Social Network Blog - g3

1. The five people I communicated with the most were as follows:
1. Caroline N. 28 contacts: 12 cell, 11 SMS, 4 Facebook message, 1 email
2. Eugenia Z. 18 contacts: 13 cell, 4 email, 1 SMS
3. Krista J. 17 contacts: 7 cell, 5 email, 4 SMS, 1 AIM
4. Anita Z. 16 contacts: 8 SMS, 6 cell, 2 email
5. Perrin B. 12 contacts: 5 SMS, 5 email, 3 cell
5. Anne K. 12 contacts: 6 email, 5 cell, 2 SMS

Caroline, age 23, friend and classmate, is a transfer student from Europe. She lives about 3 miles from campus and is a major source of conversations involving companionship. She and I become close friends through our Negotiations class at the start of this semester. We only know each other for a couple months. Being a new student here, she has been in search of groups of friends. By being her primary friend, she has contacted me extensively and serves as a novel data point in the study of my daily interactions. She also shares a common mobile provider.

Eugenia Z., 59, is my mother who has obviously known me for 21 years and is my closest tie. She lives 8.5 miles from my apartment and works about 5 miles from my apartment. She also shares the same mobile provider.

Krista J., 22, is a very close tie to me, friend and housemate. She and I live in the same home and were teammates our first two years at Penn. She and I met four years ago. Our face-to-face encounters far outweigh our communication between us via new media. In these respects, she similar to all my best friends in my house.

Anita Z., 32, is my older sister. She lives in Rittenhouse Square (about three miles from my apartment) and works five miles away from me. She is also a very close tie and has known me for 21 years. We also share a common mobile provider.

Perrin B., 21, friend and housemate, has been my friend for almost four years. We began our relationship as freshman neighbors and teammates. We are very close ties.

Anne K., 21, friend and neighbor, is my close tie from the freshman year team (known each other for four years). She would have shared the house with us, but now she is my backdoor neighbor. We also share a common mobile provider.

Most frequent interactions by cell
Eugenia - 13
Caroline - 12
Krista - 7
Anita - 6
Anne – 5

Most frequent interactions by SMS
Caroline - 11
Anita – 8
Perrin– 5
Krista – 4
Kai – 3 (Kai, 20, friend, acted with my in a theater performance over a year ago. We have a moderate tie between us. He lives a quarter of a mile away.)

Most frequent interactions by email
Katrina B. -7 (Katrina, 21, my friend and housemate, and I met four years ago as we walked onto the team. She has been my roommate ever since then. We are extremely close ties and most of our interactions are within the house or out in class or at night)
Anne – 6
Krista – 5
Perrin – 5
Mom – 4

Most frequent interactions by AOL Instant Messenger
Rob E. – 3 (Rob, 21, is a fellow classmate of mine who I met two months ago. We have a moderate tie. Most of our conversations on AIM are about class assignments. He lives somewhere on campus, but not positive where)
Macy L – 2 (Macy, 21, friend, studied with my in Australia and was my roommate for 6 weeks. We met nine months ago and share a moderate tie.)
Krista -1
J. Ferry – 1 (Ferry, 20, acquaintance, studied with my in grade school. We have known each other for ten years. We do not have a close tie and I do not know where he lives.)

Most frequent interactions by Facebook message
Caroline – 4
Cat N. – 1 (Cat, 21, classmate, is an exchange student from Australia who is in my Negotiations class with me. She lives a quarter of a mile away)

Most frequent interactions by Facebook wall posting
Meg D. -1 (Meg, 21, friend from high school. Known her for 8 years. She is currently abroad, around 5,000 miles away in Italy. We have a moderate tie)
Meg W. – 1 (Meg, 21, friend for eight years from high school. She goes to school at Villanova 18 miles from here. We share a moderate tie.)
Kristen S. – 1 (Kristen , 21, friend for eight years from high school. She goes to Penn State Abington campus and lives 20 miles from my apartment. We share a moderate tie.)
Roxanne B. – 1 (Roxanne, 20, best friend from Australia. She now lives 10,000 miles away. We share a moderate tie.)
Cat N. - 1

Most frequent interactions by Skype
Steve D. – 2 (Steve, --, former-boyfriend from Australia. Known him for 8 months. He lives 10,000 miles away. We share a moderate tie)
Roxanne

2. The week’s recordings show my most frequent communications are with my strongest ties via new media. My preferred new media is mobile. The vast majority of my new media conversations were mobile-based, both calls and SMS. My results reflected Chen et. al’s (2002) finding that the phone was the most frequently used communication media. However, if face-to-face interactions were included, these encounters would outweigh any new media communication, a finding consistent with Baym et. al’s (2004). But my mobile communications are greater than all of my internet interactions, again consistent with Baym et. al’s. My strongest ties are communicated with by mobile calls. I believe that communication through phone is more intimate and easier, thus I call my closest ties the most. The main support that telephone calls provided was for emotional situations, companionship or small services, which supported Wellman and Wortley, who found that strong ties provided the most support in terms of emotional support, companionship, and small services.

In terms of SMS, I primarily contact my closest ties. Occasionally, I SMS classmates and moderate ties for meeting plans. Of my top five SMS contacts, four were my strong ties who I talk to the most frequently. I initially assumed that I would SMS my moderate or weak ties more, because SMSs are an informal means of communication that allows you to express your thought or question without having to engage in a lengthy conversation. However, I recognized that I prefer sending these questions/thoughts about small services by email. Gaining access to email addressing is far easier than obtaining personal phone numbers. Just on terms of accessibility, I prefer to email my weak and moderate ties for small services. Most of the SMSs that I sent to strong ties were comprised of tidbits of stories/what was on my mind (companionship/emotional support). The rest of my SMSs were sent to arrange a meeting, etc (small services).

