tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2007:/blog/481/y8/17 2006-12-08T20:48:20Z Movable Type 3.32 tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.735 2006-12-08T20:47:46Z 2006-12-08T20:48:20Z

I looked at many of my findings in terms of the age variable. I found it to be the most interesting variable, and the most effective way to correlate the readings from this semester. My findings show very surprising...

rll I looked at many of my findings in terms of the age variable. I found it to be the most interesting variable, and the most effective way to correlate the readings from this semester. My findings show very surprising and interesting results. When it comes to social support, many of the respondents that participated in my survey showed a very large range of types of support in their tie networks. The percentages were as follows: for “strangers,” the range was 0%-73%; for “know each other,” the range was 0%-87%; 0%-100%. The average percentage for all twenty respondents was: 20% strangers, 47% know each other and 33% especially close. There was no exact pattern to my data, and no strong correlation can be made between age and social network strength. In Mark Granovetter’s article, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” Granovetter defines tie strength as “a combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (p.1361). Granovetter argues that weak ties are the bridges that connect social groups and networks to other social groups. According to age, my data showed that the oldest and youngest members of my respondents had the most “especially close” members of their network members. The median ages had more members of their social networks in the “know each other” category. Also, the older members of my group tended to have fewer members in their close social networks (an average 4-5) versus the younger respondents who averaged 6 people per network. Also, younger respondents tended to have a split between friend-based kinship networks and close family in their networks, while the older respondents tended to have more immediate family in their networks. It was also very interesting to look at the individual respondent’s close social networks in terms of their demographics. Two very interesting cases were Respondent 5 and Respondent 6. Respondent 5 is a 20-year-old female whom listed all of her ties as her immediate family. Each of her ties were “Especially close” with one another, and this is an anomaly from the rest of my data. It was interesting that she would go to her family to discuss all important matters before any friends. Respondent 6 is a 62 year-old- male who defined “important” in a very interesting way: for him, important matters translated to “business matters,” therefore all of his respondents were co-workers except for his spouse. The typical trend in my data was that as people got older, they chose to speak to fewer people about important things and to family members in particular. McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook’s article, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks” argues that “…people’s personal networks are homogeneous with regard to many sociodemographic, behavioral, and interpersonal characteristics” (415). The authors suggest that certain key variables are consistently present in small social networks. I think that the most interesting and relevant argument to my data is the argument on age. The authors explain, “Age homophily includes a powerful baseline component. The fact that schools group ages together into classrooms induces strong homophily…age homogeneity of contexts like neighborhoods, work environments, and voluntary organizations induces considerable age homophily”(424). My data supports this assertion considerably. Of all twenty respondents, almost all of them had networks with people whose ages were similar to their prospective ages (This does not account for the respondents whose entire networks were immediate families, in which the ages ranged considerably). The authors of “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Groups over Two Decades” argue people reported that they now only consider two people to be in their close social networks instead of three, pointing to a major structural change that has occurred over the past twenty years. The authors describe these intimate social networks as places in which “…we may ask for help, probe for information, or just use the person as a sounding board for important decisions…”(Mcpherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 353). With the help of this core discussion networks which are slowly depleting, we have a network that can give us certain emotional, financial and occupational resources. The authors argue that a major trend in social networks has occurred over the past twenty years: “ We found a remarkable drop in the size of core discussion networks, with a shift away from ties formed in neighborhood and community contexts and towards conversations with close kin (especially spouses)…” (Smith-Lovin etal. 353). These newly-structured networks are more homogeneous, and begin to isolate us more in our society. This article is not in congruence with my findings. My data suggested that, although people are turning towards significant other and spouses on a more frequent and consistent basis, there are still other relationships in the social networks that exist outside of the home. Many of the relationships described in my data are siblings, friends and co-workers. My data also argues against the theory of privatization, as the members of