Leading the Pack
The first reading, “Deviance as a search process,” examines the ideas of deviant Internet and deviant behavior within social networks. A major example used in the article is the search for marijuana. Tepperman mentions many of the ideas we have discussed thus far in the course, such as closed networks, open networks, strong ties, weak ties, etc., and applies them to the search for drugs within a social network, explaining that there are two possible routes: 1) “closing methods” and 2) “following the path.” Closing methods are similar to a scientific study that surveys a wide sample within the population, in this case one’s social network, and narrows the field as it goes. The second process, “following the path,” represents a more small world approach, in which a person chooses the tie that it feels is most likely to be closer to the desired resource, in this example marijuana or knowledge concerning its availability and whereabouts. Can you think of different examples of situations in which you night use each of these search methods?
The second article, “The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders,” by Ronald Burt, presents interesting insight into the role of opinion leaders as “information brokers” in social networks. I was particularly intrigue by Burt’s assertion that these opinion leaders exist “at the edge of things” rather than in the middle, which may seem like the logical assumption. When one thinks of the most influential people, it might seem logical that they would be in the center with strong ties to the most people (as we have discussed, information is trusted most from homophilous close ties). I also enjoyed his analogy of “brokers,” who carry information across social boundaries between groups. This examination is similar to his economic and entrepreneurial interpretation of social capital of strong and weak ties that we read earlier in the semester. He presents opinion leaders as entrepreneurs in the information business, who work between groups, trigger conversation within them, and ensure a smooth transition in the two-step flow of communication, much like a broker in a typical business deal.
The third reading, “Diffusion Networks,” presents an in depth examination of diffusion networks and how they convey innovation education information through opinion leaders. This article presents a slightly different definition of opinion leaders than the previous article, stating, “Opinion leadership is the degree to which an individual is able to influence informally other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency.” This presents a more manipulative interpretation of the role, as an individual who “intentionally” seeks to influence others. Burt’s article focuses more on their position within networks “on the edge” rather than in the middle, portraying as less deliberate role as opinion brokers.
The article does present an excellent examination and clear explanation of homophilly and heterophilly within social networks and the diffusion of information. Not only does the article explain that people who are similar tend to interact, homophilly, but also explains, “Homophilly occurs frequently because communication is more effective when source and receiver are homophilous.” The article continues, “Heterophilous communication between dissimilar individuals may cause cognitive dissonance because an individual is exposed to messages that are inconsistent with existing beliefs, an uncomfortable cognitive state.” This point highlights one of the critical issues that were discussed in last week’s blog comments as well as class discussion, by illustrating the critical communication that is lost when people no longer are forced to interact with opinion leaders of opposite/heterogeneous opinion. New information enters a communication network through contact, at some point, with other heterogeneous nodes within a system, often other opinion leaders. Unfortunately, the Internet and other forms of telecommunication allow people the possibility to create a virtual reality (which often transfer into their physical reality) with minimal exposure to heterogeneous ties. I am not saying that this is the norm, or that it occurs on such an extreme level, but this type of behavior can be seen in many areas. Do you think that it is a problem? Can you think of any specific examples?