Based on my entire emailing pattern, I send the most emails to my closest ties (excluding my siblings). These most emailed ties are those in my house and my mother. My full diary of emailing ranges from friendly chats to updating my far away friends on life to administrative duties (purchasing tickets, organizing a meeting.) For the most part, emailing is a medium of small services and updates about life to far away ties and the occasional job information emails. This broad range of services people seek through emailing is consistent with the broad range of ties reached through emailing.

The only time in which my most connected ties were not comprised of my closest ties was when I utilized the newest of media (AIM, Facebook messages and wall postings, and Skype.) I do communicate through several online communication forms(when including email), but I rarely talk on AIM. The online media subjects in Baym et. al’s (2004) article, also rated instant messaging as the least used media. I only used AIM to reconnect with a former high school classmate and work with a current classmate. An exquisite example of the “glocalization” mentioned in Wellman and Gulia’s article, was performed by my housemate Krista. She used AIM as a new “global technology” for a very very local use. Instead of walking several feet to ask me a question about the downstairs fridge, or checking herself, she instant messaged me. I use the Facebook for my weaker and more distant (in mileage) ties. I use messages to contact people I know consistently check their accounts. Depending on the individual, this function is used for small services and companionship. Skype and Facebook wall are where I communicate the most with my distant and weak ties. Just as Ellison et al. (2006) hypothesized, my results showed that people whose walls I posted on mostly are from high school or study abroad. I am interacting to confirm our ties. Basically, Skype and Facebook messaging and posting are for companionship.

Based on the media used and how far my contacts live, my findings are consistent with those of Baym et. al (2004) which show that local relationships mostly use the telephone. Long-distance relationships mostly use the internet. All of my legitimately long distant friendships communicate using the internet.

Relationship Duration
Although Meseh and Talmad state that the longer the relationship duration the stronger the sense of belonging and shared identity because of more shared experiences, I have found that my strongest non-kin relationships are those I made while in college. Although I may have shared more experiences with my grade/high school friends, my college friends have been present for my major college-life experiences that have shaped my life recently. These close college friends also exhibit multiplexity, being both housemates and former teammates. So while I am extremely close with my siblings and mother, I feel my current friends understand me the best currently. I can turn to them to discuss important matters, because of our recent history of shared experiences.

Age and Gender
My findings about the age and gender of my new media contacts show that I primarily communicate with females and people within 2 years of my age, except for my siblings, mother, ex-boyfriend, and professor. The rest of my contacts are ambiguously aged individuals. None of my non-kin closest ties are males. Based on McPherson’s (2001) article, all of my networks are highly homophilous. Around 70% of those who I communicated with that week were just females. However, I owe this to my all-girls school upbringing, where the majority of my friends were females.

It did not necessarily make a difference what medium I used to communicate between the genders. The grouping in which medium does matter is age. I basically can use every type of medium for students who are my age. However, I could not use Facebook media for my siblings and Steve. Although each is computer-saavy, they graduated well before the Facebook premiered. My mother would be the individual who I have to be somewhat careful with choosing media. She learned how to properly use the internet and email several years back, and has finally understood how to check SMS. She is attempting her best to assimilate to the communication of the times (Pearson 2006). Nowadays though, I try to limit her new media exposure to nothing more than cell phone calls, emails, and the occasional SMS.

New Media in Social Networks
Overall, I believe that the recent technological advances and creative innovations have created opportunities for the change in social networks. Several authors at the start of the internet’s spread viewed opportunities for the new networks to develop. Wellman and Gulia wrote about the societies of the online communities and how they compare to the real world. Although this article was written in the early 90’s when internet had reached a significant portion of the population, the internet was still in the early adopters phase of the spread of this innovation. Those first individuals were connecting through online communities to create relationships that might potentially stay online. But now that the internet has spread to the majority of the US, through a major push by opinion leaders (Rogers), relationships are made online for the purpose of coming offline (match.com). Or, people utilize websites like Facebook to bring their offline relationships online to strengthen them, which is how I connect with my high school friends.

Existent ties are able to be strengthened with the new media. People have various means of communicating with ties that may best suit their lives. For me, I am able to keep in touch with my friends overseas that I doubt I would have kept in contact with, if I used snail-mail and telephones. Now I can Facebook, Skype, email, and IM/MSN. I also use my mobile to call people when I have free minutes to just catch up. Because of my “mobile-ization,” I, too, am available to take calls, which frees the boundaries of time and place (Wellman 2001). With extra options to choose, conversations may increase and perhaps there is an increase in overall companionship conversations. Basically, having more media options, one may increase their “leisure” talking.

3. There was a slight difference in who I communicated with when I was at home or in public places. Most of my interactions occurred at home. The interesting points to investigate are who and how I contacted people in public spaces. Most often, I place calls for small services to my moderate or weak ties when I am at home. I prefer to give my full attention to those individuals. The only instance when I placed calls to my moderate ties for the purpose of small services was when I was en route to meeting them. Otherwise, I prefer calling moderate ties at home. However, if I am in a public place waiting, I like to pass the time by keeping in touch. For instance, while waiting on 11/5. I called a moderate friend, Brittany M. for companionship. Otherwise, I call my strong ties for companionship in public places and at home. In terms of SMS, if need be, I will SMS an individual, weak/moderate/strong anywhere if I have the opportunity (although my study shows that I SMS mainly to my strong ties), because I do not feel that my social context will be received incorrectly on the other end when it is in text format.

I do believe the new media being more portable has made connecting with people easier, giving us, theoretically, more “leisure” conversations. Also, with the use of Blackberrys people are able to do work online on-the-go. With new media, people are able to be both more productive and possible a bit more social with their ties through companionship.

