homosexual behavior as morally wrong and 37% of US adults oppose

1 same-sex marriage (2016b). Many religious groups are firmly against same-sex marriage.

For example, Pew Research Center (2016a) reports that the Roman Catholic Church, the

Orthodox Jewish movement, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the

Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Baptist Convention restrict clergy from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. GLSEN (2017) reports that 75% of trans students felt unsafe in their schools because of their gender identity. LGBTQ students face on-going verbal harassment, bullying, and even physical assaults (GLSEN,

2015).

The National School Climate Survey reports that 27% of LGBTQ students were physically harassed, 13% faced physical assaults, and 48.6% suffered cyber bullying

(GLSEN, 2015). Such a school climate prompts dire physical and mental consequences for LGBTQ students. Most importantly, when 63.5% of victims complained to school authorities, the school staff did nothing to protect the LGBTQ students (GLSEN, 2015).

A recent post-election survey of young LGBTQ Americans (Human Rights Campaign,

2017) reports 79% faced bullying and hate messages, and 50% expressed feeling nervous in the post-election period. In a nutshell, LGBTQ adults and youth alike face exclusionary social practices because their gender identity collides with the dominant conservative values.

Physical violence and hate crimes against LGBTQ people are very alarming in the

US. In 2016, more than 23 trans women of color were killed, and this number is higher than 2015 (Human Rights Campaign, 2016). The National Center for Transgender

Equality (2016) highlights that more than 56% of survey respondents experienced violence from intimate partners. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015) reports

2 1,053 incidents of hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans. Such a scenario indicates the vulnerability of LGBTQ people in the US.

LGBTQ non-profit organizations work to protect the rights of LGBTQ people and other marginalized communities. They document against LGBTQ people, bring up such incidents on public discussion platforms, provide support, and advocate for social change. Most importantly, non-profit organizations challenge dominant practices, dismantle exclusionary knowledge claims, and advocate to create a safer place for

LGBTQ people. Though organizations like the Human Rights Campaign successfully employs social media to advocate for policy changes and to garner support for same-sex marriage, no research to date has exclusively examined LGBTQ non-profit organizations and their use of social media for advocacy and dialogic relationship building. It is necessary for communication scholars to understand how marginalized groups like

LGBTQ non-profit organizations use social media to unsettle dominant socio-political practices.

This study investigates social media use by LGBTQ non-profit organizations.

Specifically, it is interested in four broad aspects of social media use: (a) message strategy, (b) dialogic communication principle, (c) social media engagement, and (d) communication professionals’ perceptions of the use of social media. To investigate the message strategy, I examine the advocacy tactics employed in social media messages. I also investigate employment of the dialogic communication principle on social media to explore communication strategy. The study also examines the connection between the dialogic principle and social media engagement. Furthermore, the study attempts to

3 understand the perception of non-profit communications managers and executives about the use of social media in advocacy and dialogic relationship building.

The purpose of this study is to examine how LGBTQ nonprofit organizations as networked counterpublics use social media for advocacy and dialogic relationship building. Building on the earlier work of networked publics (Anderson, 2006; Boyd,

2011; Fraser, 1990; Papacharissi & Oliveira, 2012), I identify networked counterpublics as an imagined discursive community organized through technological and communicative affordances of websites and digital technologies. Such discursive community challenges dominant knowledge claims and discriminatory social practices by expanding conversations and circulating affective experiences. The focus of this research is LGBTQ nonprofit organizations in the US and Canada. The study explores two social media platforms: (a) Facebook and (b) Twitter. Earlier studies (Kim, Chun, Kwak, &

Nam, 2014; Guo & Saxton, 2014) reveal that non-profit advocacy organizations mainly use Facebook and Twitter for organizational communication.

The rationale for investigating LGBTQ organizations of the US and Canada is threefold. First, I selected these two North American countries because of their geographical proximity and similar linguistic orientation. Second, same-sex marriage has been legalized in both countries. Third, these two countries make exemplary cases for studying Western cultural orientation on and diversity in social practices.

Rationale for the Study

Scholars interested in nonprofit organizations and their use of websites and social media for strategic communication (especially civic engagement, advocacy, and dialogic communication) focus primarily on environmental advocacy groups (Bortree & Seltzer,

4 2009; Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009; Kim et al., 2014; Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007; Kent,

Taylor, & White, 2003; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001), the top 100/200 nonprofits (Ihm,

2015; Waters & Jamal, 2011; Saxton & Waters, 2014), community foundations (Saxton

& Guo, 2012; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Saxton, Guo, & Brown, 2007), human services

(Goldkind, 2014), and health (Saxton, Niyirora, Guo, & Waters, 2015). However,

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations have received little attention from strategic communication scholars. Guidry, Saxton, and Messner (2015) argue that future research on nonprofit organizations needs to focus on particular interest groups so we can understand how different interest groups are performing on social media for advocacy and dialogic communication.

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations work to protect LGBTQ citizens against violence. Violence is not only about attacking one's body; it is also about exclusion, objectification, and differentiation (Taylor, 1998). Galtung (1990) explicates three types of violence: (a) direct, (b) structural, and (c) cultural. Studies (GLSEN, 2013a, 2013b) document violence perpetrated against LGBTQ citizens that resonates with Gatlung’s

(1990) articulation of violence. Taylor (1998) argues, “Violences are exclusions, and terror, absolute exclusion. It is absolute lack of resources—to law, to recourses, to human support” (p. 72). Dominant social groups and actors often attempt to exclude LGBTQ citizens from social practices. For example, legislative decisions in North Carolina and

Mississippi in 2016 support anti-LGBTQ laws that can violate LGBTQ rights and exclude them from dignity.

LGBTQ citizens are excluded from the benefits of fuller citizenship. For example, Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, refused to provide a marriage license to

5 an LGBTQ couple. Though she was subject to incarceration for violating a court order, she garnered much support for her action from those who oppose marriage equality. Her speech in front of a cheering crowd, waiting outside the prison, heralded the arrival of a modern-day savior. She even met Pope Francis in Washington in 2015 and received two rosaries from him. Such events indicate perpetual violence against LGBTQ individuals.

As long as against these citizens continues, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations and their advocacy activities demand scholarly attention in a post-marriage equality period.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the Study

Nonprofit organizations play a pivotal role in democratic practices by providing policy guidelines and giving voice to marginalized citizens. This study enhances our understanding of networked counterpublics and social media in several ways. First, the research provides new insight into online advocacy tactics of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations. Second, the project illuminates intricacies of networked advocacy and . Third, the study provides substantial insight into public engagement, advocacy strategies, and dialogic communication.

Building on earlier research on LGBTQ organizations and social media (Ciszek,

2014; Goltz, 2013; Renninger, 2015), this study extends our knowledge of strategic communication of networked counterpublics in general, and more specifically on the

LGBTQ community regarding the use of social media. This study illuminates the nuances of “advocacy mix” on social media platforms. Nonprofit organizations as interest groups work for democratic and social justice activism; however, a particular community of nonprofit organizations like LGBTQ groups has distinct challenges and strengths for

6 advocacy relating to social change and policy reforms. This study locates such challenges, strengths, and even dilemmas in online advocacy and relationship building.

7 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Analysis of Literature

I believe a LGBTQ networked counterpublic can engage in advocacy practices by cultivating a dialogic relationship with publics and building a community of activists and allies to rally support for policy reformulation and social change. The participatory and interactive communicative features of social media coupled with their normalizing presence in everyday interactions have altered the dynamics of advocacy and relationship building. LGBTQ nonprofit organizations as a networked counterpublic entity uses social media platforms to mobilize people for their causes and to create a shared framework for advocacy. Furthermore, the online presence of LGBTQ groups provides a

“communication action context” (Usher & Morrison, 2010) that helps individuals engage creatively with common themes, issues, cultural codes, language, and symbols (Mitra &

Gajjala, 2008). Such connections foster a discursive community that supports LGBTQ advocacy and activism (Usher & Morrison, 2010). The social media presence of LGBTQ organizations promotes their narratives of dissent, connecting them to potential sympathizers and helping them to mobilize supporters for social change

(Haythornthwaite, 2011).

LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations as Networked Counterpublic

The dominance of in our social structure created a marginal positionality for the LGBTQ community. LGBTQ nonprofit organizations work to destabilize power relations in sexual politics, circulate counter-authoritative discourse, and forge an oppositional identity. Most importantly, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations represent an emerging collective of citizens who, sharing a common framework of exclusion and discrimination, negotiate and challenge what it means to be an LGBTQ

8 individual. They thus aspire to define LGBTQ interests and engage in advocacy for social change.

The presence of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations on social media epitomize the norms and practices of networked counterpublics for several reasons. First, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations construct an online discursive community based on shared grievances, exclusion, and marginalized experiences. Second, advocacy activities of such organizations on social media unsettle the dominance of heteronormativity by circulating dissident discourses. Third, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations work to reformulate discriminatory policies and social structure which created the marginal positionality for

LGBTQ individuals. Fourth, LGBTQ organizations reflexively construct their oppositional identity to build community and to mobilize citizens for collective action.

Fifth, an LGBTQ discursive community online can cultivate epistemic capital to unsettle dominance. Sixth, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations on social media platforms can create a space where individuals, especially LGBTQ citizens, can articulate lived experiences and take control over their narrative. Thus, the process strengthens the oppositional identity of LGBTQ people.

Morozov (2011) posits that the online presence of networked citizens only brings like-minded people closer as a community. However, building on the work of Squires

(2002), I argue that the LGBTQ networked counterpublic aspires to test the reaction of the wider publics by circulating dissident voices, expressing a counter-authoritative opinion, conducting an online campaign, and eliciting responses. The dominant groups in society can react in two ways. First, the dominant groups may not respond to such a clarion call, thus demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of authoritative discourse. Second, if

9 the dominant groups respond, then they pave a way for social conversation and renegotiation. Such process brings together not only LGBTQ citizens but also allies who believe in dignity, choice, and freedom to love. Scholars (Matias, Sauter, & Stempack,

2013) claim that support for LGBTQ rights depends on whether people know LGBTQ citizens as members or share social circles and professional groups. LGBTQ nonprofit organizations make the LGBTQ lived experience visible to various publics and situate it closer to everyday experiences.

Theoretical Framework

I believe communicative affordances of social media provide a discursive space in which counterpublic voices can engage with wider publics for contestation, legitimization, and representation. The mass self-communication (Castells, 2007) potentials of digital platforms like social networks, discussion boards, blogs, and other communicative spaces work as sites of counter-power (Castells, 2007). Such public communication forums or virtual public spheres (Papacharissi, 2002) create communicative realms for rational debate and work as affective spaces that aggregate narratives of dissent for creative disruption of authoritative forces. For this study, virtual public sphere refers to the symbolic space, generated by social media, where citizens express opinions, share ideas, and negotiate or contest social categories, values, and practices. Aligning with earlier literature on the public sphere (Fraser, 1990; Toepfl &

Piwoni, 2015), the study conceptualizes public sphere as discursive spaces “comprised of a multiplicity of unequal (sub)public spheres” (Toepfl & Piwoni, 2015, p. 469). The communicative spaces for public sphere of polity can include traditional mass media, social networking platforms, websites, salons, town hall meetings, and others (Toepfl &

10 Piwoni, 2015, p. 469). To explicate theoretical propositions of the study, I first delve into

Habermas’s idea of the public sphere. Then, I engage with the idea of networked counterpublics.

Habermas and public sphere. According to Habermas (1991), in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries the bourgeois public sphere emerged as a mediator between state and society (Asen & Brouwer, 2001). The Habermasian model of bourgeois public sphere refers to a communicative space for deliberations, where private individuals gather

“as a public” (Habermas, 1991) and exchange ideas to secure the common good. Coffee houses, salons, and table societies (Habermas, 1991) epitomize the norms and values of the public sphere where citizens gather to form a public to advance general interest in state activities (Asen & Brouwer, 2001). The idea of the public sphere has three formative elements: (a) participation of citizens, (b) rational arguments, and (c) discursive agreement on issues relevant to general interest (Asen & Brouwer, 2001).

However, the bourgeois public sphere was not inclusive of all citizens; rather, access to such space was limited to men, bourgeoisies, and property owners. This exclusionary mechanism rendered the experiences of women, workers, and other marginalized citizens invisible (Felski, 1989; Fraser, 1990). Aligning with feminist and critical race scholars, I believe multiple publics reside and compete for prominence and recognition; but the bourgeois public sphere privileged only such expressions that belonged to particular publics, especially bourgeoisies, literate people, and men (Breese, 2011; Squires, 2002).

In his later works, Habermas (1996, 2006) attempts to reformulate the idea of the public sphere and to acknowledge the plurality of public spheres (Lunt & Livingstone,

2013). Habermas (2006) highlights the interdependence between the political system,

11 functional systems (economy, education, political, and others), and civil society.

Acknowledging the complexity of such interdependence, Habermas (2006) focuses more on the plurality of public opinion. He further argues that when social systems categorically exclude citizens and media systems become colonized by powerful people, the public sphere fails to uphold the deliberative functions (Friedland, Hove, & Rojas,

2006). Lunt and Livingstone (2013) posit that “Habermas has accepted the sociological critiques leveled at his original account of the public sphere, now recognizing the importance of inclusivity, diversity, identity, the end of consensus government, distributed governance, and the complexity of social systems” (p. 95). To sum up,

Habermas recognizes the communicative power of different social groups while remaining committed to the normative functionality of public spheres.

The idea of the public sphere (Habermas, 1991) received widespread recognition from media and communication scholars as they investigated the role of media in the democratic process and deliberation. During the last decade, the Journal of Media,

Culture, and Society published 247 articles that incorporated the concept of the public sphere (Lunt & Livingstone, 2013). If we combine the other and communication journals, the number of such articles rises even higher. Media and communication scholars argue that traditional or popular mass communication channels like television, radio, and print media create a discursive public sphere (Jackson &

Welles, 2015). Such traditional mass media work as spaces for public debate, rational argumentation, and exchange of ideas.

However, like the bourgeois public sphere, traditional mass media are colonized by the interests of elite and powerful citizens; marginalized citizens rarely have access to

12 the content production process of mass communication channels (Herman & Chomsky,

2010; McChesney, 2004, 2015). Traditional mass media cater to the needs and demands of widespread interests and rarely accommodate marginalized voices. Such media want to secure financial interests or to serve dominant political ideology (Curran, 1991;

Garnham, 1992). The exclusionary mechanism of the traditional mass media rarely provides spaces for marginalized citizens like LGBTQ individuals. Thus, counterpublics in different democratic societies actively create mediated space for alternative media; but such communicative space is limited regarding reaching a wider audience. If the counterpublics want to participate through traditional media, their voices can be coopted by the authoritative discourse or they may lose control over their narratives. The presence of the social media helps counterpublics to claim the legitimacy of their lived experiences, exert control over their narratives of dissent, and create a space for a larger and stronger community.

Transforming codes, performing legitimacy: Social media and networked counterpublics. Feminist scholars (Felski, 1989; Fraser, 1990) challenge the

Habermasian (1991) model of the bourgeois public sphere as it excludes the experiences of women and other marginalized citizens. Felski (1989) contends that counterpublics pose critical questions and disrupt the dominance of discriminatory practices that exclude experiences of marginalized citizens. Fraser (1990) argues that marginalized citizens like workers, people of color, women, and LGBTQ individuals have often forged alternative publics to mobilize emancipatory politics. Fraser (1990) identifies such publics as

“subaltern counterpublics” (p. 123). The formation of counterpublics generates tensions in the social fabric and interrupts the dominance of discriminatory practices that construct

13 the matrix of exclusion and marginalization. Fraser (1990) argues that counterpublics produce new discursive strategies to challenge the matrix of exclusion. Integrating the literature of counterpublics, Toepfl and Piwoni (2015) identify three crucial features: destabilizing power relations, providing counter-discourses, and using communicative reflexivity to strengthen collective identity.

In any cultural formations, marginalized citizens like LGBTQ individuals remain conscious of their struggle or the (im)possibility of articulating their lifeworld experience in the social and cultural realm (Warner, 2005). For example, LGBTQ organizations comprise the populace of such counterpublics as organizations which challenge dominant knowledge claims, disrupt power relations, circulate counter-discourse, and actively produce counter- authoritative identity. Warner (2005) argues, “Counterpublics are, by definition, formed by their conflict with the norms and contexts of their cultural environment” (p.63). Such counterpublic groups generate a self-conscious oppositional identity. Furthermore, LGBTQ nonprofit organizations as counterpublics demand recognition, representation, and legitimization from those who enjoy privilege positionality and fuller citizenship. These organizations disrupt dominant practices that silence strident disagreement (Asen & Brouwer, 2001; Downey & Fenton, 2003).

Communicative affordances of social media facilitate the presence of networked counterpublics by providing visibility and circulating anti-authoritative discourses. The networked counterpublics circulate their oppositional identity by claiming the space as if it belongs to them (Travers, 2003). Social media mainly use three ways to facilitate the inclusion of contentious expressions of LGBTQ networked counterpublics like LGBTQ nonprofit organizations: (a) self-representation, (b) networking and , and (c)

14 constructing virtual discursive communities. I believe the discursive space of social media-centric public spheres facilitate inclusion of counterpublic voices such as the stories of LGBTQ lived experiences through mediated self-representation. For instance,

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations incorporate digital-storytelling, small-scale and amateur personal digital stories that provide LGBTQ citizens with space for self-representation.

Social media circulate digital stories that illuminate the intimate, personal, and everyday experiences of the LGBTQ community. Such stories situate individuals in a web of social relationships and highlight the agency of the storyteller (Lundby, 2008). Thus, such practices humanize the lived experiences of LGBTQ individuals, disrupt the dominance of heterosexual narratives, and dismantle the privilege positionality of heteronormativity.

Digital stories shed light on the intricacies of human practices and unveil the matrix of power in social practices that exclude LGBTQ experiences. For example, the It

Gets Better Project circulates personal narratives of LGBTQ individuals that provide alternative understanding and meaning of LGBTQ lived experiences. Such stories challenge the dominant discourse of so often reproduced by the traditional mainstream media. The It Gets Better Project stories produce mediated generativity (Goltz, 2013; Kimmel, 2004)—satisfaction generated from inclusion, as younger and older LGBTQ individuals alike share their lived experiences and create a narrative of possibilities (Goltz, 2013). Digital stories and networking opportunities of virtual sphere provide a space where LGBTQ individuals can create social capital.

Social media scholars highlight the role social media use to cultivate social capital online (Sajuria, van Heerde-Hudson, Hudson, Dasandi, & Theocharis, 2015). The core communicative affordance of social media is networking which is embedded in human

15 relationships. LGBTQ organizations utilize social media to connect and to build relationship with people who share similar , beliefs, and values. Such social connections help organizations acquire social capital online (Kuhlmann, & Ball,

2008). Chong, Zhang, Mak, and Pang (2015) argue that social media is a crucial tool that

LGBTQ citizens use to cultivate social capital online. Such social capital helps LGBTQ individuals to develop trust and create mutual bonding that supports emotional well- being. Furthermore, marginalized citizens like LGBTQ groups use the networked sphere to construct online communities.

Networked community connections are crucial for LGBTQ citizens. They help combat isolation and work as an affective and a cognitive reference point. An individual connected with an LGBTQ virtual discursive community understand that he or she is not alone, and that there are people who share the same sexual orientation. For example, the

It Gets Better Project, the Trevor Project, We Give a Damn, and other online LGBTQ communities work to support LGBTQ individuals and construct online communities that fight against homophobic practices. An Online LGBTQ community discusses, shares, and debates the struggles relevant to LGBTQ lived experiences. Such a discursive community provides emotional support to those who are struggling with marginalized identity (Cooper & Dzara, 2010).

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations work as networked counterpublic communities to provide information about LGBTQ lived experiences that reduce any tensions related to

LGBTQ orientations (Cooper & Dzara, 2010). LGBTQ nonprofit organizations generate counter-narratives of authoritative discourse to disrupt dominant knowledge claims. Such discourses destabilize power relations. Most importantly, the online presence of the

16 LGBTQ community makes LGBTQ demands visible to wider audiences and garner support for LGBTQ rights. For example, the It Gets Better Project has collected more than 50,000 user-generated videos that express new possibilities and a better future for

LGBTQ citizens (It Gets Better Project, 2016). President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton,

Nancy Pelosi, and many other politicians and celebrities submitted videos to support

LGBTQ rights. This is particularly important because such widespread political and cultural endorsements enhance the visibility of the LGBTQ community. Further, the

LGBTQ online community strengthens advocacy initiatives by mobilizing people for collective action (Mehra, Merkel, & Bishop, 2004).

Analysis of Literature

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations use social media to craft a discursive community of dissent voices that challenge discriminatory practices and provide information about

LGBTQ lived experiences. This helps to reduce tensions related to LGBTQ orientations

(Mundy, 2013; Ciszek, 2014). Online discursive communities make LGBTQ demands visible to wider audiences and garner support for LGBTQ rights. In 2013, Human Rights

Campaign launched an effort on social media in support of same-sex marriage. The campaign asked social media users to change their Facebook profile pictures to a red equal-sign logo to support same-sex marriage. More than 10 million people did so, demonstrating support for marriage equality (Skarda, 2014). Such public endorsement showed widespread support for LGBTQ rights. Eventually, action like this can influence policy and regulations to strengthen LGBTQ rights. In 2015, more than 26 million

Facebook users changed their Facebook profile pictures to a rainbow in support of the landmark victory of marriage equality in the Supreme Court (Dewey, 2015).

17 The analysis of literature is divided into six sections. The first section explores

LGBTQ social movement in the US and Canada. It also investigates the formation of

LGBTQ counterpublic. The second section engages the murky terrain of social media and social change. In the third section, I explicate scholarly research on advocacy strategies of nonprofit organizations. I analyze the use of social media for advocacy in the fourth section. I examine studies on social media engagement in the fifth section. In the sixth section, I discuss literature pertaining to dialogic communication, websites, and social media.

LGBTQ social movement and the formation of counterpublic. The Stonewell riot in 1969 is the crucial historical point for LGBTQ activism in the US. The pre-

Stonewell period was marked by a sense of ambivalence in LGBTQ activism, with the dominant scripts of society continually labeling LGBTQ people as “sick, sinful, criminal, depraved, menacing” (D’Emilio, 2002, p. 26). Such portrayals of gays and were enacted though numerous police raids of gay establishments, physical violence, job insecurity and terminations, and institutionalized (D’Emilio, 2002).

Historical analysis of LGBTQ activism of this period reveals that “the early gay movement, in other words, doubted its ability—and authority—to speak on its own behalf. Instead, it depended on the good will of enlightened lawyers, doctors, and ministers to win a hearing from society” (D’Emilio, 2002, p. 27). LGBTQ activists like

Frank Kameny learned from the civil rights movement and worked to challenge the homophobic claims circulated by churches and the medical profession (D’Emilio, 2002).

In addition, activists in this period employed civil rights tactics like public demonstrations and protests, the scope of such protests was very limited.

18 The Stonewell riot spawned formation of radical LGBTQ groups and used confrontational tactics to recruit new activists. Learning from the new left movement,

LGBTQ activists aligned themselves with political movements like anti-war and women’s liberation movement. They also engaged in university and college-level activism and opened LGBTQ chapters in educational institutions (D’Emilio, 2015).

According to D’Emilio (2015) the post-Stonewell movement survived for two reasons.

First, activists shifted the meaning of “” from a personal act to a political one.

Such an approach gave momentum to the LGBTQ movement as people started to acknowledge their sexual identity and coming out reflected their institutional position as doctors, students, lawyers, and others, which prompted change in the institutional attitude toward gays and lesbians (D’Emilio, 2015). Second, the coalition with the women’s liberation movement enhanced the protest repertoire of the LGBTQ movement and gave prominence to LGBTQ rights. The LGBTQ community achieved marriage equality in

2015, which is a shining victory for this movement.

The LGBTQ movement in Canada was influenced by the social protests in the

US. The civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war protest, the Black Panthers, and the new left movement influenced Canadian activists (Chenier, 2015). The LGBTQ movement was part of a broader coalition of protests pitted against the intersectionality of oppression — gender, race, class, sexual orientations, and others — and created a synergy against discriminatory policies and practices. Though the divide between French- and English-speaking gay and lesbian communities created a segmented network for activism, eventually all worked to strengthen the rights of queer people (Smith, 2004).

Scholars (Smith, 1999; Rayside, 2001) employ political opportunity theory to explain

19 how political and institutional practices shape the LGBTQ movement in Canada. Canada decriminalized homosexuality in 1967 and passed the same-sex marriage bill in 2005.

The LGBTQ community press serves as a strong support base for LGBTQ activism and carves out a counterpublic space where the queer public can express their lived experiences and form alliances for counter-narratives. Such counterpublic serves two purposes. First, LGBTQ the community-press gives voice to the community, provides information about LGBTQ issues and events, and gives a foundation to the emerging LGBTQ movement (D’Emilio, 2012). More importantly, the LGBTQ press nurtures self-conscious sexual identity and creates a space where the community can regroup and contest the normalizing presence of heterosexual scripts and eventually challenge the formation of normal in the social realm (Warner, 2005). Second, LGBTQ groups and organizations contest the negative portrayals of gays and lesbians in mainstream media and engage in activism to ameliorate such representation of the

LGBTQ community. Media activism is important for the LGBTQ movement because mainstream media have considerable influence on public opinion.