my survey group tended to communicate with their kin in mediums outside of the home as well as inside of the home. While it is true that other relationships within the networks tended to remain outside of the home, this does not prove that privatization rules the social networks of today. Also, all respondents in my survey reported more than 2-3 people in their discussion networks. The networks tended to be extremely homophilious in different ways, supporting the abovementioned Smith-Lovin, McPherson and Cook article. Overall, the networks were not diverse. This can be seen in terms of the name generator. Many family members that were interviewed named each other as part of their close social networks. Also, many members of the same networks had a similar amount of social capital based on the first part of the survey (the name generator). However, after looking at the results, I came to the conclusion that the most signif9icant indicator of social capital is age and personality. There was a pretty clear relationship between social prestige and age in my results. The two respondents with the lowest social capital (a score of 38 on the 1-15 scale) were 19 and 20 years old. The person who scored the highest level of social capital was 75 years old and 35 years old respectively. Kin and family were exposed to less diverse networks, providing evidence of the privatization network. A high or low score on the position generator showed a lack of resources, an age discrepancy or a personality determinant. My results suggested that as the respondents get older, the actually community that they inhabit becomes more important in terms of their intimate social networks. Respondent # 17(73 years old) had many community members with whom he considered to be strong ties, as well as Respondent # 15(age 75). Respondent # 15 has had one traumatic heart attack. I think that it is interesting to mention that his relationship with his spouse has proven to really aid in his rehabilitation and healing process. This finding supports the Dickens, McGowan, Percival, Douglas, Tomenson, Cotter, Heagerty and Creed article, “Lack of a close confidant, but not depression, predicts further events after MI.” Although this respondent is the only one is my survey who has had serious health/ heart problems, he had the social support of his wife to help him through the entire process. It is not surprising that there is a distinct and direct correlation between new media usage and age. The respondents who were between the ages of 18-22 were more likely to use IM and email than the respondents who were over the age of 33. Also, since the introduction of Facebook and other social networking websites, younger people are beginning to form strong and weak ties with people that they knew in high school. The article “Spatially Bound Online Social Networks and Social Capital: The Role of Facebook,” looks at actual effects of these new cyber-networks: “A 2005 survey of academic community members found that 90% of the undergraduates participated in a social network community, primarily Facebook…In her ethnographic work examining self-presentation and social connections among Friendster users, boyd(2004) notes that users have a variety of motivations for using the site, including connecting with old friends, meeting new acquaintances, dating and furthering professional networks”(3). This theory echoes my results, as many of my younger respondents consistently used these sites to maintain their connections with their close high-school or camp friends. Because of this generation’s knowledge of the site, they are able to use it to maintain close ties with people whom are far away. I have noticed that, in congruence with the McPherosn, Smith-Lovin Cook article, that gender-segregated networks are not unusual: “By the time children enter school, they have learned that gender is a permanent personal characteristic. At about the same developmental stage, researchers first observe homophily in play patterns and a tendency for girls to play in smaller groups than boys” (422). Although I did not notice this in my data for the younger respondents, many of the older men had more trouble than the women in identifying their “close” friends. Although many of the respondents were eventually able to give me 4-5 names, the amount of time it took to conduct the interviews was almost double the amount of time it took to conduct the younger respondents’ interviews. One theory might be that the younger respondents’ need more constant reminders (more overall interactions) of their close ties, whereas older respondents do not lack this confidence in their networks. Of the twenty respondents that participated in my survey analysis, there was a surprising amount of variation in level/ degree of social capital. The range was there was a large scale of social capital, ranging from 38 to 93(this was largely dependent on age). Overall, many of my findings support the articles from this semester. However, there are always various ambiguities in social network experiments and analysis. I would not take this data as truth; instead, I would look at it as the next step in uncovering our changing and evolving world of intimate social networks. tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.707 2006-12-03T18:04:06Z 2006-12-03T18:04:55Z

In Peter V. Marsden and Jeanne S. Hurlbert’s article, “Social Resources and Mobility Outcomes,” the authors expand on a previous job-matching study conducted by Lin, Ensel, Vaughn, Bridges and Villemez. This study concentrates on the effects of social network resources...