However, it is questionable as to how “mobile-ization” might affect the McPherson’s (2005) criteria for strong ties – how many people did you discuss important matters with? I feel that if we are uncertain about the other party’s whereabouts (Wellman 2001), we may be less inclined to open up about our important matters, in the case that they are in public. Perhaps being more accessible, we may have more time to have companionship conversation. Yet, we might lose a level of trust by not being able to speak about matters beyond friendly talk. New media may allow us to stabilize our relationships, but we may not be able to fully open up to another party if we are constantly uncertain about their whereabouts.

The overarching theme for this week’s readings is concerning the basis of being an opinion leader. The first assigned reading, by Tepperman, displayed the role of opinion leaders in an alternative, rather, deviant sense. The second reading, by Rogers, served as more of a review of all information concerning opinion leaders and communication overall. The final reading, by Burt, defined a more appropriate title for opinion leaders based on their description and examined the immense social capital of opinion leaders.
The second reading served as the informational basis for opinion leaders. The information from this reading was basically what was covered in Comm125. It began with the studies about media influence on the general public through the hypodermic needle model, but stated that in fact a two step flow model is more appropriate for describing the flow of data. In which, particular individual take information and relay it to another population, an opinion leader. This reading also described how the makeup of groups and ties will affect the flow of information – heterogeneous groups will allow for bridging and expanding the route of communication, while homogeneous groups will accelerate the spread of information/innovations. The readings also described the characteristics of opinion leaders (external communications, accessibility…). The reading also described the various innovation expansions of history and their adoption by populations. This information seemed like a review of all that has been covered in this class and past classes.
However, there was one portion of the readings I found interesting. Opinion leaders can be considered either Monomorphic or Polymorphic. Monomorphic opinion leaders spread the information on a single topic, as if they are highly specialized in a certain region, thus can be trusted for that topic, which polymorphic opinion leaders spread the information of several topics, these people are more “well-rounded”. Although opinion leaders are individuals involved in real life networks, I found the best comparison would be societal informers. I saw a newscaster on the 10pm news to be equivalent to a polymorphic opinion leader because there is a great range of topics covered. However, an expert on marine environment would be similar to a monomorphic opinion leader because he/she report on a single topic. Speaking in terms of analogies, would you consider Jon Stewart to be more of a monomorphic “opinion leader” because he reports politics, or would he be polymorphic because his topics within politics range extensively.
The final reading concerned how opinion leaders are the bridges of information exchange across weak ties that Granovetter stressed greatly. Burt explained the spread of information and innovation in terms of contagion between the ego (receiver) and the alter (the giver) of the information. The ties between these individuals could be based more on cohesion (tie strength) or equivalence (similarity/homophily). The relaying of information on the basis of cohesion occurs because of socializing communication, while contagion based on equivalence is more of a result of competition between similar parties. I found this to be quite a unique spin of what we covered in previous readings about how ties are formed. Here, the readings separated the types of ties by cohesion and equivalence as two separate entities that support each other in a bond, when is previous readings we simply saw that homophily was a common element among ties of various strengths.
An interesting statement that Burt made was offering a new label for opinion leaders. Since they are not really at the tops of groups but more on the cusp, they relay these topics across networks groups, serving as bridges or “brokers”. These opinion brokers thrive across groups with weakly equivalent people. I found this title of broker it be much better fitting for this role after studying social networks more. Prior to readings Granovetter’s weak tie bridge theories, I simply saw the opinion leader as one who rallies support behind an idea within a group. However, based on this reading, and several of my marketing courses, it is more fitting that the opinion leader is one who ties the spread of a concept or innovation across a population by tying the “eccentric” innovators who developed an idea/product/fashion with the early adopters of a population. The early adopter will subsequently spread the concept further through the population. However, it is necessary to bridge the gap between the small innovation group into the general population, by relaying across a structural hole. By being a leader across a broader range of individuals, an opinion leader also has suffiently more opportunities, or social capital, at his or her advantage.
Finally, after reading all of the articles, I found that the article my Tepperman on deviance as a search process to contain more references to an opinion leader than I previously observed through my reading. Basically, this article described that to understand the networking behind deviant groups, the search process behind the deviant act is necessary. Upon first reading it, I though that this was another way to determine network size, by counting the alternative groups. But now understanding that this week is based more on opinion leaders, the need to go through “invisible” people to fulfill your search, is more in line with opinion leaders. The article describes how one may develop a desire for a deviant act, they desire this act because they are assimilating to others in the groups, they “develop out of causally formed network connections”. Deviance is a result of the diffusion model, that we chnge out receptivity of the deviant act from our initial view over time. Or, you may develop this deviant desire on your own and need to latch on to a known deviant group to support you cause.
The article also describes how this individual desiring the deviant act will go about the search for the “hardware” or services necessary to perform the act. Burt states that the deviant searcher will look toward areas that would be more likely to have people who also perform the deviant act than to do a blind search of the general population. Although it is less risky to do a blind search in a large community because there will be random individuals who are not tied to you that you can ask to aid you in the search process. If the intermediaries know you, they may turn against you and use the information of you need for the deviant. Thus, it may be better to go with individuals you do not know, in this sense, but it is much more time costly.
Deviant searchers follow more of a “closing in” method, in which they determine who would be likely to connect them to the deviant sought after object, and whittle away better paths within a large search area, by “systematically eliminating unlikely locations”- or disregarding certain network paths, through “staging”. I saw this to be more appealing for deviant searchers than the broad blind search using depth-first search. The breadth- first method appeared to be a more logical choice of action, because it found the shortest path to the deviant end, while depth-first search allowed for more secrecy. By using the breadth-first search, the searching is being based on heuristics. Choosing the proper individuals to ask eliminated unnecessary outside routes. But understanding who the people are that will connect you to the deviant act, you are relying on opinion leaders/brokers to tie you from you closed group of non-deviants to an opposing group to reach your end.
I thought extensively about the closed networks of isolated or rural communities or strongly distinct ethnic enclaves. Since there is a great amount of overlap/multiplexity, it is difficult to stretch past you group to reach a deviant end. The searched must “move outside that network in his search”. After reading the rest of the article, I saw that the move outside of the group more in terms of opinion leaders. But upon first glance, I thought that the search for the deviant act would require a physical move outside of the community. The first example that I thought of was the very close and closed community of the Amish, where the main time these individual stretch outside of their network is when the adolescents take “time out”, their year of leave from the community to determine whether they would prefer the outside world and sever themselves from their community to live in the outside world, or they could remain with they family and network. I remember when I was still in grade school that a scandal occurred in which two Amish men were caught trying to sell cocaine at an Amish hoedown during this “time out”. When I read that to get the deviant end one must move outside of the small closed community, I instantly thought of this physical move out of the community. http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/06/briefs.am/crime.amish/. However, although the actual situation is more in regards to opinion leaders, what route to you suppose these two Amish men took to reach the deviant end of buying cocaine? A blind search of searching randomly through the population? Or did they understand heuristics of the outside world enough to use more a diffusion model?