The lifespan of the earlier LGBTQ community-press was short and primarily dependent on volunteers and contributions of their patrons (D’Emilio, 2012). Such publications struggled for advertising revenues because, except for a few gay bars, entrepreneurs were afraid of social repercussions and police harassment (D’Emilio,

2012). Though Friendship and Freedom and Vice Versa were publishing periodicals in the 1920s, the three publications which have had a lasting impact on the growth of

LGBTQ counterpublic space and activism are One, Mattachine Review, and The Ladder.

The publishers of One fight against postal censorship charges for obscenity and challenge

20 the conventional norms of homosexuality. This publication came out of downtown Los

Angeles and published its first issue in January, 1953. LGBTQ media historian White

(2012) argues that

ONE was wildly successful and served as a linchpin for the entire movement,

being read by thousands of men and women each month. Hundreds across the

nation received ONE in their mailboxes on a regular basis and could watch the

movement grow from the safety of their own homes. (p. 143)

The Mattachine Review was first published in November, 1953, by Hal Call. Call, a veteran journalist, used the publication to educate people about the experiences of

LGBTQ people and aspired to reach a wider audience (White, 2012). The Review was short-lived because of internal conflicts and dwindling circulation. The Ladder was a crucial component of the lesbian movement in the US (Baim, 2012). It started in October,

1956, and published mainly poetry, fiction, history, and biography. However, The Ladder strategically avoided a firm political stance regarding lesbian rights (Baim, 2012).

Though these earlier publications provided a solid ground for LGBTQ community media, they were subject to criticism for “image polishing” (White, 2012, p. 144). I believe the ambivalence of the early LGBTQ press is rooted in their historical position as a minority and the experience of facing violence. Such publications cultivate a space where queer individuals and activists can scavenge the cultural texts of what it means to be gay or lesbian in our society and use subversive tactics, parody, cultural commentary, and art to reformulate the cultural sensibility toward the LGBTQ community. Following the Stonewall uprising in New York City, the queer press proliferated in the 1970s

21 because the community needed voices to cultivate a space in which LGBTQ people could represent their lived experiences (D’Emilio, 2012).

Queer activists and artists produce Zines, small self-published magazines, to express their lived experiences and their desire to transgress private and public norms (It's

Raining Dykes, 2009). LGBTQ publics produce Zines to highlight the queer scenes in their communities and to push the boundaries of normality and sexual orientations. Often such Zine makers remain underground publishers who report on queer issues and their intimacy. LGBTQ activists also engage in creating alternative newspapers or underground press for cultural resistance (McMillan, 2011). LGBTQ film festivals, Pride marches, and emerging queer broadcasting provide increasing visibility of the LGBTQ public (Dyer, 2002; Johnson & Keith, 2001; Meeker, 2006). More importantly, such practices help create a queer counterculture to resist the dominant scripts of heteronormativity.

The dominant press in the US often used demonizing words to identify LGBTQ individuals: “degenerates, misfits, nests of perverts, moral depravity” (D’Emilio, 2012, p.

9). Baim (2012) argues that

When the media of the previous two centuries were not wholly ignoring

everything about homosexuals and the growing gay rights movement, they were

doing far worse: moralizing, demonizing, medicalizing, repairing, proselytizing,

polarizing, ostracizing, and often just pitying those poor, sad, pathetic, avowed

homosexuals. (p. 15)

Early protests against the negative representation of LGBTQ people were limited to writing letters to editors; however, in the 1970s and 1980s LGBTQ groups started to

22 resist negative portrayals of their experiences in the mainstream media by creating alliances and invoking ephemeral visuals. After the Stonewall riot, LGBTQ groups like the Gay Activist Alliance, the National Gay Task Force, and Lesbian Feminist Liberation started to use organized and systematic campaigns to resist the negative gay images in mainstream media (Capsuto, 2000; Penney, 2015). ACT UP and GLAAD were the key organizations that challenged the dominant negative images of gay individuals and targeted the popular culture as a point of resistance (Baim, 2012; Burk, 2015; Penney,

2015). Such initiatives ameliorated the negative portrayals of LGBTQ lives and created a cultural space where queer culture flourishes and paved the way for acceptance, tolerance, and discursive dialogue.

Beyond exploitation and euphoric celebration: The murky relationship between social media and social change. The normalizing presence of websites and social media have received both euphoric celebration and critical condemnation from scholars. I analyze such intellectual reception in two broader categories: (a) critical scholarship of the political economy of media and (b) participatory potentials of websites and social media. I first explicate the critique of political economy that focuses on exploitation and domination in information capitalism. Second, I concentrate on participatory potentials of web networks and social media.

Terranova (2000) posits that digital economy transformed society into a factory to extract value from immaterial cultural and affective labor. Terranova’s (2000) thesis of

“free labor” in the digital economy highlights how knowledge production and affective/cultural works are inherently collective and social, and capitalism has channeled our collective cultural labor to generate a financial flow within the structure of capitalism.

23 She explains that we do not consider online chat, digital stories, mailing lists, amateur newsletters, and other online activities as work; but such pervasive online immaterial work is sustained within the realm of the digital economy. According to Terranova

(2000), experiment with “knowledge/culture/affect” (Terranova, 2000, p. 38) generate financial gains for capitalist enterprises. She claims that such practices produce free labor: “Free labor is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited” (Terranova, 2000, p. 37). However, such creation of free labor in the digital economy “is not necessarily exploited labor” (p. 48), rather it is often pleasurable as it produces a subjectivity that generates gratification of participating in collective knowledge production and affective works. Scholars (Brown, 2014; Coté &

Pybus, 2007; Jin & Feenberg, 2015) incorporate Terranova’s (2000) idea of free labor to explicate the immaterial labor of the digital economy and the user-generated content of social media like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, and others. Aligning with such scholarship, Fuchs (2010, 2012, 2014) reveals the exploitative practices of the and social media industry.

Fuchs and Trottier (2015) argue that the integrated sociality and role playing in social media generate an abundance of user information that is harnessed to gain monetary benefits. Social media platforms sell user information to advertisers and marketers to accumulate capital and financial resources. Fuchs (2014) posits that

“Corporate social media prosumption is a form of continuous primitive accumulation of capital that turns non-commodified leisure time into productive labor time that generates value and profit for capital” (p. 120). Such practices blur the distinction between

24 production and consumption, leisure and work, and ultimately produce a new matrix of power relations (Fuchs, 2014). Thus, the unequal power-relations on social media platforms transform autonomous users into the subject of surveillance and free labor.

Fuchs and Trottier (2015) claim that social media surveillance generates extensive personal data about citizens and employees that “can be used in various contexts for exerting violence against these groups” (p. 127).

However, such critique often effaces the participatory and democratic potentials of the Internet and social media. Shirky (2011) claims that social media facilitate freedom of expression and democratization in political practices. As a techno-optimist, Shirky

(2008, 2011) claims that the technological architecture of the Internet and social media promote sharing, community building, and cooperation, and citizens can thus create a common framework for collective action and social change. Castells (2007) argues that the Internet provides a space for mass self-communication, and such facilitation enhances democratization and political engagement. Hardt and Negri (2004) claim that the networked nature of global information systems fosters communication and cooperation among citizens and helps the emergence of the multitude.

The concept multitude refers to “a set of singularities—and by singularity here we mean a social subject whose differences cannot be reduced to sameness, a difference that remains different” (Hardt & Negri, 2004, p. 99). Hardt and Negri (2004) contrast the multitude and the crowd—the mass and the mob. They highlight the immaterial labor of the digital economy and explain networked communication and cooperation among multitudes can harness “swarm intelligence” (p. 91). Such collaboration and sharing can produce resistance against capitalism. Lévy (1997) argues that the networked

25 communication structure of a digital economy helps the emergence of “collective intelligence” (p. 13). This idea refers to “a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills” (Lévy, 1997, p. 13). Lévy (1997) posits that the Internet creates a participatory knowledge space that connects human minds, and citizens can collaborate and share knowledge in a distributed information network.

However, such euphoric reception of cyberculture often neutralizes the nexus of capital-immaterial labor-surveillance in the digital economy. Furthermore, social movement scholars (Mattoni & Treré, 2014; Tufekci, 2014) and media scholarship

(Rodríguez, Ferron, & Shamas, 2014) contest the uncritical understanding of the participatory potentials of the Internet and social media. Such scholarship contends that any uncritical reception of the democratic potentials of social media fail to capture the complexity, nuances, everyday contestation-negotiations, meditation, and power-relations related to media and social change. Morozov (2011) argues that social media users mostly use such platforms for entertainment and personal gratification which shields the individuals from political organizing. Morozov (2011) claims that the participatory potentials of social media have morphed into “” (p. 179): clicking Like buttons and sending tweets in the comfort of home rather than engaging in real political engagement. Gladwell (2010) claims that the mediated sociality of social media is anchored in “weak ties” and that such relationship is not effective for collective action and social change. I believe scholars need to be attentive to the critical scholarship of media while exploring human agency and the transformative potentials of social media.

Building on the works of Earl (2014), Freelon (2014), and Zuckerman (2014), I argue

26 that social media create a discursive space where citizens can express their voices, and public sentiment can garner visibility. Thus, such practices have the potentials to create a common framework for collective action and social change.

The terrain of nonprofit advocacy. The literature analysis of the terrain of nonprofit advocacy is divided into three sections. In the first, I elucidate the prevalence of advocacy practices in nonprofit sectors. I engage with different definitions of advocacy in the second section. The third section provides an analysis of advocacy strategies and tactics. The literature analysis reveals that the overarching trend in nonprofit advocacy is a mix of strategies and tactics to influence policy decisions and social practices.

Nonprofit organizations play a crucial role in democratic practices by influencing policy decisions, giving voice to marginalized citizens, and mobilizing people for advocacy. Advocacy constitutes a core organizational activity of nonprofit organizations.

It focuses on citizen empowerment and promotes changes in policies and practices. Light

(2002) reports that nonprofit organizations are committed to advocacy. A John Hopkins study on nonprofit advocacy reveals that 73% of nonprofit organizations engage in some sort of advocacy activities (Salamon, Geller, & Lorentz, 2008). Crutchfield and Grant

(2007) examine high-performing nonprofit organizations and discover that advocacy is a crucial component of organizational activities.

Bass, Arons, Guinane, Carter, and Rees (2007) conducted a survey that included

1,728 nonprofit organizations working in the US. Their study reveals that most of these organizations engage in advocacy activities (Kimberlin, 2010). Several scholarly research efforts also illuminate the advocacy orientation of nonprofit organizations (Schmid, Bar,

& Nirel, 2008; Onyx et al., 2010; Berry & Arons, 2003; Mosley, 2011). McCarthy and

27 Castelli (2002) posit that advocacy is a common practice for nonprofit organizations to secure organizational goals and missions. However, advocacy literature reveals an overlap among concepts like advocacy (Salamon, Geller, & Lorentz, 2008), political activity (Chavesc, Stephens, & Galaskiewicz, 2004), and lobbying (Leech, 2010).

Aligning with the earlier studies (Chavesc, Stephens, & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Leech,

2010; Salamon, Geller, & Lorentz, 2008), I argue advocacy as an encompassing concept that involves political activity and lobbying.

Jenkins (2006) defines “advocacy as any attempt to influence the decisions of any institutional elite on behalf of a collective interest” (p. 267). Pekkanen, Smith, and

Tsujinaka (2014) argue “advocacy is the attempt to influence public policy, either directly or indirectly” (p. 3). Building on the earlier work on advocacy (Almog-Bar &

Schmid, 2014; Bass, Abramson, Dewey, 2014; Boris & Mosher-Williams, 1998; Jenkins,

2006; Pekkanen, Smith, & Tsujinaka, 2014), this study defines advocacy as strategic efforts to create a collective action context to influence policy formulation and to promote social change. Advocacy practices contest power-relations, privileges, and exclusions. Advocacy groups provide voices for a collective interest and influence policy making.

Nonprofit organizations often devote their advocacy resources to policy formation at local, national, and transnational levels. Advocacy activities can be directed toward executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government. Nonprofit organizations even challenge corporate policies and practices related to environment protection, discriminatory labor, and other practices (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). Furthermore, advocacy organizations provide support for public education on relevant policy issues and work to

28 mobilize citizens for collective action. Nonprofit organizations employ different strategies for advocacy to secure the common good.

Nonprofit scholar Berry (1977) distinguishes between advocacy strategy and tactics. Berry (1977) argues that strategy is a long-term or general approach for advocacy; whereas tactics are specific actions geared toward organizational advocacy goals.

Scholars of nonprofit advocacy divide advocacy strategies into two categories: (a) insider/outsider, and (b) direct/indirect (Gais & Walker, 1991; Gormely & Cymrot, 2006;

Mosley, 2011; Pekkanen, Smith, & Tsujinaka, 2014). Gormley and Cymrot (2006) highlight four choices of advocacy groups: (a) insider strategies, (b) outsider strategies,

(c) building a coalition, and (d) policy research. Ezell (2001) sets out four types of advocacy strategy: (a) agency, (b) legislative, (c) legal, and (d) community. Insider strategy aims to work side by side with the government, bureaucracy, and corporations to influence policy decisions. For example, legislative lobbying, testimony, and cultivating relationships with government and policy makers are critical insider approach of advocacy. Mosley (2011b) argues that insider strategy requires resources, “expertise and connections to policy makers” (p. 439). On the other hand, outsider strategy focuses on such practices as protest, demonstrations, public education, and other activities that remain outside institutional systems (e.g., political and legislative institutions). The direct practices of nonprofit advocacy manifest through policy research, policy guidelines, and other specific activities and campaigns targeting specific organizational advocacy goals.

Nonprofit organizations also engage in actions connected to their broader advocacy objectives and missions but do not directly contribute to policy decisions and practices

(Pekkanen, Smith, & Tsujinaka, 2014).

29 Advocacy literature reveals different advocacy tactics employed by nonprofit organizations to influence policy issues and social practices. Such a rich repertoire of nonprofit advocacy shows how organizations harness every possible avenue and use a creative mix of strategies and tactics. Mosley (2011b) highlights three insider advocacy tactics and five indirect ones. He explicates three insider tactics: (a) participation in development or revision of public policy regulations, (b) involvement in government committees, and (c) providing testimony. Mosley (2011b) also investigates five types of indirect tactics: (a) participating in the coalition, (b) public education, (c) writing editorials or letters, (d) issuing policy reports, and (e) demonstrating or boycotting. Onyx et al. (2010) explicate mainly two types of advocacy: (a) radical and (b) institutional.

Sandfort (2014) conducts a mixed method study that shows four types of advocacy tactics: (a) lobbying, (b) serving as a resource to public officials, (c) public education regarding policy issues and debates, and (d) organizing or mobilizing citizens.

Bass, Arons, Guinane, Carter, and Rees (2007) mentions several advocacy tactics like fundraising, leadership, and public education — voter participation, research, policy options, campaigns, execution of laws, monitor enforcement and implementation, litigation. Klugman (2011) explicates several tactics of social justice advocacy: (a) building coalitions, (b) strengthening base of support and alliance, (c) data and analysis from a social justice perspective, (d) articulate problem definition and formulate policy options, (e) visibility, (f) shift in social norms, and (g) changes in impact. Andrews and

Edwards (2004) highlight five different goals of advocacy efforts: (a) agenda setting, (b) gaining access to decision makers, (c) achieving favorable policy outcomes, (d) monitoring/shaping policies, and (e) channeling priorities and goals. To sum up,

30 nonprofit organizations use a variety of advocacy strategies and tactics to achieve organizational goals and objectives.

Building on the advocacy literature (Berry, 1977; Gais & Walker, 1991; Gormely

& Cymrot, 2006; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Mosley, 2011; Pekkanen, Smith, & Tsujinaka,

2014), this study examines three advocacy strategies: (a) insider, (b) indirect, and (c) no- advocacy. The insider strategy includes four tactics: (a) direct lobbying, (b) judicial advocacy, (c) administrative advocacy, and (d) expert testimony. Indirect strategy involves eight advocacy tactics: (a) public education, (b) grassroots lobbying, (c) public events, (d) voter registration, (e) research, (f) coalition building, (g) media advocacy, and

(h) celebrity advocacy.

Social media and nonprofit advocacy. The analysis of social media and nonprofit advocacy is divided into two sections. In the first, I explicate communicative affordances of social media for advocacy. I analyze nonprofit advocacy practices on social media in the second section. Scholars specializing in nonprofit scholarship investigate communicative affordances of social media for strategic communication.

Treem and Leonardi (2012) highlight four communicative affordances of social media:

(a) visibility, (b) persistence, (c) editability, and (d) association. Aligning with Treem and

Leonardi (2012), Mansour, Askenas, and Ghazawneh (2013) expand upon four affordances of social media for organizational communication: (a) commenting, (b) accessibility, (c) viewability, and (d) validation. Obar, Zube, and Lampe (2012) illuminate how members of advocacy organizations perceive the role of social media in collective action and civic engagement. Their study conducted a survey of 169 individuals from 53 advocacy groups in the US. Obar, Zube, and Lampe (2012) report

31 that nonprofit members perceive four beneficial aspects of using social media: (a) strengthen outreach efforts, (b) enable engaging of feedback loops, (c) speed of communication, and (d) cost-effectiveness. The study also reveals four perceived drawbacks of social media for collective actions: (a) digital literacy gap, (b) speaking with a single voice, (c) separation of personal and organizational use, and (d) weak ties.

Obar (2014) survey 157 representatives of 63 advocacy organizations in Canada to examine perceived affordances of social media for advocacy. The study reveals three perceived affordances of social media: (a) outreach, (b) feedback loop, and (c) speed. The perceived drawbacks of social media use are: (a) time and resource constraints, (b) limitations in realizing advocacy goals, and (c) lack of understanding.

The interactive communicative affordances of social media have fostered advocacy activities of nonprofit organizations by connecting to a wider public. Mostly, advocacy organizations use social media to reach stakeholders, volunteers, constituents, donors, policymakers, and political leaders (Guo & Saxton, 2014). Goldkind (2015) conducts a survey to understand organizational culture and advocacy activities. The research participants were 264 executives of human service nonprofit organizations.

Goldkind (2015) reports that social media play an instrumental role in realizing their advocacy activities. Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) examine the100 largest nonprofit organizations in the US to illuminate social media use for advocacy. The study reports that organizations use social media mainly for: (a) information, (b) community, and (c) action. Lovejoy and Saxton (2012) point out that nonprofit organizations use social media mostly for disseminating information. The community aspect of messages focuses on community building activities through social media. Their study (Lovejoy & Saxton,

32 2012) illuminates that organizations also promote collective action through social media that influence social change. Nonprofit organizations use social media to promote actions for social justice. Another study (Guo & Saxton, 2014) investigated how nonprofit advocacy organizations use social media for advocacy. The study sampled 188 civil rights and advocacy organizations in the US. Guo and Saxton (2014) explicate that organizations use social media mainly for the dissemination of information and public education.

The overarching theme of nonprofit advocacy on social media is that organizations are not using the actual potentials of social media. Nonprofit organizations engage mainly in one-way communication practices, rather than two-way interactive communication on social media platforms (Bürger, 2015; Edwards & Hoefer, 2010;

Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; Waters & Jamal,

2011). Guo and Saxton (2014) argue that social media based communication has a ‘mass approach” (p. 74) that facilitate more indirect advocacy to serve wider public rather than engaging in targeted advocacy. To sum up, the literature shows that nonprofit organizations use social media for advocacy in a limited way.

Social media engagement. Technological affordances of social media facilitate interactive and dynamic communication between organizations and audience. Such affordances provide new ways for organizations to leverage their communication skills to attract new users, to develop a mutual relationship with an audience, and to build sustainable online communities that support or advocate for organizations. The analysis of literature on social media engagement is divided into three segments. In the first, I elucidate academic literature that attempts to define the widely used idea engagement.

33 The second segment focuses on the employment of the idea engagement in different academic disciplines. In the third segment, I explore studies that examined social media in the context of health communication, strategic communication, advocacy, science communication, and others to reveal strategic choices to increase user engagement.

In the academic literature, engagement has been identified as a multidimensional concept as well as a unidimensional one. The multidimensional definitions of engagement emphasize social, affective, cognitive, and other elements of engagement, whereas unidimensional definitions isolate and study specific aspects of engagement.

Scholars (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013; Ηatzithomas, Boutsouki, Pigadas, &

Zotos, 2016; Hollebeek, 2011) identify engagement regarding psychological, cognitive, and behavioral manifestations of organization-audience relationships. Ηatzithomas,

Boutsouki, Pigadas, and Zotos (2016) consider engagement as a process which includes four steps: “participation (behavioral engagement), engrossment (cognitive engagement), emotion sharing (emotional engagement) and finally relationship building (social engagement) (p. 12). Scholars identify electronic word-of-mouth as the key condition for cognitive, affective, and social engagement (Ηatzithomas, Boutsouki, Pigadas, & Zotos,

2016).

Brodie, Ilic, Juric, and Hollebeek (2013) posit that engagement is a multidimensional concept and emphasize the interactive experience between organization and audience. They define engagement as the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimension of online relationships. Brodie, Ilic, Juric, and Hollebeek (2013) argue that engagement “plays a central role in the process of relational exchange where other relational concepts are engagement antecedents and/or consequences in iterative

34 engagement processes within the brand community” (p. 107). Hollebeek (2011) defines customer brand engagement as “the level of an individual customer’s motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in direct brand interactions” (p. 790). Such conceptualization of engagement highlights the multidimensional aspects of engagement.

However, scholars also examined the unidimensional aspect of engagement.

Scholars emphasize particular dimensions of engagement. For example, several scholars consider engagement as a form of psychological state (Busselle & Bilandzic,

2008; Нatzithomas, Boutsouki, Pigadas, & Zotos, 2016; Higgins, 2006; Hollebeek, 2011;

Jacques, Preece, & Carey, 1995; Oliveira, Huertas, & Lin, 2016). The psychological aspect of engagement emphasizes how audiences feel and react to social media content and eventually what they do in response to such encounters (Bennett, Wells, & Freelon,

2011). Bowden (2009) focuses on the psychological aspects of engagement and highlights mechanisms that could lead to better customer loyalty for the service industry.

Kang (2014) defines engagement as “a psychologically motivated affective state that brings voluntary extra-role behaviors, and is characterized by affective commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment that an individual public experiences in interactions with an organization over time” (p. 402). Kang (2014) also posits that scholars who conceptualize engagement as a psychological state need to embrace ideas like absorption, attachment, and enthusiasm to enrich the definition of engagement.

Researchers incorporate the notion of feelings, passions, and dedications in the context of the psychological state of engagement (Bennett, 2000; Davis, 2010; Kang, 2014).

35 Scholars (Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Vivek, Beatty, &

Morgan, 2012) also conceptualize engagement regarding cognitive and affective involvement. For example, Mollen and Wilson (2010) define engagement as:

a cognitive and affective commitment to an active relationship with the brand as

personified by the website or other computer-mediated entities designed to

communicate brand value. It is characterized by the dimensions of dynamic and

sustained cognitive processing and the satisfying of instrumental value (utility and

relevance) and experiential value (emotional congruence with the narrative

schema encountered in computer-mediated entities). (p. 923)

Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan (2012) argue that engagement manifests through customers’ cognitive and affective experiences. The creation of such experiences requires an understanding of the feelings of clients and facilitates building relationships with existing and new clients. The behavioral perspective of engagement explores the behavioral output of engagement. Studies that conceptualize engagement in terms of behavioral element tend to focus on the outcome of user engagement with social media content. For example, engagement in the context of behavioral output ranges from liking to sharing or creating content for a brand or organization. It is context-dependent and not limited to the traditional understanding of customer loyalty or purchasing behavior. Van

Doorn, et al. (2010) argue that “customer engagement behaviors go beyond transactions, and may be specifically defined as a customer’s behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers” (p. 254).

Engagement as user behavior demonstrates user motivation to participate and to co-create

36 content for an organization or community to strengthen or cultivate a meaningful online relationship (Porter, Donthu, MacElroy, & Wydra, 2011).

The normalizing presence of new media, especially the participatory and democratic potentials of social media, have generated scholarly interest in user engagement. Scholars (Achterberg et al., 2003; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004;

Jennings & Zeitner, 2003; London, Downey, & Mace, 2007; Tsai et al., 2009;) employ diverse concepts like civic engagement, social engagement, student engagement, occupational engagement, and customer engagement to denote the idea of user engagement on websites and social media. Such diverse conceptualization of engagement reflects academic orientations of scholars and highlights the different lines of inquiry. For example, Jennings and Zeitner (2003) employ the concept of civic engagement to illuminate use of the Internet in the political process. In social psychology, scholars

(Achterberg et al., 2003; Tsai et al., 2009) investigate social engagement in the context of depression among Dutch nursing home residents and Chinese elderly veterans in assisted- living residences. In educational research, scholars are interested in student engagement

(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; London, Downey, & Mace, 2007). In marketing literature, researchers employ the concept customer engagement to examine organization and audience relationships (Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010; Hollebeek, 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010).

