Granovetter’s theory of “strength of weak ties” looks at how information travels among networks through bridges, which are formed between weak ties. He claims that strong ties do no provide as much diversity of knowledge as weak ties, since strong ties constitute more densely knit and homogenous networks.
Although Granovetter has an interesting and valid point, it seems simplistic to talk only about tie strength to determine how information travels between networks. I think it’s very important to see what makes certain weak ties better sources of information than others and Burt provides more information in this area by taking Granovetter’s findings a step further.
Burt incorporates structural holes into his theory, claiming that the existence of structural holes between one’s contacts places one in a privileged position (like in the case of Lois Weinberg) with an increased competitive advantage in terms of entrepreneurial opportunities, provided that one doesn’t have structural holes in his/her own networks. This way Burt establishes the importance of social capital in a market production equation.
He also brings up issues like trust and the speed of information travel in his study. These are interesting concepts since it’s more likely that our strong ties are more reliable and allow information to travel faster. Therefore, these concepts become problematic but at the same time crucial aspects of weak ties since the rate of return depends on how fast we receive reliable information. So there seems to be a tradeoff between reliability and speed vs. novelty and utility of the information we receive when tie strength is at stake. Yet it seems like weak ties that are as reliable and as likely to deliver information quickly as possible would be our best bet to stay well connected. This would hold true for the Milgram study as well, since one would be more likely to connect to a target through weak ties, while one would be more likely to ensure that the chain is not broken through strong ties that are more reliable.
Taking a different approach McPherson et al. look at strong ties instead and observe the changes in people’s relationships that have taken place in the last couple decades. Moreover, instead of analyzing this data in terms of how information travels, they concentrate on how our confidants provide various types of support as the outcome of these relationships. It made a lot of sense to see a decline in educational diversity considering higher education levels, and increase in number of people who discuss important matters with their spouses, considering that men and women have started to be viewed as equals after the women’s rights movements.
However, I was very surprised to see that there were so many people who claimed to have 0-1 person they discussed “important matters” with. Although this study was interesting in terms of showing how strong ties might be diminishing, especially among neighborhoods and communities, it did not address the issue of whether people are becoming more isolated or becoming more connected through weaker ties. The title of the study and the conclusion were kind of contradictory in this sense. Such a discussion would have provided great incite concerning Wellman’s argument about the changing nature of communities.
Questions:
1) How would gender play a role in the structure of social networks? Is one gender more likely to maintain weak vs. strong ties? Is one sex more likely to act as bridges between groups? Is one sex more likely to make use of structural holes?
2) What’s the relationship between tie strength and shifts in modes of communication? What kinds of changes take place as we move towards online communication as opposed to face-to-face communication?
Comments (3)
In response to your first question, according to McPherson, women have always tended to have more kinship relationships which tend to be stronger ties than men. Now though, apparently there is an equality in ties which has been achieved due to shrinking male non-kin ties not growing female non-in ties. This question also reminds me of the first week's Freeman reading which pictured a woman explaining her relationships to other women in terms of the topics she would discuss. For each woman there was one or two topics, as well as a few reasons why she'd only talk to that particular woman about that issue.
I think that women tend to have more weak ties that bridge sparse networks while men tend to have more strong ties and less bridges. It is unclear who takes advantage of structural holes the besed on any evidence from our readings, but I would suspect men do, especially in the business arena simply because they've had more practice. Women are still trying to break into the old-boy network and establish some extensive networks of their own.
Posted by Charli-g44 | September 26, 2006 9:22 AM
Posted on September 26, 2006 09:22
Hi,
Like you, I also found that Granovetter's paper didn't thoroughly discuss the certain situations and characteristics that might make weak ties advantageous. Although his argument was provocative and compelling in certain instances, I find it hard to believe that we can throw our strong ties out the window just yet.
In response to your second question, I predict (and notice already) that people are having an easier time increasing their weak-tie network. With the dawn of the internet era, the possibility of successful and easy information transmission is far higher than that of person-to-person contact. Since there is less effort involved in forming a tie over the internet, people might have greater motivation and ability to expand their network as to increase their social capital. As a consequence, people might be less likely to form stronger ties, since they feel like they already have such a large and diverse existing network.
Posted by Veronique - y11 | September 26, 2006 11:41 PM
Posted on September 26, 2006 23:41
I think your analysis of Burt vs. Granovetter is very interesting considering I found the Granovetter stronger. In thinking more about it I feel that these two pieces really seem to differ in the fact that one is very theoretical (Burt) while the other (Granovetter) includes a lot of empirical support. I think that you're right that the Granovetter piece is more simplistic in that in doesn't provide a very complete theory. However, while Burt encompasses many aspects (like trust and speed as you mentioned above)I didn't feel like his ideas had the same level of support from real life studies. His ideas seem intuitive and they seem to make sense but without as much support I question whether all of these findings really do speak to reality. With empirical studies you're forced to focus on more specific points rather the entire general theory but can have much more convincing evidence for each point. So while I found the Granovetter piece more simplistic, I think that in this case it was good because it was very specific about showing that weak ties can be and ARE important in real life (even if we're not exactly sure why and how).
I was also struck by your question about modalities of communication and whether that effects tie strength. I think this is an important point that warrants study because I feel that online communication is so much more informal and really does lead to more weak ties. However, I think that often this can be at the expense of strong ties and while I understand the advantages of weak ties that all of our reading present I think there's an important balancing point. I feel that continuously heavier online communication will make it so people become more and more isolated and feel more alone despite the fact that they will have more "friends." For example, everyone knows that facebook friends don't always equate to real friends and my fear would be that if everyone focuses more and more on their "facebook friends" people will begin actually having no one to turn to in times of difficulty. This obviously could lead to some very important problems.
Posted by Jason r 32 | September 27, 2006 5:48 PM
Posted on September 27, 2006 17:48