Social Network Blog - r45

1. The radio interview brings forth possibly reasons for the changes in core discussion networks in the past two decades. Smith-Lovin begins by discussing the possibility of the increase of Internet usage and geographical distance as a reason for the shrinkage of core discussion groups. She does not believe that the increased usage of “virtual” modes of communication is a reason, citing that in an unpublished study, she found that the amount Internet usage has no correlation with the size of core discussion groups (essentially they were the same size). Putnam goes on to say that geographic mobility has been steadily declining since WWII, and in fact when coupled with Wellman’s findings that proximity only affects weaker ties, and not strong ties (P.569-570), it goes to say that distance is not a reason why people are becoming increasingly “isolated”. Thus, this rules out the rise of different modes of communication and mobilization as a direct reason for core discussion network changes. Robert Putnam’s book, “Bowling Alone”, echos the sentiment that Americans are becoming increasingly isolated, and discusses the relationship between lack of civic involvement and the movement towards smaller discussion networks and larger global ties. In the interview, Putnam discusses institutionalization as a replacement for communal social ties, and thus the shrinkage of core discussion groups. This brings to mind Fischer’s article, which discusses urbanization (which is heavily connected with institutionalization) and how the complexity of urban life complicates social ties. While the Fischer article cautions against using urbanization to directly explain the changes in personal networks, it nonetheless does raise possible theories about it indirectly affects our core discussion groups. For example, in the interview Putnam talks about how people no longer feel safe to interact with their neighbors (especially in cities), and in fact Americans are even losing trust in institutions such as government and media. This general prevalence in the lack of trust in everyone around them is a very likely reason that people are less inclined to form close bonds and “discuss” issues with those around them.

2. According to Smith-Lovin, core discussion groups provide a “safety net” for people in terms of co-dependency and social support. Wellman believes that social support that a community provides is the primary way for a household to gain resources, along with market exchanges, institutionalized distributions, and coercive appropriations (P.559). However, as previously mentioned, Putnam states in the interview that institutionalization is rapidly replacing social support as a principle means for households to obtain resources. According to the interview, this is a change for the better because more isolated communities that rely on strong communal ties generally tend to have weaker governments, which are inefficient with dealing with large scale catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina. However, urbanization and institutionalization is not always beneficial to social networks; more homophilious social networks are created, limiting the types of resources, information and support that one receives through their social networks. The McPherson, et. al. article discusses the movement from community ties to more homophilious, kinship ties; Smith-Lovin believes that the shift in focus from community to family causes women to lose ties as they have children (especially when they are between the age of 1-3), due to the stress that it creates. With women entering the labor force and men being more connected to family and spouse than before (Kalmijn), their social networks are becoming more structurally similar. This means that men and women are beginning to gain access the same types of social support, resources and information, making gender differences less and less apparent. At the same time, race and education remain stratified (McPherson et. al. P.371), and the types and amount of resources, information and support that one receives is still highly dependent on these two factors. Yet urbanization and the lack of trust remains a barrier in terms of these two factors in diversifying our social networks; although urbanized surroundings do provide more diversity and opportunities, it also creates a sense of alienation as well as rejection and fear of the unfamiliar. Thus, people are actually less likely to create new bonds that are diversified, more likely to continue shrinking their core discussion groups and moving them “inward”, and the flow of information and resources remains increasingly constricted and overlapped.

1. I passed the folder on to my sorority sister, Marianne, who is a Junior in the College of Arts and Science. Marianne is one of the most active students that I personally know on campus, and she is involved in many different groups. I believe her to be a connector – she regularly hosts parties where friends from her many different social networks gather together. Because the target is non-Asian, and my social networks tend to be more limited to Asians, I also tried to pick someone that had multicultural social networks so that I could break the barrier into another racial network. Thus, Marianne, being half-Asian and half-Caucasian, fit the criteria as a “gatekeeper”. However, since she is female, and according to Stanley Milgram, females are more likely to pass the folder onto females (like I have), there might be problems since the target is male.

2. Since Marianne is my sorority sister, I had the faith that she could be trusted to pass on the folder (that is, after I explained to her that it was VERY VERY important that she does so). I’ve only known her for less than 1 year, but as sisters in a small sorority, we have become very close to each other. Marianne tried very hard to look for someone in her social networks that works at the Wistar Institute, she was very serious about helping me complete the experiment, and texted me with updates with the project as soon as I passed the folder on to her. According to Granovetter, passing the folder on to someone who I’m close to will decrease the likelihood that the folder will get passed on, because our social networks should be similar. However, because Marianne has a much bigger network of friends than me, I believe that it won’t be an issue.