rll In Peter V. Marsden and Jeanne S. Hurlbert’s article, “Social Resources and Mobility Outcomes,” the authors expand on a previous job-matching study conducted by Lin, Ensel, Vaughn, Bridges and Villemez. This study concentrates on the effects of social network resources on certain outcomes of job changes. The outcomes that are studied in this article are occupational prestige, wages, industrial sector, firm size, possession of authority, and closeness of supervision. Marsden and Hurlbert’s study confirms that these outcomes are not affected by incidental selection bias of the absence of controls. They do argue, however, for the social resources argument (effects of different social resource measures are largely outcome-specific and that no single measure is the indicator of “social capital”). The study also shows that there are no significant net effects of tie strength on either mobility outcomes or access to social resources. In the data section of this analysis, the authors were very thorough in studying and accounting for different mobility outcomes and several explanatory and control variables. Next, the authors studied the different mobility outcomes (wages, etc) in relation to social resources. The overall results of the Marsden and Hurlbert study were in congruence and agreement with the studies that had been conducted in the past, and even extend and qualify the social resources argument. The main finding of this study is: “The analyses of outcomes show that effects of social resources measures are, for the most part, outcome-specific” (1054). Roberto Fernandez and David Harris’ article, “Social Isolation and the Underclass,” examines the question of the inner-city black communities becoming socially isolated communities, and what that means for the future. The authors look at William Julius Wilson’s work on the question, and report the important elements of his argument. Wilsom argues that there have been profound and tangible changes in the black community over the past twenty-five years. More specifically, Wilson the inner-city black communities in large cities have been stuck in the middle of huge changes in large scale social and economic process, such as “…shifts in industrial competition, the suburbanization of jobs, and the exodus of the black middle class to the suburbs”(257). However, the authors stress that Wilson’s most important point, and the core of his argument, is that this new “underclass” is actually socially isolated. Wilson explains that social isolation “…exacerbates the effect because such isolation limits of being concentrated in very poor areas because social isolation limits inner-city residents’ opportunities inky to those found in their socially disadvantaged neighborhoods” (258). This major problem of the social isolation of the poor is then looked at from several different angles, including the realm of public policy. The authors aim to “refine” the concept of social isolation to make it apply to the present. They first re-define the concept of “mainstream” society and different dimensions of social isolation. They used the data from the Urban Family Life Survey from 1986-7 and network data to test the social isolation hypothesis. In the later, the respondents were asked to provide information on three important relations: friends, daily social support and crisis support. The authors re-create a definition of class and analyzed several neighborhood and interactional effects on social isolation. They ask a very important question: “…whether the experience of poverty is any more isolating when it occurs in the context of poor neighborhoods” (279). The authors final conclusions distinguish isolation from local institutions from a lack of interpersonal contact. They also distinguish between structure and composition of networks. Perhaps the most important finding is: “We found considerable evidence that nonworking poor blacks are socially isolated along various dimensions, often more so than the working poor” (287). As the authors suggest in the end note, more research needs to be conducted on this aspect of social network analysis and the newly emerging “underclass”. tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.624 2006-11-26T21:29:25Z 2006-11-30T14:06:55Z

The findings for our “Small University Experiment” reflect and reinforce much of what we have studied and read this semester on Stanley Milgram’s “small world” study (1967). In Milgram’s Nebraska study, he found five intermediaries to be the median...