Cabiddu, Carlo, and Piccoli (2014) examine social media use of the tourism industry from the perspective of technological affordance. Their qualitative study reveals three affordances of customer engagement: (a) persistent engagement, (b) customized engagement, and (c) triggered engagement. Oliveira, Huertas, and Lin (2016)

37 investigated motivations of young Brazilians in the context of Facebook engagement.

Their online survey reveals that users are motivated to engage with social media for four reasons: (a) subjective norm (b) identity, (c) entertainment, and (d) interconnectivity.

Scholars argue that social media engagement is comprised of four elements: (a) information consumption, (b) sense of presence, (c) interest immersion, and (d) social connectivity (Smith & Gallicano, 2015). Van Doorn, et al. (2010) identify five dimensions of customer engagement behaviors (CEBs): “valence, form or modality, scope, nature of its impact, and customer goals” (p. 255). Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit

(2011) provide a typology of engagement that situates consumption (watching videos and pictures) as the lowest level of engagement, contributions (participate in conversation) as the moderate level, and creating (producing user-generated content) as the highest level of engagement. Men and Tsai (2012) updated the typology and identify two types of engagement: (a) reactive (consuming) and (b) proactive (contributing).

Scholars (Huang, Lin, & Saxton, 2016; Kim & Yang, 2017; Saxton et al., 2015) interested in social media engagement examine the link between message strategies and audience reactions. Huang, Lin, and Saxton (2016) investigate 110 HIV/AIDS non- profits and their message strategies on Facebook. Medication-focused messages generated better user engagement than event-related and call-to-action messages. Kim and Yang (2017) report that sensory and visual message features generated likes, interactive messages garnered comment, and a combination of sensory, visual, and rational features led to share. Saxton, et al. (2015) report that messages that contain multiple hashtags performed well regarding user engagement. Call-to-action and sector- spanning hashtags led to more engagement than other hashtag strategies.

38 Furthermore, Bhattacharya, Srinivasan, and Polgreen (2017) investigate Facebook engagement of U.S. Federal health agencies. Their study analyze 45,000 Facebook posts of 24 health agencies. The study reveals that Facebook posts containing visual elements generate more engagement than other types of messages. However, posts about occupation or organization negatively influence social media engagement. In another study on diabetic related social media posts, Rus & Cameron (2016) illuminate that posts containing images generated more user engagement Posts related to social support, , diabetics consequence information, and positive identity are strong predictors of engagement. In their earlier study on Twitter, Bhattacharya, Srinivasan, and

Polgreen (2017) report that tweet elements like hashtags, URLs and user mentions impact retweets and tweet count had a negative relationship with retweets. Furthermore, their study illuminates that social media engagement is associated with tweet age and the follower counts. Bail (2016) introduces the theory of “cultural carrying capacity” in the context of social media messaging. This theory argues that organizations can generate more user engagement if they diversify their messages on social media to appeal to diverse segments of audience. However, such diversification can generate incoherent messaging and negatively influence engagement.

Wang, Kim, Xiao, and Jung (2017) examine narrative engagement on social media. Their study investigates the Facebook page of Humans of New York (HONY) and reveals that education and pro-social related topics generated more user engagement than other high-frequency topics. Users are more engaged with networked narratives related to dreams, romantic relationships, and positive life events. Rehnen, Bartsch, Kull, and

Meyer (2017) reveal that loyalty programs can enhance social media engagement.

39 Hwong, Oliver, Kranendonk, Sammut, and Seroussi (2017) examine Facebook and

Twitter of science organizations. Their study reveals that posts containing elements like anger, authenticity, hashtags, or visuals generated more social media engagement. In another study (Hales, Davidson, & Turner-McGrievy, 2017) of Facebook accounts of weight loss illuminates that poll votes, suggestions, and weight-related posts generated more engagement than others. However, no prior study to date examined the relationship between dialogic communication and social media engagement; more precisely, dialogic principles in the context of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations in the US and Canada. The present study fills such research gap by investigating dialogic principles in the context of social media engagement. It incorporates the behavioral perspective of social media engagement and conceptualizes likes, comments, shares, favorites, retweets, and replies as engagement on social media.

Dialogic relationship. This segment of the literature analysis on the dialogic relationship is divided into three sections. The first elucidates the idea of dialogic communication in public relations. I delve into the research regarding web-based dialogic relationship building in the second section. The third section examines how organizations use social media for dialogic relationship building. Kent and Taylor (1998) incorporate the idea of dialogue (Buber, 1970) in public relations, especially for mediated web-based communication. Kent and Taylor (1998, 2003) formulate the dialogic framework for strategic communication which has five principles: (a) the dialogic loop, (b) the usefulness of information, (c) the generation of return visits, (d) the intuitiveness/ease of the interface, and (e) conservation of visitors (Kent & Taylor, 1998, p. 326-331).

40 This study incorporates an updated version of dialogic principles (Kim et al., 2014) to facilitate scholarly inquiries on social media. The updated dialogic communication theory includes five principles: (a) conservation of visitors, (b) generation of return visits, (c) dialogic loop, (d) useful information to media, and (e) useful information to public.

The conservation of visitors principle posits that organizations need to “encourage visitors to stay on their website rather than explore other organizations’ websites”

(Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010, p. 338). The generation of return visits principle focuses on providing regular and interesting information so that the public keeps coming back to organizational web and social media platforms. The dialogic loop principle emphasizes having a feedback loop in strategic communication so the public can have an opportunity to initiate a conversation with an organization. The useful information to media principle focuses on serving the media community by providing useful information like press releases, fact sheets, and audio-visual content. The useful information to public principle refers to providing information to the public to support the organization and how to become affiliated with the organization. This principle also focuses on providing information about the organization and connecting with political leaders.

The dialogic framework of strategic communication received immediate and widespread recognition from scholars (Kang & Norton, 2006; McAllister-Spooner &

Taylor, 2009). An initial search of Google Scholar reveals that researchers have cited the publication (Kent & Taylor, 1998) more than 750 times. Researchers investigate organizations to understand dialogic communication practices on their web-based platforms. Mostly, scholars study nonprofit organizations (Reber & Kim, 2006; Seltzer &

Mitrook, 2007; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001), educational institutions (Kang & Norton,

41 2006; McAllister-Spooner & Taylor, 2009), Fortune 500 companies (Park & Reber,

2008), and a few other types of organizations (Taylor & Kent, 2004; Reber, Gower, &

Robinson, 2007).

The overarching trend in incorporating dialogic communication principles on web platforms indicates that organizations struggle to harness the two-way communicative potential of websites (McAllister-Spooner, 2009). Waters (2007) investigates 160 nonprofit organizations to understand the trend in the organizational use of websites; the study illuminates how organizations utilize websites for one-way communication with stakeholders. Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) conduct a survey to understand how activist organizations use websites to build relationships with stakeholders. Their research examines 100 environmental activist groups. The results indicate that activist organizations fail to harness the dialogic potentials of websites to engage with their publics. Kent, Taylor, and White (2003) examine two aspects of organizational web- based communication practices: (a) website design and (b) organizational responsiveness.

To compare results, the study incorporates environmental activists and watchdog groups.

The research shows that each group performs poorly in the context of dialogic communication and relationship building activities through websites.

Seltzer and Mitrook (2007) investigate 50 environmental blogs to understand the relationship building potentials of such platforms. The study conducts a content analysis of web blogs and compare the result with an earlier study (Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003) to examine the difference regarding dialogic communication practices between traditional websites and web blogs. The results indicate that web blogs have integrated many dialogic communication practices on their sites. The study reports no significant

42 differences between traditional websites and web blogs in the context of a dialogic loop, generation of return visits, and usefulness to media (Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007). When it comes to ease of interface and conservation of visitors, web blogs perform better than traditional websites. Another study (Ingenhoff & Koelling, 2010) investigate 109 German and 134 Swiss nonprofit organizations to capture the incorporation of dialogic principles on websites. Through content analysis, Ingenhoff and Koelling (2010) report that organizations fail to engage in dialogic communication with publics through websites.

Strategic communication scholars were intrigued by the communicative dialogic features (interactivity, horizontal communication, and low cost) of social media and the dialogic potentials of such platforms. Studies find that nonprofit organizations use social media to build community (Messner, Linke, & Eford, 2013) and to realize organizational mission and goals (Keim & Noji, 2010). Guidry (2013) highlights the11 best ways to use

Twitter to engage publics. Briones, Kuch, Liu, and Jin (2011) examine the American Red

Cross to understand how organizations use dialogic potentials of social media platforms.

The study conducts 40 interviews of American Red Cross employees. Briones, Kuch,

Liu, and Jin (2011) report that employees emphasize using dialogic communication on social media platforms to cultivate a relationship with stakeholders. Furthermore, interviews reveal that lack of time and staff pose challenge to organizational dialogic communication practices through social media.

Lovejoy, Waters, and Saxton (2012) examine the Twitter use of 73 nonprofit organizations. Aligning with earlier studies (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Rybalko & Seltzer,

2010; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009), the research reveals that organizations use social media as a one-way communication tool rather than a dialogic communication

43 platform. Another recent study (Kim et al., 2014) investigate 60 environmental nonprofit organizations to examine the employment of dialogic principles in websites and social media. The study illuminates that organizations mostly rely on websites for stakeholder engagement and use social media platforms as additional channels for dialogic communication. To sum up, nonprofit organizations struggle to use social media for the dialogic relationship.

44 Chapter 3: Research Design

This study employs an explanatory-sequential mixed method research design. The purpose of using such design is to measure communication data and provide a thick description (Barnhurst, 2011) of lived experiences of research participants. Creswell and

Clark (2011) inform that

The explanatory design is a mixed methods design in which the researcher begins

by conducting a quantitative phase and follows up on specific results with a

second phase. The second, qualitative phase is implemented for the purpose of

explaining the results in more depth, and it is due to this focus on explaining

results that is reflected in the design name. (p. 82)

The focus of this design is the quantitative phase, and the qualitative phase facilitates to understand the quantitative results in more in-depth. Therefore, the qualitative strand helps the researcher to explain the results of the quantitative analyses. The phenomenon that this study attempts to understand is very complex and requires integration of both quantitative and qualitative results. Quantitative results alone cannot explain a nonprofit’s use of social media as it requires an understanding of the perceptions of the communications managers about the role of social media in advocacy and relationship building.

The rationale for using explanatory design is threefold. First, the research problem is mainly quantitative oriented and requires procedural rigor and employment of statistical analysis. Furthermore, this study aspires to understand the relationship between dialogic principle and user engagement on social media, which requires the use of quantitative measurement (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Second, I developed new questions

45 for qualitative phase based on the results of quantitative content analysis (Creswell &

Clark, 2011). Third, explanatory design facilitates to conduct the study in two phases, which helps to collect and analyze one set of data at a time. Therefore, the flexibility of explanatory design help researcher to collect and analyze data in two different phases

(Creswell & Clark, 2011).

In the first phase, I conduct a content analysis of social media of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations. Content analysis reveals trends and practices of online advocacy and relationship building strategies of nonprofit organizations. In the second phrase, I conduct semi-structured interviews to illuminate an in-depth explanation of content analysis. The rationale for using such procedure is that content analysis reveals trends and practices of organizational use of social media. Then, interviews help to provide a firm understanding of the mechanism or reasons why organizations employ a particular set of strategies on social media for advocacy and relationship building. Furthermore, interview reveals how members of nonprofit organizations perceive the strengths and challenges of using social media for advocacy and relationship building. Content analysis provides new questions and guidelines for interviews. Interview protocol reflects both the earlier research on nonprofit use of technology and the results of content analysis. The goal of the qualitative interview is to “explain and add insight into the quantitative results”

(Creswell & Clark, 2011, p. 83).

Quantitative Qualitative Phase: Primary Integration Interpretation Phase Focus

Figure 1: Explanatory-sequential mixed method research process (France, 2015) 46 The rationale for using content analysis for this study is that such method is a systematic, objective, and quantitative approach to studying communication data

(Kerlinger, 2000). It is systematic because it requires rigorous and procedural investigation to understand the nuances of communication content (Wimmer &

Dominick, 2011). It follows uniformity in rules and guidelines during the three stages of the research procedures: (a) sampling, (b) data collection, and (c) coding. Content analysis is objective because it provides statistical and numerical results, is explicit about the operationalization and measurement of coding schemes and variables, and ensures the reliability of the investigation (Wimmer & Dominick, 2011). Thus, personal biases of the researcher rarely cloud the inquiry results. As a quantitative research approach, content analysis provides the precise results of the communication content (Wimmer &

Dominick, 2011). For example, instead of arguing that nonprofit organizations use social media mainly for information dissemination; the results of the content analysis the researcher shows that 67.32% of nonprofit social media posts fall in the category of information dissemination. The precision of data reduces ambiguity and provides precise research results. Furthermore, research methodologists like Babbie (2010) and Riffe,

Lacy, and Fico (2014) argue that content analysis is a suitable research method to study web pages, email messages, online messages, Facebook posts, Tweets and other recorded human communication. This study employs content analysis because it aligns with earlier research on nonprofit and social media (Guo & Saxton, 2014; Kim et al., 2014).

I believe the interview method helps readers to understand how members of

LGBTQ advocacy organizations perceive the role of social media for advocacy and relationship building. Interviewing is helpful to a researcher when he or she is interested

47 in revealing lived experiences of an individual. Furthermore, an interview provides an in- depth and “rich description of participants’ meanings and motivations” (Smith &

Gallicano, 2015, p. 84). The interview also helps the researcher to decipher subjugated knowledge of marginalized groups and explore the diversity of realities that often remain hidden or unarticulated. As I am interested in the online advocacy strategies and relationship building initiatives of LGBTQ organizations, the interview supports exploration of their perspectives on social media for advocacy, activism, and collective action. The method is "well suited to understanding the social actor's experience, knowledge, and worldview” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2010, p. 173). Interviews help the researcher to "gather information about things or processes that cannot be observed effectively by other means". For example, a survey with close-ended questions on my research topic will not be able to capture the multilayered, diverse, and even contradictory cultural practices of advocacy organizations.

This study attempts to capture not only consolidated organizational efforts of online advocacy but also the discrepancies in their policy, planning, and execution in strategic mediated communication. The research aims to explore online strategic communication choices of nonprofit organizations and how members of LGBTQ organizations perceive the advantages and challenges of online platforms for strategic communication. Interviews provide necessary data related to the ways research participants experience and understand the world (Kvale, 2007). It is a robust method capable of generating new knowledge about human situations and lived experiences.

Moreover, this study employs the interview because it aligns with earlier research on

48 social media, websites, and nonprofit organizations (Hestres, 2014; Panagiotopoulos,

Shan, Barnett, Regan, & McConnon, 2015).

I incorporated the techniques of “responsive interviewing” (Rubin & Rubin,

2012) which focuses more on trust and relationship building between a researcher and research participants. It requires an engaging and responsible conversation style that can create trust between an interviewer and an interviewee. Three elements are necessary for responsive interviewing: (a) mutual relationship, (b) friendly and supportive tone, and (c) open questions and design (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Responsive interviewing is equipped to capture the rich description of social practices while addressing the complexity and ambiguity of lived experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The flexibility of responsive interviewing facilitates bonding between a researcher and a research participant. The interview protocol is adapted from Briones, Kuch, Liu, and Jin (2011), Gormley and

Cymrot (2006), Obar (2014), Hestres (2014), and Panagiotopoulos, Shan, Barnett, Regan, and McConnon, (2015). For the analysis of interview data, the study uses open coding and axial coding to locate emerging themes and patterns. I transcribed the interviews verbatim. To ensure the validity of the study, I employed peer debriefing, member checks, and analytical memos to monitor subjective positionality of the researcher.

I interviewed 15 communications professionals of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations. I contacted public relations officers, communication managers, digital media managers, and executive directors of LGBTQ non-profit organizations. The rationale for interviewing communication managers and executive directors is that they are responsible for advocacy and social media strategies of their nonprofit organizations.

Such persons have detailed knowledge of organizational goals and mission and thus can

49 provide a sound idea of how social media help them to realize their organizational objectives. Research participants were recruited through email. At first, I sent emails to selected LGBTQ non-profits requesting public relations officers, communication managers, social media account managers, and executive directors of to participate in my study. As research participants replied to my email, I entered the person in my interview roster. In the second stage, I scheduled interviews and established connections with research participants on Skype, Google Hangout, and the phone. On average, the duration of interviews was 20 to 25 minutes, the shortest interview was nine minutes and the longest was 55 minutes. I used a digital audio recorder to record interview conversations then transcribed them verbatim.

Interviews were conducted from December, 2016, to mid-March, 2017. In this study, seven research participants are from the US and eight are from Canada. The gender composition of the participants is fairly equally distributed with seven participants and eight males. Among the total research participants, 11 identified as

Communications/Digital Communications/Public Relations Managers and four as

Executive Directors. The mean age of the participants was 37 years, with the youngest participant at 23 and the oldest participant at 70. One participant did not provide such information. The average duration of participants’ employment in their current workplace was close to five years. One participant did not provide such information. The average number of paid employees working for the participants’ current workplace was 27 and one participant did not provide such information. In this study, ten research participants informed me that their organizations have social media policies.

50 The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive picture regarding the use of social media by LGBTQ nonprofit organizations. This study examines four aspects of social media use: (a) message strategy, (b) dialogic communication principle, (c) social media engagement, and (d) communication professionals’ perceptions on the use of social media. This study delves into the employment of advocacy tactics on Facebook and Twitter messages to investigate message strategy of nonprofit organizations. I also investigate five dialogic principles on social media based communication. Then, this study examines the connections between dialogic principles and engagement. This study employs interview to understand communication professionals’ perceptions on the use of social media. This study has the following research questions:

Research Questions

RQ 1. How do LGBTQ non-profit organizations in the US and Canada use

Facebook and Twitter for advocacy?

RQ 2. How do LGBTQ non-profit organizations in the US and Canada use

Facebook and Twitter for dialogic communication with the public?

RQ 3. To which types of dialogic characteristics is the public most likely to respond on Facebook and Twitter?

RQ 4. Which types of dialogic characteristics generate the most engagement from the public on Facebook and Twitter?

RQ 5: For which types of dialogic characteristics does the public become advocates on their social media network on Facebook and Twitter?

51 RQ 6. How do the executives and communication professionals of LGBTQ non- profit organizations in the US and Canada perceive the use of social media for advocacy and relationship building?

Sample for Content Analysis

The sample of LGBTQ nonprofit organizations in the US was drawn from three sources: (a) Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/), an independent charity evaluator that assesses more than 8,000 US-based non-profit organizations; (b)

Encyclopedia of Associations, a guide that provides information about more than 23,800 organizations; and (c) Philanthropedia blog, a blog that provides rankings of nonprofit organizations. Charity Navigator mainly evaluates the financial health and accountability and transparency of charity organizations. Charity Navigator evaluates only charities that are run by the support of individual givers. It also, evaluates nonprofits that have been classified as 501(c) (3) in the Internal Revenue Code and submitted a Form 990.

Furthermore, each nonprofit organizations has generated public support of more than

$500,000 with a total revenue of more than $1,000,000 for the two most recent fiscal years. Charity Navigator requires seven years of Form 990 for evaluation. More than seven million visitors use the site to access information about charities in the US. I searched LGBTQ advocacy on the website that generated 33 names of LGBTQ organizations.

I then considered the Encyclopedia of Associations for LGBTQ social welfare organizations. This generated information about 29 nonprofit organizations.

Philanthropedia Blog published a report of top-ranking LGBTQ nonprofit advocacy organizations and I consulted it to gather data about LGBTQ nonprofit organizations.

52 There are several overlaps of organizations between the Charity Navigator list, the

Encyclopedia of Associations, and the Philanthropedia blog. Excluding the overlapping organizations, I generated information about nine more nonprofit organizations from the ranking of the Philanthropedia blog. The total sample size for the US-based LGBTQ nonprofit organizations was (33+29+9) 71.

I collected the sample of Canadian non-profit organizations from the

Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada website. First, I used a registry of the lobbyists available on the site to identify advocacy groups. Second, I utilized a web search for

“LGBTQ,” “Advocacy,” “‘Canada,” and “Coalition” to gather further information about Canadian LGBTQ advocacy groups. Obar (2014) employed the same procedures to identify a sample for his study. I compiled a list of 42 LGBTQ nonprofit advocacy groups in Canada.

After generating a list of 113 non-profit organizations, I eliminated organizations from the sample frame based on two criteria. First, I removed those organizations that do not have both Facebook and Twitter accounts. Second, I examined organizational

Facebook and Twitter accounts for two weeks. I removed those organizations that had not posted any messages on Facebook and Twitter for two weeks. This procedure is aligned with earlier study (Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001). Such posting behavior indicates that organizations are not using social media effectively as the success on social media requires to provide regular and updated information. After the two rounds of elimination the sample of the study was 71.

53 Data Collection for Content Analysis

I have two separate lists that contain information about LGBTQ non-profit organizations in the US and Canada. From these two lists, I generated a master list that contains data about LGBTQ advocacy organizations in the US and Canada. Then, I consider their social media presence. First, I added the website address to the master list, then from the website, I used the web link to access their social media accounts and added information to the master list. In the next step, I collected organizational social media posts for a month, from June 1 to June 30, 2016. I randomly selected the month

June for data collection. Such data gathering procedure aligns with earlier social media and website research (Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012; Guo & Saxton, 2014; Kim et al.,

2014). A total of 4,115 Facebook posts were collected and coded for analysis. The study collected 12,519 tweets and randomly selected 3,000 of them for coding. A total of 7,115 posts were coded for this study.

Coding Schemes for Content Analysis

The literature on nonprofit advocacy suggests several advocacy strategies. Guo and Saxton (2010) identify 12 advocacy tactics for the non-profit organization. For

Twitter data, I collected organizations’ tweets, retweets, and reply messages. For

Facebook, I collected organizations’ posts. I excluded any messages posted by friends or visitors on Facebook and tweets by followers on Twitter. I also excluded retweets. To code Twitter data, Guo and Saxton (2014) drew items from their earlier research (Guo &

Saxton, 2010). For this study, I employed 13 advocacy strategies identified by Guo and

Saxton (2014) and Brockington (2014). To code data for dialogic engagement, I borrowed items from Kim, et al. (2014). I also updated the coding items based on the

54 literature and the specificity of social media platforms. Please see the appendix for the coding items. For Facebook, I coded 26 items and for Twitter I coded 27 items. The coding items for dialogic relationship include five communication principles: (a) conservation of visitor, (b) generation of return visits, (c) dialogic loop, (d) useful information to media, and (e) useful information to public.

55 Table 1: Procedures for the Explanatory Sequential Research Design (Ivankova & Stick,

2006, p. 16)

Phase Procedure Product

Step 1: Quantitative Content Analysis Numerical Data

Data Collection (N=71)

Step 2: Quantitative -Data Screening Descriptive statistics

Data Analysis -Frequencies Inferential statistics

-SPSS quan. Software v

20

Step 3: Sampling; -Convenient Sampling Interview protocol

Interview protocol -Recruiting research development participants

-Developing interview

questions

Step 4: Qualitative Data -E-mail for scheduling Textual description (transcript)

Collection interviews

-Skype/phone interviews

Step 5: Qualitative Data -Coding and themes Themes & Categories

Analysis

Step 6: Integration of Interpretation of Discussion/Implications/Future

Quantitative and quantitative & Research

Qualitative Results qualitative data

56 Measurement

The study measures Facebook posts and tweets for the 13 items derived from existing literature on advocacy tactics of nonprofit organizations (Brockington, 2017;

Guo & Saxton, 2014). I choose only one advocacy tactic item per post or tweet. This process is aligned with earlier research on social media (Shin, Pang, & Kim, 2015).

Then, I divided the number of messages for each item coded by the total number of messages on a platform; and converted the number into a percentage. For example, on

Facebook, if the frequency of “public education” messages is 303 and the number of total messages is 750; then, the percentage for the item “public education” will be 40.4%. For the coding scheme of dialogic relationship, I derived coding items based on literature on public relations and dialogic relationship building (Kim et al., 2014; Rybalko & Seltzer,

2010). I also updated coding items based on existing literature and the specificity of social media platforms. I choose only one dialogic principle item per post or tweet. This process is aligned with earlier research on social media (Shin, Pang, & Kim, 2015). Then,

I converted the inclusion of each item into a percentage. For example, on Twitter, if the frequency of the item “encourage to vote on issues” is 15 and the number of total messages is 750, the percentage of the item will be 2%.