3. It seems to me that the likelihood of the folder reaching Antonio Polley would be pretty high, since he is a lab technician, meaning that he has constant contact with many students at Penn. However, because Antonio is a different race than me, my folder will be less likely to reach him (according to Milgram). However, I had taken this into consideration when I was first deciding on someone to pass the folder to, and I picked someone who had the greatest potential to cross the racial barriers immediately. Thus, I eliminated the problem of race immediately. I also know for a fact that Marianne has many male and female confidants, so hopefully gender should become less of a problem as well.

4. I predict that the path will go from Me --> Marianne --> Friend of Marianne that works at Wistar --> Antonio Polley. Marianne was pretty confident that she could find someone in her social network that knows the target personally, and I have confidence that this is true, because Marianne is a Lois Weinberg of sorts, and belongs to many different social networks (in short, I have faith in her networking skills). Thus, the folder will primarily be passed through students that are upperclassmen at Penn, because both Marianne and I are upperclassmen, and also because there is a greater likelihood that upperclassmen would be working at the Wistar Institute. I’m guessing that the person that passes the folder on to Antonio is a colleague of Antonio’s, and probably a male, since it’s more likely that it will be a male than a female that passes the folder to the target.

5. I think it will 2-3 intermediaries for the folder to be passed on to Antonio Polley. I also think it will only take 2-3 days after I pass the folder on to Marianne for the folder to reach him, because Marianne was as excited about the project as me, so I have faith that she will pass it on within the shortest time possible.

Stanley Milgram’s “Small-World Problem” seems to have been the main focus of many social network studies over the last 30 years. One might assume that much of Stanley Milgram’s research is surely obsolete nowadays, in light of the rapid changes in the modes of interactions between human beings as well as the rise of globalization. However, some of the questions that Milgram posed by and large remain, and these are still important questions to consider.

For example, what exactly is the impact of social structure on the “Small-World Problem”? Although there seems to have been many studies on the “Small-World Problem” in recent years, as well as many mathematical models that attempt to map it the phenomenon, I do not find a satisfactory answer to the question (at least in the readings).

The first of Milgram’s studies are flawed because the impact of social structure was not considered. His consequent studies with Korte attempt to address this, but the research was based on a society where interracial chains were definitely less common, and the reading is only interesting to the extent that it suggests that there are “gatekeepers” to certain communities, and that minorities are more homophilic. It also concludes that a knowledge of the target’s social structure is necessary in order to make efficient choices. This issue of searchability is further explored in Killworth’s article, which utilizes complex calculations to explore the inaccuracies in small-world chains.

While it is helpful to view the “Small-World Problem” with some sort of basic theoretical model as supporting material, in fact it seems impossible to me to try and explain it with complex mathematical models. Globalization and the rise of a homogenous, global culture surely complicates issues to a degree where everyone and everything is an “exception” and no “rules” or generalizations can be made at all. Circles are becoming increasingly overlapped, and isolated circles are becoming more and more rare with the advent of new telecommunication technologies.

The Watts article, for one, proposes many models used in network analysis but points out the strengths and flaws of each one, thereby suggesting that currently there is no one particularly good mathematical model that can be generally used. The flaws of the Watts-Strogatz and Kleinberg models also highlight these issues as the models fail to incorporate both the global and local scale into its equation. However, the Watts article does provide theories implying that searchability is highly linked with the individual’s knowledge and use of social structures.

Similarly, after all the extensive research that Killworth and co. performed, in the end the article simply points out that mathematical models can only be accurately applied in limited structures such as the work-place scenario that they used, and inaccuracies in choices really lead to greater questions about globalization and social structures (such as homophily). For example, the finding that gender is the only significant correlation with next choice accuracy calls to the mind all sorts of discussions about gender differences in social interaction and communication. Why is it that males network members have higher next choice accuracy, and what does this say about the way males view their social networks vs. females? In general, I find that most of the empirical studies involving the “Small-World Problem” are informative in terms of discovering interesting correlations, but many of these correlations seem to remain unexplained.

Gladwell’s article was personally the most interesting reading - not just because it was the least dry and mathematic – but because it brought up many controversial points of view (that are not necessarily supported by scientific research), as well as shedding some light onto the social structure issues of the “Small-World Problem” that Milgram began to address. Gladwell suggests that people that are “connectors” have the innate ability to do so, and typically wield an alternate kind of social power. This is I find hard to agree with because of the following concerns:

First of all, are these “connectors” truly people that are born with the innate skill to do so, and do only these people have the ability to become the best “connectors”? Call me cynical, but in this day and age where almost every “skill” that can propel you ahead in society can be taught and learnt, surely fantastic “networking” skills must be one of them. Especially coming from a heavily Wharton-influenced perspective, I see successful “networking” as merely another one of those skills you pick up in B-School, much like balancing a spreadsheet and sucking up (just kidding about the last part). Surely anyone who read the Gladwell article and felt inspired by it, could go out and start trying to “connect” all his circles of friends and acquaintances, thus ending up with a lot of social power?

