Social Network Blog - y8

“The Strength of Weak Ties”

In his article, Granovetter argues that weak ties are extremely important for linking between tightly-knit, small groups. Granovetter studies diffusion, social mobility, political organization and social cohesion in general. The author describes the “strength” of a tie as: “combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy and the reciprocal services which characterize each tie” (1361). He makes several hypotheses about ties, and mentions interesting anomalies such as the “forbidden triad.” What I found to be most interesting about his analysis was his focus on weak ties as bridges between two points, or two networks. His example of an epidemic spreading in a job place, with marginal and central players, is a great illustration of the power of weak ties. He also poses a very interesting question: do we affect our networks or do our networks affect us? I thought that his argument had much verisimilitude, and an example which resonated with me was when he described the importance of personal contacts in job searches. Granovetter also refers to the Milgram study, which we read last week in class. I was left with one final, comforting thought: “The personal experience of individuals is closely bound up with larger-scale aspects of social structure” (1377).

Questions:
1.Does Granovetter do a good job or proving transitivity as a property of the strength of ties?
2.Granovetter describes certain flaws that were inherent in his using the definition of “strength” in relation to ties. After reading the concluding paragraph, do you still think that his analysis and theory should be accepted as accurate and a credible source?

“Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”

This article looks at the trend of the rapidly increasing number of social isolates in the United States, from 1985-2004. The article focuses on close discussion networks, or an individual’s core network of confidants. Taking an ego-centered POV, the researchers re-asked the GSS the same question from 1985 on close-knit networks. The survey questions were thorough, and made sure to ask the respondent about the demographic characteristics of the discussion partner as well as the character of their relationship. Some problems that arose were: the problem of self-reporting, faulty memory, how people define “close,” and the content of these intimate discussions. With this in mind, the researchers conducted the survey, focusing specifically on size of network, kin vs. non-kin and density of the network. The results were abundant and thorough, so I will discuss some of the most interesting/ surprising findings: the percentage of people who talk to at least one person who is not connected to them via kinship decline from 80% to 57%, citing huge social changes. On the other hand, the core discussion networks remained very strongly interconnected, ranging from 60% to 66% in 1985 to 2004. Race was also considered and evaluated. In conclusion, the number of “confidants” in 2004 is dramatically smaller than in 198.5. Both the kin and non-kin ties have decreased, with the change larger in non-family ties. Also, ties of voluntary membership and neighborhood groups have decreased dramatically. After compiling these results, the authors looked at possible factors that may have skewed their results: slight changes in GSS questions, question order, fatigue and cooperativeness, convergent data from other sources and demographic change as a catalyst to network change.

Questions
1.The authors conclude their argument with speculations as to why the change occurred. They mention the shifts in work and recreational patters, the word “discuss” and interpretation of the GSS question. This section, which I found to be extremely interesting, left me wondering. What other types of reasons could account for this change in our social networks?
2.One result in this study (370, figure 2) suggests that men are not significantly more likely than women to be social isolates in core discussion networks. How do our society, media and culture reflect men’s close-knit relationships with one another?

“The Social Structure of Competition”

Ronald S. Burt looks at how social structure enables competition by creating specific opportunities for certain people and not for others. He focuses on a key stipulation: that invested capital, multiplied by the going rate of return, equals the profit to be expected from the investment. Burt describes three different kinds of capital: financial capital, human capital and social capital, each equally important He then looks at how each of these capitals works together to create certain advantages. Burt analyzes access, timing, referrals, benefit-rich networks, and structural holes (the core of his argument). He defines structural holes as: “…a relationship of nonredundancy between two contacts.”(74-5). Describing the hole as a buffer or electrical current, Burt explains that the two contacts provide networks benefits that are additive, instead of overlapping, because of the existence of the structural hole. Burt looks at the effectiveness and efficiency of the holes, and also the correlation between the holes and weak ties. Burt looks at the results of these factors working together, and calls it structural autonomy: “…the extent to which a player’s network is rich in structured holes, and so entrepreneurial opportunity…” In concluding his argument, Burt defines the four main qualities of his structural hole argument:
1.Competition is a matter of relations, not player attributes
2.Competition is a relation emergent, not observed
3.Competition is a process, not just a result
4.Imperfect competition is a matter if freedom, not just power.
Questions
1.What is an example of a “structural hole” relationship at Penn?
2.Do you agree with Burt’s argument regarding the importance of structural holes?