The group of readings for this week recapped most of the concepts we have been covering in class thus far and tied them into the development of online communities. With so many common threads of physical communities and networks, have online media created new communities?

The first reading by Kleinber and Lawrence described the online world of websites. The grouping of websites in a way reflect community structures. They broke down the communities as “core” websites- those that are the most prominent, “remaining pages”- those that are characterized in relation to the core, which are further subdivided as being either upstream (can connect to the core, but cannot be connected from the core – linkage-wise) and downstream (the core connects to this page, but this page does not connect to the core) and finally the “tendrils”- those sites that neither reach the core nor can be reached from it. The grouping of sites in this manner reflects network structures. The core websites of a topic are analogous to tight-knit strong ties. From these ties branch out to the weak ties, “the remaining pages” related to the core. The direction of flow can be considered similar to the out-degree found in Pearson’s article. How a website refers another is similar to how a person will refer to another as a friend, and whether this will be reciprocate (i.e. smokers will generate names of individuals they are tied to, but often these nonsmokers will not list those smokers). This article also connects websites to McPherson’s studies of homophily: “Pages and links are created by users with particular interests…[they] cluster into natural “community” structures”.

I found the second article to be particularly unsettling. Leaping into the path towards the real world, I have received various forms of advice about interviewing styles, tips on resumes and networking, and the likes. But a new piece of advice that has been circulating is about employers will google potential employees to learn about their background or even check through the Facebook, http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/audio/facebook.mp3. (Even Glamour magazine had a mention about googling potential dates in their “It’s OK…” section). Granted newspaper write-ups are a bit out of people’s hands, but voluntary information posted online through sites like the Facebook are self-edited and potential employees should be wary about what they post. But the article by Marks explored research through online social networks farther. It stated that the Pentagon, through the National Security Agency (NSA) compiles a database of what people have posted about themselves on social networks to create “extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.” Through this research of online profiles, see how many links or “degrees” separate a given person from someone who is a “member of a blacklisted organisation”, almost creating a six degrees of separation, McCarthy style. However, with additional factors like “flying lessons” and possible terrorist related activities, tapping into these online social networks could create excellent evidence to pinpoint possible criminals. This article tied into the past topics in class by showing how actual social networks and identities can be traced through the online social networks.

