CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 388Middle East and Rwanda ConflictsSocial Media and PoliticsMiddle East Politics and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State

Lynch, Marc·2011·Perspectives on Politics
DOI 10.1017/s1537592711000910
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The uprisings which swept across the Arab world beginning in December 2010 pose a serious challenge to many of the core findings of the political science literature focused on the durability of the authoritarian Middle Eastern state. The impact of social media on contentious politics represents one of the many areas which will require significant new thinking. The dramatic change in the information environment over the last decade has changed individual competencies, the ability to organize for collective action, and the transmission of information from the local to the international level. It has also strengthened some of the core competencies of authoritarian states even as it has undermined others. The long term evolution of a new kind of public sphere may matter more than immediate political outcomes, however. Rigorous testing of competing hypotheses about the impact of the new social media will require not only conceptual development but also the use of new kinds of data analysis not traditionally adopted in Middle East area studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1537592711000910

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Zuckerman, 2011, The First Twitter Revolution?, Foreign Policy
  2. Lynch, 2006, Voices of the New Arab Public: Al-Jazeera, Iraq, and Arab Politics Today
  3. Latar Noam , Asmolov Gregory , and Gekker Alex . 2010. State Cyber Advocacy. Working Paper for the Tenth Annual Herzliya Conference. (http://www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/3035Newmediafinal.pdf), accessed March 8, 2011.
  4. Eickelman, 2003, New Media in the Middle East: The Emerging Public Sphere
  5. Tarrow, 1996, Contentious Politics
  6. Wheeler, 2006, The Internet in the Middle East
  7. Aday, 2010, Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 388

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lynch, M.
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
Lynch, Marc
ORCID
Lynch, Marc
Venue
Perspectives on Politics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2011-06
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
301-310
ISSN
  • 1537-5927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0986
DOI
10.1017/s1537592711000910
OpenAlex
W2132282266
Cited by
388
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 19
FWCI
101.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2 d)
Locations
Perspectives on Politics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East Politics and Society
Keywords
Arab Spring, social media, authoritarianism, Arab world, online political mobilization, collective action, information environment, public sphere, contentious politics, Egypt

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review