Social Network Blog - g3tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2007:/blog/481/g3/262006-12-11T20:40:54ZMovable Type 3.32Last assignment!tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.7472006-12-11T20:39:38Z2006-12-11T20:40:54ZThis assignment served as the ideal final project because it tied in every aspect of social network that we have covered in this semester: measuring network size, homophily and network diversity, resources from networks, social support, multiplexity, strong and weak...
This assignment served as the ideal final project because it tied in every aspect of social network that we have covered in this semester: measuring network size, homophily and network diversity, resources from networks, social support, multiplexity, strong and weak ties, network density, the role of new media, and issues of measurement. It is an interesting way for students to gain their own understanding of the research process and how to analyze the outcomes on their own.
This study asked respondents who they discuss important matters with. McPherson et. al(2004), using this criteria, found a mean network size of 2.08. However, the mean number of contacts of this group was 5.4 (with 5.2 for each group over the age of 33 and 5.6 from the college-age group). This is a dramatic difference from the general population’s average. Especially considering only one individual (>33/F) stated having three ties, close to McPherson’s number.
McPherson stated the greater the amount of education, the more number of non-kin alters. This study’s respondents at least attended college, explaining the difference in number of alters overall. Also, the majority of the alters was non-kin for both college-age and >33 groups, more so with the college age group, a factor opposite of McPherson’s findings. Most of the >33group were graduate students, all of them had completed some sort of college, already more education than the college-age group who still attend school. In having more education, the >33 should have more non-kin alters. However, the greater number of non-kin alters within the college-age group can be accounted for the fact that these students, while in school, bond very closely to their near-by friends/advisors. The majority of college-age non-kin ties were at least in the same city (except for subject 19, living in a town 5min from his university ties. Thus, the descriptor of same state is not accurate). Based on number of years, it can be determined which of these relationships are most likely rooted within the university (less than 4 years). Thus, 18-22 exhibit more non-kin ties than >33, but these are individuals of the same general area and university; the ties are more convenience-based. It would be interesting to compare recent college graduates spread across the country/world with undergraduates living in dense, non-kin neighborhoods.
In terms of contacts based on education, there was a significant difference between the ages. The 18-22 group had a significant amount of individuals still attending college or less– 47% for male18-22 and 72% for females18-22 as opposed to 0% for>33 male and 3%for female>33. The >33 groups had significantly more graduate school alters, 62% for males and 58% for females. The homophily based on education, only 2 females >33 and one male>33 did not receive a graduate degree. All of the 18-22’s still attend college. Thus, individuals with less education had less alters who received higher education. This is a significant example of homophily. Marsden(1984) found that 30% of personal networks are highly homophilous on education.
The overall average age of alters of the 18-22 was also significantly different from the >33 age group. The ages of the 18-22 for both males and females averaged 21.4. The average age of the >33 group was 40.2 for both genders. The average age difference between these age groups is 18.8 years. The average age of the 18-22/males’ alters was 31.8, 18-22females was 28.4, as compared to the >33/males’ average age of 46.8 and >33females of 45.46. Based on gender, there was a 15year difference in the average age of the alters between the 18-22 and >33 male age group, and 17.06 for females, there was a homophily based on age. With an age difference between the two groups of 18.8 years, it is entirely understandable that they ages of their respective alters would also be significantly older. The >33 group rarely had alters under their age range, but often had kin ties much older than their age range. The 18-22’s alters were mainly in their age range, except for ties to older kin or advisors. Overall, based on friendships, the ages were homophilous with barely any diversity. In terms of multiplexity, there appeared to be an equal distribution of individuals who offer several roles to the respondents within each age group.
An interesting gender pattern was discovered. Males 18-22 had 46% had same gender alters, while 75% of 18-22 females had same gender alters. Of the >33 age group, males had 69% of their alters of the same gender, while females had 46%. Mardsen (1987) stated that heterogeneity of people discussing important matters is 70% of the population, with 22% not having any cross-sex ties and 37% being perfectly mixed by gender. Only one respondent(#7) had no cross-sex ties, which is 5% of our total respondent population, but 20% of the >33male population. Overall, there is an interesting mix of older men and younger women confiding within genders and younger men and older women confiding outside of their gender.
In the area of individuals of certain occupations, based solely on number of contacts, there was no significant difference except for females18-22. The >33males and females, and 18-22 males had an average of 9.2, 10, and 9 contacts to these occupations respectively. 18-22 females had an average of 6.4 ties to these occupations. These younger females have the least access to these resources.
Of the top 5 most prestigious jobs based on resources on the list (judge through nurse) there was more differentiation among ages and gender. For this study, criteria for being highly connected to these 5 is measured by those who have 4+more of these 5 contacts. If contacts with individuals with particular occupations are a determining factor for a strong resource network, females over the age of 33 have the best access to prestigious resources, Although Lin et. al’s 2001 found that women who were tied down by household responsibilities are less likely to have ties to these social resources, compared to work force men. Women >33 in this study have more ties to prestigious jobs, 4. While 18-22males, 18-22females, and >33males lack a great number of prestigious ties (2, 0, 2 respectively). Thus, in terms of privatization, older females have greater access to particular resources because of age and education levels, unlike Lin et al (2001)’s study.
In terms of type of social support, there were no questions asking what support each individual provided like Wellman and Wortley, thus is cannot be determined whether kin provided more large services, parents provided financial services or what not. It can only be determined that important matters were discussed, fitting anywhere in the range of small and large service, emotional support, and companionship service. Thus, there is no differentiation in this regard.