The study by Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe focused on a particular social networking online site, the Facebook. Although most of last weeks readings focused on relationships created online, how strong these ties actually are (Mesch and Talmud), whether these online relationships are isolated to cyberspace or if they cross media or into face to face encounters (Baym). The internet was seen as revolutionary in networking because it allowed ties to form that transcended geography and connect people based on interests (Wellman). However, the interesting aspect of the online Facebook communities is that these are based primarily on offline relationships (from strong ties to friends of friends to chance encounters). Thus, Facebook has sparked the offline to online trend. The Facebook allows for established networks to strengthen and be publicized online, and aid in the maintenance of weak ties. Primarily, what this article was interested in people’s utilization of Facebook to maintain weak ties, especially those with high school friends as a means to secure social capital (Putnum).
Three findings within this study were that 96% of Facebook users put their high school name in their profiles, which the authors suggested that these users wanted to maintain a connection to their former high school classmates. However, I feel that the authors are labeling a reason to Facebook that is not necessarily correct. Like most of the class, I was a freshman when the Facebook first started, back then it was thefacebook.com. The high school option was not available at that point. Most people used the Facebook to connect with their fellow peers and those at other ivy schools. At its inception, most people created their profiles to reflect who they were that was not really blatant from their everyday encounters. It was not until a good 2 months or so that there was a high school option. I simply believe it is another option that people can put in their profiles that is personal as mobile numbers or AIM sn, but is a basic fact about people much like the college they go to (which is a ‘former’ requirement).
However, I do agree with the other findings that those who use the Facebook more intensely report higher bridging capital, because people see the Facebook as an excellent networking tool, especially with the formation of legitimate groups. Also those with low satisfaction with their university and low self esteem appeared to gain in bridging social capital if they used the Facebook more intensely. Truthfully, the Facebook is a means of visualizing networks. By being connected to your community of strong and weak ties, best friends and acquaintances, you have an open means of communication. If there is a question you need to ask of an IT former classmate, the Facebook opens you to that social capital. Also, with the constant developments of the Facebook, you can keep up on your friends without even talking with them. Changing something in your facebook profile is basically an update to your online network. During my abroad experience, I could simply post pictures of my travels and my friends would know where I was. I could send out group messages. I could post on people’s walls. Overall, the Facebook is a running bulletin of your community’s lives. Due to the constant updates people make to their profiles and this interactive communication medium, many former non-Facebookers felt the absolute push to join this online community once realizing its amazing networking abilities. Based on these descriptions, could you describe the Facebook as a form of blogging but with more of reciprocal options (wall posts…), especially with the new Mini-Feed option?
The final article by Wellman described the evolution of networking and communities. He began his article discussing the small enclosed communities of Agrarian villages that were door-to-door. People communicated primarily with those within their village/town/neighborhood by walking between houses and shops. However, a change in transportation and communication altered communities to become more place-to-place. Rather than connecting within neighborhoods, communities met within private spheres – within home, and cut off most of the physical community ties. Although, the community ties expanded past the neighborhoods may have appeared as a negative aspect because of disconnect, this network expansion allowed for weak ties to develop across communities, interests, and occupations and create diversity of resources (which may aid in political situations – like the Gans ‘urban villagers’ situation).
However, with further advances in technologies, people became just as portable as their communication devices. Now people can be reached anywhere and basically everywhere they have signals and their devices. Wellman described the evolution thus far as: “the switch from door-to-door to place-to-place has enable communities of choice that were less constrained by distance, place-to-place community …preserved some sense of social context” because people were generally known to be in their given neighborhood or work place when calling/emailing. But the “shift from place-to-place to person-to-person contact has uncertain knowledge about the whereabouts of that person” due to their mobility and switching of networks (workplace, home, leisure-area). Ties further specialize into role-to-role networking, based on types of services the ties provide (Wellman and Wortley’s emotional support, financial aid,…) and the communities those people belong to (internet groups…). By specializing ties on the role-to-role basis, networks allow for more structural holes. I believe that the internet simply allows us to fulfill all networking necessities. Structural holes allow for compartmentalizing various groups into their distinctive categories through online communities. Online relationships fill the void of less activity community group members that Putnum had stressed. Plus, the internet fills the excess time people have that television was taking, and allows for more networking. Online networking allows for strengthening of weak ties and the juggling of various individuals communications (with simultaneous iming, emailing, and calling). Overall, the advancements of technology allow for us to interact with out communities in a more stream-line and mobile manner.

Both this week’s and last week’s readings discussed the element of homophily. The internet allows for online relationships to be based primarily on interests and not demographics. However, do you think that there is a potential danger that people may pigeon-hole themselves into a small set of interests and never open to new ideas and potential interests? For instance Prof. Hampton stated that people of a particular political party will read articles and belong to groups that are of that particular political party, and bottle-cap collectors will do the same. But if these people do not expand outside of their homogeneous interest groups, they may never find more interests. Would the concentration on common interests on the internet eliminate the possibility of “opposites attract”?

.... Ok how many entries this week will have the word "facebook" in it

The past few weeks we have examined the various elements of networks. The strength of particular ties and how these may determine the type of responsibilities those friends can bring (Wellman and Wortley). We learned how different ties can cross over various roles, how a neighbor can become your best friend with multiplexity, how our networks can be limited in diversity with homophily (Pearson). However, these were studies that looked that the typical relationships we create in the real world. With the recent development of online relationships (recent in the view of networking history), researchers have encountered new forms of relationship communication, and even relationship formation.
The first article, by Wellman et al that focused on the presence of the “Net” and how this new technology may alter the state of community. The article compiled various viewpoints about the Net and how this may change the networking world, negative views from mainly print critics and some researchers, and positive views from the vast majority. Would the internet connect the world in a utopian fashion with everyone equal, disregarding gender, class, and race? Or would these ties be fickle without the element of emotion tieing them together? Seven questions were focused on:
1. Are online relationships narrowly specialized or broadly supportive? (For which it was argued that they are broadly because the relationship are mainly based on shared interests. But narrow in that these communities of shared interests do offer a lot of support to one another)
2. In what ways are weak ties of the net useful? (Based on the points of Granovetter, Wellman et al, saw that the net was mainly comprised of weak ties, and the lack of situation or status cues, due to the anonymous element of the net, weak ties are encouraged)
3. Is there reciprocity online and attachment to virtual communities? (It was argued that although there appears to be no gain from aiding people online, people will not act altruistic and aid one another. However, in the sharing of information and support, people do get a sense of praise and boost in self esteem so they may help out, especially if the aid goes out to a bulletin that can help a lot of individuals)
4. Are strong, intimate ties possible online? (Without physical presence, intimate ties are difficult because of the element of disconnect and fear of masquerading).
5. How does virtual community affect “Real life” Communities? (Is there a zero- sum element where online takes away from other activities? It was found that some people want to actually increase real life connects because of extensive online connect) Although there was no mention of this in the article, because it might have been before the time of online dating, but might the connections made through online communities like these be a proper example for the transfer of virtual communities into real life communities?
6. Does the net increase community net diversity? (Although the anonymity of the net avoids demographic characteristics from creating relationships and people maybe be able to connect just on common interests, Is there a problem that people do not fully grasp how heterogeneous there communities might be?
7. Are virtual communities like “real” communities? (There are the positives that te communities are based on shared interests – homogenous in interests and attitudes, but heterogeneous with all other demographics. But there is the negative that people can drop out of conversation through chat, im (which was not a major mention in the article) and create more selectivity.

