In “The Strength of Weak Ties”, Granovetter argues that the weak ties will serve a better purpose in the diffusion of an innovative idea or novel information. This is so because bridges are always weak ties, and since bridges connect different social networks, it is through these bridges, aka weak ties, that diffusion will occur most efficiently. This idea of the power behind weak ties has also been touched upon by Burt, although he argues that it is not the weak ties that are important, but the structural holes.
Granovetter, however, says that in order for an innovation to be adopted and diffused, a close-knit, isolated network has to first adopt it and then, early adopters, who are more socially integrated, will expand the word into the rest of the community. If neither weak or strong ties by themselves can efficiently diffuse and spread information and novelties, where does the fine line between these two reside? When, and in which kind of situations can we say that a strong tie is better than a weak one, and vice versa?
It is interesting to compare the works of Burt and McPherson, Smith-Loving and Brashears. Burt places a strong emphasis and importance on the diversity of one’s network, and states that the more one has a big network of structural holes, the more one is exposed to different ideas, information and opportunities, for example for jobs. He says that a network of strong ties limits one’s opportunities because the tight network shares the same kind of information and thus, this redundancy, does not add advantages to one’s life.
However, in “Social Isolation in America”, the authors claim that the strong ties in one’s network are important because they not only “influence us directly through their interactions with us” (354) but also “indirectly by shaping the kinds of people we become” (354). The study by Marin (2004) that was mentioned in “Social Isolation in America” says that those strong close ties that have a high connectivity with others in the network were mentioned more frequently when asked to list the closest people in one’s network. If this is true, then couldn’t it be said that these would be the people with whom one would most likely share all sorts of information, including new opportunities? Then, how does this contrast with Burt’s claim that structural holes are the most important agents in providing one with new information and opportunities?
It is interesting to note on the 2004 results that women now share the same proportion of non-kinship ties with men, while they still maintain the same proportion of kinship ties as 1985 (362). This draws back to Wellman in “The Network Community: An introduction”, where he says that “married women not only participate in community, they are central in it” (31). A possible explanation for the decreased number of confidants in 2004 could be the fact that, as Wellman states, communities have moved from the public place into the domestic homes; people gather together within their homes in order to socialize.
The authors of “Social Isolation in America” conclude that “Americans are connected far less tightly now than they were 19 years ago” (373). If this is true, based on both Burt and Granovetter, could it be said then that Americans are better off since they are exposed to more weak ties, and thus, an increased flow of information and opportunities?
Comments (3)
You bring up a good point in noting that the articles demonstrate how both weak ties and strong ties are necessary to spread information. Specifically, weak ties can spread information between social clusters; information on topics such as jobs can reach people who are not in a given social circle with prior information about that job. At the same time, as you say “in order for an innovation to be adopted and diffused, a close-knit, isolated network has to first adopt it and then, early adopters, who are more socially integrated, will expand the word into the rest of the community.” You then ask: “If neither weak or strong ties by themselves can efficiently diffuse and spread information and novelties, where does the fine line between these two reside? When, and in which kind of situations can we say that a strong tie is better than a weak one, and vice versa?”
I believe the point of divide can be determined by assessing both chronological order and instruments of communication.
Chronological order refers to the diffusion of innovation (bell) curve, based on a word-of-mouth model. In Marketing, I learned that the first people to learn about and use a product are called “innovators.” These people are venturesome and interested in taking technological risks to try out new inventions. The next people to use a product are called “early adopters.” These people are popular, social leaders and thus the first of the mainstream groups that uses the invention. The next group to use a product is called the “early majority.” These people have many informal social contacts. As this model demonstrates, information spreads first through close-knit networks (via strong ties) and then to the broader population (via weak ties). Both are important, in their own ways.
Additionally, the instruments of communication used to spread an idea are critical to the evaluation of weak versus strong ties. Whereas word-of-mouth methods most strongly impact a network in which people are strongly tied, mass communication can lead to the greater adoption of a product. Mass communication is an even looser, weaker medium/tie/channel than an interpersonal weak tie. However, the incremental measures along the spectrum between word-of-mouth strong ties and mass communication weak ties are varied and many. At different levels, there is an unequal balance in the impact from weak and strong ties on the spread of information and adoption of its content.
Posted by Mindy (r10) | September 26, 2006 8:35 PM
Posted on September 26, 2006 20:35
If neither weak nor strong ties by themselves can efficiently diffuse and spread information and novelties, where does the fine line between these two reside? When, and in which kind of situations can we say that a strong tie is better than a weak one, and vice versa?
I think that you pose a very good question. Why is it that the information and ideas need both strong and weak ties to be successful in spreading? To push your question even further, can you think of a scenario in which the end result would be more effective with only strong/ weak ties? I think that the answer to this question is that our social networks really do need a combination of both types of ties to maintain successful friendship and a constant flow of ideas.
The authors of “Social Isolation in America” conclude that “Americans are connected far less tightly now than they were 19 years ago” (373).
I, too, found this to be an overarching conclusion. Do you think that the authors of this article are thinking “inside the box” too much? In other words, how come they do not acknowledge all of the evolution in social networks as somewhat positive?
Posted by rll | September 26, 2006 10:45 PM
Posted on September 26, 2006 22:45
I like your summary of the major themes in the articles for this week and came to many of the same conclusions myself. An area that I was confused about that you touch on briefly is the benefit of holes. You suggest that Burt's point is that it is good to have a big, diverse network that is full of structural holes. I agree that this is his point but I still don’t see the advantage or purpose of holes, do you agree that holes benefit a network or is it that they are a necessary downside of having a diverse network with many weak ties? To your question about the contradiction between strong ties molding the individual while simultaneously restricting the possibility of new opportunities, I would agree with the author on the point that absorption in a network with strong ties does displace time spent searching for new opportunities. I have no evidence to support this, it just seems to be what happens when people only focus their energy in networks where everyone shares the same beliefs and information, people become less open to other opportunities and more like each other because of the redundancy of their ties.
Posted by Ashley y35 | September 27, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on September 27, 2006 16:30