It can be assumed that the ties to all of the individuals listed from the respondent are strong ties, based on McPherson. However, in terms of strong and weak ties between these individuals, females 18-22 were most likely to share strong ties through out alter network (meaning, the individuals who important matters are discussed with have strong ties among one another), with 37% of ties (strong, weak, and none) being strong. Males 18-22 and female>33 have the highest proportion of there being no ties, 34% and 33% respectively. Males>33 have significantly the highest proportion of weak ties within this network, 56%. This finding suggests that by having more weak ties, this older male group has significantly more contacts for jobs and resources, like with the old boys network (Granovetter 1976).
Finally, the most important finding was the different use of communication media. New media is becoming central to communication about important matters. The use of the postal system has become practically obsolete. Of every instance (in days) of communication, postal mail consists of only 0-.18%. Another disappearing medium is communication by landline telephone .497-8.9%. The only significant user of land line appears to be females>33 who used it for 22%. The replacements of these media are email (11-34%) and the cell phone, which is also the most popular medium (22-39%). In person communication is also popular with 19-35% communication in this way. There is a differentiation between the ages, in that 18-22’s use IM more than >33, 14-21% compared to .4-1.9% respectively. IM has also taken away from communication by email, which is found more with >33 than 18-22, 24-34% compared with 11% respectively. Thus, the older generations are more likely to use the new media of email over instant messaging. All populations prefer to use the cell phone as their means of communication. These findings update Baym’s study of 2004, to account for age differences more and include more media.
Given the assignment to survey 20 individuals does not seem that daunting, until it is split up by age, 18-20 and over 33, then within each range by gender. Most college students do not have networks that expand too far from their age range, which would make this study much more difficult. For my data collection, I resorted to a convenience sample, which the majority of the class had most likely done as well. My connection to the over 33 crowd came from having siblings over a decade older than me. My sister’s sample was limited by geographic region, but my brother was able to offer a more varied sampling of individuals because they composed different distances, Philadelphia, NYC (2 males), California, and London. Although this did give a sampling advantage, all of the respondents are graduates from the same university and/or in banking. My sister’s sample was from her network, so although most are from Philadelphia (4), there is more of a variation in occupation and education. For the undergraduate age range, I varied the group to include different networks and some non-Penn, to limit overlap. (The attempt to interview students who have ended their education at high school was much for difficult because almost all of my high school friends continued to college, and the few that did not I had lost touch with – a sign of homophily.) Although, this way a more expanded group, it was still limited by individuals I am connected to in some form (1-3 ties from me). I had considered interviewing at the train station for variation, but geography would still be limited. Or interview online through YahooChat rooms (a skype version). But as Wellman and Gulia stated, people are less likely to be truthful online. Also, reciprocity cannot be accounted for online as easily. Thus, my methodology was best for this survey.
Reading about the working world in our last reading of week 18 (?)tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.7162006-12-05T05:04:43Z2006-12-05T05:10:04ZThe first reading by Fernandez and Harris, “Social Isolation and the Underclass”, was a an interesting read in that it discusses the topic of how underclass people, those who live in poverty (actually 125% above the poverty line, since people...
Could the cutting of kin-support ties as poverty increases be connected with the people having less resources to provide? By moving individuals from the poor to less poor areas and vice versa there is opportunity for isolation and social segregation to be broken down. Poor people being in contact with more affluent individuals through this neighborhood swap increases their networks. However, there is the factor of fear and distrust or resentment when mixing social neighborhoods. I often here people comment about the gentrification of West Philly because of Penn. There is the level of fear by some individuals moving into the area and resentment from the community. Through your own experiences, do you believe that Fernandez and Harris thoughts fit with Penn in West Philly?
I am a little curious about Professor Hampton’s choice of readings for this week. Usually these readings have a common theme per week. I know that the real link it about mobility and how social resources are involved, where mobility was stunted in poor communities because of the lack of social resources and element of isolation and neighbor barrier and this reading by Marsden and Hurlbert involved social resources creating mobility through the occupational world. But just the timing of the articles, this being the last class of the semester at Penn, a school situated in an arguably gentrified area, as we approach the graduation into the real world shortly. Maybe it’s the graduate school and job searches that are effecting me, but going from one reading into the next definitely sparked my interest. Anyone else catch a common theme?
Anyway, the reading by Marsden and Hurlbert reflected on ties and job searching, like so many articles mentioned since Granovetter. This study in particular replicated the job-matching study by Lin, et al. and Bridge et al. Overall, it was focusing on how job changes (occupational prestige, wages, industrial sector, firm size, possession of authority, and closeness to supervision) would have effects in social networks. Overall, the findings that were significant for all of the studies were that experience and education were a major factor for each of the job changes and confirm the other previous findings involving incidental selection bias or the absence of controls for levels of outcome variables that were immediately preceding the change. Contacts prestige is also connected with previous education and occupational prestige, in that through your education and occupational prestige you can meet contacts of greater prestige that will connect you to higher in industries. Thus, you are able to make you connections to future jobs best through the networking you do while in your previous jobs. In that, people are more in control of their social mobility through jobs than what was previously thought. How important is the “old boys network” that we read about the very first week of class?
]]>
Student to Dr. Yoon in less than Six Degree (4 to be exact)tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.6712006-11-30T12:21:48Z2006-11-30T13:45:39ZComing into the project, I thought that I had made a fairly unique choice and knew that it would make it to the target. But I was surprised with how different my choice was from the rest of the class...
http://www.mysocialnetwork.net/blog/481/g3/2006/09/assignment_1_student_to_ms_yoo.html, which have been covered throughout this essay. I did take an unusual path, but in the end it was successful, (even though it did take me one more tie than I hypothesized). I understood that I needed reach a particular target and rather than follow the common practice of follow gender or class, I took the optimal path and contacted a reliable, bridging tie and as a result, Dr. Yoon received my folder.