This article was rather interesting because, even though it was written in 1999, it seemed extremely dated. Chat rooms and bulletins appear to be of the past, what with the increase in IMing and blogging. Also just the terms seemed out of date... does anyone really say the Net anymore. I felt that this article was excellent in describing the early views and concerns about the internet on the networking communities, but the later articles encapsulate the current times better.

The second article by Hampton was excellent in that it focused on sociability online and offline and the crossing over. Just as Putnam had stated that the descrease in socialability is due to an increase in television watching, would internet serve as the new socialability sucking medium? However Kraut et al found that internet users actually find themselves with larger social networks than nonusers. I see that although people have replaced television with the internet, because of the connectivity of the internet people have inadvertently replaced solidarity activities with an activity that pushes community. The internet is existent to shared information, opinions, and connect globally.
Hampton studied a community dubbed Netville, in which part of a neighborhood received free high speed local network internet. The wired and unwired families were compared. Performing the neighborhood name recognition experiment that was exemplified in class, the wired individuals recognized more individuals than those who were unwired. It was found that the internet increase community strength in a way.

The third article, Social Interactions Across Media by Bayn et al. compared three forms of interpersonal forms of communication: online, face to face, telephone by using two studies, a diary tracking study and a survey based study. It was found in the diary study through the recorded significant voluntary social interaction that face to face was the most common form comprising 64% of all interactions, and telephone and internet closely made up the rest (18.4% and 16.1% respectively). However, it was rare to find people who solely used one medium, like just meeting face to face, most people used each of the three media to communicate with people.
The second study within the article used a survey. This allowed the researchers to study more individuals (close to 500) as opposed to the small sized diary results. This study found that for local relationships, face to face was the most common form of communication, and internet the least common. For long distance relationships, the internet was used nearly as much as the phone, and certainly more than face to face, due to limited interaction based on distance. How might the recent spread of Skype, a free online voice form of communication used by people worldwide, affect the long distance relationship results? It was also found that intimate relationships relied many on face to face and the telephone. I think that this certainly reflects the views people have of the internet, claiming that it is faceless and not at all intimate. This study overall supports Dimmich et al’s (2000) claim that the internet “fills a unique niche shaped by geography, relationships and sociality”. I see the internet mainly as simply another medium for various types of relationships to connect and communicate.

The fourth study by Mesch and Talmud, The Quality of Online and Offline Relationships studied adolescents and their use of the internet and whether their relationships were homophilous, contained multiplexity, and the duration of these ties. It was found through this study that adolescents had homophilous relationships because shared concerns and interests were found to be status related. So the ties were more affected by status. Also the study found that friends from online were known for a shorter amount of time that those that are based on face to face interactions. Without the shared face to face experiences that are the foundation of tie strength, the relationships are not as strong, but they do have more specialized roles.

The last article, I found to be extremely amusing because by the educational action of a grade school student, she created an innocuous virus of a study, that in the end was more of a hassle on her part that the worldwide community. By part of her science fair project, she created an email that would spread around to measure how it would connect worldwide, at what rate, and the response she would receive. However, she had underestimated the spread of the internet and the benevolence of people. Expecting to only get about 2000-3000 responses, she was shocked to receive 160,478 emails from 189 countries! The response rate was so immense that her email box filled up faster than she could empty it. Along with the response she received the individual tales of people around the world, from troops overseas asking for prayers and support to researchers at the poles. People around the world wanted to share and be a part of this study. This is a true example of what Wellman and Gulia stated that people will become altruistic and want to share as a part of online communities because they are able to boost their self esteem through the sharing and connect to the entire world.

The first article by Zwije-Koning and de Jong evaluates network analysis techniques that have been used to understand organizational communication. This article bases its analysis on the questions of: “Which questions about organizational communication can be fruitfully addressed using network analysis techniques?” and “What data collection methods can be used to study information structures in organizations, and what are their strengths and weaknesses?” (431). They discuss the rationale, forms, suitable questions, and reliability, validity and feasibility of the following data collection techniques: sociometric questioning, diary research, observation research, archival record analysis, ECCO analysis and small world technique. The sociometric questioning technique is the most commonly used. It is also the type of data collection method consisting of surveys and/or interviews is used in most of the studies we have examined: McPherson’s General Social Survey, Kalmijn’s survey on married and cohabiting couple, etc. Through this technique, the different communication roles of employees could be determined, like the opinion leaders that are central to a network, found through Freeman’s studies, or gatekeepers from Granovetter’s work and various other social network roles.
However, there are arguments that these data collections are, in fact, inconclusive because there is “weak data, strong analysis” according to Rogers (434), that there should be more analysis of the measurement instruments. It has been found that more specific questions, like “Who takes care of your home when you leave town?” give better network results than broad questions like Burt (1984) and McPherson’s (2004), “With whom do you discuss important matters?” (434). This specific question was examined by Bailey and Marsden in 1999, and was found to be rather vague. There are also elements of forgetfulness, pressure to respond properly, and social desirability that affect the results of the data. Bailey and Marsden tested the question about discussion of important matters first examined by Burt in 1984. However, in 2004 McPherson asked this same question to the subjects, five years after the finding that the question was vague. Do you think that it was better to have tested the same vague questions for consistency/reliability? Or should the study used the data from Bailey and Marsden, and create a whole new study that would have more validity?
The second type of data collection, diaries, appears to be very thorough and give a lot of information about the structure of networks and the communication means. However, this is a very tasking activity that may not be entirely reliable. Although, it avoids the issue of forgetfulness that respondents often encounter because they must record the means of communications immediately after the event, the task is very tedious, may not include every single means of messaging, and the time frame is narrow. For these reasons, data collection by diary is not often utilized.
Zwije-Koning and de Jong also examined how observational data, though mainly qualitative is response, is based with quantitative means of data collection. This is an excellent means of providing structure because it can be covert and subject to researchers interpretation so that there are no changing of data because of pressures. However, there can be misinterpretation of data, because researcher does not have full understanding of the scenario. Also this means of data collection can be obtrusive, extremely time consuming, and costly.
Analysis of archival records appears to be one of the best forms of data collection. It is unobtrusive of day to day activities (since the emails and discussions are from the past), the data are very reliable and can cover a long period of time, and there is great validity because these are not self-reports and are not biased. However, this form of data collection is limited because it often focuses on only one means of communication, which in itself can be quite vast (69,219 messages) and the issue of privacy of employees.
The ECCO means of data collections, or “whisper down the lane” focuses on the spread of rumors and how this flow of information can change between nodes. This type of data collection is excellent in examining top-down organization, but it is limited to one message and can be changed by the biases of self-report and social desirability. The final means of data collection is based on Milgram’s small- world theory. The employees of a company must pass along a folder with a message through a company to those that they are linked to. While this technique has been found to give excellent views of network structure, there is a very low response rate. Also there may be an element of bias when set in a work scenario. Employees who must relay this folder to individuals above them may feel more inclined to pass the message than people above relaying the message to lower employees. ECCO has been found to exhibit the top-down organization of companies, the small-world technique offers the reverse structure of a company, in which employees lower in a company want to impress higher individuals by relaying a message. However is there an element of not annoying their bosses that may prevent these employees from passing the message? In this scenario, should the message be masked as an actual important message that must be relayed to those higher-up, or would the message have to remain an overt part of the study?