rll The findings for our “Small University Experiment” reflect and reinforce much of what we have studied and read this semester on Stanley Milgram’s “small world” study (1967). In Milgram’s Nebraska study, he found five intermediaries to be the median number of links between the starter and the target. In our study, the mean for Susan Yoon’s group was 3.25 for completed chains, and 1 for incomplete chains. The mean for Antonio Polley’s group was 4.5 for completed chains and 2.33 for incomplete chains. This suggests that Milgram’s hypothesis may not be generalizable to every situation and population, as the degrees separating us is less than 6, on average. Or, this may be skewed or incomplete due to the amount of low response rates. In his article, “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg,” Malcolm Gladwell discusses Milgram’s chain letter study with the stockbroker in Omaha, Nebraska. Milgram asserts that five intermediaries on average can connect two people across the world, which is essentially his theory of six degrees of separation. However, it is mentioned that each of these degrees are not necessarily equal (5). I thought that this was very interesting and relevant to our “small world university” study. This theory can be drawn from the evidence that half of the packages in the Milgram study had touched the hands of three men: Jacobs, Jones and Brown. Although in our study, “June C” was the only repeat for the final link, if this study were done on a larger scale, I think that she might have had a larger frequency than the rest of the final links. As Milgram asserts, “It means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those few” (6). Although it is very difficult to conclude the accuracy of the relate-ability of Milgram’s theory to our results, one can surmise that central actors would be clearer to determine in a larger-scale study. As Killworth, McCarty, Bernard and House explain in their article, “The accuracy of small world chains in social networks,” there are many flaws in our analyzing the chains in social network analysis. The authors simply conclude that “…inaccuracy in selection of small world chain intermediaries is predominant…” (95). I passed my folder (Y8) to a strong tie that majors in BBB (Biological Basis of Behavior). What I find to be so interesting about my chain links is that the first three people in my chain were all female juniors in the college. The fourth person on my chain (the third link) was a male junior in the college. The only person that I knew on my chain was my initial link, and I did not recognize any of the other names in my link. Also, every person in my link was a student in the college. I initially chose Lauren to be my initial link for several reasons: I trust her, she is a pre-med student and I thought that she would be enthusiastic about participating in the study. Some of my doubts about picking her as an initial link, such as her isolation in her undergraduate program, may have actually contributed to the fact that my folder never reached Antonio Polley. I spoke to Lauren just after she had passed off her folder. She seemed really confident about it, and explained to me that she was sure that the folder would reach our target with ease and speed. I asked her if she had known who to give it to right away, or if she had to deliberate on the decision. Lauren explained that she had to think about it, but eventually concluded that an acquaintance of hers would be a good choice. The problem is, Lauren never conceptually thought about how this folder would get to Antonio. Instead, she thought about her role in my chain (an egocentric point of view) instead of her role in the larger picture. My hypothesis for this experiment was that based on Granovetter and Monge’s theories, Lauren would be a good choice for an initial link in my chain. Even though I had many doubts about choosing a strong tie over a weak tie because of the “bridging” potentials of a weak tie, I still chose a strong tie that was affiliated with the medical school. After looking at the different links on my chain, I realized that my links were extremely homogeneous to one another. Although Lauren was my only connection to the medical school, my folder ended up circling around a group of sophomores who did not know how to locate Antonio Polley or move up the hierarchal social networks ladder. They became an isolated group, thereby stopping my chain dead in its tracks. The results of my folder’s journey reveal the possibility of communication becoming severed within a network. My folder probably died because it had no logical or obvious next link. I correctly hypothesized that the folder would be passed primarily among undergraduate, female students. I had optimistically hypothesized that 50% of the folders that reached Antonio would be from the three same final links (As in Milgram’s experiment). Unfortunately, because only two of the folders reached Antonio, we cannot make that assessment on the grounds of this experiment. While an impressive percentage of Susan Yoon’s folders successfully reached her (80%), only 25% of Antonio Polley’s folders reached him successfully. I am by no means surprised by these findings. It is clear that there is a large divide between the undergraduate medical major concentration and with medical school at Penn. Antonio Polley is one of many lab technicians at the Wistar institute, which most members of my group had never heard