]]>
Lean on me, when your not strong...tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.6532006-11-28T04:05:31Z2006-11-28T04:06:32ZThe first article reflected on what most of the theories we have focused on throughout this semester, that networking and having vast ties has many positive effects on the lives of individuals. Granovetter stated that having plentiful weak ties of...
How might having more roles that are based in strenuous positions - i.e. an individual’s roles are primarily based in the work environment, affect the results of this study? I think it would be interesting to compare those with socially diverse networks spread across many life factors (neighborhood, family, group leader…) as opposed to an individual who may have a significant number of work roles (boss, employee…) in addition to their personal life and how there might be a different effect on immunity.
The second article was an interesting look into the chains of both romantic and sexual links of adolescents within an “isolated” Midwestern town. This study also looked at how this structure might affect the spread of STDs among these sexual relationships. Throughout this study, the authors mentioned several types of networking – random mixing (where the interactions and dating mate are independent of any variables – just random), core (with high activity centered on certain actors and linking outward) inverse core (those in the core not transferring directly among one another – like sex workers), bridging processes (bridging of networks), and spanning tree. The results of the study mainly showed that there was a spanning tree pattern throughout this feisty, almost incestuous community, (well with the number one diversion from boredom being “[driving] to the outskirts of town and [getting] drunk these teens had limited sexual partnership choices.” However, I felt that since there was element against cycles of length 4, there was breaking of any small cyclic networking and almost creating an inverse core in the sense that there is no inter-dating of exes while retaining the spanning tree. There was a surprising variety of relationships (exclusive, multiple partners, romantic with outside relationships, dyads, triads…quad?) and interesting patterns (especially the highly dense sexual network in the upper, middle region of the ring). The networking was found to be far more incestuous than random mixing (65). This was probably due to the homophily found overall so that people can support their image and status (find more compatible people (75)). It was interesting to look at how intermixed the relationships were, especially with the mixing of romantic relationships with external nonromantic- sexual relationships or other romantic relationships as this might increase the exchange of relation and possible diseases. To help aid in the reducing of disease spread it is important to create structural breaks (like those found when “cuts” were made in the spanning tree links). This study reminded me of this year’s recipient of the Gold Cannes Lion (the international advertising festival) for Awareness messages and Public Health and Safety – Japan Advertising Council for the interactive advertisement “Her Past”. This link appeared on a site like this: http://www.interactive-salaryman.com/pieces/past_e/win.html, however it was not working on my HP. The banner works better on http://www.interactive-salaryman.com/pieces/past_e/mac.html. I found it very effective and the ad agency I worked for really pushed this as a powerful ad. Although this study looked at all of the networks within a high school, this is a model of an egocentric network that is worth checking out.
The final study by Dickens et al made another positive look at networking on individuals well being. This particular study measured people’s social interactions with close confidants prior to myocardial infarction and whether this or depression effects the possibility of future cardiac issues. Depression was measured using hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and social support was measured by whether patients had a close confidant – someone who he/she has regular contact with. The results of the study showed that 8.2% of those without a close confidant died of cardiac complications as opposed to the 4.5% of those with close confidants (almost double!) Also, “patients with a close confidant had only half the risk of a further cardiac event of those without a confidant. Depression did not significantly improve the model.” Therefore, this study was in line with previous studies showing that having close confidants decreases potential future cardiac situations. This study suggested that perhaps those without close confidants may delay seeking treatment for myocardial infraction or adhere to their treatment. I personally think it might be beneficial to create networks for those who do not have close confidants, with survivors or other individuals without close confidants to perhaps push each other to seek treatment or simply increase their chance of survival by now having close confidants. Do you think that imposing a program of support for MI patients without close confidants may increase chances of survival? I also think that factors like SES and location were excluded which might have affected people’s survival rates. If this study were performed somewhere else like in the North/South America, another European country, or perhaps Asia or Africa, or Australia, how might the results differ. Especially in terms of SES, resources…
]]>
New Media Diarytag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.5882006-11-18T01:38:38Z2006-11-18T01:41:00Z1. 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....
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.
]]>
Leading the opiniontag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.5602006-11-14T14:55:46Z2006-11-14T21:17:14ZThe 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...
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?
]]>
All this reading about the internet and facebooking, and I only logged in once!... ok twicetag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.5172006-11-07T09:25:10Z2006-11-07T09:29:35ZThe 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...
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]]>
Oh, they have the internet on computers now.tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.4722006-10-31T13:48:19Z2006-10-31T15:27:55ZThe 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...
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.
]]>
How do you measure up?tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.4272006-10-25T09:58:34Z2006-10-25T09:59:19ZThe 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...
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.
]]>
Getting to the center of centralitytag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.3992006-10-17T13:58:47Z2006-10-17T13:59:31ZThe 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...
Friends, 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.
]]>
Loss of friends = smokin cigarettes?tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.3602006-10-12T13:03:06Z2006-10-12T13:05:23ZThe change in core discussion networks reported by McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Brashears could be explained by the national economy. Within the radio interview, it was mentioned that more citizens are spending a far great amount of time in the work...
The change in core discussion networks reported by McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Brashears could be explained by the national economy. Within the radio interview, it was mentioned that more citizens are spending a far great amount of time in the work force. Because of this change in how we spend our time, it is far more difficult to associate ourselves enough with people in outside organizations. Also, one of the requirements for strong ties according to Granovetter is amount of time. Without having as much leisure time outside of the working world, people cannot afford to offer as much time and strengthen ties with those who they share emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services. Or as Smith-Lovin states in the radio discussion, “They are people we have long term relationships with and we see often, and are connected to one another” extensively. Since it is with those who we share strong ties with that we confide in core discussions and there is an dearth in time one can share with them, than number of individuals people discuss these issues with drops.