The second reading by Marin and Hampton focused on the name generator method of understanding network composition in ego-networks Researchers first prompted subjects to list names of individual they are connected to with a particular question (ie – Burt’s “with whom do you discuss important matters with - name generator). Then follow-up questions categorized these individual to understand their profiles and tie strength to those names generated name interpreter. Name generation is a standard technique but has several disadvantages, like having to determine the proper wording of the questions and when these techniques should be imposed. However, overall this article is written for those interested in utilizing the name generator technique and those who want to analyze name generated data. The paper includes an overview of network literature, which is basically a recap of the studies read this semester, especially those that used the name generator. The paper offers guidelines on how to perform data collection by means of the name generator that will be bother reliable and valid. The article also focuses on how single-name generators (GSS- Burt) differed from multiple generator surveys and test two alternatives to the name generators.
I found this study very interesting in that it brought into question several single name generating methods, and pushed for more multidimensional name generating methods. Previously in blogs and comments fellow students and myself have questioned the validity of the questions the studies posed – how does the discussion of important matters or the targets of Christmas cards offer the proper image of networks or give “full definition of social support” (5) and this study addressed how multidimensional methods question several methodologies. The various survey methodologies were tested on four very different populations. Six questions were asked in these surveys that reflected studies performed in the past: question 1 – Burt, questions 2, 3, 4, 5 – Wellman and Wortley. Just as these questions span various studies, they can also be described as multidimensional.
The final question asks if there is “anyone who is especially close to you who you have not listed in one of the previous questions” should be presented in a survey method (online/phone) that perverts subjects from changing answers. Although the ordering is excellent, the question may still prompt subjects to change previous answers because the subjects may later “[interpret] closeness differently” and thus change their answers (8).
The results showed that there was an average of 4.8 discussion partners, more than the 2.94 of Burt’s 1985 GSS study and McPherson’s 2004 GSS study, which was an interpreting finding. Could this number be confounded with the presence of the “other option” that might have confounded the subject’s thought about what a discussion partner was? (Because it may reflect within the six questions as a friend who is in the top of the hierarchy of closeness, and thus he or she may disregard the actual question of discussion partner and put someone they view they are very close to)?
As alternatives to the extensive use of single generators, different forms of the multidimensional generators allow for several levels of understanding and high degrees of validity especially with the newly introduced MMG and MGRT. It was found that MMG included only the "discuss" and "socialize" generators and correlated moderately to strongly for many of the networks mentioned. MGRT used all forms of the name generators, but only with a random sample of alters. By combining several of the name generators the results from these multidimensional generators were more valid and reliable, plus they were cost and time effective.

The third article by Lin, Fu, and Hsung began by evaluating social capital as a concept and looking at the different measurement methodologies. The methodology mainly focused on was Position Generator, which demonstrated the utility of measurements for social capital tests as opposed to the basic name generator which has been used by many of the past studies read in class. However, this methodology is bound to specific content areas, focuses on strong, not weak, ties and focuses more on individuals not social positions.
Position generators concentrate on a sample of ordered structural positional in a society (ie occupations, class…) and ask subject who they know in each of these categories and rate their closeness. This is useful because it evokes various memories the subject might have and aids in response.
The position generator was applied in a study in Taiwan. The results compared the demographic data of the respondents with those who they claim they are connected with. There were difference based on the laboring families and the tie differences between the working men and the women who must aid with housework; the men have more non-kin relations and great social capital (similar to the 1950s scenario of Bott’s study). How might societal differences between the States and Taiwan offer different results. Do Americans have different constructs of social capital than the Taiwanese? How different might the findings be if the study were to be run in the states?