This brings up the second question of whether those with a huge network necessarily become people with a lot of social power, or do they have to be “connectors”? Although this is probably a bad way to put it, are those people with 700 friends on Facebook necessarily going to be successful individuals in the future? Surely there is a conscious way of obtaining “shortcuts” through their huge network?

Gladwell also points out (via Granovetter’s studies) that those with lots of weak ties, as opposed to those with many strong ties, are the people that utilize their social networks the best. In other words, it is more beneficial to have many acquaintances than just many good friends and not many acquaintances. Affirmative action was mentioned, and it got me thinking about Ivy League schools. To a certain extent, an Ivy League education is the most beneficial towards an individual’s future career NOT because of the education that is provided (because let’s face it, the academic content you learn in College is largely unused and forgotten in the real working world). Classes at UPenn aren’t that much harder or better than say, Penn State (just agree with me for argument’s sake). However, I do believe that the top tiered Universities expose you to the best networks that will aid you immensely in all your future endeavors, and that’s what sets an Ivy League apart. When I put things into perspective like this, it makes me a little less bitter towards those people here that consume themselves with the need to “network”.

1. The Wellman article explores the different concerns surrounding the “Community Question” that surfaced throughout time as society and humanity developed, and became increasingly industrialized. Wellman presents points of views suggesting that despite many fears over the loss of the communities amongst scholars, and their efforts to document them, communities have not disappeared, but have merely changed over time and thrive in their own way. Wellman cautions against scholars being overly paranoid and urges them instead to refocus their efforts on analyzing the ways that communities have changed. There is a need to constantly redefine “communities”, as the traditional views of a community are surely no longer applicable in times where the structures of a society itself are so very volatile. There is also a need to identify new areas of study based on the ever-changing definitions of a community. Here Wellman presents the “social network” model of analysis, in order to formulate more scientific approaches, and thus more conclusive findings concerning the study of communities. This “social network” model allows for the definition of “communities” to be greatly expanded, since its basis for a “community” is defined by sets of criteria that can be loose or tight. Thus, it would seem that industrialization has not weakened communities, but has created the opportunities for many different types of them to arise in place. Although this model has allowed for many new conclusions about people and communities to be drawn, there is a danger of over analyzing relationships and drawing conclusions based on a vague set of criteria for a so-called “community”. After all, the relationships between humans themselves are so very volatile and unpredictable, it is difficult to completely quantify such relationships, despite the overwhelming desire to do so. As globalization becomes an increasingly common phenomenon, so does the need for new models of analysis that can better encompass such an important trend.

Question: What is the influence on globalization on communities?

2. In the Freeman article, social networks are seen as a huge mass of interconnecting relationships, much like a spider web. The key factors that one should consider based on such a model are decay over time, strength of ties, indegree/outdegree, the uses for a social network and its consequences, etc. There seems to be hundreds of factors that one may consider when studying social networks, as can be seen by the fascination by popular culture over its seemingly never-ending possibilities. While the Wellman article tries to quantify the communities and social network, the Freeman article strives to discover the factors of social networks by illustrating real world examples of how social networks are perceived and used in modern day society. Social networks may at times seem extremely complicated and abstract, but depending on what factors you chose to emphasize, they may also be very easy for even a child to relate to. Herein lies the charm and magic of social networks.

Question: How do you use social networks in your everyday life?

3. The Monge article discusses the network analysis model and introduces the MTML framework. There are series of attributes that can be applied in relationships amongst people, and using different sets of attributes, one can perform a network analysis. Monge determines a variety of factors that one should consider when performing a network analysis, giving definitions and examples of these key terms. Monge also talks about the different types of communication and network linkages, as well as relations that exist as part of the network analysis model. Data is presented in the form of either matrices or graphs, and there can be many levels that an analysis can be performed at. Suffice to say, such a network analysis model is purely quantitative and relies on the strict adherence to definitions in order for the model to function. While it is very tempting to create the “ultimate” model for network analysis, it is very overwhelming in general to use such an exhaustive model at all times. There is always an increasing amount of factors and measures that need to be implemented into the model, and the greatest challenge of this model lies in such. There are many useful concepts to consider in this article that are necessary in the study of social network, but the use of such a model may be limited in view of its comprehensiveness.

Question: How do you see social networks? Do you see the need to quantify relationships amongst people, or do you think its difficult to do so? What are the biggest challenges and key factors in anaylzing social networks?

this is a test :D