The independent variables for the study is dialogic principle, which has five independent groups. The dependent variable is audience engagement, which is ratio-level variable. Scholars identify audience engagement on social media in terms of Like,

Comment, Share, Favorite, Reply and Retweet (Huang, Lin, & Saxton, 2016; Saxton &

Waters, 2014; Saxton et al., 2015). Clicking Like button requires minimum involvement from users and it reflects user response. Like also demonstrates user appreciation and

57 emotion often drives it. Saxton and Waters (2014) argue that like "also serves as a rough indicator of the number of users who read the message" (p. 287). This study defines Like as user response on Facebook. Similarly, clicking Favorite button on Twitter require minimum involvement and reflects user response to organizational message. For Twitter, this study defines Favorite as user response. Commenting requires user cognitive skills for engagement that could led to dialogue between organization and audience. This study defines Comment as user engagement on Facebook. Similarly, Reply on Twitter reflects user engagement as it requires cognitive skills to be interactive with organizational message. Sharing content on social media reflect user advocacy as user attributes some importance to the message and disseminate it through his/her network. This study defines

Share as user advocacy on Facebook. Similarly, Retweet on Twitter demonstrates user advocacy because such behavior reflects user commitment to message and it is also a way to endorse an organizational message. This study defines Retweet as user advocacy on

Twitter.

Reliability

The unit of analysis for this study is a social media post. Before coding began, two coders participated in several training sessions. At first, they coded 150 non-sample social media posts. Then, they discussed coding discrepancies and refined the coding rules. In the second round, the two coded another 150 posts and reached acceptable levels of agreement. Cohen’s kappa results for advocacy tactics reached .94 and for dialogic principle reached .96. Such reliability statistics reflect almost perfect agreement (Stemler,

2001). Please see the appendix for the coding scheme, measures of different items of content analysis, and interview protocol.

58 Chapter 4: Results

This chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, I explicate the results of the quantitative phase. The second section focuses on the qualitative results. The results of the first section are divided into two segments. In the first, the study focuses on organization-level analysis. This analysis explores how organizations employ social media as communication tools. This study examines the popular social media metrics

(Like, Comment, Share, Retweet, Reply, Mention, and others) that indicate the social media-based activities of nonprofit organizations (Huang, Lin, & Saxton, 2016; Khan,

2015). The second segment investigates the message-level data to understand two aspects of nonprofit communication practices: (a) advocacy tactics and (b) dialogic communication strategy. This procedure is aligned with earlier studies (Guo & Saxton,

2014; Kim & Yang, 2017). This study examines how organizations tap into the engagement tools of social media to generate social conversations and cultivate relationships with their audiences.

59 Table 2: Key Facebook Metrics of LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and

Canada

Total Fans Fan Post Like Comment Share Increase

N 71 71 71 71 71 71

Minimum 364 -499 5 16 0 1

Maximum 2410328 101803 207 448876 22131 173970

Mean 103999.97 3075.76 57.96 17908.66 1140.07 7002.58

Std. 317363.588 13203.943 48.582 66441.014 4194.082 28331.638 Deviation

Table 3: Key Twitter Metrics of LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada

Total Own Retweet Replie Own Own Own Mentio Tweet Tweet ed s Tweets Tweets Tweet ns s s Tweets Retweet Favorite s s Replie s N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 Minimu 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 m Maximu 589 424 249 64 49886 85576 1548 13805 m Mean 176.32 105.66 57.75 12.92 2235.66 3406.76 62.46 570.55 Std. 159.12 109.63 65.007 18.37 7300.97 12067.2 232.82 2064.92 Deviatio 8 4 7 9 10 4 8 n

60 Organizational-level Analyses

Nonprofit organizations use social media to create social connections and to generate social conversations. Communication tools of social media also facilitate participation in social dialogue. This study categorizes social media communication tools into two broad groups: (a) social connections and (b) social conversations. On Facebook, the social relationships manifest through the fan network of an organization. If we consider an organizational Facebook page as a communication platform, then the fan network represents the size of the audience. Organizations use Facebook pages to communicate directly with their cultivated audience. Such a fan network keeps an organization visible in social conversations. Organizations also use their fan networks for resource mobilization and coalition building. Table 2 of this study shows that on average organizations in this research had 103,999.97 fans at the end of June, 2016, ranging from

364 to 2,410,328. During that month organizations on average gained 3,075.76 fans, with a range from -499 to 101,803. Such changes in fan network indicate that except for one, all organizations in the sample increased their audience base on Facebook.

Facebook provides four communication tools to generate social conversations and participation in social dialogue: (a) Post, (b) Like, (c) Comment, and (d) Share.

Organizations use their Facebook page to post messages that generate social conversations on policy and social issues. On average, the sample organizations of this study posted 57.96 messages on Facebook, ranging from five to 207. On Facebook, such conversations attempt to cultivate dialogic interactions between an organization and

Facebook users. Facebook users respond to social conversations by liking, commenting, and sharing. Such user engagement tools on Facebook help users to engage in a dialogic

61 relationship with an organization. On average, the sample organizations of this study received 17,908.66 Likes, with a range from 16 to 448,876. During the month of June,

2016, organizations on average generated 1,140.07 Comments, with a range from 0 to

22,131. Table 2 also informs that organizations on average generate 7,002.58 Shares, with a range from 1 to 173,970. Such diverse user response to Facebook messages indicates that not all posts capture the attention of Facebook users. Furthermore, few posts on social media have the capacity to generate social conversations.

Like Facebook, the social media platform Twitter provides communication tools that organizations use to communicate with their audiences. Twitter provides three primary tools to communicate with users: (a) Tweet, (b) Retweet, and (c) Favorite. A tweet consists of 140 characters. Organizations use such messaging to generate social conversation. On average (Table 3), the organizations included for this study post 176.32 tweets, with a range from 2 to 589. The study reveals that 59.92% of the total tweets were own tweet. Twitter provides three types of user engagement: (a) Retweet, (b) Reply, and

(c) Favorite. When a user re-posts a user tweet, it is considered a retweet, and is indicated by an RT sign in the message. On average, organizations posted 57.75 retweets, with a range from 0 to 249. This study illuminates that 32.75% of the total tweets were retweets.

Guo and Saxton (2014) report that 22.39% of the overall tweets were retweets, which is

10.36% lower than the percentage of retweets reported in this study.

The reply tool on Twitter facilitates direct messaging to a user (denotated as @ on a tweet). The study found that 7.32% of the total tweets were replies or direct messages.

Guo and Saxton (2014) reported that 6.35% of the overall tweets were Reply or Direct

Message. However, 7.32% of replies are well below the reported percentage of reply

62 tweets in other studies that investigate individual Twitter use (Java, Finin, Song, &

Tseng, 2007; Hughes & Palen, 2009). Similar to the Like button on Facebook, Twitter users respond to a tweet by clicking the Favorite button. Organizations under study received an average of 3406.76 Favorite, with a range from 1 to 85576.

Quantitative Phase

Table 4 offers the descriptive analyses of each message type on social media, especially the advocacy tactics employed by the LGBTQ non-profit organizations. This study examines 7115 social media posts (4,115 Facebook posts and 3,000 Tweets) to examine RQ 1. The descriptive analysis explores the frequency of 12 advocacy tactics on social media. The total coding items for the study was 13 (12 items capture advocacy tactics and 1 item assigned for the no advocacy tactic).

This study reveals that the “no advocacy tactic” is the most prominent type of social media messages. It comprises 57.4% (n= 4083) of all social media posts circulated by the non-profit organizations. Most of the advocacy tactics related to social media posts are public education messages, 9.7% (n= 693) and media advocacy, 9.3% (n= 661). The other widely employed advocacy tactics are coalition building, 6.5% (n= 466); administrative lobbying, 3.4% (n= 244); and celebrity advocacy, 3% (n= 217). Social media message types that are not widely used embodied grassroots lobbying, 1.2%

(n=82), public events and direct action, 3.3% (n=237). Voter registration and education,

2.1% (n=146), research, 1.2% (n=84), judicial advocacy, 1.6% (n=117), and expert testimony, .0% (n=2). When it comes to advocacy strategies (Table 5), the findings reveal that the no advocacy strategy comprised 57.4% of all social media posts. Organizations

63 also employ indirect strategy (36.3%) and insider strategy (n=6.3%) on social media messages.

Table 4: Frequency of Advocacy Tactics Employed on Facebook and Twitter by LGBTQ

Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada

Advocacy Tactic Frequency Percent

Public Education 693 9.7

Grassroots 82 1.2

Lobbying

Public Events & 237 3.3

Direct Action

Voter Registration 146 2.1

& Education

Research 84 1.2

Judicial Advocacy 117 1.6

Coalition Building 466 6.5

Media Advocacy 661 9.3

Administrative 244 3.4

Lobbying

Direct Lobbying 83 1.2

Expert Testimony 2 .0

No Adv. Tactic 4083 57.4

64 Table 4: Continued

Celebrity 217 3.0

Advocacy

Total 7115 100.0

Table 5: Frequency of Advocacy Strategies Employed on Facebook and Twitter by

LGBTQ Nonprofit Organizations in the US and Canada

Frequency Percent

Insider Strategy 446 6.3

Indirect Strategy 2586 36.3

No Advocacy Strategy 4083 57.4

Total 7115 100.0

Table 6: Dialogic Principles Employed on Facebook Messages by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada

Frequency Percent

Link to organizational website 281 6.8

Link to organizational SNSs 11 .3

Link to organizational website for 1 .0 additional information

Link or post informing 25 .6 organizational members

65 Table 6: Continued

Upcoming events 316 7.7

Posing question 46 1.1

Encourage user response 16 .4

(multimedia)

Encourage to sign petition 31 .8

Encourage to take action 98 2.4

Solicit to share 6 .1

Link to SNSs/website of other 388 9.4 organizations

Post containing hashtag 676 16.4

Sharing personal stories 56 1.4

Multiple dialogic tactics 428 10.4

Celebrity endorsement or comment 81 2.0

Press release 26 .6

Speeches or quotes or statement 104 2.5

Audio/visual capacity 235 5.7

Information about LGBT rights 497 12.1 activism

Information about the violation 159 3.9 of/discrimination

Link/shared link to a media content 236 5.7

66 Table 6: Continued

Information of how to contribute 230 5.6

Information of how to become 27 .7 affiliated

Other 141 3.4

Total 4115 100.0

RQ 2 concerns the descriptive statistics related to the dialogic principles employed on Facebook and Twitter. This study employs content analysis to determine the prevalence of dialogic principles on Facebook and Twitter messages (26 items for

Facebook and 27 items for Twitter). Content analysis on Facebook messages (Table 8) reveals that posts related to the “conservation of visitor” principle comprise 7.1% (n=

292) of all Facebook posts. The “generation of return visits” principle messages are 8.3%

(n= 342) of overall Facebook messages. This study illuminates that the prominent dialogic principle employed on Facebook is “dialogic loop”, 44.4% (n= 1826) and

“useful information to media”, 30.5% (n= 1257).

Content analysis of Twitter messages (Table 9) illuminates that the

“dialogic loop” principle, 68.3% (n= 2048), is the most prominent communication strategy on Twitter. The second leading strategy is “useful information to media” which comprise 12.4% (n= 373) of overall messages. The “conservation of visitor” principle

8.9% (n= 268) and “useful information to public” principle 8.8% (n= 264) are widely used strategies on Twitter. The “generation of return visits” principle 1.6% (n= 47) comprise only a small proportion of the total tweets.

67 Table 7: Dialogic Principles Employed on Twitter Messages by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada

Frequency Percent

Link to the organizational website 122 4.1

Link to the organizational SNSs 146 4.9

Link to pages of an organizational 0 0.0 website for information

Link or tweet about employees of the 9 .3 organization

Offer information or link to events 38 1.3

Link to discussion forums or FAQs of 0 0.0 organizational website

Posing a question 27 .9

Twitter mention 156 5.2

Encourage user response (multimedia) 2 .1

Solicit to Retweet or Like 1 .0

Encourage to sign petition 12 .4

Encourage to take action 6 .2

68 Table 7: Continued

Link to SNSs/website of other 14 .5 organization/individual

Hashtag only 622 20.7

Sharing personal stories of LGBT 1 .0 individuals/allies

Multiple dialogic loop tactics 1106 36.9

Celebrity Endorsement 101 3.4

Press releases 10 .3

Statement or Speeches or Quotes 26 .9

Audio/visual capacity 22 .7

Information about LGBT rights activism 141 4.7

Information about the violation 43 1.4 of/discrimination against LGBT rights

Link to a media content 131 4.4

Information to contribute money or gift 115 3.8

Link to political leaders 4 .1

Information of how to become affiliate 14 .5

Other 131 4.4

Total 3000 100.0

69 RQ 3 explores the connection between dialogic principles and user response, especially the number of Likes generated by Facebook messages. In the context of

Facebook, user response is defined as the number of Likes received from Facebook users.

This study conducts a one-way ANOVA to determine whether the average number of

Likes on Facebook is statistically different for the message types. This study also employs Welch’s statistic.

This procedure is aligned with earlier research (Espinel, et al., 2013; Jan & Shieh,

2014; Vázquez-Martínez, 2013). Scholars widely recommend Welch’s test for correcting the variance of heterogeneity (Levy, 1978; Jan & Shieh, 2014). The results of the

ANOVA (Table 10) illuminate significant differences among the types of dialogic principles in eliciting responses from social media users, MS = 14907136.52, F = (4,

4110) 6.74, p = .001. More importantly, the post-hoc Games-Howell analysis indicates that the “conservation of visitor” principle (M= 206.17, SD= 1046.30) is statistically significantly different from the “generation of return visits” principle (M= 18.65, SD=

144.39) regarding the number of likes generated. Compared to the baseline category of the “generation of return visits” principle (M= 18.65, SD= 144.39), the “dialogic loop” principle (M= 364.52, SD= 1773.59) and the “useful information to media” principle

(M= 390.17, SD= 1490.86) generated more likes. However, the mean difference between the “generation of return visits” principle (M= 18.65, SD= 144.39) and the “useful information to public” principle (M= 122.82, SD= 765.29) is not statistically significantly different from one another.

Once again, the study employs ANOVA (Welch’s statistic) to investigate the link between tweets and user response. For Twitter, the study defines the number of favorites

70 as the embodiment of user response. The results (Table 13) reveal significant differences among the types of dialogic principles in eliciting responses from Twitter users, MS =

105560.18, F = (4, 2995) 4.56, p = .001. The “dialogic loop” principle (M= 39.66, SD=

180.65) generated more favorite responses than the “conservation of visitors” (M= 9.01,

SD= 27.19), “generation of return visit” (M= 3.45, SD= 4.80), and “useful information to public” (M=11.50, SD= 33.11) messages. The “useful information to media” principle

(M= 26.53, SD= 73.99) also received more favorite responses than the “conservation of visitor” (M= 9.01, SD= 27.19), “generation of return visits” (M= 3.45, SD= 4.80), and

“useful information to public” messages (M=11.50, SD= 33.11). However, the mean difference between “dialogic loop” (M= 39.66, SD= 180.65) and “useful information to media” (M= 26.53, SD= 73.99) is not statistically significantly different.

71 Table 8: Core Dialogic Principles Employed on Facebook by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada

Frequency Percent

Conservation of visitor 292 7.1

Generation of return visits 342 8.3

Dialogic loop 1826 44.4

Useful information to 1257 30.5 media

Useful information to 398 9.7 public

Total 4115 100.0

Table 9: Core Dialogic Principles Employed on Twitter by LGBTQ Nonprofit

Organizations in the US and Canada

Frequency Percent

Conservation of visitor 268 8.9

Generation of return visits 47 1.6

Dialogic loop 2048 68.3

Useful information to 373 12.4 media

Useful info to public 264 8.8

Total 3000 100.0

72 Figure 2: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (likes) on

Facebook

73 Figure 3: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (comments) on

Facebook

74 Figure 4: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (shares) on

Facebook

75 Figure 5: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (favorite) on

Twitter

76 Figure 6: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (replies) on

Twitter

77 Figure 7: Mean plots for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (retweets) on

Twitter

78

Figure 8: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (likes) on

Facebook

Figure 9: Decision tree dialogic principle and associated public reactions (comments) on

Facebook 79

Figure 10: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (shares) on

Facebook

80

Figure 11: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (favorite) on Twitter

Figure 12: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (replies) on

Twitter

81

Figure 13: Decision tree for dialogic principle and associated public reactions (retweets) on Twitter

82 Figure 14: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (response) on Facebook and Twitter

83

Figure 15: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (user engagement) on

Facebook and Twitter

84

Figure 16: Dialogic principle and associated public reactions (user advocacy) on

Facebook and Twitter

85 Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Likes) on Facebook

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 292 206.17 1046.307 0 14079 of visitor Generation of 342 18.65 144.395 0 2625 return visits Dialogic loop 1826 364.52 1773.591 0 36046 Useful 1257 390.17 1490.863 0 24739 information to media Useful 398 122.82 765.290 0 12556 information to public Total 4115 309.00 1491.368 0 36046

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Comments) on Facebook

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 292 13.69 68.784 0 765 of visitor Generation of 342 .78 4.836 0 82 return visits Dialogic loop 1826 20.39 113.246 0 3189 Useful 1257 29.90 108.913 0 1619 information to media Useful 398 4.67 20.230 0 214 information to public Total 4115 19.67 98.858 0 3189

86 Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Shares) on Facebook

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 292 65.51 410.038 0 5388 of visitor Generation 342 3.60 38.672 0 712 of return visits Dialogic loop 1826 136.04 1146.995 0 25142 Useful 1257 166.99 780.917 0 11775 information to media Useful 398 46.59 356.985 0 5798 information to public Total 4115 120.83 892.609 0 25142

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Favorite) on Twitter

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 268 9.01 27.197 0 273 of visitor Generation of 47 3.45 4.809 0 22 return visits Dialogic loop 2048 39.66 180.659 0 3842 Useful 373 26.53 73.994 0 1089 information to media Useful 264 11.50 33.110 0 246 information to public Total 3000 32.25 152.510 0 3842

87 Table 14: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Replies) on Twitter

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 268 .31 1.276 0 10 of visitor Generation of 47 .57 2.082 0 11 return visits Dialogic loop 2048 .62 2.494 0 43 Useful 373 .70 2.098 0 31 information to media Useful 264 .14 .825 0 12 information to public

Total 3000 .56 2.256 0 43

88 Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Dialogic Principle and Associated Public Reactions

(Retweets) on Twitter

N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum Deviation Conservation 268 8.36 31.327 0 380 of visitor Generation of 47 2.36 4.936 0 26 return visits Dialogic loop 2048 24.56 118.159 0 3646 Useful 373 25.00 70.209 0 1146 information to media Useful 264 6.81 19.698 0 141 information to public Total 3000 21.25 101.542 0 3646

89 Table 16: Cross-tabulation of Advocacy Strategies and Dialogic Principle on Facebook

Dialogic Principles

Advocacy Conservation Generation Dialogic Useful Useful Total of visitor of return loop information information Strategies visits to media to public

Insider 19 6 127 131 4 287 Strategy Indirect 62 38 760 512 16 1388 Strategy No 211 298 939 614 378 2440 Advocacy Strategy

Total 292 342 1826 1257 398 4115

Table 17: Cross-tabulation of Advocacy Strategies and Dialogic Principle on Twitter

Dialogic Principles

Advocacy Conservation Generation Dialogic Useful Useful Total of visitor of return loop information information Strategies visits to media to public

Insider 10 0 124 25 0 159 Strategy Indirect 49 3 914 219 13 1198 Strategy No 209 44 1010 129 251 1643 Advocacy Strategy

Total 268 47 2048 373 264 3000

90 RQ 4 wants to determine whether specific post types generated more engagement from users. For Facebook, engagement is defined by the number of comments users posted to engage with the Facebook status updates of nonprofit organizations. This study conducts a one-way ANOVA (Welch’s statistic) to determine whether the average number of Comments is statistically different for the message types. The results (Table

11) of ANOVA reveals significant differences among the kinds of dialogic principles in generating engagement from users, MS=88663.37, F= (4, 4110) 9.14, p=.001. The mean difference between the baseline category of the “generation of return visits” principle

(M=.78, SD=4.83) and other four types of principles— “conservation of visitor”

(M=13.69, SD=68.78), “dialogic loop” (M= 20.39, SD= 113.24), “useful information to media” (M= 29.90, SD= 108.91), and “useful information to public” (M= 4.67, SD=

20.23)— is statistically significantly different in terms of generating more user engagement. There is no statistic difference between the “dialogic loop” (M= 20.39, SD=

113.246) and “conservation of visitor” (M=13.69, SD=68.78) messages; however, the difference between the “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” messages neared statistical significance (p=.13).

This study conducts a one-way ANOVA (Welch’s statistic) procedure to examine the link between Twitter messages and user engagement. For Twitter, engagement is defined as the number of replies organizational status updates received. The results

(Table 14) reveal significant differences among the types of dialogic principles in eliciting replies from the Twitter users, MS =19.73, F = (4, 2995) 3.89, p = .004. The post-hoc Games-Howell analysis indicates significant differences among the types of dialogic principles regarding generating user engagement. The “dialogic loop” principle

91 (M=.62, SD=2.49) generated more replies than the “conservation of visitor” (M=.31,

SD= 1.27) and “useful information to public” (M=.14, SD=.82). Similarly, “useful information to media” messages (M=.70, SD=2.09) generated more replies than

“conservation of visitor” (M=.31, SD= 1.27) and “useful information to public” (M=.14,

SD=.82). There is no statistically significant mean difference between “generation of return visits” messages (M=.57, SD=2.08) and other four types of dialogic messages regarding generating replies on Twitter.

RQ 5 explores the link between dialogic principles and user advocacy regarding sharing Facebook status updates or retweeting nonprofit organization tweets. For

Facebook, this study defines user advocacy as the number of shares a Facebook status update received. Once again, this study conducts a one-way ANOVA (Welch’s statistic) for the five dialogic message categories to compare the average number of shares of

Facebook status updates. The results (Table 12) of ANOVA reveals significant differences among the five categories of dialogic principles, MS=2722131.30, F= (4,

4110) 3.42, p=.008. Results indicate that there is a statistical difference in the average number of shares related to the dialogic principles “useful information to media” (M=

166.99, SD= 780.91), “conservation of visitor” (M= 65.51, SD= 410.03), “generation of return visits” (M= 3.60, SD= 38.67), and “useful information to public” (M= 46.59, SD=

356.98). The “dialogic loop” principle (M= 136.04, SD =1146.99) generated more shares than the “generation of return visits” (M= 3.60, SD= 38.67) and “useful information to public” principle messages (M= 46.59, SD= 356.98), and the mean difference is statistically significant.

92 Once again, this study conducts a one-way ANOVA (Welch’s statistic) to investigate the mean difference between five dialogic principles regarding generating retweets on Twitter. This study conceptualizes user advocacy as the number of retweets generated for the organizational status updates on Twitter. The results reveal statistical significant differences among the five groups of messages regarding user engagement,

MS= 36001.42, F= (4, 2995) 3.50, p= .007. Table 15 shows that the “dialogic loop” principle (M= 24.56, SD= 118.15) messages received more retweets than the

“conservation of visitor” (M=8.36, SD=31.32), “generation of return visits” (2.36,

SD=4.93), and “useful information to public” (M= 6.81, SD= 19.69) principles. The mean difference between the “dialogic loop” principle (M=24.56, SD=118.15) and

“useful information to media” (M= 25, SD= 70.20) is not statistically significantly different. It is also notable that the “useful information to media” principle (M=25,

SD=70.20) received more retweets than “conservation of visitor” (M=8.36, SD=31.32),

“generation of return visits” (2.36, SD=4.93), and “useful information to public”

(M=6.81, SD=19.69).

Summary of Quantitative Phase

In the following, I present the summary of the quantitative phase:

First, nonprofit organizations mainly employ “no advocacy” tactic messages on social media. Furthermore, they use an advocacy mix of public education, media advocacy, and coalition building tactics for advocacy.

Second, the prominent advocacy strategy that organizations employ is a “no advocacy strategy” followed by “indirect strategy” and “insider strategy”.

93 Third, when it comes to eliciting Likes from Facebook users, three dialogic communication principles: (a) “dialogic loop”, (b) “useful information to media”, and (c)

“conservation of visitor” represent effective communication strategies. Similarly, on

Twitter “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “conservation of visitor” generate more Favorite response than others.

Fourth, the “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “conservation of visitor” principles generate more Comments on Facebook than other principles. This study reveals that on Twitter the “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” elicit more Replies than others.

Fifth, the results of this study illuminate that “useful information to media” and

“dialogic loop” principles generate more Shares on Facebook than other principles. On

Twitter, “useful information to media” and “dialogic loop” principles generate more

Retweets than others.

Qualitative Phase

From 15 verbatim transcripts, this study generated more than 40 codes which were then clustered into broader categories of codes. Seven prominent themes emerged from the larger groups of codes. Table 18 represents the prominent themes and summary of coding categories. The study conducted member checking and peer debriefing to ensure the validity of data. I contacted three participants and shared codes and themes for member checking. The participants informed me that the coding themes aligned with their perception of the use of social media for advocacy and relationship building. A draft form of the data was presented to two peer experts for their opinion and recommendation.

94 Both experts suggested a few changes which I incorporated to refine my interpretations.

Finally, I provide direct quotations in explaining the findings of the study.