of before the day we began this study. In fact, Antonio’s group was at a disadvantage from the start. Susan Yoon is a more accessible target in the Education school. Also, there are more females than males in the undergraduate communications major at Penn. Almost everyone in the school of education is a female. As we have read this year, gender plays a large role in social networks. I think that because all ten of the Susan Yoon groups were female, that they had a larger probability of reaching their target than Antonio’s group. Also, Susan is just a more centrally located actor in the social networks web. It is noteworthy that the uncompleted chains in Susan’s group both disappeared after two links and within a very short amount of time from the start of the study (2 days for y10 and 6 days for y35). Both Y10 and Y35 are seniors, and one gave her folder to a “very weak” tie while the other gave her folder to a “strong” tie. What does this mean? I think that the two folders that reached Antonio did so because both R45 and G10 are fifth year seniors, and have some connection to the school of education that other students in our class did not have. Or, maybe they have each had extra communication with career services or graduate programs, exposing them to an entire new network of people. I think that the path that G10’s folder took is truly a piece of evidence for the success of Milgram’s theory: It took G10 six different links (fmffmmM) and touched the hands of students, faculty and staff. It also went through the college, the school of medicine and through Wistar. It took ten days for the second link to pass on the folder (I think that after a week it is very surprising that a folder would be passed at all) and it was done so effectively. The Small University Experiment that we conducted had both similarities and differences to the “Small World University Experiment” conducted by Stevenson, Davidson, Manev and Walsh at Boston College. Firstly, in our experiment were also faced with the problem of low response rates, which can be seen as the unfinished chain links in our study (eight out of eighteen folders didn’t reach the target person and had incomplete links). In the Stevenson etal. study, there was a major and more obvious hierarchy of communication between upper and lower classmen. In our study, although a large percent of student to student transfers were for students in the same year (for Antonio’s group, it was 42.86% and for Susan’s group it was 40%), there were still a significant amount of student to student in lower class transfers for both targets(28.57% and 60%). This shows that there is more inter-class communication in a college university as opposed to a high school environment. This may be for several reasons, but I would hypothesize that high school places larger importance on class distinctions, and this is seen in sports programs with junior varsity and varsity and with academic classes. In my high school experience, the only time that I ever socialized with upper classmen was during sports team practice and language classes, and even in those classes it was obvious which students were in which classes. The original design of our study is slightly different from the Steveson etal study. In our study, we had two target-people instead of one, each of whom was more difficult to locate than in the Stevenson etal study. Also, our study started out in the hands of juniors and seniors, whereas their study included freshman through seniors. It would have been interesting to include this element in our study, because we were unable to test the hypothesis that freshman are especially isolated from the rest of the classes. There was a direct correlation between our study and the Stevenson etal. study when it came to older students. Our study shows that the only two students in Antonio’s group that was able to complete the chain were 5th year seniors. This is relevant because they are more likely having a connection with graduate students and faculty than other students. R45 and G10 both passed their folders to sophomores. In the case of R45, the next link was then a senior. In the case of G10, the next link was a sophomore again. I found this pattern in the successful links to be extremely interesting. R45 chose to give her folder to a female sophomore in the fine arts department, whereas G10 gave hers to a male sophomore in the biochemistry department. Both R45 and G10’s final links before reaching Antonio were male students. This supports the gender theory from the Stevenson etal. experiment: “Women relied more on homophilous ties to pass folders compared to men”(6). The Stevenson etal. Study suggested four hypotheses that were relevant to our class findings. Hypothesis 1, “The longer the time at the university, the more likely a student is to initiate a successful chain of communication to a target”(2), is proven to be true in our experiment. In Antonio Polley’s group, the two students who had completed their chains were both 5th year seniors. Is this just a coincidence or does it prove that age is a significant indicator of communication within a networks? Hypothesis 2 stated, “Small world folders are more likely to be passed within a class than between classes and occupational groups in a university” (2). This hypothesis did not apply to either target person (I am analyzing completed chains). In Antonio’s group, the percentage of student-student transfers in the same year was 