Another reason for this decrease in number of close ties for core discussion from 3 to 2 on average is due to the spreading of our population. More people are expanding into the suburbs, changing towns, etc. The networks have become “less interconnected, more geographically dispersed” (McPherson et. al. 372-3). As a result, it is more difficult to keep the close, intimate connections with those individuals. Even when people connect to their distant friends via the internet, Smith-Lovin stated, in the radio discussion, that these people still have the same number of close ties as those who do not use the internet. The internet does not substitute for “having face-to-face visits with family, neighbors, or friends in one’s home” and may in fact “foster a wider, less- localized array of weak ties, rather than the strong tightly interconnected confidant ties” of Smith Lovin’s study (McPherson et. al. 373). Combining the effects of less time do to changing work climates and physical distances between friends, there are sufficient reasons for the change in the number of core discussion partners over the past two decades.
2. The types of resources, information, and social support that strong ties are supposed to offer were mainly discussed in Wellman and Worthy’s article. Kin ties, the strongest of strong ties offer the most resources to their families members than any other ties. In particular, the strongest tie within this group is the parent and child tie which offers financial and emotional aid, small and large services to each other. Strong ties, outside of kin, offer emotional aid, small services and companionship. Also, because of the close ties that exist, more core discussions can occur, which increases the amount of information exchanged. Putnam reiterates the importance of having ties, because he claims the risk factor associated with social isolation is comparable to smoking, because it is a risk to the mental health of people.
A transformation of network structure and composition to homophilous, densely-knit, kinship ties could be potentially detrimental. By remaining in a homophilous network, like the ones focused in McPherson et. al.’s second article, we are limited our scope to just people with common attributes, like gender, age, religion, or race. Without having heterophilous ties, there may develop a limited range of views and thoughts, and a future difficulty of creating future ties. Also, in combining various groups and creating social ties, connections with politics may also form. Smith-Lovin also stated that “the stronger the networks are, government is able to work better” because there is a connection between personal connections and political connections, and a group gains leverage in politics. With this leverage, scenarios like West End and the mobilization for Katrina would have resulted differently. Also, if a group were to remain entirely homophilous, without any heterophilous ties, (i.e. between races), then the transfer of any needed resources from one network to another would not occur so readily. There would be a more difficult means of relaying a message between races (as in Korte and Milgram’s study) or in a more serious matter, the mobilization of political parties for a cause.
Sizes of Networkstag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.3362006-10-10T07:59:27Z2006-10-10T08:01:29ZMcPherson’s article focused on the binding power of homophily. Having common characteristics and attitudes connect individuals, so that similarity determines network structures. The overall basis of homophily is that people group with people who are more similar and share common...
status homophily similarity based on sociodemographic dimensions (race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age) and acquired characteristics (religion, education, occupation…), and value homophily which is based on vales, attitudes, and beliefs. The various types of factors that strengthen network ties are common race/ethnicity, age, religion, education, occupation and gender, (in decreasing power of influence on homophily, with race/ethnicity driven most by homophily). Race appeared to be the strongest of all on homophily, even within educational and occupational systems. As a result, these ties have massive effects on the types of ties that develop. What I found interesting was the mention of an “unusual” study of five different ethnic groups in Toronto and how this affected the job search networks (a weak tie networking force focused on by Granovetter.) I think this should be a type of study within a few major centers of immigration such as New York, Houston, Miami, Los Angeles, and Chicago. What do you propose would be the various networking structures in these cities among the different types of ethnic groups? Do you suppose that more established groups with several generations in the States will have better networking structures?
In terms of types of ties, homophily is found to be the strong within marriage of those enrolled in and completed the US college system. But occupational and educational homophily drive structure. These homophilies are also strong in less intimate ties like second and third level friends.
McPherson also examined the causes of homophily in terms of familial ties, geography, organizational foci, isomorphic sources, and subsequently cognitive processes. A tie that appears to be evident between geography and organizational foci is: “School, work, and voluntary organizational foci provide the great majority of ties that are not kin (Louch 2000, p. 53)” (431), and “Urban areas, with their greater diversity within a moderate geographic distance, produce networks with higher levels of racial and ethnic heterogeneity (Marsden 1987, pp. 128–29) (430)”. I believe that these finding are tied together with Fischer’s argument of urbanism. Because since “urbanism breeds isolation, and isolated people join organizations”, people who find themselves with the urbanism feeling of isolation will join organizations most similar to themselves, thus creating ties based in similarity – homophily.
The second reading by Pearson et al. examines how similarity determines actions within a network. In the study, it compared whether behaviors like smoking, drinking, or taking drugs is driven by what different people are doing within social networks to adapt to match (a form of peer pressure), which is assimilation. Or are common behaviors within a group caused by homophily, (focused on in the earlier part of this post), where people are drawn to create networks with people of common interests – including sharing these and other behaviors. Snijders (2001) and Steglich, Snijders and Pearson (2004) state a network transition model in which there is a joint evolution of friendship networks, where there is first a start in the evolution due to small, unobserved changes, that progress to either a relationship change or a behavioral change. Then, either the change in that one behavior will drive apart the relationship, or bring the other person in the relationship to change as well.
This study found that there was assimilation for cannabis and alcohol, but not for smoking, (which is in line with Cohen (1977) and Kandel (1978)’s findings reported in McPherson’s article). Thus, people began the behaviors of cannabis and alcohol to copy their friends. Homophily was found to occur more with the behavior associated with alcohol. The study also found that there was a decrease in cannabis and tobacco usage among athletes, but an increase in alcohol usage. Due to these results, Pearson et al. concluded that anti-smoking campaigns could be directed to teens stating that “Smoking won’t win you friends” and state the results of the study. However, drinking has a positive correlation with sports participation, and it is an activity that networks assimilate to drink. So although it is important to be part of a sport and increase athleticism, there is the counter situation of leading individuals to drink more heavily. How might health campaigns target the athletic groups to alter this assimilation effect?