Routine use of social media. Research participants consider social media to be a crucial component for organizational communication. Participants emphasize that an active social media presence is critical to the success of organizations. They firmly believe this enhances credibility; thus, organizations routinely use social media for three primary purposes: (a) cross-promotion of their digital content, (b) to inform people about ongoing activities, and (c) fundraising.

The digital presence of organizations is not limited to social media; rather organizations use Facebook and Twitter to promote the digital content they produce for digital communication sites like websites, blogs, and other social networking avenues.

Ethan, a communications officer of a legal advocacy organization, reflects on the cross- promotional practices by saying “We inform people around legal issues; so, what we typically do is create a publication, hosted on our website, and then do social media to connect people to the publication of our website”. Ava explains cross-promotional use of social media:

Our annual reports usually mention a lot of remarkable studies, and some of them

are data, and we share that on social media. So, there are also times when stories

are created around the issue we were working on to protect LGBTQ community.

For one of our projects, we are working in , we developed a graphic novel

called Yousef & Farhad, and we turn that on a whole Facebook page of its own

and publish each of the individual scripts. We made a comic series, it is still now

95 available online in both Persian and English. Anyone can read the comic on social

media to understand how it feels to be a gay in Iran.

Cross-promotional practices help organizations drive online traffic to their websites and other digital communication platforms. Such use of digital content helps organizations to maximize the visibility of their content and to inform the public about the ongoing activities.

Non-profit organizations routinely use social media to showcase their current activities. Such practices help organizations to update people on recent projects, programs, news, and initiatives. Aiden, a 37-year-old executive who worked more than a decade in non-profit communications explains the use of social media to me:

We use social media to connect people with issues and causes, to highlight our

initiatives and events, and I believe we do an excellent job of storytelling, and

showing people the examples of the impact of our work through videos and

interviews. So, getting things out there and it is a soft power kind of thing where

we are not busting down the walls and things like that, but we are telling the

stories of our work through our kids.

One research participant describes the day-to-day use of social media: “We do send a lot of updates on social media. So, we post a lot of camp pictures, stories, and quotes; even more emotional things like direct quotes from participants of the camps” (Charlotte). It is a regular practice for digital communications managers to post nearly every initiative of their organizations on Facebook and Twitter. For example, Liam mentions that “We post everything that we do on social media. We post press releases; we post photos, videos, and that sort of things. Some of our program staff also post to publicize our various

96 educational campaigns”. Such practices highlight that social media work as an important communicative space where organizations connect with people by showcasing activities to publicize themselves. Promotion of events and initiatives also helps non-profits to connect with donors for fundraising.

97

Table 18: Summary of Themes and Coding Categories

Routine Use of Social Media Limitations of Social Media Use

Cross promotion of digital content Echo-chamber

Informing organizational activities Highlighting negative

Fundraising Slacktivism

Social Media for Advocacy Privacy

Mobilization Noise

Educate people Challenges for Organization

Networking with mainstream media Limited skills and training

Lobbying Lack of technological transparency

Coalition building Constant pressure of updating

Engage in social conversation Strategic Content Creation and

Management

Relationship Building Digital content

Social media engagement Social media persona

Community building Use of social media analytics

98

Table 18: Continued

Strength of Social Media

Reaching wider audience

Immediacy

Visibility

Fundraising is an important strategic objective of non-profit organizations because resources are crucial for the sustainability and continuation of their core missions. Research participants stress the use of social media for fundraising and devote a considerable amount of digital content to connect with donors on Facebook and Twitter.

As one participant describes it:

…right now we are doing an advocacy fundraising and all our communication

happens through social media. We give shout-outs to donors, and we give shout-

outs to those who give presents to us…So, a big chunk of our fundraising comes

from social media. (Charlotte)

A seasoned digital media manager explains the benefit of using social media for fundraising:

…we get donors; we get people who get involved in fundraising, and fundraising

events. We get a lot of people who are willing to raise funds for us. We post

pictures, and they voluntarily share those posts and ask for funds from their

family and friends. It was a huge fundraising effort. (Emma) 99

Consistently, participants highlight that technological features of social media, such as user interactivity, facility to share, and capacity to post multimedia content, enhance the fundraising initiatives of non-profit organizations.

Social media for advocacy. LGBTQ networked counterpublic is the voice of the community, closely intertwined with the struggle for equality and justice. Such counterpublics use social media to circulate oppositional discourses, to challenge discriminatory practices, and to make collective claims for policy reformations. LGBTQ nonprofit advocacy on social media reflects their counterpublic narratives that continuously mount criticism against discriminatory practices. Research participants relate that their social media-based advocacy emerged from their historical experience of marginalization. Noah, a veteran and LGBTQ rights activist, discusses the exclusionary institutional practices that exacerbate the vulnerability of LGBTQ people:

We advocate for the rights and concerns of gay people because it has always been

illegal. Gay people can face dishonorable discharge or can be kicked out, no

matter how many medals or military accomplishments; you could be kicked out.

In earlier times, when a gay veteran tells a friend that he is gay, the immediate

response was— Oh my God! Things have changed nowadays.

Aligning with Felski (1989) and Fraser (1990), I argue that LGBTQ organizations use the mediated space of social media for regroupment and contentious activities. The internally focused regroupment strategy nurtures the self-conscious collective identity and forges a bond of solidarity among in-group members. The community’s specific identity is rooted in their historical experience of facing violence and discrimination.

100

Advocacy tactics like public education and coalition building are geared toward cultivation of a group-specific identity that challenges the dominant scripts of heteronormativity. Social media also serve as “base and training grounds” for contentious practices (Fraser, 1990, p. 124), which target the wider public. Such practices make collective claims for LGBTQ people and challenge the “existing structure of authority through political activity and theoretical critique” (Felski, 1989, p. 168). Advocacy tactics like mobilizing, networking with mainstream media, lobbying, and engaging in social conversations are directed toward the wider public and aspire to convince them of the validity of LGBTQ lived experiences.

Research participants mention that they mostly use six advocacy tactics on

Facebook and Twitter: (a) mobilization, (b) public education, (c) networking with mainstream media, (d) lobbying, (e) building coalition, and (f) engaging in social conversation. Organizations use Facebook and Twitter to mobilize people for direct action and online advocacy. Participants point out that organizations often communicate to their audience base through social media to rally their support for or against social and policy changes. Such ease and novelty in demonstrating public support enhances indirect advocacy practices of non-profit organizations. For example:

…we do use social media to inform our base on events that we are having.

Recently, we did not end up holding the events, but we mobilized people pretty

effectively for a rally we were going to hold in downtown Los Angeles in

response to a potential executive order from the Trump administration; and that

101

executive order never came so we called off the event. I do not think there is any

other way we could have been in touch with people who wanted to attend. (Liam)

Ava shares a story which involve using social media and other digital platforms to mobilize people for online advocacy:

Recently, the US delegation at the Commission for the Status of Women invited a

group called C-FAM, which is actually listed as a hate group by the Southern

Poverty Law Center. This group was in the news a lot for hate speech, and their

president had been fired from the news organization he worked for because the

statement he made; but, they were invited on the US delegation. This happened

quietly right at the beginning of the CSW [Commission on the Status of Women],

and we were one of the first to report on it. We gathered and put together a

petition, we put out a press release, and followed the story throughout the CSW.

We have been calling to have the group removed of the US delegations…US by

putting them in the delegation has invited them into negotiation. We reported on

them; we started an online petition to remove them because they are a hate

group…Once we gathered the petition that generated social media conversations

and hundreds of news stories. In this case, the community rallied together because

we were able to generate news stories, social conversations, and gather them

together both in mainstream LGBT media and others.

A few participants inform that mobilizing people for collective action is not a core organizational mission; however, they support mobilization initiatives of LGBTQ organizations by sharing posts of allied organizations. Organizations also use social

102

media to create awareness about the lived experiences of LGBTQ citizens and even educate people on discriminatory social practices.

One of the core advocacy goals of non-profit organizations is to educate people on social and political issues. Participants mention that they often train people about

LGBTQ rights and post such initiatives on social media. One respondent (Isabella) explains about the use of social media to educate professionals:

We definitely use social media to share resources, and a lot of these messages

contain public education. I would say we provide professional education because

we do a lot of training with service providers and we really need to tap into our

and let our health care providers know what’s happening.

Ava, a seasoned communications manager working for an LGBTQ non-profit advocacy group, describes using an annual report and data for public education: “Through our human rights reports, we try to educate the public. So, part of our advocacy strategy is to train people through education. When we finish our reports, we publish them online and social media”. Organizations often use social media posts to circulate their online resources to educate and to inform people about the politics within the social justice movement:

People do not know what the real issues are and we use social media to educate

people what is actually going on, and we highlight voices that are not mainstream,

and we tend to educate people about the voices who are marginalized within the

social justice advocacy for LGBTI people. Public education is a huge part of what

we do here, and currently, we are working on couple of strategies to create

103

different hashtags to educate people… at the end of the day people following our

organization, educate themselves about LGBTI issues… (Emma)

Any successful advocacy campaign requires attention from mainstream news media which facilitates the success of advocacy practices. Though social media provide communicative space, media attention helps to garner popular support for advocacy initiatives. Participants stress on blurring the boundary between social media and mainstream media, and describe how an organizational presence on social media facilitates connecting with news media:

If you are not on Twitter and communicating with journalists, then you are not

part of the conversation. It is kind of an ecosystem now for doing media

advocacy. Being connected on social media with journalists is just how it works

now. If you are not doing that, then you are not even really fulfilling traditional

media outreach because in the sense of traditional media outreach it was all about

connecting with journalists. So, before there might have been a phone call and

just an email, now you need to include them on social media. It is not so much

like traditional vs. social media, it is all media outreach together, and you must

stay in tune with how journalists are communicating and the specific one you

want to reach so that you can connect and build relationships with reporters.

(Ava)

In general, organizing a press conference and preparing formal reactions requires considerable effort and time. Participants say that they often use social media to provide their positions on public policy because drafting a 140-character Twitter post or a brief

104

Facebook post is a quicker way to communicate with media. Organizations often use

Facebook live to communicate with media and the public because it is easier and more convenient. When media report on advocacy initiatives, it helps organizations to build public pressure on political representatives and create a larger coalition for collective action.

Participants mention using social media for lobbying. Social media based lobbying initiatives help organizations influence policy decisions and engage with political leaders to secure rights for LGBTQ individuals. One participant commented:

I think it is a way for us to have a position on things and to influence the decision

makers at provincial, municipal, federal and government levels. We have been

invited to participate as intervenors in cases regarding family law in LGBTQ

families in the province of Montreal. I think social media played a part of it…

(Aiden)

Olivia explains that building coalition through social media is a core communication objective. For example:

Coalition building is a large part of what we do on social media. We want to make

sure that everyone feels respected and heard and we obviously want to give them

the opportunity to be seen on our platforms. Of course, we like when our content

is shared on their platforms; then we are opening up to a whole different set of

audience and vice versa. I believe coalition building is a huge part of our social

media commitment.

105

Organizations also use social media for building coalition to support marginal community:

…we have been very supportive of the Muslim community since the inauguration

and even since the campaign because it is our position. Obviously, the Muslim

community includes lots of LGBT people. We see the intersectionality that is an

important part of our mission. Cross bolstering, I mean retweeting posts from

Care and other organizations, and we do that pretty frequently. (Liam)

Social media based lobbying, building pressure on political representatives, and creating coalitions also facilitates the inclusion of organizational voices in larger social conversations on LGBTQ rights, practices, and policies:

I think it allows us to be part of a broader conversation, especially around issues

of LGBT rights. I think the example of a transgender bill of rights and things like

that in Canada or even the repeal of some laws like the age of consent. So, it

allows us to be part of the larger conversation and to connect with other players

who are working on community-building exercises. Yeah, being part of that

broader dialogue and part of something that is bigger than ourselves. (Aiden)

Overall, participants describe their experience of using different advocacy tactics on social media for social change. Also, they highlight how social media facilitate conversations on social change.

Relationship building. Compared to web 1.0, web 2.0 or social media facilitate more interactive, dynamic, and dialogic communication with audiences. Scholars (Men &

Tsai, 2013; Waters & Williams, 2011) report that organizations developed mutual

106

relationships with audiences on social media. Such relationship-building initiatives are crucial for advocacy and social change. Interviews reveal that organizations employed social media for building relationships in two primary ways: (a) community building and

(b) engagement.

Scholars argue that social media are crucial tools to develop relationships with audiences. Such relationships require “an understanding of, appreciation for, and commitment to dialogue with and among stakeholders and organizations as community building discourse and power resource co-management’’ (Heath, 2014, as cited in

Johnston, 2014). When an organization develops a stable relationship with an audience, then such relationship helps to build online communities that support and advocate for the organization.

Participants mention their experiences of building an online and ground level community through social media. Organizations connect with allies, supporters, donors, and activists to build a community of social justice advocates. Participants share stories, comments, posts of their allies and supporters on social media to garner public support for social justice initiatives:

There is an organization called Unicorns for Humanity, and it was started by a

mom and son in Belgium. …they reached out to us saying: Hey, we are starting

this and what we are doing is making unicorns. We are selling them to raise

money for organizations. It is an awesome project, and I replied to them. I invited

them and talked about this on our social media. It turns out that their main mascot

for the project is called Bob who represents the LGBT community and he is a

107

huge supporter of our organization. They have been raising money, they donated

to us, and we have been communicating back and forth. (Ava)

Communications professionals use both online and offline connections to build community online. Communications managers often arrange ground-level activities to connect with activists and allies, then, follow up on social media to strengthen the relationship:

…after connecting with activists or allies, we invite them to write a blog post with

us or attend a panel or discussion and using social media to follow up. This way

we can stay connected and everyone feels like they are part of the organization.

(Ava)

The mantra of social media success is user engagement. Organizations aspire to generate more user engagement to lead social conversations. Engagement refers to user response to social media updates. Posts that elicit substantial user engagement enhance visibility of messages and help organizations to reach beyond their existing support base. User engagement often reflects the commitment of users to participate in a discussion. When more and more users interact in discussions that eventually enhance trust and credibility of organizations:

We can connect with people who are connected to someone in our network in

ways that you did not expect… once somebody re-tweets something from your

wall it is kind of an endorsement. So, some people are looking for people they

already know and trust…you can kind of get benefit from the credibility of people

who follow you and maybe share yours contacts the way we have not seen before

108

in other platforms. Maybe with the exception of somebody forwarding an email to

their networks. But, that is a much different expectation for their involvement.

(Isabella)

Furthermore, user engagement helps non-profits to amplify their voices. The ripple effect of social media messages is achieved through the endorsement of social media users who demonstrate strong commitment for an organization. In this way, organizations can reach to a wider audience:

I think it is a much more direct way of getting in touch with people. And, honestly

if you have a list of emails of these people you could send them the same

message, but in social media, you have the same followers, and there is the

chance for the message to reach beyond just followers, and the interaction speed

is also much quicker. So, it is more responsive. (Mason)

The common practice of cultivating relationships with people on social media is to like, comment, and share user posts. Nonprofit organizations often share relevant posts of social media users. When users notice that organizations share their posts they reciprocate such practices. Participants frequently use such online behavior to connect and to build relationships with people.

The core of user engagement is the commitment of organizations to develop a mutual relationship with audiences. The more organizations interact with audiences, the possibility that users will invest symbolic and cultural resources is relatively high. Such users eventually work as advocates for an organization. Studies (Kang, 2014; Ki & Hon,

2007) reveal that user engagement facilitates creating an affective connection between

109

organization and audience. Such connection strengthens the loyalty of the audience toward the organization and ensures positive outcomes like supportive behavior (Grunig,

Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) and positive attitude (Hong & Yang, 2009; Ki & Hon, 2007).

Social media engagement is not just a behavioral outcome of organization-audience interactions; rather it signals a mutual relationship. Taylor and Kent (2014) consider engagement as a dialogue between organization and audience and they argue that

“Engagement is both an orientation that influences interactions and the approach that guides the process of interactions among groups” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 384). In a nutshell, organizations use social media to connect with audiences, build community, and strengthen user engagement. Such practices amplify the voices of organizations, enhance visibility, and eventually help generate social conversations around the issues that the organizations deem important.

Strength of social media for communication. The user base of Facebook in

North America is 223,081,200 (Internet World Stats, 2017). In the US, Twitter users number 67.54 million (Statista, 2017). LGBTQ non-profit organizations want to tap the user base of social media for advocacy and relationship building. Research participants express three primary strengths of social media for communication: (a) reaching a wider audience, (b) immediacy, and (c) visibility. Participants emphasize using social media to reach wider audiences and engaging in a dialogue with people. Ava, communications manager, expresses her opinion on reaching wider audiences through social media:

Social media help outreach efforts exponentially. We have new people coming to

our circle and showing up for our events. We have noticed more individuals, apart

110

from our regular audience base, are attending our events and speaking to us

online.

Participants frequently describe social media as their own media channel:

Social media is like our media channel. We get to generate our own content; we

can cultivate and curate our own kind of audience we want to connect in a very,

very particular and specific way. We connect with thought leaders and opinion

leaders; we can build a movement in digital space together with the folks who are

committed to our goals. (Emma)

Similar to the results of interviews of this study, earlier studies on social media and advocacy reveal that advocacy organizations use social media to strengthen their outreach efforts (Obar, 2014; Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012). Furthermore, scholars interested in social movement and activism argue that social media help to scale up very quickly

(Gerbaudo, 2012; Greenberg & MacAulay, 2009; Howard & Hussain, 2013; Tufekci,

2017) and facilitate mobilization efforts for collective action. Nonprofit organizations use the networking power of social media to reach wider audiences. Such practice strengthens the outreach effort for advocacy.

The immediacy of social media-based communication lured organizations to concentrate their communication efforts on Facebook and Twitter. The interactive commutative space of social media facilitates quick, immediate, and dynamic interactions. As Aiden expresses it, “I think there is the immediacy, being able to respond to the things, …You know there is something with the dynamism of being interactive and ephemeral”. On social media, organizations provide updates on what is happening in the

111

organizations as well as relevant events in the socio-political realm: “Immediacy and opportunity to involve people who have interest in what you are doing. As soon as something happens, we can post it on social media” (Liam). In addition to immediacy, the virality of social media content works as word-of-mouth and often enhances visibility of an organization. Visibility gives organizations voice over socio-political issues and gives a picture on how well an organization is working to secure the rights of the LGBTQ community: “Getting stories on social media and interacting with people helps to be visible. The larger audience knows things are happening here and we are not a static organization” (Harper). In a nutshell, communication tools of Facebook and Twitter help organizations to effectively realize their communication objective.

Limitations of social media for communication. Though social media provide interactive and dynamic communication between nonprofit organizations and people, they are limited in reaching new people and connecting with audiences who do not necessarily subscribe to the missions of organizations. Research participants highlight five types of limitations for social media-based communication: (a) echo-chamber, (b) highlighting negatives, (c) slacktivism, (d) privacy, and (e) noise. Social media create echo-chambers that diminish the potential of the digital public sphere. Echo-chamber refers to behavioral tendency that exposes an individual solely to ideas, values, and attitudes that conform with the pre-existing belief system. People refrain from interacting with out-group ideas and beliefs which often lead to polarization and create homophily.

Social media engineered mediated sociality in such a way that individuals are exposed only to ideas similar to their own attitudes. Such technological interference in a mediated

112

realm prevents users from engaging with content that provides alternative ideas and promotes polarization (Sunstein, 2006; Williams, McMurray, Kurz, & Lambert, 2015).

Such echo-chambers on social media limit the potential of social media-based communication:

…the barriers are kind of the echo chamber. You see people who think like you or

have a similar kind of mindset. Because, yeah, you are preaching to the choir so to

speak sometimes and it is difficult because we are not necessarily following the

people whose minds we must change, and they are not necessarily following us.

They are following another staff. So, I think that is one of the limitations, the echo

chamber’s literarily and metaphorically filtering what is happening around us.

(Aiden)

Participants express frustrations as they struggled to reach beyond the already existing support base. A seasoned communications manager mentions his concern of not reaching to new audiences: “Sometimes you have an echo chamber, and you are only reaching a certain group of people over and over again and that may not be enough sometimes”

(Olivia). Literature on social media and social change widely discussed the echo-chamber effects of digital communication media (Sunstein, 2006).

Participants stress that it is easy for social media users to like, comment, and even share posts or tweets. However, translating such online engagement into participating events and rallies is tough. Such inertia of social media users creates barriers in organizing ground level actions: “On social media, people are a bit complacent in just filling out a form or just reading an article that you need them to read. Sometimes you

113

need them to show up, and then it becomes complicated” (Olivia). Such slacktivism

(Morozov, 2011) is identified as the limitation of social media when it comes to organizing collective action. Scholars (Christensen, 2011; Morozov, 2011; White; 2010) argue that social media based activism as mere participation without seriously involving in ground level activism. Though research participants highlight slacktivism as a challenge, the history of social movement taught us that not everyone affected by social injustice participated in a movement. The idea of slacktivism failed to appropriately reflect the nuances of civic participation that privileged only a limited set of engagement.

On social media, people are constantly providing digital content, and such immense information creates lot of noise. Social media users frequently get distracted with trivial information and content. Such a scenario creates a challenge for organizations regarding retaining user attention. Furthermore, few respondents express concern about privacy of social media users and how corporate privacy practices make activists and advocacy organizations subject to state-sponsored violence.

The idea of highlighting the negative emerged in several interviews. Participants discuss how engaging with homophobic audiences perpetuates the cycle of hate and highlights the discriminatory value system:

…If you tell a story are you highlighting the negative that you do not want to

circulate? Finding that balance is crucial. A good example right now is that there

is a bus going around that denies basically that trans people exist. They are calling

it the free speech bus, and we put out a press release, and we reported on it. It is

114

one of those cases, where it is interesting because are we giving them more

visibility than they deserve by highlighting them in our community. (Ava)

Though participants raise concerns about several aspects of social media, they stress that the benefits of social media surpass the challenges regarding advocacy and relationship building. Communication managers rely on social media to communicate with people and create awareness about LGBTQ lived experiences.

Challenges for organizations. Non-profit organizations face several challenges regarding the use social media for advocacy and relationship building. First, several respondents express a sense of having too-limited training on social media for effective communication. For this reason, participants do not feel competent to communicate efficiently on Facebook and Twitter. One experienced public relations manager explains,

“I am just getting up to speed on it. In fact, I am not as knowledgeable as I need to work on social media”. Such feelings reflect a desire for training:

We are not trained in it. Some people are better at handling social media. I have

heard about classes in social media, but, again, it seems those classes are kind of

millennials telling you what to do. It is not a hard science and easy to understand,

but there are no steps to follow so this is bad. (Charlotte)

Mostly, they learned from their professional experience on traditional media and used such expertise on social media. They also observe audience reactions and try to replicate their success on Facebook and Twitter. Communication on social media is new to them, and they are working to understand what types of content people like on such platforms.

It is learning through doing.

115

Second, respondents stress that they are not aware of the particular algorithm that dictates the visibility of social media posts to audiences. Each platform has its own set of technological rules that determine the reach of posts. Algorithms for social networking sites are proprietary, and the public has no understanding of how any of the algorithms work and drive social media traffic. Organizations struggle to understand technological features and the typologies of online social networks that make posts visible to audiences.

One seasoned public relations manager echoed such feelings:

It is sometimes difficult to understand the algorithm behind Facebook that decides

what posts to show. I know Twitter uses a constant stream, but I am not sure

about Facebook. I mean knowing what's going on in the companies, what are their

policies and algorithms, and how a post gets pushed to the top are always

changing. The use of algorithms in some ways is very different from traditional

media, where you sort of know the New York Times distribution models, for

example. (Ethan)

Research participants often experiment with their social media postings and try to learn from their experiences. However, the constant change in algorithms coupled with the increasing niche aggregation of audiences makes it harder to have a sound grip of technological components of social media. For example, Snapchat, a mobile application, is popular among younger and college-going female audiences (Macmillan, 2013). The communications tools on Snapchat are different from those of Facebook or Twitter.

Therefore, developing skills to communicate on Snapchat created additional hurdles for communications professionals. Organizations refrain from using new platforms or keep a

116

low profile on new sites for not having technological know-how; and in the process, struggle to diversify their support base. In a nutshell, the opacity of technological tools of social media, emergence of new popular platforms, and audience segmentation created difficulties for organizations trying to communicate effectivelywith their audiences.

Third, the pressure of constant updating, engaging, and providing information poses a challenge to non-profit organizations. Resource-rich organizations can manage such a challenge, but medium- or small-sized organizations struggle to meet the demand of constant updating. For example:

…you need to employ a lot of energy and strategy and teamwork to be successful

on social media. Social media advocacy is an ongoing activity; it takes time, it

takes dedication, it takes engagement; you want to make sure that your tone is

okay. You want to make sure that what you do on social media is very strategic.

We have very hardworking and dedicated people to manage social media. It takes

a robust effort to maintain a social media-based advocacy. (Olivia)

Organizations can devote resources during a campaign, to be effective on social media; but it's hard for them to be strategic and active throughout the year. In Isabella’s words:

I think it can also be very time consuming to keep up with the present and be

active. It is not like a project or campaign that you work on it during that time,

and when it is done, you can stop working. On social media, you have to maintain

that presence all the time and attract people who are listening and watching you

actively.

