Article 1: “The Network Community: An Introduction”
This article looks at social network theory through an historical framework, and debunks the theory that community has dissolved. Instead, the author (Wellman) argues that as significant events such as the industrial revolution occurred, a need for new types of communities emerged with new ways of connecting people. This portrays society and the actors as constantly changing and adapting themselves to satisfy their needs for continuous connection. Wellman looks at the changes that have occurred in American history that have changed our definition of what being involved in a community is, such as the large size of cities (p. 6). Wellman seems to find this change somewhat positive, explaining that the birth of the internet opened new doors for connecting people all over the world. Wellman makes sure to point out the distinction between community and neighborhood, stating criteria for each of them. This gives the reader a good place to start in identifying communities within social network analysis. Wellman describes in detail the multi-faceted and evolving nature of community networks, again, giving the reader a broad yet highly specialized framework to use as a guide. Wellman is extremely successful in creating a certain tangible, “gray” area in analyzing social networks: “Yet community is not alienated chaos, it is not a solidary, all-loving group, and it is not a set of exchange freaks playing ‘Let’s Make a Deal!’ It is a network—nebulous, far-flung and sparsely knit, but real and supportive” (p. 36-7).
Questions for Discussion:
1)Do you think that Wellman is thinking in too narrow terms? For example, is it possible to prove that community is, in fact, disappearing? When I was reading his article, I wasn’t entirely persuaded by his thesis.
2) Wellman’s analysis of the transformation from neighborhood community to community network involves a complex re-drawing of physical and metaphorical boundaries. Do you agree with Wellman that this can lead to an acknowledgement of only stronger ties, leading to flawed analysis?
Article 2: “See you in the Funny Papers: Cartoons and Social Networks”
Linton C. Freeman’s collection of comic strips applies much of the intricate theories that Wellman alludes to when discussing social network theory. Freeman explains, “The fact that social networks are ‘hot’ is indicated by its increasingly frequent appearance in the popular media” (p. 1). The very existence of these theories in comic strips, such as tie strength, word-of-mouth, indegree, outdegree and clique, illuminate how much these issues are on our minds currently. I think that putting them in an artistic medium, such as a comic strip or a internet website(facebook.com) shows how prevalent social network theory is in our everyday lives, whether it be at work or on a dinner date. Initially, I thought Freeman’s article to be quite “fluffy” and lacking proper evidence—however, after reading it a second time, I realized that the illustrations make the argument more persuasive.
Questions:
1) Do you find artistic mediums, such as comic strips, more or less persuasive than a straightforward article?
Article 3: “Theories of Communication Networks”
This article makes a clear distinction on an important question in social network analysis: it differentiates “attributes” from “relations” (p.30). The authors use tables to explain in simple terms different measures of ties, roles of the different actors and the measures assigned to individual actors. It also provides the reader with vocabulary to describe networks, such as “connectivity” and “centralization”)p. 33). The authors explain the different ways of presenting the data, such as graphs, diagrams and value graphs. The article also discusses a more complex issue, that of subgroup levels of analysis, which include outdegree, indegree, betweenness, closeness and structural holes. After understanding these definitions, the reader is extremely overwhelmed and over-saturated with information. I think the author would have made a more successful argument if he focused on some of the more interesting intricacies in the argument, such as attributes versus relations. Even though the material we are reading is dense and complex, I think that this argument is the weakest of the three.
Comments (1)
I think it is a pretty safe assumption to say that people will never agree whether community is disappearing or not, and I thus think that perhaps rather than thinking of new ways to deal with this broad argument - as you suggest in your first question for discussion - it might be more helpful to situate this debate within less all-encompassing claims. Can we think of ways in which community is evolving, or aim to identify the ways in which the tensions and struggles that accompany processes of modernization are materialized in concrete community-related practice? Such a dialectical approach, while it will obviously never resolve the debate, may lead us out of the impasse that has seemingly been reached given the fact that both sides have strong theoretical arguments and compelling evidence to support their claims.
You mention your feeling that the illustrations in Freeman's piece made it more persuasive for you, but you may want to consider what exactly its persuasive function was. Is the main idea to demonstrate the pervasiveness of social network theory in our everyday lives? Is it to convince us of the relevance, utility, and accuracy of the concepts themselves as an instrument for analyszing measuring various forms of communication? These are two completely different functions, and I'm sure that many other potential functions exist. And how about the directionality of our everyday social life - which these comics seemingly portray - and the academic agenda of social network research. Do you think Freeman is making an argument that the academic agenda is influencing comics, or that both social science research and popular culture deal with the same social phenomena in diverse ways and using their own unique tools? Rather than wondering whether comics or straightforward articles are more persuasive, perhaps it might be more useful to consider the unique contributions of each form and genre: what can one accomplish that the other cannot, or at least finds more difficult?
I'd like to see some more elaboration on the difficulties you had with the Monge and Contractor piece. It is certainly more dense and thus more difficult to read, but this alone does not make its argument - and I don't think this is a particularly argumentative piece; rather, it is more illustrative - less convincing. Do you have any specific concerns or reservations about the concepts or measures suggested? Do any seem to you to be derivative, or less useful, or simply wrong (and why?) Do you think there might be other ways of presenting these concepts in ways that would make them easier for you to understand and use? I completely agree that this chapter requires more effort on your part, but I think that investing this effort may be beneficial for your own work.
Posted by Oren Livio | September 13, 2006 10:25 AM
Posted on September 13, 2006 10:25