Killworth et al.’s article focused on the study of various sizes of personal networks. The estimates of these networks varied on the means of determining networks size (personal diaries…) and on the different populations that were focused on. In this study, Killworth et al. used the method of the telephone book (FT estimate) to measure the network sizes of Mexico City (MC) and Jacksonville, FL (JV) and compares these to earlier estimates made for Orange County (OC). There was also a mention of the reverse small world (RSV) method of Bernard, Killworth, and others in that they would present a name of an individual and his or her job and location and the subjects would have to say how they would be related to that individual, but Killworth et al. focused more on the FT estimate because it was more concrete than the hypothetical target of RSV. The results of the FT showed that the JV subjects averaged networks of 1700 +/- 400, while MC subjects’ networks were about a third smaller (570 +/- 460). These are compared with the OC results (2025), which appear more inflated because they include they have ever known, as opposed to the MC and JV, which focused on currently known people. One variable I found to be overlooked was unlisted numbers. Suppose the majority of a persons network is unlisted, perhaps OC individuals who desire a degree of anonymity. Could this have been considered a significant variable? One question that Killworth et al. posed was about how informants from low population density appeared to have far more people in their networks than do informants who live in medium and high population density areas. How does this finding tie in with Fischer’s urbanism? Whereas before, studies searched proxies to determine the size of networks like phone books, personal diaries, etc., now we have entire networking systems that visualize people’s networks. How might online databases like myspace and thefacebook change the mode of studying networks? Have “Friend” happy individuals (who “friend” everyone and their mom on the facebook) subsequently increased the size of networks in the online world? How might one categorize a tie to an individual that someone has never met, but only know through online?
The final reading of this week concerned social network size and how it was measured based on the seasonal activity of sending Christmas cards to those one considers a part of their network and value enough to keep in touch at least one time a year through this card sending. Albeit being novel, this method of understanding network was not executed in the best way possible. Because this study required a lot of attention and detail (the subjects had to list everyone they were sending cards to (mean 68.91), then rate them on the level of friendship (kin, close friend…), the researchers chose people they knew through acquaintances so that the responses would be more reliable because of a sense of obligation. I feel that, while they were trying to fix a confounding factor, they had increased overlap. Also, because they are Christmas cards, the population of interest is focused only on those who celebrate Christmas. This question could have been expanded to Holiday cards. A final issue I found with this study was that it was limited to mailed cards, and with the technology of today, less people use the postal system, and may resort to email, etc. However, there might be an interesting study to make on the means of sending holiday greetings (postal, email) and how is it affected by the intimacy of a ties. Would you think that Christmas cards are more of a means of connected with very loose ties to recognize that there still may be a weak tie, or are these cards sent more to our strongest ties? And how might seeing people in person during the holiday season affect the sending of cards exactly?
]]>
Won’t you be my neighbor?tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.2802006-10-03T11:29:59Z2006-10-03T11:34:41ZWon’t you be my neighbor? The readings for this week had an overall theme of communities affect on network size, strength, and the resources individuals can gain from these various types. The first reading by Elizabeth Bott focused on the...
segregated conjugal role-relationships) that pushed standard societal role divisions within households against the rather progressive equal division of roles and having a more dispersed but looser based network in joint conjugal role-relationship . Does the type of role relationship drive individuals to enter into environments that are more or less connected as a network? Or do the environments predetermine how connected people are and thus what role relationship they will follow? Tied into these environments, how will be value the worth of neighbors when we have limited access to other types of friends, who may have varying sorts of interest?
The second reading focuses by Wellman and Wortley focuses on what kinds of resources/ support different types of relationships ties. They mention that there are 5 types of supportive resources can be provided: emotional, small services, large services, financial aid, and companionship. The main types of ties that can offer these resources are: tie strength, access/content (neighbors), structural/group process, kinship, network membership characteristics/positional resource, and similarities and dissimilarities between network members. Within this article, it is found that strong ties and certain types of kin offer the greatest number of these supportive resources. While, on a whole, neighbors offer only convenient services, and because of their level of intimacy and amount people are willing to confide in, they can be considered not much more than weak ties based on proximity, and should be utilized for that manner unless further common characteristics are involved, and the ties can be strengthened. Otherwise, the best people to look to for resources would be kin and other strong ties. (Unless, of course you are of a small network without many options, like the 1950s segregated conjugal role-relationships. Then because of your limited options, you may find tie strength in neighbors.) (To look further into these first two readings and how they specifically relate to the topics discussed in these paragraphs look at explanations and discussion questions below the line break).
The third readings (Fischer) focus on the effects of urbanism on networks. While many people argue that city life is the bane of communities -“urban life, in sum is socially, mentally, and morally unhealthy” (9) because “the complexity of cities weakens social ties” (10)- many examples from Fischer’s book, and specifically the chapters we read), state that urbanism has a distinct effect on the personal networks of individuals. Individuals and institutions within cities go to various different sources to fulfill their needs. Some people look at nonoverlapping roles and networks as a negative result of urbanism. But Fischer states that having these vast options to satisfy tastes contributes to positive psychological health (12). People who responded that they had “nonkin” relationships with their neighbors were people who did not really have many other options to seek extraneighborhood ties if they were based in a small town situation. But in the scenarios where city-folk were mentioning neighbors as friends, there appear to be closer ties with these individuals, because the relationships are based more on compatibility than simply convenience. (Which ends up being a fortunate scenario, having a vast city of options for friends, and within proximity you luckily find someone with similar interests). Q1 However, doesn’t neighborhood selection have an effect on interest compatibility in many cases where people have an overall option of where to live? Assuming an individual chooses a neighborhood based on what the stereotype is for the area, that individual is increasing the probability of finding a compatible neighbor. I.e. For the most part, a surfer would find more compatible neighbors if he moved into a flat in Bondi than in Redfern. Q2 In regards to the immigration into the States, hoards of individuals with barely or no connections settled into distinct cultural areas or ghettos because they had common backgrounds and ties with the majority in these neighborhoods. What factors do we currently consider when we need to move to a new area/neighborhood (both college and non-college scenarios)?