117

Though social media are free to users, it takes considerable resources like time and money to be successful on Facebook and Twitter. Successful organizations use a mix of earned, owned, and paid content which gives them a significant audience reach. Also, subscriptions of social media listening (real-time updates) and analytics tools are expensive. Social media analytic tools provide strategic advantages to organizations in terms of content production, management, distribution, reach, and engagement.

Organizations often are not equipped to provide such support to their communication professionals.

Strategic content creation and management. Communications professionals working for non-profits dedicate their skills to produce content for social media.

Organizations posts photos, videos, press releases, program information, and notification of events, and they share stories of LGBTQ individuals. Social media posts reflect brand persona and communication professionals are cautious about the tone of their messages.

Therefore, they engage in strategic decision making about the management of such content. Participants comment that social media content needs to be aligned with their integrated communication initiatives across multiple platforms to reach organizational goals. Organizations consider social media to be very important among the many communication channels they use to communicate with people. Therefore, content creation and management of social media require strategic choices. Interviews reveal several key understandings about the strategic content production and management for social media.

118

First, communications professional use a mix of content features to engage audiences. They use text updates, photos, videos, events, and shared links to efficiently communicate and capture the attention of users. Organizations are aware of the specificity of communicative features of social networking sites and the usage of

Facebook and Twitter. For example, on Facebook, users can circulate a lengthy post but on Twitter posts are limited to 140 characters. Furthermore, Groups employ Twitter to get noticed and connected with media, professionals, and other users whereas Facebook provides a discussion space for engagement. Mason, digital communications manager working for a non-profit that promotes queer culture, mentions, “We are using a lot of

Twitter for notice. And Facebook, I would say for creating discussion about what’s going on, sharing reviews, and videos, and blog posts that we have”. Harper, executive director of a non-profit devoted to queer archives, describes the following practices:

We are focusing on events that happened in history that impacted their lives

directly—using anniversaries, using photographs, using objects that are popular,

using regular archival items to make those connections to their daily lives and

bring them back to archive.

Participants discuss the strategic choices they make to create and circulate content on social media. Such choices require team efforts and constant cooperation between staffs so that the content can serve the community well. For example:

We have a core team who really want to make sure stories that we told are

aesthetically pleasing. It is not just taking an interview or photo of a person; it

also involves developing what text we are going to use. Content is developed in

119

such a way that we can use in different platforms and also remain close to the

specificity of different social media platforms. We make sure that the whole team

is engaging and doing one interview in one day and that content can be used down

the line, and that can be used on that person's birthday, or it can be used on

international holidays connected to our organization. (Olivia)

Participants also stress that posts on high profile events, policies, and political commitment generate more user engagement than the regular posts:

High profile public events, celebrity events, or really big political events or

statements or something definitely has a higher level of interactions than just sort

of standard organized events. I think things that create more politically charged

statements generate more engagement. (Emma)

From tagging to using visuals, all communicative efforts require strategic choice, and such choices on social media determine the success of messages:

We tag other organizations so that they can share it. We sometimes use hashtags,

and I want to make sure that there is always a visual on our social media posts.

Otherwise, people really won't care. If there is a visual, especially in your tweet,

you get better response. How social media works is, like, people do not usually

read the thing that you are sharing. So, you put something out, especially if it has

a visual, people will be like “Wow, that’s, like, probably great”, and they like to

share it. They kind of don't care about the content. It is more about how you

market it than anything else. If I have a blog post, I want to make sure that my

120

content is really good, too, but it is also important that I have a good image and I

have a good title because that is what people are going to see first. (Sophia)

Organizations are also very strategic in terms of using hashtags on social media.

Hashtags help to identify a discussion, topic, or theme by keywords and facilitate the searching process. The use of hashtags reflects the participatory nature of social media because hashtags are not pre-determined, rather users create them to aggregate discussion on topics (Saxton, Niyirora et al., 2015). Organizations use new hashtags to capture attention of an audience or to link their discussion to a hashtag to contribute information to the pre-existing discussion. Saxton et al. (2015) report eight types of hashtags: (a) public education, (b) event, (c) values and goals, (d) branding, (e) dialogic, (f) time and place, (g) call-to-action, and (h) business. Olivia reflects on her strategic choices regarding hashtags:

Different days and campaigns have their hashtags. We highlight what is really

going on and use hashtags to track conversations. We want to make sure to track

the trending conversation, which is going on in California, and we know it may

not be trending in New York. We also tag people to get their attention, to create

conversations that are doing good or bad and add pressure to that person.

Isabella mentions using a combination of content like bulletin, quick facts, and quotes to initiate conversations on social media:

In order to fit in the new media environment, a lot of organizations follow some

formats like using some bulletins, some quick facts, stats, a couple of quotes, and

links that contain the content. It is all because people browse and share

121

information differently now, so it is important to make it short and easy to read

and share.

Such strategic choices regarding the variety of content features require teamwork and cohesive planning. Communication professionals in non-profit organizations build rapport with their team members to deliver effective content strategy for their organizations. Also, creating content for social media is crucial as it reflects organizational persona.

Second, organizations aspire to develop a social media persona by developing a personalized connection. A social media persona is a kind of fictional character that organizations create to communicate effectively with their audiences; more importantly, to build a bond with an audience and to convert them into loyal supporters. Such persona provides a human face to social media-based communication. For example:

…having your persona; I think sincerity and portraying a real person. You do not

want to be a corporate. People do not want to be part of a marketing project… I

think that sincerity is the key—a casual tone, an open mind, demonstrating that

you are open, asking questions, and not sounding too absolute where you can

manage to do that. Keeping in mind that social media are intended to have an

ongoing conversation…whatever you are doing on social media is important,

including your voice, brand, and all. (Isabella)

Aiden, who is an activist and communications professional, explains how he conceptualizes having a social media persona for an organization:

122

Our social media persona, you know, I did this exercise when I was on the board,

which was to develop a name for an organization as if it was a person, what kind

of characteristics would we use? So, we are making sure to use multiple

pronouns, and we are projecting our values in our tone and our messaging rather

than pretending to be something that we are not.

Social media persona also helps to develop intimacy with an audience. One participant mentions the social media intimacy factor to me:

There is a sense of intimacy. It is like radio. The way people build relationships

with radio, like with the CBC host, so I check out certain things on social media

because I have intimacy about that. There is something about it, and it is my list

of curated people that I follow, and there is intimacy in it because I selected them

and I opt-in for conversation – “I intentionally decided to follow you, to like you

or to engage with you”, so, this what I meant by intimacy. It is also interesting

that it is kind of anonymous in a way that’s intentional. I am not sure if I explain

it the right way, but I think it is our choice to opt-in and opt-out any time. (Aiden)

LGBTQ organizations as networked counterpublics devoted considerable efforts to build relationships with audiences and social media persona is the core of such relationships.

Social media persona helps organizations to preserve the current support base as well as to create a human bond with a new audience.

Third, the use of social media analytics tools is crucial for the success of organizations in the social realm. Organizations use platforms provided analytics and subscribe to advance social media analytics tools to monitor and measure the

123

effectiveness of their content. Social media analytics facilitate informed and insightful decisions (Khan, 2015). Organizations use social media analytics to generate brand loyalty, to increase web traffic, to generate leads, and to promote brand awareness (Khan,

2015). Emma explains that analytics help to take informed decisions:

I mean, you know, we do analytics for what posts work well and report it in our

session. To develop an understanding of the content we are putting out—like, is it

successful? is it reaching the number of people that we want to reach? It kind of

helps us to know that content will be working well so, we can generate the type of

content that fulfills our goals and, like, set strategy around that, particularly about

an organizational event or a launching event. It helps to measure if our Facebook

video posts work well and then how can we take that knowledge and fix the

analytics to measure our efforts and make the next launch so that we can reach

people that we aspire to reach.

Social media analytics also facilitate monitoring or measuring the success of social media messages. Communications professionals stress to not rely solely on analytics, rather to be cautious about the surroundings that can influence the success or failure of messages:

Any good social media managers are actually looking at it every day. However, at

the same point, you also must take it with a grain of salt and understand what to

report back to move forward and improve things. You must consider what other

event is happening that day. So, something on the news like what happened in

London takes over the news cycle and how does that influence what we are doing,

and a lot of times it does. So, certain media stories can influence how much

124

visibility or action we are getting because people are focused on other things.

Moreover, those are equally as important, you just need to find the opportunity.

The number tells part of the story but being able to answer the why is very

important. (Ava)

Organizations value the employment of social media analytics; however, the use of advanced analytics could incur a considerable cost for organizations. Furthermore, communications professionals use content calendars or editorial calendars for the management of digital content. Social media calendars also help organizations to schedule posts on different platforms and to keep team members in the loop about the updates.

Summary of Qualitative Phase

LGBTQ counterpublic use social media as a discursive space for contestation and contentious politics. The discursive oppositionality of LGBTQ counter-narratives are anchored in their historical experience of marginalization and exclusion (D’Emilio, 1983;

Meeker, 2006). The deployment of oppositional “speech genre” and “modes of address” are linked to manufacturing discourse that constitute counternarrative, which is not as

“merely a different or alternative idiom but one that in other contexts would be regarded with hostility or with a sense of indecorousness” (Warner, 2005, p. 119). LGBTQ counternarratives aspire to reveal the play of power and knowledge that constitute dominant discourse. Foucault (1990) argues that “discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy” (p. 101). LGBTQ advocacy organizations

125

circulate oppositional discourses to create hindrance and obstacles to the dominant discourse.

LGBTQ counterpublic use social media as a place for withdrawal and regroupment. The aim of creating collective enclave is to nurture a space to reinforce contesting collective identity and create a community of dissident voices. Furthermore, counterpublic space aspire to address the wider public for their collective claims and to engage in social conversation for acceptance and inclusion. The communicative practice of LGBTQ counterpublic on social media reflect the oppositional identity that employ advocacy tactics to achieve the goal of equality and justice. In the followings, I present the summary of the qualitative phase that reflect the advocacy tactics of LGBTQ counterpublic:

First, advocacy is not the primary goal for nonprofit’s communication initiatives on social media; rather organizations routinely use social media for three main purposes:

(a) cross-promotion of their digital content, (b) to inform people about ongoing activities, and (c) fundraising. Such practice is crucial to build relationship with audience and to engage in a conversation with wider public.

Second, organizations employ an advocacy mix which includes public education, media advocacy, lobbying, and coalition-building tactics to strengthen advocacy practices on social media.

Third, nonprofit organizations devote time and resources to cultivate relationships with audiences to build online communities and to ensure effective engagement with the public.

126

Fourth, though communications managers of nonprofit organizations mention several limitations of social media for advocacy and relationship-building initiatives, they stress that the benefits of social media outweigh the limitations.

Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Results

This study reveals advocacy strategy and dialogic principles employed on social media by LGBTQ nonprofit organizations in the US and Canada. The results of the quantitative and qualitative studies reveal three important aspects of nonprofits’ communication on social media. First, organizations mainly provide information about their activities, program, initiatives, and above all, circulate social and political commentary on issues pertaining to LGBTQ rights. Such practices are not directly tied to advocacy, rather they position organizations as credible information providers related to

LGBTQ issues. When LGBTQ individuals consume information circulated by the nonprofit organizations, they start to feel that they are not alone and their lived experiences are similar to thousands of others. They start to feel connected to organizations and invest social, financial, and networking capital to strengthen the missions of such organizations. Studies (Oliveira, Huertas, & Lin, 2016; Smith &

Gallicano, 2015) reveal that information consumption and social connectedness are crucial motivators that drive users to connect with organizations on social media.

Therefore, organizations that provide credible information and initiate social conversations fulfill the needs of users and facilitate social connectivity.

Furthermore, organizations provide information that situate LGBTQ lived experiences into a web of social relationships that privileges certain practices and pushes

127

other experiences at the margin of society. Organizations and the LGBTQ audience can reflect on the ruses of dominant knowledge claims that label their lived experiences as deviant. Such realizations strengthen the tie between organizations and the LGBTQ public and facilitate development of online communities of allies, activists, and social justice advocates.

This study also reveals that communications managers consider fundraising as a crucial component of their social media based communication initiatives. Organizations reach out to new and existing donors through social media. This finding is similar to a study (Guidry, Saxton, & Messner, 2015) of nonprofits’ use of social media, which indicates organizations use social networking platforms for fundraising and connecting with donors. The audience base of the organizations also helps in fundraising initiatives by sharing content on social media. Such practices help organizations to mobilize resources to continue their work on social justice advocacy.

Second, this study illuminates that nonprofit organizations employ the dialogic loop principle more frequently than other principles. Earlier research on dialogic communication (Water, Burnett, & Lucas, 2009; Waters & Jamal, 2011) report that organizations mainly use one-way communication strategy on websites and social media.

However, recent studies (Guidry, Saxton, & Messner, 2015; Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012) suggest a shift from that practice and highlight that communications professionals are more inclined to generate conversations and dialogic communication on social media.

This study also reflects similar realizations and highlights that nonprofit organizations

128

consider social conversation as their priority regarding social media based communication.

Nonprofit organizations employ the dialogic communication principle to generate social conversation and aspire to build online communities of loyal support base. When organizations generate social conversations on LGBTQ issues, they highlight the discriminatory social practices and shed light on how LGBTQ individuals triumph over such challenges. Such practice encourages LGBTQ individuals and allies to rally support for organizations. Furthermore, when people feel they are a crucial part of conversations, they invest in the issues related to the conversations. In this way, organizations build online communities that invest in LGBTQ issues and fight against discriminatory practices. Furthermore, nonprofits leverage the networking power of social media to build coalitions to fight against structural discrimination. The communicative affordances of social media help organizations promote the content of other users so they attain a maximum number of social media users. Such practices help organizations reach a wider audience and support the battle against discrimination.

Third, the core organizational missions of LGBTQ are to create a social space based on equity and social justice. To achieve such a goal, non-profits focus on policy changes to curb the discriminatory practices. Though federal policy garners most attraction from users, organizations also invest in policy changes at the state levels.

Though the number of insider strategy messages is lower than other advocacy strategies, insider strategy generates conversations on policy issues regarding LGBTQ rights. The rationale of not using insider strategy frequently on social media is that organizations do

129

not want to use social media solely for policy battles; rather, they focus on social conversations where diverse voices can meet for rational argumentations. Social conversations enhance the support base of nonprofit organizations and eventually work as a catalyst for social and policy changes.

Fourth, this study provides a solid understanding of advocacy practices of

LGBTQ nonprofit organizations. Though nonprofits mainly use “no advocacy” messages on social media, such messages help organizations to build relationship, to generate social conversation, and to mobilize resource for social justice activism. Interviews highlights that such practices are connected to the overall strategic communication goals of LGBTQ organizations.

130

Chapter 5: Discussion

The findings show several unique aspects of social media-based advocacy practices. First, though LGBTQ non-profit organizations predominantly use “no advocacy” messages (57.4%), insider and indirect strategic messages comprise 42.6% of overall messages. At first glance, it is hard to notice the value of “no advocacy” messages. When the study carefully examines the use of these messages and dialogic communication practices, a set of trends appear which reveal the significance of such messages. Tables 16 and 17 show that on Facebook and Twitter “no advocacy” messages are predominantly used to generate dialogic communication, to garner media attention, and to collect funds. Such practices keep people connected to organizations, generate conversations, and ensure the visibility of organizations on digital space. Organizations devote such messages to mobilize resources to ensure the sustainability of said organizations and their core missions.

Interviews reveal that organizations often use social media to showcase their activities, to raise funds, and to promote digital content. Therefore, “no advocacy” messages fulfill several strategic communication objectives of non-profit organizations.

The following social media posts reflect the dialogic principles employed on “no advocacy” messages:

Conservation of Visitor: There are many reasons why it is hard for vulnerable

people to access justice.

131

GLAD Answers is your legal resource for LGBTQ issues in Massachusetts and

surrounding states. Give us a call M-F 1:30-4:30 ET, or see more ways to contact

us at gladanswers.org

Generation of Return Visits: We've got over 100 free tickets set aside at the door!

The rush ticket line begins at 6:00pm at 43 Gerrard Street East at the Ryerson

Theatre entrance!

Dialogic Loop: Student leaders and educators remind us every day of the

importance of visibility of both role models and allies. Show them they have your

support when you #ShowYourPride for LGBT Pride Month by adding a filter to

your Facebook profile photo!

Useful Information to Media: Same-sex marriage ‘routine’ in South Carolina a

year after U.S. Supreme Court decision

http://www.postandcourier.com/20160624/160629658/same-sex-marriage-

routine-in-south-carolina-a-year-after-us-supreme-court-decision …

Useful Information to Public: Sign up to become a monthly donor of SRLP to get

this beautiful zine created by our members http://srlp.org/stonewall

It is evident that “no advocacy” messages are crucial for successful strategic communication on social media because organizations employ such messages to develop dialogic relationship with publics. Furthermore, “no advocacy” posts are often combined with audio-visual elements that drives user engagement. From strategic standpoints, it can be argued that “no advocacy” messages facilitate dialogic communication which eventually drive social media engagement.

132

Second, the study highlights several widely employed advocacy tactics on social media: (a) public education, (b) media advocacy, (c) coalition building, (d) public events and direct action, and (e) celebrity advocacy. Third, the perceptions of communications managers and executives about the role of social media provide a solid understanding of the nuances of organizational practices on advocacy and dialogic communication.

This study reveals several important findings on the dialogic principle employed on social media. First, organizations use Facebook and Twitter predominantly for generating conversation, prompting dialogic relationship, and attracting media attention.

Second, the employment of dialogic principles and associated social media engagements are widely distributed on Facebook than Twitter (Figure 14, 15, and 16). It is evident that organizations use Facebook more as a space for social conversations than Twitter.

Nonprofit organizations use Twitter primarily for quickly disseminating messages.

Third, Figure 2, 3, and 4 show that the “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” generated more likes, on Facebook than did the “useful information to public”,

“conservation of visitors”, and “generation of return visits” principles. Furthermore,

“dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “conservation of visitor” generated more comments, on Facebook than did the other principles. The study reveals that

“dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” generated more shares, on Facebook than did the “useful information to public”, “conservation of visitors”, and “generation of return visits” principles.

Fourth, Figure 11, 12, and 13 show that the decision tree node (for detail check

IBM SPSS Decision Trees 20, 2011, p. 1-54) “dialogic loop”, “useful information to

133

media”, and “generation of return visit” messages generated more favorite, response from users on Twitter than did the other principles. Also, the node “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “generation of return visit” generated more replies, on Twitter than did the “conservation of visitors” and “useful information to public”. The study illuminates that the node “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “generation of return visit” generated more retweets, on Twitter than did the other types of dialogic messages.

Fifth, interviews reveal that organizations emphasize creating social media conversations and connecting with news media to participate in socio-political issues.

Social conversations on LGBTQ issues provide a space where LGBTQ networked counterpublic can demonstrate their oppositional identity, challenge discrimination, and influence policy debate. Furthermore, such practices help organizations reach a wider audience and use the networking power of social media to garner visibility and engage in broader social dialogue. Such practices signal a paradigmatic shift regarding the use of dialogic practices on social media. Earlier studies (Waters et al., 2009; Waters & Jamal,

2011) report that organizations primarily employ one-way communication strategy on social media. However, this study indicate that communications professionals understand the value of dialogic communication between organization and audience and aspire to generate social conversations on social media.

Implications of the Research

Research & theoretical implications. This study makes several remarkable contributions to the current knowledge base on social media, advocacy, and social

134

change. First, though Facebook and Twitter are the top most sites that organizations use to communicate with the public (Guo & Saxton, 2012), no prior study examined both

Facebook and Twitter for advocacy. This study provides a comprehensive understanding on social media-based advocacy practices of non-profit organizations by examining both

Facebook and Twitter messages. Second, this study identifies that organizations predominantly employ “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” to generate social conversations and garner visibility. Third, the current study shows that “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” generated more user responses, engagement, and advocacy than did other types of dialogic principles. Fourth, this study argues that not all dialogic principles have the capacity to generate dialogic conversation. For this reason, scholars need to focus on developing a weighting procedures to understand the employment of dialogic principle on social media.

Fifth, this study conducts several factorial ANOVA procedures to examine the interactions between dialogic principle and social media platforms regarding user response, engagement, and advocacy. Such procedures combine user response, engagement, and advocacy on Facebook and Twitter. Two independent variables for the procedures are dialogic communication (five core principles) and social media platforms

(Facebook and Twitter). The results reveal significant difference in dialogic communication MS=4616593, F=3.581 (p=.006) and in social media platform

MS=24295203, F=18.845 (p=.001) regarding user response. This procedure reveals that the interaction between dialogic principle and social media platform is not statistically significant; however, it reaches very close to the significance level (p=.052). This study

135

conducts similar procedure for user engagement and illuminates significant difference regarding dialogic communication (MS=22348, F=3.983, p=.003) social media platforms

(MS=106776, F=19.030, p=.001), and interaction between dialogic communication and social media platforms (MS=20681, F=3.686, p=.005). Similar procedure reveals significant difference in social media platforms (MS=2932534, F=6.318, p=.012) regarding user advocacy.

Therefore, the results (Figure 14, 15, 16) provide a crucial understand about the differences in the employment of dialogic principle on Facebook and Twitter. It shows dialogic principles generate more user response, engagement, and advocacy on Facebook than Twitter. Furthermore, the distribution of dialogic principles and associated social media engagements varied widely on Facebook than Twitter. Kim et al. (2014) report that

Facebook dialogic scores are higher than Twitter, which means organizations use more dialogic communication on Facebook compared to Twitter. Also, their study finds a wide variance in the utilization of each dialogic principle across the three platforms: websites,

Facebook, and Twitter. Such picture helps us to understand that organizations use

Facebook as a dialogic space to generate social conversation. The technological affordances of Facebook provide more dialogic conversation than Twitter. The limitation of 140 characters in composing tweets impose challenges in dialogic communication.

Therefore, organizations interested in social media engagement need to devote resources for Facebook to generate dialogic conversation.

Sixth, the current study illuminates the limitations of networked counterpublics in generating broader discussion on sexual politics that could possibly include people whose

136

beliefs and values do not align with LGBTQ networked counterpublic. Organizations struggle to engage in meaningful dialogue with social conservatives who despise LGBTQ lived experiences. The ambivalence of reproducing hate by engaging in a conversation with homophobic audiences creates a conundrum for communications managers. Such scenarios reveal the near (im)possibility of a singularity of public sphere, rather a social media created contending public spheres which are not in dialogue with each other.

Social media algorithms tamed the true democratic potentials of public spheres and engineered the sociality of social media in such a way that reproduces symbolic and financial exchanges without meaningful political interruptions.

Practical implications. The results of this study have several practical implications. First, communications managers need to reflect on the existing “advocacy mix”— a combination of public education, media advocacy, coalition building, public events, direct action, and celebrity advocacy messages— and how to employ other types of advocacy tactics to strengthen online advocacy. Second, this study conducts a decision tree analysis to examine the connection between dialogic principles and user response, engagement, and advocacy. Figure 8 shows that the node “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” generate more Like than other principles. Figure 9 reveals that the nodes “useful information to media”, “dialogic loop”, and “conservation of visitor” principles generate more Comments than other principles. Figure 10 illuminates that the node “useful information to media” and “dialogic loop” generate more Share than other principles. Therefore, public relations professionals need to employ more “useful

137

information to media” and “dialogic loop” principles to generate Like, Comment, and

Share on Facebook.

Figure 11, 12, and 13 inform that the decision tree node “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “generation of return visit” principles generate more Favorite,

Replies, and Retweets on Twitter than other principles. Therefore, public relations professionals working for nonprofit organizations need to concentrate their efforts on

“dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “generation of return visit” principles to increase their Twitter engagement metrics.

Third, no prior research investigated how communications managers and executives of LGBTQ non-profit organizations perceive the use of social media for advocacy and relationship building. This study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting seven dominant themes of social media use: (a) routine use, (b) advocacy,

(c) relationship building, (d) strengths of social media, (e) limitations of social media, (f) challenges for organizations, and (g) strategic content creation and management. Such comprehensive understanding benefits both academics and media professionals regarding the nuances of social media use.

Suggestions for future research. This study suggests that future research needs to consider different marginalized groups and how they use social media for advocacy.

For example, immigrants and Muslim populations in the US are facing considerable challenges because of emerging changes in government policies. Scholars can explore how immigration and Muslim non-profit organizations use social media for advocacy.

Also, researchers need to investigate the relationship between advocacy tactics and user

138

engagement. Such examination will pave the way for a new set of understandings on online advocacy.

Limitations of the study. This study has several limitations. First, though the study examines the link between dialogic principle and social media engagements, it is limited in revealing the connection between advocacy strategies and engagement.

Second, social media post types like the use of visual, ULRs, hashtags, and multimedia content influence user engagement. This study has not included such categorizations and how it connects to engagement. Third, this study is limited in revealing specific dialogic tactic and its connection to engagement. Fourth, nonprofit advocacy is not limited to social media platforms, rather they use websites, blogs, and offline space for advocacy.

