Social Network Blog - g10

In the first reading, “Social Resources and Mobility Outcomes: A Replication and Extension,” the authors, Marsden and Hurlbert replicate and extend and previous study by Lin, Ensel and Vaughn concerning the effects of social network resources on finding a job. The study examines job outcomes based on 6 categories” occupational prestige, wages, industrial sector, form size, possession of authority and closeness of supervision. In the study, their findings confirm that the listed outcomes are not affected by incidental selection bias of the controls. However, Marsden and Hurlbert assert that the social resources argument, which states that effects of different social resource measures are largely outcome-specific, so that no single measure is the indicator of social capital. The study also illustrates a lack of a significant correlation of tie strength for both mobility outcomes and/or access to social resources. Interestingly, the study only found the prestige of contact only had an effect on the prestige outcome of the jog change. This seems logical because one would expect a prestigious social contact to have greater access and influence pertaining to prestigious jobs; whereas, someone who does not have a prestigious job would be less likely to have contact or a relationship with other prestigious individuals. This supports Burt’s assertions concerning the importance of who you know and in what positions they reside. Marsden and Hulbert account for this trend based on their findings that “education and respondents prior prestige are the principle correlates of the prestige of accessible contact. In addition, Marsden and Hulbert also assessed the various mobility outcomes, such as wages, in association to social resources, which exhibit no net relationship. For those in the class applying for internships and summer jobs, what do these findings suggest about social resources in the search for jobs? Who are the best people to contact and why?

The second reading, “Social Isolation and the Underclass,” presents a somewhat idealistic examination of social isolation in inner-city black communities as products of class and neighborhood differences. In the study, Fernandez and Harris use a pervious study by Wilson as the theoretical framework for their study, focusing specifically on his assertions concerning the dramatic changes that have occurred in the social structures of the urban ghettos in the last 25 years. Wilson explains that these changes are due to the unique position of ghetto communities at the “intersection of a number of large-scale social and economic processes,” such as shifts in urbanization, suburbanization and the “exodus of the black middle class to the suburbs.” As Wilson explains, “the net results of these changes is that inner-city black communities are in crisis and their residents are in serious danger of forming an ‘underclass’ trapped in a permanent condition of emiseration.” Fernandez and Harris use Wilson’s definition of social isolation as “the lack of contact or of sustained interaction with the individuals or institutions that represent the mainstream society,” and assert, “Social isolation is a key theoretical concept that serves as an alternative to ‘culture of poverty’ explanations of the maintenance and preproduction on the underclass.” They focus on the patterns of interpersonal contact and isolation associated with poverty and the black underclass in comparison to ‘mainstream society,’ which they identify as individuals “who are steadily employed, not involved in public assistance, and who reside in ‘stable areas.’” In their findings they assert that nonworking poor blacks are indeed socially isolated along various dimensions, frequently more than non-working poor. While this is not a surprising finding in the context of our previous readings by Granovetter and Burt, who both assert that weak ties offer the most diverse resources in social networks; studies have consistently found that upper-class, white individuals with higher educations tend to have more diverse social networks. The most interesting findings in their study were the evident gender differences in the patterns of isolation, reporting significant isolation among both poor and non-working poor black women compared to black males of the same status. I usually think of women as more social in general, yet more women were non-working in the study, which would contribute to isolation from resources outside of the community.

While I think that the subject of the study is interesting as well as socially relevant, I had some trouble with the fact that the study used poverty ratings that were 7 years old. I also felt the article proved several things that seem to be common sense. I found myself continually saying “duh” in my head. I am not sure if that is because I have read many studies concerning this topic, thus it seemed repetitive, or if, as I suspect, the study basically replicated obvious social and economic patterns of society, that cannot be explained simply using social network theory. While the authors control for confounding factors to determine statistical, I think that almost every finding suffers from questionable temporal order. It is the chicken or the egg question. It is almost impossible to determine causality. For example, they find that black, poor unemployed women are more socially isolated, but is it because they are black, or poor, or unemployed, or is it all three??? What do you think? How could the study be improved? In addition, what do you think about their idea of redistribution of poverty in non-poor communities? Is it realistic?