The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity
Abstract
This article is driven by two interrelated questions. First, is the Internet enabling organizational change among traditional interest groups and political parties, such that they are starting to resemble the looser network forms characteristic of social movements? Second, what role is the Internet playing in new, conceptually intriguing citizen organizations such as MoveOn, the U.S.-based but internationally oriented entity? I develop the concept of repertoires to argue that the Internet encourages “organizational hybridity.” This captures two trends. First, established interest groups and parties are experiencing processes of hybridization based on the selective transplantation and adaptation of digital network repertoires previously considered typical of social movements. Second, new organizational forms are emerging that exist only in hybrid form and that could not function in the ways that they do without the Internet and the complex spatial and temporal interactions it facilitates. These “hybrid mobilization movements” (including MoveOn, the example considered here) blend repertoires typically associated with all three organizational types—parties, interest groups, and social movements. Moreover, I suggest that fast “repertoire switches,” spatially—between online and offline realms, and temporally—within and between campaigns, are emerging characteristics of contemporary political mobilization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power
Bimber, B. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511615573 · Cited by 526
Cited by
THE LOGIC OF CONNECTIVE ACTION: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.670661 · Cited by 3,116
The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power
Chadwick, A. (2017) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190696726.001.0001 · Cited by 1,174
Self-citationTheocharis, Y., Lowe, W., van Deth, J. W., & García-Albacete, G. (2015) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.948035 · Cited by 504
Capturing Clicks: How the Chinese Government Uses Clickbait to Compete for Visibility
Lu, Y., & Pan, J. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1765914 · Cited by 130
Leech, B. L. (2010) · The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542628.003.0028 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Chadwick, A.
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-08-06
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 283-301
- ISSN
- 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-7675
- OpenAlex
- W2074690520
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 87.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10584600701471666
- The paper
- Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity. Political Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701471666
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.