Kalmijn studied the network size and types of individuals through their course of life dating, marriage, and child rearing. The overall focus of this study is to see how dyadic withdrawal – how marriage causes smaller and overlapping social networks- affects the network size of these individuals focused on. Interestingly, the Bott study is mentioned to state that the 1950s were associated with these dyadic withdrawal types of networks because of the nuclear family, when in fact, these families were only a portion of the study. There is still the whole other portion of the family that are attracted to individualism, and not just “in more recent times”. The results found that as people started dating and living together, there was the greatest drop in numbers of contacts and decent drop in number of friends. But this drop could be explain by the percentages of shared friends and joint contacts (which overall increase over time). Q1 How might the numbers of friends and contacts look when comparing friends who are in different levels of datinghood? Are the married couples spending less time with dating/single friends? Within these changes in contacts, women have more frequent contacts with friends than men and share less friends with their spouse than men. Thus, women are less socially dependent on marriage than men. While this study has less of a focus on neighborhood than the past articles, it certainly is an interesting contrast to the Bott study, where women had to drop their friends from childhood to the level of “girl friends” because they were not as compatible to their married life. It appears women now keep in contact with these friends more and have returned them to the level of friends. Q2 What societal factors contributed to this change? Can it be attributed to urbanism? joint conjugal role-relationship?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study by Bott focused on the roles of men and women within their family settings and the type of social networks these various families have. Bott focused on twenty families who the researchers sought out and requested the families partake in this study. There appeared to be an overarching distinction between these families based on the roles held by the husband and the wife within their familial units. There were the segregated conjugal role-relationships and the joint conjugal role-relationship .Q1. In choosing these families, there was a condition set that the families must have small children. How does the factor of having children alter familial networks? Do children cause new networks to form (i.e. parents meeting through children’s friendships and then creating their own networks? Or do parents force the children’s networks to exist (i.e. restrictions because of community size)? How might networks exist in childless families (i.e. working families)? Or families on the verge of rearing children?
In the more segregated conjugal role-relationship, the husband and the wife had very distinct roles they held which separated their familial responsibilities (i.e. the husband was in charge of the financial matters of the family, while the wife handled the housework and childrearing responsibilities). The members of this type of family rarely swapped roles/responsibilities with their spouses, and any lag in their role was picked up by colleagues (male) or relatives (female). This type of division of labor was simple, “services can be fulfilled by…the family”. It was also found that the individuals of this type of family had more highly concentrated/connected networks, but were also to be quite differentiated based on individual. For example, the husband had his work buddies, who may also serve as his pub buddies and football buddies, and these may have been friends from childhood as well. The wife on the other hand would also have this overlapping of social roles within her network. She would spend time with her neighbors, relatives, and “friends”. In most of these types of cases, these were each one the same, where a relative would also be the same role as a neighbor. Also when a wife was unable to contribute to her role, because of illness, a relative would help. In the latter part of Bott’s study, she explained why more segregated relationship roles were often found to have more highly connected networks. But because of limited regions and options, families that had these highly segregated relationship roles were almost forced to have highly connected networks, “they knew a very considerable number of local people, and many of the people they knew were acquainted with one another. In other words, their social network was highly connected…[with] considerable overlap of social roles” (355). Although these networks were highly connected there was also an interesting factor that the women and the men did not share activities so there were two distinct networks: the tight network of the men and the tight network of the women. But because of the close-knit nature of these communities, both networks were connected.
On the other hand, there were the familial networks that were joint conjugal role-relationships . In these families, the roles were divided rather evenly. Men aided in the household responsibilities, while the women also partook in the financial responsibilities. Compared to the segregated conjugal role-relationships, women were found in the workforce more often, or desired to be a part of the workforce. To suit this even split of responsibilities, it was also found that there were external individuals that were hired to help, used “institutional” aid. Often a maid or babysitter helped with the household or childrearing roles when the duties could not be filled because of illness, vacation, or simply overwork. The friends this type of family connect with are more connected with their interests and not based solely on location. Whereas, the former familial type mixed neighbors with friends with relatives, because these each often served the same role, this type of family is less concerned with making ties with their neighbors. They seek friendship based more on common interests. As a result, friendships were much more specialized (i.e. golf buddies were separate from work buddies). Also, the husband and wife were found to share friends. This type of family was found to have more diverse social networks, but was also as a result less connected than the segregated conjugal role-relationships. “The degree of segregation in the role-relationship of husband and wife varies directly with the connectedness of the families social network” (5). Thus, it was found that the more segregated a family was the more connected the social networks these families were tied to were. But, families did not solely fall into these extremes. There were intermediate families that fell into both of these extremes, and transitional, which had factors that prevented them from falling into one of these two extremes (i.e. an impending move that may cut ties and de-socialization after highly connected ties were severed after a move and the families are searching for new networks).