This study only examines the use of social media for advocacy.

Strengths of the study. This study has several strengths. First, though organizations predominately use “no advocacy” messages on social media, such messages fulfill several strategic communication goals which include developing dialogic relationship, generating social conversation, and mobilizing resources. Therefore, “no advocacy” messages are closely connected to organizational relationship with publics, which contributes to the success on social media and facilitates more visibility and voice to social conversation. Second, this study reveals that organizations employ three advocacy tactics—public education, media advocacy, and coalition building—more widely than other advocacy tactics. Such practice is crucial because an interest group like

LGBTQ nonprofits use such tactics for unsettling dominate discourses, legitimatizing

LGBTQ lived experience, and generating a broad support base for social justice. Third,

139

this study provides a solid understanding on the use of dialogic principles and user engagement. Such an understanding is helpful for public relations practitioners because it facilitates to formulate strategic decision making as well as to plan public relations campaigns. Fourth, though organizations use more dialogic loop principles on Twitter than Facebook; the study reports more user engagement on Facebook than Twitter.

Furthermore, dialogic principles and user engagement on Facebook are widely varied compared to Twitter. The findings of this study are useful to communications professionals as it helps to understand the strengths of specific social media platforms regarding dialogic principles and user engagement.

Conclusion

LGBTQ networked counterpublics use the discursive space of social media to challenge dominant practices, to create a community of dissident voices, and to reach a wider public. LGBTQ networked counterpublics reveal the discriminatory social practices that privilege a set of experiences and consider other experiences as deviant. By revealing such discrimination, counterpublics question the legitimacy of such practices.

Furthermore, social media help LGBTQ networked counterpublics to cultivate a community of activists, allies, and social justice advocates that resist the dominant groups by circulating oppositional discourses. LGBTQ nonprofit organizations also use social media to engage in dialogic conversations with a wider public. Aligning with Felski

(1989), I argue that LGBTQ counterpublics on social media serve two crucial purposes.

First, they use social media as a space for regrouping, where LGBTQ individuals and organizations carve out discursive communities rooted in the historical experiences of

140

marginalization. Second, such communities are externally driven to convince the wider public about the validity and legitimacy of LGBTQ lived experiences. This study attempts to examine the connections between LGBTQ networked counterpublic and social change. More specifically, this study delves into how LGBTQ nonprofit organizations use social media for advocacy and relationship building.

This study addresses four pressing aspects of social media use: advocacy, dialogic communication, user engagement, and perceptions of communications professionals on advocacy and relationships. The current study provides a robust and comprehensive understanding about the employment of advocacy tactics and dialogic principles on social media. It reveals that organizations use social media primarily for no advocacy messages merely provide information about current updates, events, and activities. Organizations use an advocacy mix: a set of advocacy tactics on social media.

This study reveals the link between dialogic principles and social media engagement. Three dialogic principles: “dialogic loop”, “useful information to media”, and “conservation of visitor” generate more Likes on Facebook than other principles.

Two dialogic principles: “dialogic loop” and “useful information to media” elicit more

Comments and Shares on Facebook and Replies and Retweets on Twitter. Nonprofit organizations routinely use social media for cross-promotion of their digital content, to inform people about ongoing activities, and fundraising. Communications managers stress cultivating dialogic relationships with the public. However, communications professionals reflect on the difficult dialogue between organizations and homophobic audience that can perpetuate violence against the LGBTQ community. This study

141

provides suggestions for future research and highlights how social media engagement can create opportunities for public relations professionals and researchers regarding testing of innovative ideas, theories, and informed practices.

142

References

Achterberg, W., Pot, A.M., Kerkstra, A., Ooms, M., Muller, M., & Ribbe, M. (2003). The

effect of depression on social engagement in newly admitted Dutch nursing home

residents. The Gerontologist, 43, 213–218.

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service

organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1),

11–35.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalism. London: Verso Books.

Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political

process. Annual Review of , 30, 479-506.

Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (Eds.). (2001). Counterpublics and the State. Albany: SUNY

Press.

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Bail, C. A. (2016). Cultural carrying capacity: Organ donation advocacy, discursive

framing, and social media engagement. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 280–

288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.049

Baim, T. (2012a). All the news that’s not fit to print. In Baim, T. (Ed.), Gay Press, Gay

Power: The Growth of LGBT Community Newspapers in America, (pp. 15-78).

Chicago: Windy City Media Group.

Baim, T. (2012b). Gay newspaper, an overview. In Baim, T. (Ed.), Gay Press, Gay

Power: The Growth of LGBT Community Newspapers in America, (pp. 79-140).

143

Chicago: Windy City Media Group.

Barnhurst, K. G. (2011). The new “media affect” and the crisis of representation for

political communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 573–

593.

Bass, G. D., Arons, D. F., Guinane, K., Carter, M. F., & Rees, S. (2007). Seen but not

heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Bass, G. D., Abramson, A. J., & Dewey, E. (2014). Effective advocacy: Lessons for

nonprofit leaders from research and practice. In Pekkanen, R. J., Smith, S. R., &

Tsujinaka, Y. (Eds.). Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and

government in an era of retrenchment, (pp. 254-294). New York: JHU Press.

Bennett, W. L. (2000). Introduction: Communication and civic engagement in

comparative perspective. Political Communication, 17(4), 307–312.

Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating Civic Engagement:

Contrasting Models of Citizenship in the Youth Web Sphere. Journal of

Communication, 61(5), 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-

2466.2011.01588.x

Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest

groups. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berry, J., & Arons, D. F. (2003). A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Bhattacharya, S., Srinivasan, P., & Polgreen, P. (2014). Engagement with health agencies

on twitter. PLoS One, 9(11), e112235.

Bhattacharya, S., Srinivasan, P., & Polgreen, P. (2017). Social media engagement

144

analysis of U.S. Federal health agencies on Facebook. BMC Medical Informatics

and Decision Making, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0447-z

Boris, E., & Mosher-Williams, R. (1998). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Assessing

the definitions, classifications, and data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 27(4), 488-506.

Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of

environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review,

35(3), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002

Bowden, J. (2009). Customer Engagement: A Framework for Assessing Customer-Brand

Relationships: The Case of the Restaurant Industry. Journal of Hospitality

Marketing & Management, 18(6), 574–596.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903024983

Boyd, D. (2011). Social networking sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics,

and implications. In Papacharissi, Z. (Eds.), The Networked Self: Identity

Community, Culture on Social Network Sites, (pp. 39.58). New York: Routledge

Breese, E. B. (2011). Mapping the Variety of Public Spheres. Communication Theory,

21(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01379.x

Brockington, D. (2014). Celebrity advocacy and international development (Vol. 2). New

York: Routledge.

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age:

How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public

Relations Review, 37(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006

145

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a

virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research,

66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

Brown, B. (2014). Will Work For Free: The Biopolitics of Unwaged Digital Labour.

tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a

Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(2), 694-712.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Burk, T. (2015). Radical Distribution: AIDS Cultural Activism in New York City, 1986-

1992. Space and Culture, 18(4), 436-449.

Bürger, T. (2015). Use of digital advocacy by German nonprofit foundations on

Facebook. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 523–525.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.007

Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and Perceived Realism in Experiencing

Stories: A Model of Narrative Comprehension and Engagement. Communication

Theory, 18(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x

Cabiddu, F., Carlo, M. D., & Piccoli, G. (2014a). Social media affordances: Enabling

customer engagement. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 175–192.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.003

Cabiddu, F., Carlo, M. D., & Piccoli, G. (2014b). Social media affordances: Enabling

customer engagement. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 175–192.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.003

Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternate channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images

146

on radio and television. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.

International Journal of Communication, 238-266.

Chavesc, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding

suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2),

292–316.

Chenier, E. (2015). Foreword. In Tremblay, M. (Ed.), Queer Mobilizations: Social

Movement Activism and Canadian Public Policy, (pp. 5-10). Canada: UBC Press.

Chong, E. S. K., Zhang, Y., Mak, W. W. S., & Pang, I. H. Y. (2015). Social Media as

Social Capital of LGB Individuals in Hong Kong: Its Relations with Group

Membership, Stigma, and Mental Well-Being. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 55(1-2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9699-2

Christensen, C. (2011). Twitter Revolutions? Addressing Social Media and Dissent. The

Communication Review, 14(3), 155–157.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597235

Cooper, M. (2010). Lesbians who are married to men: Identity, collective stories, and the

Internet online community. LGBT identity and online new media (pp. 75-86).

New York: Routledge.

Cooper, M., & Dzara, K. (2010). The Facebook revolution: LGBT identity and activism.

In Pullen, C., & Cooper, M. (Eds.), LGBT identity and online new media, (pp.

100-112). Routledge: New York.

Coté, M., & Pybus. J. (2007). Learning to Immaterial Labor 2.0: MySpace and Social

147

Networks. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization 7 (1), 88–106.

Ciszek, E. (2014). Cracks in the Glass Slipper: Does It Really “Get Better” for LGBTQ

Youth, or Is It Just Another Cinderella Story?. Journal of Communication Inquiry,

38(4), 325–340

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. London: Sage.

Crutchfield, L., & McLeod Grant, H. (2007). Forces for Good: The Six Practices of

High-Impact Nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Curran. (1991). Rethinking the media as a public sphere. In Dahlgren, P, & Sparks, C.

(eds.), Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public Sphere in the

New Media Age, (pp. 27-56). London: Taylor & Francis.

Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation1.

New Media & Society, 12(5), 745–761.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435

D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of homosexual

minority in the United States 1940-1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.

D’Emilio, J. (2002). The world turned: Essays on gay history, politics, and culture.

Durham: Duke University Press.

D’Emilio, J. (2012). The leading edge of change: The LGBT press in the 1970s. In Baim,

T. (Ed.), Gay Press, Gay Power: The Growth of LGBT Community Newspapers in

America, (pp. 9-10). Chicago: Windy City Media Group.

148

D’Emilio, J. (2015). The movement. In Goodwin J. & Jasper, J. M. (Eds.),

The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, (pp. 24-44). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Dewey, C. (2015). More than 26 million people have changed their Facebook picture to a

rainbow flag. Here’s why that matters. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/06/29/more-than-

26-million-people-have-changed-their-facebook-picture-to-a-rainbow-flag-heres-

why-that-matters/?utm_term=.d306806a0730

Downey, J., & Fenton, N. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the public

sphere.pdf. (n.d.).

Dyer, R. (2002). The culture of . London: Psychology Press.

Eaton, M. (2010). Manufacturing community in an online activist organization: The

rhetoric of MoveOn.org’s e-mails. Information, Communication & Society, 13(2),

174–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180902890125

Edwards, H. R., & Hoefer, R. (2010). Are Social Work Advocacy Groups Using Web 2.0

Effectively? Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3-4), 220–239.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.489037

Earl, J. (2014). Something Old and Something New: A Comment on “New Media, New

Civics”. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 169-175.

Espinel, E., Joven, J., Gil, I., Suñé, P., Renedo, B., Fort, J., & Serón, D. (2013). Risk of

hyperkalemia in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease initiating

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers: a

149

randomized study. BMC Research Notes, 6(1), 306.

Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson

Learning.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015). Table 1. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/tables-and-data-

declarations/1tabledatadecpdf/table_1_incidents_offenses_victims_and_known_o

ffenders_by_bias_motivation_2015.xls

Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction, volume I. Trans. Robert

Hurley. New York: Vintage.

France, T. J. (2015). Dimensions of cross-cultural professional success: Experiences of

western women living and working in eastern cultures. Unpublished dissertation.

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually

existing democracy. Social text, (25/26), 56-80.

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of

the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

Freedom for All Americans. (2017). Legislative tracker: Tracking LGBT-related

legislation in every state. Retrieved from

http://www.freedomforallamericans.org/category/legislative-tracker/

Freelon, D. (2014). Online civic activism: Where does it fit?. Policy & Internet, 6(2),

192-198.

150

Friedland, L. A., Hove, T., & Rojas, H. (2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost-the

Public, 13(4), 5–26.

Fuchs, C. (2010). Labor in Informational Capitalism and on the Internet. The Information

Society, 26(3), 179-196.

Fuchs, C. (2012). Critique of the political economy of Web 2.0 surveillance. In Fuchs, C,

Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A., & Sandoval, M. (Eds.), Internet and

Surveillance. The Challenges of Web 2.0 And Social Media, (pp. 31-70). New

York: Routledge.

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.

Fuchs, C., & Trottier, D. (2015). Towards a theoretical model of social media

surveillance in contemporary society. Communications, 40(1), 113–135

Gais, T. L., & Walker Jr, J. L. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics.

Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, 103, 104-11.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of peace research, 27(3), 291-305.

Gates, G., J. (2017). In US, More Adults Identifying as LGBT. Retrieved May 14, 2017,

from http://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx

Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In Calhoun, C (Eds.), Habermas

and the Public sphere, (pp. 359-376). Massachusetts: MIT press.

Gambetti, R.C., & Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement: A systematic

analysis of the ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of Market

Research, 52, 801–826.

Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the street: Social media and contemporary activism.

151

London: Pluto Press.

Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change. The New Yorker, 4, 42-49.

GLSEN. (2017). Research Report: Transgender Youth and School Facilities. Retrieved

May 14, 2017, from https://www.glsen.org/article/separation-and-stigma-

transgender-youth-and-school-facilities

GLSEN. (2013a) National School Climate Survey. Retrieved from

https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2013%20National%20School%20Climat

e%20Survey%20Full%20Report_0.pdf

GLSEN. (2013b). Out Online. Retrieved from

https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/Out%20Online%20FINAL.pdf

GLSEN. (2015). GLSEN Shares Latest Findings on LGBTQ Students’ Experiences in

Schools. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from https://www.glsen.org/article/2015-

national-school-climate-survey

Goldkind, L. (2014). E-advocacy in Human Services: The Impact of Organizational

Conditions and Characteristics on Electronic Advocacy Activities among

Nonprofits. Journal of Policy Practice, 13(4), 300–315.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2014.929073

Goltz, D. B. (2013). It Gets Better: Queer Futures, Critical Frustrations, and Radical

Potentials. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(2), 135–151.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2012.701012

Gormley Jr, W. T., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102-122.

152

Greenberg, J., & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of

environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal, 2(1),

63.

Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent organisations and effective

organisations: A study of communication management in three countries. New

York: Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1994). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Readings

in The Philosophy of Social Science, 213-231.

Guidry, J. P. D. (2013). A Tale of Many Tweets: How Stakeholders Respond to Nonprofit

Organizations’ Tweets. The George Washington University. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/8f3de41d1925e9e407687725c54254bc/1?pq

-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Guidry, J. P. D. (2013). A Tale of Many Tweets: How Stakeholders Respond to Nonprofit

Organizations' Tweets (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington

University).

Guidry, J., Saxton, G., & Messner, M. (2015). Tweeting charities: Perceptions, resources,

and effective twitter practices for the nonprofit sector. In Waters, D. (Eds.),

Public Relations Theory and Practice In The Nonprofit Sector, (pp. 267-280).

New York: Routledge.

Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are

Changing Nonprofit Advocacy, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1),

57–79

153

Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent Participation and

Nonprofit Advocacy, Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1 (1), Article 5.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into

a category of bourgeois society. Massachusetts: MIT press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of

law and democracy. Massachusetts: MIT press.

Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still

Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical

Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x

Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by

nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public

Administration Review, 67(3), 474–487.

Hales, S. B., Davidson, C., & Turner-McGrievy, G. M. (2014). Varying social media post

types differentially impacts engagement in a behavioral weight loss intervention.

Translational Behavioral Medicine, 4(4), 355–362.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0274-z

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New

York: Penguin.

Нatzithomas, L., Boutsouki, C., Pigadas, M. V., & Zotos, Y. (2016). PEER: Looking into

Consumer Engagement in e-WOM through Social Media. In Advances in

advertising research (Vol. VI, pp. 11e24). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

154

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10558-7_2.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2011). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects.

Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185

Heath, R. L. (2014). Public relations’ role in engagement: Functions, voices, and

narratives. Paper presented at the Engagement as strategy, theory and practice:

ICA preconference 2014, Seattle, WA, May 22, 2014.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of

the mass media. New York: Random House.

Hestres, L. E. (2014). Preaching to the choir: Internet-mediated advocacy, issue public

mobilization, and climate change. New Media & Society, 16(2), 323–339.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological

Review, 113(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439

Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the

loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 785–807.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132

Hong, S., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and

customer–company identification on positive word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 383–403.

Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. M. (2013). Democracy's fourth wave?: Digital media and

the Arab Spring. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Huang, Y. C., Lin, Y. P., & Saxton, G. D. (2016). Give Me a Like: How HIV/AIDS

155

Nonprofit Organizations Can Engage Their Audience on Facebook. AIDS

Education and Prevention, 28(6), 539-556.

Hughes, A. L., & Palen, L. (2009). Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and

emergency events. International Journal of Emergency Management, 6(3-4), 248-

260.

Human Rights Campaign. (2017). More Than 130 Anti-LGBTQ Bills Introduced in 30

States. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.hrc.org/blog/more-than-130-

anti-lgbtq-bills-introduced-in-30-states/

Human Rights Campaign. (2017). Survey of 50,000+ Youth Reveals Post-Election Spike

in Bullying. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.hrc.org/blog/new-survey-

of-50000-young-people-reveals-troubling-post-election-spike-in-b/

Human Rights Campaign. (2016). Violence Against the Transgender Community in

2016. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-

against-the-transgender-community-in-2016/

Hwong, Y.-L., Oliver, C., Van Kranendonk, M., Sammut, C., & Seroussi, Y. (2017).

What makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space

science communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 480–492.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.068

IBM SPSS Decision Trees 20. (2011). Retrieved from

https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/decision-trees20-64bit.pdf

Ihm, J. (2015). Network measures to evaluate stakeholder engagement with nonprofit

organizations on social networking sites. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 501–

156

503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.018

It's Raining Dykes. (2009). It's Raining Dykes: A queer and feminist comix zine. Signs,

Autumn, 67-74.

Internet World Stats. (2017). Facebook World Stats and Penetration in the World -

Facebook Statistics. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from

http://www.internetworldstats.com/facebook.htm

Ingenhoff, D., & Koelling, A. M. (2010). Web sites as a dialogic tool for charitable

fundraising NPOs: A comparative study. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 4(3), 171-188.

It Gets Better Project. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-

gets-better-project/

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential

explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3-20.

Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media

Dissent and Networked Counterpublics: Hijacking #myNYPD. Journal of

Communication, 65(6), 932–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12185

Jacques, R., Preece, J., & Carey, T. (1995). Engagement as a design concept for

multimedia. Canadian Journal of Educational Communications, 24(1), 49-59.

Jan, S.-L., & Shieh, G. (2014). Sample size determinations for Welch’s test in one-way

heteroscedastic ANOVA. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical

Psychology, 67(1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12006

Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007, August). Why we twitter: understanding

157

microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and

1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp.

56-65). ACM.

Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In Powell, W. W.,

& Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, (pp. 307-

332). New Heaven: Yale University Press.

Jennings, K.M., & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal

analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311–334.

Jin, D. Y., & Feenberg, A. (2015). Commodity and community in social networking:

Marx and the monetization of user-generated content. The Information Society,

31(1), 52-60.

Johnston, K. A. (2014). Public Relations and Engagement: Theoretical Imperatives of a

Multidimensional Concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 381–383.

Johnson, G., & Keith, M. C. (2001). Queer airwaves: The story of gay and lesbian

broadcasting. London: Routledge.

Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2006). Colleges and universities’ use of the World Wide Web:

A public relations tool for the digital age. Public Relations Review, 32(4), 426-

428.

Kang, M. (2014). Understanding Public Engagement: Conceptualizing and Measuring its

Influence on Supportive Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 26(5), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107

Keim, M. E., & Noji, E. (2010). Emergent use of social media: A new age of opportunity

158

for disaster resilience. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 6(1), 47-54.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World

Wide Web. Public relations review, 24(3), 321-334.

Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between Web site

design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations

Review, 29(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00194-7

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Khan, G. F. (2015). Seven layers of social media analytics: Mining business insights

from social media.

Ki, E., Hon, L. C. (2007). A Measure of Relationship Cultivation Strategies. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 21(1), 1–24.

Kimberlin, S. E. (2010). Advocacy by Nonprofits: Roles and Practices of Core Advocacy

Organizations and Direct Service Agencies. Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3-4),

164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.487249

Kim, C., & Yang, S.-U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each

behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441–449.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006

Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y., & Nam, Y. (2014). The Employment of Dialogic

Principles in Website, Facebook, and Twitter Platforms of Environmental

Nonprofit Organizations. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 590–605.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314525752

159

Kimmel, D.C. (2004). Issues to consider in studies of midlife and older sexual minorities.

In G. Herdt & B. de Vries (Eds.), Gay and lesbian aging (pp. 265-284). New

York, NY: Springer.

Kingston, L. N., & Stam, K. R. (2013). Online Advocacy: Analysis of Human Rights

NGO Websites. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 5(1), 75–95.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hus036

Klugman B (2011) Effective social justice advocacy: A theory-of-change framework for

assessing progress, Reproductive Health Matters, 19 (38), 146-162.

Kuhlmann, R., & Ball, A. (2008). Unveiling Social Capital in a Hidden Community – A

Survey of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Population in the

United States. Unpublished dissertation.

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews (Book 2 of The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit).

London: Sage.

Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence. New York: Plenum/Harper Collins.

Levy, K. J. (1978a). An empirical comparison of the ANOVA F-test with alternatives

which are more robust against heterogeneity of variance. Journal of Statistical

Computation and Simulation, 8, 49–57.

Levy, K. J. (1978b). Some empirical power results associated with Welch’s robust

analysis of variance technique. Journal of Statistical Computation and

Simulation, 8, 43–48.

Leech, B. L. (2010). Lobbying and influence.

Light, P. C. (2002). The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce.

160

The Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3), 6-16.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods.

London: Sage.

London, B., Downey, G., & Mace, S. (2007). Psychological theories of educational

engagement: A multi-method approach to studying individual engagement and

institutional change. Vanderbilt Law Review, 60, 455–481.

Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, Community, and Action: How

Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media*. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2012.01576.x

Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through

Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or

less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005

Lundby, K. (2008). Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representations in new

media (Vol. 52). New York: Peter Lang.

Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Media studies’ fascination with the concept of the

public sphere: Critical reflections and emerging debates. Media, Culture &

Society, 35(1), 87–96.

MacMillan, D. (2013a, November 20). Snapchat CEO: 70% of Users Are Women.

Retrieved May 19, 2017, from https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/20/snapchat-

ceo-says-70-of-users-are-women/

161

MacMillan, D. (2013b, November 20). Snapchat CEO: 70% of Users Are Women.

Retrieved June 5, 2017, from https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/20/snapchat-

ceo-says-70-of-users-are-women/

McMillian, J. (2011). Smoking typewriters: The Sixties underground press and the rise of

alternative media in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mansour, O., Askenäs, L., & Ghazawneh, A. (2013). Social media and organizing-An

empirical analysis of the role of wiki affordances in organizing practices. Thirty

Fourth International Conference on Information Systems. Mñan, Italy.

Matias, J. N., Sauter, M., and Stempeck. M. (2013). Green vs Pink: Change Your Picture,

Change the World. MIT Center for Civic Media blog. Retrieved from

https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/green-vs-pink-change-your-picture-change-

the-world

Mattoni, A., & Teune, S. (2014). Visions of Protest. A Media‐Historic Perspective on

Images in Social Movements. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 876-887.

McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective

survey on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 320–322.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.008

McCarthy, J. D., & Castelli, J. (2002). The necessity for studying organizational

advocacy comparatively. In Flynn, P., & Hodgkinson, V. A. (Eds.), Measuring

the impact of the nonprofit sector (pp. 103-121). New York: Springer US.

McChesney, R. D. (2004). The problem of the media: US communication politics in the

twenty-first century. New York: NYU Press.

162

McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in

dubious times. New York: The New Press.

McNutt, J. G., & Boland, K. M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by nonprofit organizations

in social welfare policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 432–

451.

Meeker, M. (2006). Contacts Desired: Gay and Lesbian Communications and

Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The internet for empowerment of

minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781–802.

https://doi.org/10.1177/146144804047513

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2013). Toward an integrated model of public engagement

on corporate social networking sites: Antecedents, the process, and relational

outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 257-273.

Messner, M., Linke, M., & Eford, A. (2011). Shoveling tweets: An analysis of the

microblogging engagement of traditional news organizations. International

Symposium on Online Journalism, 2 (1), 74-87.

Mitra, A. (2001). Marginal Voices in Cyberspace. New Media & Society, 3(1), 29–48.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444801003001003

Mitra, R., & Gajjala, R. (2008). Queer Blogging in Indian Digital Diasporas: A Dialogic

Encounter. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 32(4), 400–423.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859908321003

Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online

163

consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives.

Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 919–925.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014

Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: the dark side of internet freedom (1st ed). New

York: Public Affairs.

Mosley, J. E. (2011). Organizational resources and environmental incentives:

Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human service nonprofits.