The final article by Van Der Gaag and Snijgers studied he methodology of the Resource Generator and tests this method on a Dutch population. This study goes beyond just the name generators (list of individuals) and position generators to actually ask about the resources people are tied to such as, “Do your know anyone who…: Can speak and write a foreign language, works in town hall, etc.” (12). The subject then states how they are connected to that individual who could provide these resources (ie acquaintances, friends, family member, yourself).
The various types of resources were coded into four categories: 1. Prestige and education 2. Political and financial skills 3. Personal skills 4. Personal support. There these were compared among each other to find correlations. This study also examined how frequently people accessed these resources. Resources for upward mobility are rarely accessed, while expressive/emotional support resources are frequently access, thus stabilizing inequality. Although it was found that the resources for job searching were utilizes mostly through weak ties (21), confirming Granovetter’s study. It was overall interesting to view a study that looking into how people might use the resources they are connected to through their networks for their own personal gain.

The Wasserman and Faust article explained the roles and elements of centrality and prestige in networks. The power of an individual in a network is based on his or her “actor location”, which is “actors who are the most important or the most prominent are usually located in strategic locations within the network” (169). Depending on the number of ties an individual has within a network, whether these ties are reciprocated (determined by outdegree and indegree), whether they are directional (yielding directed graphs) or not, and various other determining factors. Using various equations, that sometimes go over a reader’s head, Wasserman and Faust measured the centrality and prestige of an actor in terms of degree of closeness, proximity, betweenness, information, and differential status or rank of the actors and the group they are included in. I found the use of the three artificial graphs was extremely helpful. To clarify several of the points better, I related each type to “famous” networks. Wasserman and Faust described the connections in each network as: “All nodes in the circle are interchangeable, and hence should be equally central. One node in the star completely outranks the others, while the other six themselves are interchangeable. In the line graph, the nodes’ centrality clearly decreases from that for n1, to n2 and n3, and so on to n6 and n7, who are peripheral in this graph” (171). The network I envisioned for the circle graph was akin to the sitcomFriends, each friend was of equal value. The star network was certainly closest to Mean Girl or any teen movie with a popular clique (She’s All That, where one girl was the central leader, and had a band of followers. However, I found difficulty in related the line graph to its perfect media match. What sitcom/movie best describes a line relationship? The central figure of a star relationship serves as what I would see as a ideal version of an opinion leader, imposing an idea to be picked up by other members. An interesting anecdote that best shows the opinion leading nature of the central node refers to the shopping world and girls. A friend of mine worked in a retail store in L.A. Part of his role working on the floor was to pick out the “Alpha female” (the central node). By helping this girl find the “perfect outfit”, he was helping the entire group as well, because they would listen in on what their “Alpha female” would find fashionable, then copy in their own manner. Thus, by influencing the central node, he was influencing the “gaggle of girls.”

The article by Freeman was very similar to the Wasserman and Faust article. There were the shared explanations about the centrality of nodes, especially using my “Alpha female”/ star example. Freeman also uses a great amount of equations, like Wasserman and Faust, and actually comes of a it more complicated, perhaps due to the repetitive nature of this article. Freeman focuses on the how centrality is determined by group structure, efficiency, and complexity. (The later readings reference his article to use the equations of determined centrality.)

Valente et al. studied whether there is a considerable association between degree of popularity and the smoking behavior of adolescents. Within the 1990s, a noticeable increase has occurred in the prevalence of smoking among high school seniors, which is counter to the decreasing rates found from the late 1970s through to the mid 1980s. However, it is also found that within cultures that have widespread smoking, peers will promote smoking. But in cultures that view smoking as unpopular, peers will dissuade adolescents from smoking. Isolates, who were beyond the bonds of friendship, were found to become smokers as well, therefore they had an opposite effect of peer influence. There was a significant finding in the study that increased susceptibility was associated with popularity but an adjusted odds ratio. It was also found that the most susceptible to smoke were those who had a higher number of students the respondents (highest number of out-degree friendships). One interesting fact found that was found was that this study’s social network survey was based in schools that had curriculum on smoking prevention (not in the control schools). The survey was administered in this manner so as not to be confounded by program effects, since it was conducted in the context of an intervention designed to slow smoking uptake. Do you believe that there might be a major effect on the results of the study because the survey was administered to students who were taught about the harmful effects of smoking? Would students answer differently after receiving lectures on the subject matter, and thus find the topic sensitive and not answer truthfully?

Krebs created an interesting study focused on terrorist networks. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, it was designed as an observational study instead of an experimental research study. The researcher performed a content analysis, through the countless reports on the matter of 9/11 that focused on the networks of those involved in 9/11. Although these terrorists appeared to be on a mission simply for Al Qaeda, thus there was a high degree of secrecy, further investigation revealed that the terrorists involved were connected through an intricate knowledge sharing network. Meetings in Las Vegas and ties to more Al Qaeda had created an even more intricate network of ties to other terrorists. Figure 4 exhibits the network of those connected to hijackers. Mohamed Atta displays a relationship in this terrorist network that is highly prominent and centralized. He appears to be “extensively involved in the relationships of other actors” (Wessman 173). According to the network’s centrality metrics of degrees, closeness, and betweenness, he scored the highest of all. Thus, his image as a leader was supported. Due to these factors, Atta is centralized and can influence others in the network, while also safeguarding the secrecy of this terrorist network.

The Mouttapa et al studied the relationship popularity has with bullying and victimization. The popular area of Southern California, used in many studies before (this week’s smoking study, Kilworth article), is focused on in this study, looking at a sample of 1368 6th graders, who are primarily Latino and Asian. This study exhibits an excellent example of indegree and outdegree networks. For example, female bullies(who are involved with the rumor spreading type of bullying) had a very high proportion of reciprocated friendships, but had fewer friendship nominations. Thus, they have less central network positive, but have strong ties to their friends. Bullies and aggressive victims tend to nominate friends who are also aggressive (326). Victims were found to have fewer social connections relative to other students, consistent with the dominancy theory. Overall, this study expanded past the traditional demographic populations that have been studied, and applied centrality to an excellent example.