40%, and student to student transfers in a lower class was also 40%. In Susan’s group, the student-student transfers in the same year were 44.4%, whereas the student-student transfers in a lower class were 55.4%. Hypothesis 3 stated, “Small world folders will converge on faculty and staff before reaching their target” (3). The results for Susan’s group suggest that every person to give the folder to Susan was either a member of the GSE School or an Administrator. This is completely congruent with Stevenson’s findings—in fact, the two students whose folders did not reach Susan were unable to make the link to the graduate school of education or some other graduate-level person. The data from Antonio’s group is more complex—the two students who were able to reach Antonio broke the barriers by entering either the Immunology department or the Wistar Institute (where Antonio works). However, there was a student who reached the Wistar Institute but did not reach Antonio (g16)—this clearly complicates the data. How did certain folders within the Wistar Institute reach Antonio while others continued to circle the same group of people? Hypothesis 4 states, “Small world folders are more likely to be passed to members of the same sex” (3). The pattern of links for Susan’s group is almost entirely female (there is only one male in the entire chain). This is in congruence with Stevenson’s hypothesis. Essentially, since the entire Susan group was female to start, and the target was female, the chains consistently remained in the female gender. Antonio’s group had a difficult time making the transition from female to male, as all but one person in the initial starting group was female. There was a mixture of when the students in Antonio’s group made the transition to male—some did it initially, whiles other chains did not switch until the very end, or at all. Both people to hand Antonio the folder were male. Overall, our study had some similarities to the Stevenson study, but the differences are also extremely flagrant and relevant. Link to Part One: http://www.mysocialnetwork.net/blog/481/y8/2006/09/small_university_experiment.html tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.592 2006-11-18T20:39:38Z 2006-11-18T20:40:55Z

In the article entitled, “Social Integration and Health: The Case of the Common Cold,” the authors analyze the concept of social integration and how it related to health. The authors first explain the past theories that have been conducted on...

rll In the article entitled, “Social Integration and Health: The Case of the Common Cold,” the authors analyze the concept of social integration and how it related to health. The authors first explain the past theories that have been conducted on the relationships, followed by a prospective study on social network diversity and the susceptibility to the common cold. The authors found that the greater the social diversity in a network, the lesser susceptibility to illness. However, the authors mention that their attempt to isolate the pathways through which social diversity is associated with susceptibility was unsuccessful: “The relation was independent of the number of people in the social network” (1). The authors refer to the number of social roles as “network diversity,” in order to distinguish it from social integration. In this study, the authors asked five specific questions to the respondents regarding the sizes of their networks, the roles within their networks, the diversity of their networks etc. The article refers to several medical definitions of clinical colds in order to alert the reader of the parameters of what they deem to be a “cold.” The control variables of the experiment were age, gender, ethnicity, education, body mass index, season during which the trial was conducted, type of experimental virus and the body’s initial reaction to the antibody. When measuring social networks and susceptibility, the authors found that people in networks with low social network diversity tend to have a greater percentage of colds. The authors examine the possible reasoning behind these findings, such as specific pathways, stress and personality. But the conclusion of their study is clear: “…social isolation constitutes a major risk factor for the development of illness. Volunteers who were relatively socially isolated(1-3 relationships) were 4.2 times more likely to develop illness than those with very diverse social networks(6 or more relationships)…We found that the relation between network diversity and susceptibility to he common cold was independent of network size”(9). Questions: 1.How would the results of this study be different if this experiment had been conducted at Penn? 2.How would the results been different have been different had the social network measures used been a bit more complex? The article, “Lack of a close confidant, not depression, predicts further cardiac event after myocardial infarction,” looks at two variables(the role of depression and the lack of social support) and how they affect post MI patients. The study proposed an innovative way in correlating depression and MI: “…the negative influence of depression on outcome after MI may be attributable to pre-existing depression” (518). This hypothesis is quite revolutionary, and the doctors in the study decided to test out their hypothesis on a sample of post MI patients (583 patients) from the UK. During this study, the patients were assessed based on many