Bott went into reasons why these networks varied in the ways they did on the basis of the environments that surround the networks, such as: 1. Economic ties among the members of a network (in terms of kinship ties because of commonly shared jobs and SES areas), 2. Neighborhoods (families were “localized” and thus more tight-knit and people did not venture to far past their current relationships to establish new ones – i.e. neighbor becomes a spouse) Q2 Because these highly connected networks stick within these tight-knit communities, would this explain the existence of “transitional” families? , 3. Opportunities (without the opportunity to seek out people of common interests, people tend to get stuck with being friends with only people in their network) Q3 Would this explain the phenomenon found in McPherson’s study, in which people who had higher levels of education were less isolated, since they had the opportunity to meet more individuals who might share a common interest? Could there also be a correlation between this 1950s era and the limited amount of education for woman, and why these women were found to one be friends with relatives? 4. Physical and social mobility (when people are able to physically move outside of these communities and have more of a large-scale access of the world, they are able to disperse their networks more), and 5.Individual decision and choice – families may choose to enter an environment that requires them to be more highly connected or dispersed (move to a suburb or a city). Bott claims that these environmental factors determine how connected a family’s network will be. This study also finds that the social network connectedness of a family is correlated with the degree of role segregation. Q4 Then does the environment determine the degree of segregation? And based on environmental factor #5 – individual decision and choice, can a family switch to become more or less role segregated if they change their environment?
The study “Different Strokes from Different Folks” focused on the varying ties of 29 individuals. These ties connected individuals to 344 people in their networks. Wellman and Wortley separated different types of ties based on: tie strength, access/content, structural/group process, kinship, network membership characteristics/positional resource, and similarities and dissimilarities between network members. These ties were then categorized on the types of support (resources) individuals provided to the people they were tied to: emotional, small services, large services, financial aid, and companionship. Q1 In the readings of the past weeks, job networking was mentioned as positive aspect of weak ties, but it is not specified in this reading as a resource. Which type of support would you consider it to fall under?
The category of tie strength has been a major factor of our past readings. McPherson states that strong ties “contact those whom they have close core networks with [and] those that have many types of relationships”. Because of the many contacts and the connect of a strong tie with many types of relationships (network and role overlap), it is not a surprise to me that strong ties gave respondents the “most of their social support – of all kinds”. It would appear that for individuals to fulfill all of their needs they should look to strong ties. But, there was a valid point brought up that people “avoid burdening network members with requests for support for fear of overstressing ties” (567). So although one can feel as though a strong tie is the best place to look for resources, one should seek other tie options to avoid overburdening, which would explain the finding for different types of ties.
Contact/access exposes individuals’ awareness of individuals in their surroundings. Frequent exposure to neighbors gives individuals a sense existing problems and shared feelings (i.e. loneliness). Also, having close contact allows for easy access of aid. With these factors involved, neighbors were found in this study to provide mostly small services because of the easy of delivery. However, proximity does not equate to immediate friendship, because of a lack of emotional bonds and shared interests. Thus, resources are limited to only easy of delivery.
Wellman and Wortley also focused on the kinship ties and how they varied extensively based on how close of a relative is to an individual and the resources he/she will provide. As Professor Hampton commented in class, you are most likely to ask a financial favor ($2,000) from your parent, because they are, of all types of ties, to give you the aid. Based on the other support that the parent-child tie provides, I believe that this is the strongest because it fulfills most of the requirements of strong ties set by Granovetter: “the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services” (1361). Thus, the parent/child tie can understandably give the proper resources set out above in the category of tie strength. As the distance of kin increases, the resources offered/requested by the subjects decreases, because I believe kinship is a major determiner of tie strength. One resource that appears to be utilized in this tie is of companionship, respondents to this study state that they seek this resource more from friends (70%) as opposed to immediate kin (48%). Q2 However, how might a female from a segregated conjugal role-relationship, discussed in Bott’s study best choose her resources when the network connectivity has overlapping roles of kin and neighbors?
]]>
Assignment 1- Student to Ms. Yoon in less than 6 degree??tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.2422006-09-28T18:03:03Z2006-09-28T18:07:32Z1. The individual I chose to begin the chain of links is J. Michael DeAngelis. He is a former student from Penn who now works as Penn staff in the Graduate Career Services. He is a very professional and reliable...
Much Ado About Nothing where he played the lead role of Benedick. The Underground Shakespeare Company is a very tight-knit community based on trust and a degree of loyalty to the company. They say that once you are part of USC, you are for life. Thus, you have input on future productions and can always rehearse for a show, even if you are not with Penn anymore. He had auditioned for the role last
Spring, while I was abroad. A sudden inconvience occured, and I was asked to pick up a supporting role in two weeks. In times of need, members help out as needed. But it was over these two weeks that I bonded with Michael.
However, although we do not have a long relationship, it is very strong because of the USC. Therefore, because of this common trust relationship through the company, I understood that Michael would be very reliable. As Granovetter states, "no strong tie is a bridge". Michael is not exactly my closest friend, and he may not be close friends with every graduate department, but he is an excellent bridge connecting these groups and there is a bond set on trust between us because of the company.
3. Because of the department Ms. Yoon works in, I know that she has a connection to Michael. Overall, I know that the Education school of Penn is a graduate school. While, I have had friends who studied through this school for classes that will allow them to receive a certificate of education to be able to teach, there is no major specifically for college students. Thus, the School of Education is primarily for graduate students. Thus, having Michael, who works with the Career Services of the graduate students, being so highly connected with this community, in particular he has worked with the Education school, he will be able to pass this folder along
through the graduate department. Thus, soley based on the structural position in the Penn community, this folder should be based along in a very professional manner. I knew that without having a person who I am connected to that is higher in the structural levels of Penn, I would probably have a much harder way of reaching Ms. Yoon. I would have to bridge the gap of the professional, graduate school level of Ms. Yoon's network with the undergraduate level of mine. It would be almost like the crossing of race of Korte and Milgram's study. Michael serves as my gatekeeper. Although I share the common characteristic of gender with Ms. Yoon, I feel it is much easier to cross directly into the professional realm earlier, especially with a reliable friend.
4. As I already stated, I believe that this path will follow through the graduate links. The folder will be primarily passed through the staff. The folder would go directly from Michael into the Graduate School of Education, from which it will be passed onto Ms. Yoon from whoever is most directly connected to her from Michael's connection. I do not believe that gender or duration at Penn will make an effect of how the folder is passed, because its primary path will be in terms of School of Education connections.