Social Service Review, 84(1), 57–76.

Mosley, J. E. (2011b). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What

tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 435-457.

Mundy, D. E. (2013). The spiral of advocacy: How state-based LGBT advocacy

organizations use ground-up public communication strategies in their campaigns

for the “Equality Agenda.” Public Relations Review, 39(4), 387–390.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.021

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring

motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of

Advertising, 30(1), 13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046

National Center for Transgender Equality. (2016). USTS Report. Retrieved May 14,

2017, from http://www.ustranssurvey.org/report/

NCLEG. (2017). North Carolina General Assembly - House Bill 780 Information/History

(2017-2018 Session). Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

164

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2017&BillID

=H780

Obar, J. A. (2014). Canadian advocacy 2.0: An analysis of social media adoption and

perceived affordances by advocacy groups looking to advance activism in

Canada. Browser Download This Paper. Retrieved from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2254742

Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy

groups in the united states perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating

civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy 2, 1-25.

Oliveira, M. J. de, Huertas, M. K. Z., & Lin, Z. (2016). Factors driving young users’

engagement with Facebook: Evidence from Brazil. Computers in Human

Behavior, 54, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.038

Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, B., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy

with Gloves on: The “Manners” of Strategy Used by Some Third Sector

Organizations Undertaking Advocacy in NSW and Queensland. VOLUNTAS:

International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 41–61.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9106-z

Panagiotopoulos, P., Shan, L. C., Barnett, J., Regan, Á., & McConnon, Á. (2015). A

framework of social media engagement: Case studies with food and consumer

organisations in the UK and Ireland. International Journal of Information

Management, 35(4), 394-402.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere The internet as a public sphere. New Media &

165

Society, 4(1), 9–27.

Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective News and Networked

Publics: The Rhythms of News Storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of

Communication, 62(2), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-

2466.2012.01630.x

Pekkanen, R. J., Smith, S. R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Nonprofits and advocacy:

Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. New York: JHU

Press.

Penney, J. (2015). Responding to offending images in the digital age: Censorious and

satirical discourses in LGBT media activism. Communication, Culture &

Critique, 8(2), 217-234.

Pew Research Center. (2016a). Deep divides between, within parties on public debates

about LGBT issues. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2016/10/04/deep-divides-between-within-parties-on-public-debates-about-

-issues/

Pew Research Center. (2016b). Changing attitudes on gay marriage: Public opinion on

same-sex marriage. Retrieved from

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Porter, C. E., Donthu, N., MacElroy, W. H., & Wydra, D. (2011). How to foster and

sustain engagement in virtual communities. California Management Review,

53(4), 80–110.

Rayside, D. (2001). The structuring of sexual minority activist opportunities in the

166

political mainstream: Britain, Canada, and the United States. In Blasius, M. (Ed.).

(2001). Sexual identities, queer politics. Princeton University Press.

Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations:

Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 313-

333.

Reber, B. H., Gower, K. K., & Robinson, J. K. (2007). The Internet and litigation public

relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 23–44.

Rehnen, L.-M., Bartsch, S., Kull, M., & Meyer, A. (2017). Exploring the impact of

rewarded social media engagement in loyalty programs. Journal of Service

Management, 28(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2015-0338

Renninger, B. J. (2015). “Where I can be myself… where I can speak my mind”:

Networked counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media & Society,

17(9), 1513–1529.

Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative

content analysis in research. New York: Routledge.

Rodríguez, C., Ferron, B., & Shamas, K. (2014). Four challenges in the field of

alternative, radical and citizens’ media research. Media, Culture & Society, 36(2),

150-166.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

London: Sage.

Rus, H. M., & Cameron, L. D. (2016). Health Communication in Social Media: Message

Features Predicting User Engagement on Diabetes-Related Facebook Pages.

167

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50(5), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-

016-9793-9

Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less:

How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations

Review, 36(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004

Sandfort, J. (2014). Analyzing the practice of nonprofit advocacy: Comparing two human

services networks. In Pekkanen, R. J., Smith, S. R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (Eds.).

Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging Community and Government in An Era of

Retrenchment, (pp. 222-253). New York: JHU Press.

Sajuria, J., vanHeerde-Hudson, J., Hudson, D., Dasandi, N., & Theocharis, Y. (2015).

Tweeting alone? An analysis of bridging and bonding social capital in online

networks. American Politics Research, 43(4), 708–738.

Salamon, L. M., Geller, S. L., & Lorentz, S. C. (2008). Nonprofit America: A force for

democracy? Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved

from http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/downloads/2011/09/LP_Communique9_2008.pdf

Sajuria, J., vanHeerde-Hudson, J., Hudson, D., Dasandi, N., & Theocharis, Y. (2015).

Tweeting alone? An analysis of bridging and bonding social capital in online

networks. American Politics Research, 43(4), 708-738.

Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability Online: Understanding the Web-Based

Accountability Practices of Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009341086

168

Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2012). Conceptualizing web-based stakeholder

communication: The organizational website as a stakeholder relations tool.

Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2189036

Saxton, G. D., Guo, S. C., & Brown, W. A. (2007). New Dimensions of Nonprofit

Responsiveness: The Application and Promise of Internet-Based Technologies.

Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 144–173.

https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576310201

Saxton, G. D., Niyirora, J. N., Guo, C., & Waters, R. D. (2015). # AdvocatingForChange:

The Strategic Use of Hashtags in Social Media Advocacy. Advances in Social

Work, 16(1), 154–169.

Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook?

Examining Public Reactions to Nonprofit Organizations’ Informational,

Promotional, and Community-Building Messages. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 26(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721

Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy Activities in Nonprofit Human

Service Organizations: Implications for Policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 37(4), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007312666

Schneider, J. A. (2003). Small, minority-based nonprofits in the information age.

Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(4), 383–399.

Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. A. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship

building. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 227–229.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.011

169

Shieh, G., & Jan, S.-L. (2013). Determining Sample Size With a Given Range of Mean

Effects in One-Way Heteroscedastic Analysis of Variance. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 81(3), 281–294.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.731020

Shieh, G., & Jan, S.-L. (2015). Optimal sample size allocation for Welch’s test in one-

way heteroscedastic ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 374–383.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0477-8

Shin, W., Pang, A., & Kim, H. J. (2015). Building relationships through integrated online

media: Global organizations’ use of brand web sites, Facebook, and Twitter.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(2), 184-220.

Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere,

and political change. Foreign Affairs, 28-41.

Shirky, C. (2008). : The power of organizing without

organizations. New York: Penguin.

Skarda, E. (2014). What You Need to Know About the 5 Most Successful Social Media

Campaigns for Social Change. Retrieved from http://nationswell.com/social-

media-campaigns-successful-at-change/

Smith, M. C. (1999). Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and

Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, M. (2004). Segmented networks: Linguistic practices in Canadian lesbian and gay

rights organizing. Ethnicities, 4(1), 99-124.

Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015). Terms of engagement: Analyzing public

170

engagement with organizations through social media. Computers in Human

Behavior, 53, 82-90.

Somashekhar, S., Brown, E., & Balingit, M. (2017). Trump administration rolls back

protections for transgender students. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-administration-rolls-

back-protections-for-transgender-students/2017/02/22/550a83b4-f913-11e6-bf01-

d47f8cf9b643_story.html

Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). Online Power Resource Management: Activist Resource

Mobilization, Communication Strategy, and Organizational Structure. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 25(4), 347–367.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.806871

Sommerfeldt, E. (2011). Activist online resource mobilization: Relationship building

features that fulfill resource dependencies. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 429-

431.

Squires, C. R. (2002). alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres.pdf. (n.d.).

Statista. (2017). Countries with most Twitter users 2016 | Statistic. Retrieved May 16,

2017, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-

users-in-selected-countries/

Stemler, Steve (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research

& Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17

Suarez, D. F. (2009). Nonprofit Advocacy and Civic Engagement on the Internet.

Administration & Society, 41(3), 267–289.

171

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399709332297

Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. Oxford ; New

York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, M., & Das, S. S. (2010). Public relations in advocacy: Stem cell research

organizations’ use of the Internet in resource mobilization. Public Relations

Journal, 4(4), 1–22.

Taylor, J. M. (1998). Paper tangos. Duke University Press.

Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the

Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational

Concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384–398.

Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text,

18(2), 33-58.

The White House. (2017, March 27). Presidential Executive Order on the Revocation of

Federal Contracting Executive Orders. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/27/presidential-executive-

order-revocation-federal-contracting-executive

Tilly, C., & Wood, L. J. (2015). Social Movements 1768-2012. London: Routledge.

Toepfl, F., & Piwoni, E. (2015). Public Spheres in Interaction: Comment Sections of

News Websites as Counterpublic Spaces: Public Spheres in Interaction. Journal

of Communication, 65(3), 465–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12156

Travers, A. (2003). Parallel Subaltern Feminist Counterpublics in Cyberspace.

172

Sociological Perspectives, 46(2), 223–237.

https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2003.46.2.223

Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the

affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication

Yearbook, 36, 143-189.

Tufekci, Z. (2013). “Not This One” Social Movements, the Attention Economy, and

Microcelebrity Networked Activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 848–

870.

Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational

politics. First Monday, 19(7).

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest.

New Heaven: Yale University Press.

Tsai, C.F., Ouyang, W.C., Chen, L.K., Lan, C.F., Hwang, S.J., Yang, C.H., & Su, T.P.

(2009). Depression is the strongest independent risk factor for poor social

engagement among Chinese elderly veteran assisted-living residents. Journal of

the Chinese Medical Association, 72(9), 478 483.

Tsai, Wan-Hsiu, Sunny, & Linjuan Rita Men (2012), Cultural values reflected in

corporate pages on popular social network sites in china and the united states: A

cross cultural content analysis, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6

(1), 42–58.

Usher, N., & Morrison, E. (2010). The demise of the gay enclave, communication

infrastructure theory, and the transformation of gay public space. In Pullen, C., &

173

Cooper, M. (Eds.), LGBT identity and Online New Media, (pp. 271-287). New

York: Routledge van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C.

(2010). Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research

Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599

Vázquez-Martínez, A. I. (2013). Relationship between learning approach in the university

academic performance. A case study. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios Y Educación,

(42), 7–21.

Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer Engagement: Exploring

Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase. The Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 20(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201

Warner, M. (2005). Publics and counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.

Wang, R., Kim, J., Xiao, A., & Jung, Y. J. (2017). Networked narratives on Humans of

New York: A content analysis of social media engagement on Facebook.

Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 149–153.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.042

Waters, R. D. (2007). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the internet: A content analysis of

communication trends on the internet sites of the philanthropy 400. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 18(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.171

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through

social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public

174

Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006

Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit

organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002

Waters, R. D., & Wang, M. L. (2011). Advocacy on the Internet: Lessons Learned from

the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2005. Journal of Promotion Management,

17(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2011.580691

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through

social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public

relations review, 35(2), 102-106.

Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a

digital age. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

White, M. (2010). “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism.” The Guardian. August 12.

http://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-

leftist-activism.

White, T. (2012). Drama, power, and politics. In Baim, T. (Ed.), Gay Press, Gay Power:

The Growth of LGBT Community Newspapers in America, (pp. 141-152).

Chicago: Windy City Media Group.

Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network

analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of

climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006

175

Wimmer, R., & Dominick, J. (2011). Mass media research: An introduction. Boston:

Wadsworth.

Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zorn, T. E., Flanagin, A. J., & Shoham, M. D. (2011). Institutional and Noninstitutional

Influences on Information and Communication Technology Adoption and Use

Among Nonprofit Organizations. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 1–33.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01387.x

Zuckerman, E. (2014). New media, new civics?. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 151-168.

176

Appendix 1: Coding Scheme for Advocacy Tactic: (Brockington 2014; Guo & Saxton, 2014)

Advocacy tactic Definition Public Education: Efforts to inform and educate the public about public policy issues. Grassroots lobbying: Mobilizing the public to support or oppose specific legislation (“indirect lobbying”). Public events & direct Strikes, protests, demonstrations, “sit-ins,” and other action: public actions. Voter registration & Efforts to register voters or encourage citizens to vote. education: Research: Original analysis or research on specific legislation or broad social or political problems. Judicial advocacy: Working for change through the legal system (e.g., class-action and amicus curiae litigation). Coalition building: Working for policy change through coalitions with other advocacy and lobbying groups. Media advocacy: Working for policy change via press releases, media events, letters to editor, op/ed pieces, and relationship-building with editors and journalists. Administrative lobbying: Influencing the administration through meetings with government officials, commenting on administrative rulemaking, etc. (“regulatory advocacy”). Direct lobbying: Efforts to influence legislation by persuading politicians to support a particular position, normally through direct communication with elected officials or their staff. Expert testimony: Providing testimony / advice at committee hearings, etc. upon request from a legislative body. No advocacy tactic: Not being direct manifestations of the core mission of advocacy Celebrity advocacy Information about celebrity endorsement/coming out/activities that support LGBTQ rights

177

Appendix 2: Coding Scheme with Examples for Advocacy Tactic

Public North Carolina is trying to get the court to uphold the anti-transgender Education: provisions in #HB2 while the government is trying to buy time to study its own law so it can figure out what to say in its defense, all while transgender people suffer. That’s what we call a TERRIBLE MOVE.

https://www.aclu.org/news/north-carolina-asks-court-keep-anti- transgender-provisions-hb2-effec Grassroots Join us as we stand with 65 LGBTQ and Muslim community lobbying: organizations united against hate #StrongerTogether #EndHate

Public events Come march with SRLP's Movement Building Team at the Trans & direct Latina March this Monday. We will be meeting at SRLP's office at 2pm action: to make signs before we head to the march in Queens. Contact Sasha at [email protected] for any questions. Voter #VictoryInNC Day 2: Remember the hearts and minds you changed registration & when coming out? That’s the idea behind our efforts to prepare LGBT education: people to run for office, so they can be our strongest voices for equality. And that’s why we are here in North Carolina, now through the weekend, training more than 30 LGBT people on how to build a campaign and win! Research: A new special edition of the National Inquiry in Bioethics Journal includes diverse narratives from members of the # community. Judicial BREAKING: We’re suing the fifth largest health care system in the advocacy: country, Dignity Health, for denying transgender employee Joe health insurance for medically necessary transition-related care. https://www.aclu.org/…/aclu-challenges-major-health-systems…

A unanimous decision out of the Ontario Court of Appeal this morning upheld the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision not to accredit Trinity Western University's proposed law school. Coalition OutRight stands with 65 LGBTQ and American Muslim organizations building: united against fear, hate, and violence. By standing together, hand in hand, across every faith, we send a powerful message to those who seek to divide us: Love is stronger than hate and hope will defeat fear. Please share. cc Muslim Advocates #DisarmHate #LGBT #humanrights Global Ally Logo #Trailblazers Media Thanks to Fox 11 Los Angeles for this coverage of advocacy: our #SafeAndEqual launch.

Watch the video of the full press conference

178

here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvQHIAzt88k - Mara's remarks begin at the 5:44 mark.

Administrativ It has happened! @JimWatsonOttawa and @cmckenney stand #proudly e lobbying: with the new rainbow sidewalk at Bank and Somerset!

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded SAGE to establish the National Resource Center on LGBT Aging. This center supports communities across the country as they aim to serve the estimated 1.5 to 4 million #LGBT individuals who are 60 and older. This center provides information, assistance and resources at the state and community levels. #ThanksObama #LGBTElders Direct Thank you, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, for speaking out lobbying: against violence and discrimination. #DisarmHate

This is progress. Just this past week a "Raise The Age" bill to charge 17-year-olds as juveniles that the SPLC advocated for as part of a coalition passed the Louisiana House. The governor will sign the bill into law on Tuesday. “Systems are changing,” said Kristen Staley, deputy director of the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency. “We’re seeing fewer and fewer young people being held in locked facilities and a huge growth in community efforts.”

Youth Suicide Prevention Bill AB 2246 clears CA Assembly! So proud of GSA Network youth who lobbied for this bill. Expert SPLC President Richard Cohen told a congressional panel how public testimony: support, and a perceived victory at the Bundy ranch in 2014 emboldened extremists before standoff at Oregon wildlife refuge. “Rather than being arrested, Bundy was lionized on FOX News, and numerous federal, state, and local officials expressed sympathy for his cause,” Cohen said in his prepared remarks. “As a result, the antigovernment movement was energized.” No advocacy Hi everybody. Just wanted to let you know that The Center will be tactic: closed on Friday 6/24 to give our staff a day off after a very successful PrideFest. We will be back at it on Monday, 6/27. Thanks. Celebrity Join Lindsay Lohan live at the : Mean Girls endorsement Screening tonight via Synaptop! Pre-show begins at 8:30PM with the film starting at 9:00PM. #PrideTO #Fetch LINK: https://www.synaptop.com/tiff/pride2 016

179

Appendix 3: Coding Scheme for Dialogic Relationship: Adopted from Kim, Chun, Kwak, &

Nam (2014)

Dialogic Features (Twitter)

Coding for Twitter (Total 27 items) —Conservation of visitor: Providing important information so that users stay connected to the organization 1. Only Link to the organizational website 2. Only Link to the organizational SNSs —Generation of return visits: Discussion forum, FAQs, calendar of events, or upcoming events 3. Only Link to pages of an organizational website where visitors could request additional information 4. Only Link or tweet providing information about employees of the organization 5. Only Offer information or link to upcoming events 6. Only Link to discussion forums or FAQs of organizational website —Dialogic loop: Opportunity for user response, stimulate dialogue and social conversation 7. Only Posing a question to stimulate conversation 8. Only Twitter mention: A mention is a Tweet that contains another user’s @username anywhere in the body of the Tweet. 9. Only Solicit to Retweet or Like 10. Only Encourage user response 11. Only Encourage to sign petition/letter/campaign/registration 12. Only Encourage to take action 13. Only Link to SNSs/website of other organization/individual 14. Hashtag only 15. Only Sharing personal stories of LGBT individuals/allies 16. Multiple dialogic loop tactics 17. Only Celebrity Endorsement/pro-LGBT act/comment/participation —Useful information to media: Press releases, speech, audio/visual capacity, and fact sheet 18. Only Press releases (or links to press release) 19. Only Statement or Speeches or Quotes 20. Only Audio/visual capacity 21. Only Information about LGBT rights activism or pro-LGBT action, practice 22. Only Information about the violation of/discrimination against LGBT rights (e.g., events, policy, practice, and issues) 23. Only Link to a media content —Useful information to public: Information important to donors and general public

180

24. Only Information of how to contribute money or gift 25. Only Link to political leaders 26. Only Information of how to become affiliate 27. Other

181

Appendix 4: Dialogic Features (Facebook)

Coding for Facebook (Total 26 items) —Conservation of visitor: Providing important information so that users stay connected to the organization 1. Only Link to the self-website 2. Only Links to the organizational SNSs —Generation of return visits: Discussion forum, FAQs, calendar of events, or upcoming events 3. Only Links to pages on an organization’s site where visitors could request additional information 4. Only Links or post providing information about the organization/staff/ambassador/action 5. Only Offer information or link to upcoming events 6. Only Links to discussion forums or FAQs on an organization’s website —Dialogic loop: Opportunity for user response, stimulate dialogue and social conversation 7. Only Posing a question on Facebook to stimulate conversation 8. Only Encourage user response (multimedia, disregard hashtag) 9. Only Encourage to sign petition/letter/campaign/registration or send email 10. Only Encourage user to take action 11. Only Solicit to share, comment, or post 12. Only Links to SNSs/website of other organization/individual 13. Hashtag only 14. Only Sharing personal stories/comments/quotes of LGBT individuals/allies 15. Multiple dialogic loop tactics 16. Only Celebrity Endorsement/pro-LGBT act/comment/participation (disregard hashtag/link) —Useful information to media: Press releases, speech, audio/visual capacity, and fact sheet 17. Only Press releases (or links to press release) 18. Only Speeches or quotes or statement (text or video formats) 19. Only Audio/visual capacity 20. Only Information about LGBT rights activism or pro-LGBT action, practice (e.g., events, policy, practice, and issues) 21. Only Information about the violation of/discrimination against LGBT rights (e.g., events, policy, practice, and issues) 22. Only Link/shared link to a media content —Useful information to public: Information important to donors and general public 23. Only Information of how to contribute money or gift or purchase 24. Only Links to political leaders

182

25. Only Information of how to become affiliated 26. Other

183

Appendix 5: Interview Protocol

Incorporated from (Adopted from Goldkind, 2015; Gormley and Cymrot (2006); and

Panagiotpoulos et al., 2015)

—Which year were you born?

—How long are you working for the organization?

—What role do you play for your organization?

—An approximate number of paid employees working in your organization:

—An approximate number of volunteers working in your organization:

Policy Agenda

1. What are the overall advocacy goals for your organization?

2. What advocacy issues your organizations will be focusing for this year?

Organizational Structure

3. Does your organization have a social media policy? A social media plan? Can you

please explain?

4. Describe/discuss what you think about the role of social media in external

communication?

5. What resources (technical/human) you use to maintain and monitor social media

activities?

Opportunities & Barriers

6. What are the advantages of using social media for advocacy?

7. What are the barriers to using social media for advocacy?

8. How social media help your organization to achieve advocacy goals?

184

9. How (e.g., strategies, tactics, protocols) your organization uses social media for

advocacy?

10. How your organization uses social media for civic engagement or collective

action?

11. What are the drawbacks of using social media for civic engagement or collective

action?

12. How your organization uses social media for public education?

13. How social media help in the outreach efforts of your organization?

14. What are the advantages of using social media for lobbying?

15. What are the drawbacks of using social media for lobbying?

16. What are the advantages of using social media to connect with news media?

Strategic Assumptions and Aims

17. What strategies (e.g., content calendar, content bucket) your organization use for

digital content management?

18. Do you think it is important to measure the effectiveness of your social media

activities?

19. How do you measure the effectiveness of your social media strategies?

20. What are the tradeoffs or the costs that the agency is incurring as a result of

employing social media for advocacy?

21. What are the communication and mobilization objectives for social media-based

advocacy?

22. What the strategies that your organization use for social media-based advocacy?

185

Nature and types of interactions relationship building

23. Generally, how does your organization receive questions and comments from the

public?

24. Does the frequency of interactions change around specific events (including

crises)?

25. What is the commitment of your organization to answer questions from the

public?

26. How have social media changed the way your organization communicates with

the public?

27. How your organization uses social media for cultivating a relationship with

stakeholders?

186

References

Goldkind, L. (2015). Social Media and Social Service: Are Nonprofits Plugged In to the

Digital Age?.Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership &

Governance, 39(4), 380-396.

Gormley, W. T., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102-122.

Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are

changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (1),

57-79.

Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y., & Nam, Y. (2014). The employment of dialogic principles

in website, Facebook, and Twitter platforms of environmental nonprofit

organizations. Social Science Computer Review, 32 (5), 590-605.

Panagiotopoulos, P., Shan, L. C., Barnett, J., Regan, Á., & McConnon, Á. (2015). A

framework of social media engagement: Case studies with food and consumer

organisations in the UK and Ireland. International Journal of Information

Management, 35(4), 394-402.

187

Appendix 6: Sample Nonprofit Organizations in the USA

Human Rights Campaign

GLAAD

GLSEN

The National Center for Lesbian Rights

Lambda Legal

National LGBTQ Task Force

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders - GLAD

Los Angeles LGBT Center

Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice

Center on Halsted

Equality California

Victory Fund & Institute

GLBT Community Center of Colorado

GroundSpark

Keshet

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center

New York City Anti-Violence Project

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates

OutRight Action International

Outserve - SLDN

ACLU Nationwide

188

The Trevor Project

Southern Poverty Law Center

Pride Foundation

National Center for Transgender Equality

PFLAG National

SAGE (Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders)

Transgender Law Center

Freedom to Marry

GSA Network

Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP)

CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers

San Diego LGBT Community Center

AVER - American Veterans for Equal Rights, Inc.

Campus Pride

CLAGS: Center for LGBTQ Studies

COLAGE

CUAV

Family Equality Council

The National Center for Lesbian Rights

SAGE (Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders)

GOALny - Gay Officers Action League NY

Hetrick-Martin Institute

189

Immigration Equality

InterPride - International Association of LGBTI Pride Organizers

SOULFORCE - Freedom for LGBT people from religious and political oppression

190

Appendix 7: Sample Nonprofit Organizations in Canada

The 519

Rainbow Health Ontario

OUTSaskatoon

Buddies In Bad Times Theatre

Canadian Lesbian & Gay Archives (CLGA)

Ottawa

Community One Foundation

Egale Canada Human Rights Trust

Halifax Pride

CanadaHelps

Inside Out LGBT Film Festival

The Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual

Diversity

Centre Jeunesse LGBTQ Youth Centre

The Youth Project

LGBT Youth Line

Out On Bay Street

PFLAG Canada

Kind Space

Pride And Remembrance Run

Pride Toronto

191

Supporting Our Youth

Ten Oaks Project

Vancouver Pride Society

Qmunity

Rainbow Railroad

192

Appendix 8: IRB Approval

193 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Thesis and Dissertation Services