measures, including demographics, medical history and past psychologically formative experiences. The main results of the experiment are as follows: “We failed to find an association between depression before MI and subsequent mortality or cardiac events, in spite of the high prevalence of depression. We did find that having a close confidant approximately halved the risk of having a subsequent cardiac event, even after controlling for demographic and coronary risk factors, severity of MI, and discharge medication”(521). This study intrigued me quite a bit. I think that looking at the impact of psychosocial variables and a physical ailment/ disease is an extremely important, effective and accurate way to analyze health. It is accepted that there is a large relationship between mental health and physical health, and vice versa. So why don’t we study other health illnesses in this manner? It is so interesting that having a companion keeps one healthier for longer. It really tells you how much of our health is based on our basic and primitive human needs. In the study conducted by Bearman, Moody and Stovel, the structure of an adolescent romantic and sexual network is observed in order to better understand the spreading of STDs. This specific study, entitled “Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks,” analyzes a pool of 800 adolescents at a high school in the Midwest. The relationships were measured over a period of 18 months, conducted from 1993-5. This article looks at the specific partnership patterns and network structures of these relationships. The article takes a strongly empirical approach to the study, interpreting several modes of disease diffusion. The authors are mostly concerned with each individual actor’s specific “role” in the diffusion process, which is sometimes called the “spanning tree.” The context of the experiment is “Jefferson High,” and the items being measured are the romantic and sexual relationships, in every shape and form. The next measurement that is discussed is partner preference, also known as “attribute-based selection preferences.” I found this section to be the most interesting aspect to the study, as homogeny in these two-person networks is extremely prevalent. The findings of this study are as follows: “The most critical feature in STD epidemiology is the idea of a core, which is associated with cycles in networks. Moody etal.(2003) have demonstrated that very low average degree networks can give rise to densely interconnected cores…In our data, we find that this key-structural feature is largely absent. We have proposed a reason for this absence, specifically a norm against second partnerships. From this norm, combined with basic homophily preferences, we generate networks that are structurally isomorphic to the one we observe empirically. This suggests that in adolescent society—where partner choice is salient for local status—it seems reasonable to think that such a rule operates”(78-9). Questions: 1. How can we stop (or at least slow down) this diffusion process of diseases across adolescent networks? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.548 2006-11-13T22:31:10Z 2006-11-13T22:34:11Z

RESULTS: Natasha= 16 cell= 10 IM=3 text= 3 Ali lenobel=8 cell=3 IM=3 text= 2 Mom=7 all cell Sara= 6 all cell Nushien= 6 all cell Part 1 Questions 1.The five people with whom I interacted most often were three of...

rll RESULTS: Natasha= 16 cell= 10 IM=3 text= 3 Ali lenobel=8 cell=3 IM=3 text= 2 Mom=7 all cell Sara= 6 all cell Nushien= 6 all cell Part 1 Questions 1.The five people with whom I interacted most often were three of my best girlfriends from college and high school (Natasha, Ali L and Nushien), my mom (Marcia) and my sister (Sara). I spoke to Natasha the most using the cell phone communication medium; however, I also spoke to Natasha the most frequently across all of the new media communication mediums. I instant messaged and text messaged the most frequently with Ali L and Natasha (a total of 3 conversations with both of them). These were the three communication mediums that I used for this study. I am extremely close with all five of these people. Natasha has become my close friend this semester, as many of our mutual friends are traveling abroad. Natasha is also from Europe, where text messaging is a lot more prevelant than it is in the United States. I also spoke to Natasha a lot during the seven days in which I recorded my data, because it was during fall break and were in the midst of making plans to go to New York together. Ali L is my big sister is my sorority, and we speak frequently throughout the year. Again, many of my friends are abroad this semester and I have become even closer with her this year. Most of the conversations I have with these two are based on coordinating making plans with one another or just “chit-chat.” According to Wellman, my relationships could be described as “small services” or “companionship.” I have a very close relationship with my mom, but unfortunately, most of our conversations through mediums of technology are based on small services or emotional aid. When we are face-to-face, however, our relationship can be classified more as “companionship.” My sister Sara and I are also very close, and our conversations would mostly fall into the companionship category. Nushien is my best friend from high school, and she goes to Columbia University. Our conversations are exclusively emotional aid and companionship, unless I am in New York, and we contact each other to make plans. 