I think that person who will be the "assist" in the passing if the folder, as in he/she will be the last individual to pass the folder to Ms. Yoon, will be someone who often places students in their future education careers through Michael, and has contact with Ms. Yoon because they are both affliated with the Education department. Therefore, the relationship between the assist and the target will be one of coworkers in the same department. Like in the Milgram study, the assist would be like Jones, someone who "performs a similar function in the occupational domain". Michael breaching the gap into the education department because of his career service role, will connect him to an individual who is in the same occupational domain.
5.I believe that it will take only one more person between Michael and Ms. Yoon, because of the roles within these departments and how highly connected Michael is. Michael even mentioned to me that he has spoken with Ms. Yoon on the phone a few times while at work. I felt that this was not a close enough tie the two shared, but he said he knew an individual that could pass it to Ms. Yoon directly. I think that the folder will reach the target very soon as there is only one more link remaining. The only issue that may affect time is that Michael must go to the
Education department and give it to this next individual, which had posed an issue for me. I had to wait until the week had started again to catch Michael during working hours. But I sincerely believe that the moment that he will pass the folder, it will move rapidly through the education department, since they are in the same building.
]]>
Weak Ties Versus Strong Ties and Their Individual Advantages and Disadvantagestag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/g3//26.2072006-09-26T04:02:12Z2006-09-26T04:04:22ZThe overarching theme of this week’s readings is of tie strength and its effect on networking. Overall, I gathered that the strength of a tie is determined by the amount of energy and connectivity there is between two individuals. When...
1. Are there any specific studies that focus on the topic of having shared significant number of experiences in college cause ties to become tighter or are we purposefully seeking these experiences because we already have close ties with people (i.e. Is course selection determine more by wanting to be in the same class as another person? Or are these people inevitably going to be friends because they have the same experiences, and in turn have the same interests?)
Also, McPherson states that strong ties “contact those whom they have close core networks with [and] those that have many types of relationships”. Thus, to upkeep strong ties, we must expend a great amount of energy and time, with the busier lifestyles and limited resources individuals have now compared with 2004, we are unable to have a great amount of strong ties. We can only focus on sharing with less key individuals who share many relationships and networks with (i.e. a fellow student who is also your best friend, housemate, and teammate). This overlapping of networks will be discussed later in this blog. Furthermore, the researchers themselves stated that in being true to the original study questions, they did not alter the questions properly to fit the 2004 population. Perhaps subjects did not consider conversing over instant message, email, and telephone as being true conversations. 2. What other new advancements in the 21st century could account for discrepancies in the numbers of confidants? Can we include conversations via facebook and myspace? What about posting your important issue for feedback on a website or blog?
The article “The Strength of Weak Ties” by Mark S. Granovetter focused on weak ties and how they expand the overall networks of individuals. He states that “the strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which categorize the tie” with “each of these [being] somewhat independent of others.” The past article focused mainly on the declining number of strong ties. This definition further explains why a decrease in the number of resources we have available now compared to two decades ago would not allow use to fill these listed factors of tie strength. Thus, because of our limited amounts of resources we are able to create a greater number of weak ties. However, although we may have less instrumental, social, and emotional benefits of strong ties that would be more likely to help in crisis, we do have a more expansive network from we can draw “resources”.
A major argument made by Granovetter is that weak ties can create local bridges between networks of strong ties. So a group of four closely knit friends all offer each a great amount of trust and support. One individual has an acquaintance in another network of strong ties that also have their trust in one another. Although, the one persons’ tie with another network may not be as tight as with his or her own group, being acquainted allows a level of communication and some trust. Perhaps, word of a job will spread and trust will be given to a friend of a friend. Or in a more business related example, a trend will be spread through the groups “over the bridge” thus propelling a chain reaction from an “innovator” social group to the more main stream “early adopter,” terms central to the marketing world. “People with many weak ties are… best placed to diffuse such a difficult innovation, since some of these ties will be local bridges” (1367). My take on this is that Granovetter argues that to spread information, it is best to have many weak ties and you are open to a greater world. 1. Which is better, to have a small, exclusive network of close individuals who will support you in times of trouble or be exposed to more of the world and the various networks available? 2. Do certain careers drive individuals to compromise one tie network for another? (i.e. public relations being based more on weak ties.)
“The Social Structure of Competition” by Ronald S. Burt focuses on the topic of competition and how the capital of social structure is a leading factor to the success of individuals, “social capital is first arbiter of competitive success”. Overall, the greater social capital a person has the more power they can impose to gain their desires. Social capital is the relationship people have with other individuals via network with others to gain resources (as mentioned earlier in my blog) and having a proper structure so that one may gleam important resources at the appropriate times. Burt mentions that timing and proper networks are key to success in competition. If you know the proper people who wield certain powers, they can connect you what you desire.” Personal contacts get your name mentioned at the right time and the right place sot aht opportunities are prestned to you” (71). Thus, when you are in contact with these key players you are offered considerable opportunities. What is even better is to be in the scenario of Tertius Gaudens , in which between two fighters, the third (the middle) benefits. The Tertius Gaudens is a type of local bridge that an individual is placed in the middle of negotiations. For example, you are being offered jobs from two employers, they must negotiate to win your contract. Thus it is very beneficial to have many networks you can bridge into, so that you may be offered many opportunities. 1. However, are there detrimental scenarios when you are caught in the middle of a fight for you? Can you end up being a loser because being in both groups contradicts your image? 2. “Social capital is first arbiter of competitive success”, this statement refers to the pursuit success, but can there be any means for success without the foundation capitals of financial, human, and the unmentioned, cultural? Are these foundations?
]]>