2.I think that there is a tangible relationship between the strength of the tie and between the medium I used for communication. It is true, however, that I typically write on Nushien’s Facebook wall (my best friend from high school) and look through her posted photographs. And although my findings suggest a relationship primarily based on cell phone usage, I would argue that these results occurred during fall break because I was actually in her geographic vicinity, and we were attempting to make tangible plans to meet up with one another. In these instances, the cell phone is the easiest communication medium. According to the Ellison, Steinfled and Lampe study on the role of Facebook, the findings suggest that: “there is a positive relationship between certain kinds of Facebook use and the maintenance and creation of social capital…the strong linkage between Facebook use and high school connections suggests how online social networks help maintain relations as people move from one offline community to another. It may facilitate the same when students graduate from college, with alumni keeping their school email addresses and using Facebook to stay in touch with the college community”(p.26, p. 32). At this point in my life, I have stronger relationships with my college friends and family members than with my high school friends, based on proximity and relevance to my life. Primarily, I use like Facebook, Instant messaging and other computer-related mediums to stay in touch with people from my past, although I occasionally use it to touch base with the people I see on an everyday basis (I would say I use text messaging and instant messaging for small services when conducted with people in my everyday community here at Penn). More importantly, however, that there is a distinct generational difference between the mediums I used for communication. My mom is 61 years old, and my sister is 27 years old. Although there is a large age gap between the two of them, they both belong to generations that were not as exposed the same technology that I was exposed to. My mom and sister are able to use e-mail, text messaging and instant messaging, however, it would not be the first medium that they would turn to when trying to get in touch with me. Both of them are more comfortable with the cell phone as a medium for communication (*I do not have a landline at school; therefore my calls are made solely from my cell phone). For all five of my most frequent interaction partners, I would say that small services, emotional aid and companionship were the most frequent types of supports exchanged. I am extremely close with my mom and my sister, and have known them for my entire life. I think that duration is a very important variable, as I can trust both of them with any issues that may arise, such as job information, large services or emotional aid. In Barry Wellman and Scot Wortley’s article, “Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support,” the authors looks at the relationship between community ties between friends and relatives and supportive resources. The authors look at several different variables to explain the phenomenon of social support. One aspect that I found to be intriguing was the section on kinship. The authors write, “There are cultural, structural pressures and perhaps biological reasons for kin to be supportive. The densely knit structure of most kinship ties intersects with the norm that ‘blood is thicker than water’ to encourage supportive relations among kin” (572). This interpretation of the relationship between community members and type of tie strength is extremely accurate, and is in congruence with my findings. There is an unspoken desire for kin to help one another, and this is seen through the types of support exchanged, the duration of the relationship and the type of relationship. The authors also describe the complex and interesting relationship between siblings and support, which I found relevant to my analysis: “Siblings are similar to friends in providing emotional support and small services. They are more likely (20%) than friends—and less likely than parents and children—to provide large services” (574). These findings echo the type of tie that is a major part of my relationship with my older sister. She is always the first person to help me out in a situation where I need advice, whether it is a fight with a friend or a bad grade on a paper. She is even willing to drop everything to help me find a summer job. However, if it is something that she cannot handle on her own, the issue (a large service) will immediately be deferred to my parents. I use the cell phone as a communication medium most frequently when talking to kin, and especially siblings. However, I do not defer to my cell phone every time I want to communicate with a close friend. Sometimes, email, instant messaging or text messaging may be more efficient or more appropriate based on timing and location. Unfortunately, the small amount of data that we have collected for this assignment pushes us to make generalizations. I think that distance plays a large role in my medium of communication. As stated above, some of my closest friends are abroad, making it very difficult for me to speak to them on the phone on a daily basis. For example, my three best friends are in Hong Kong, London and Washington D.C. for the semester. This, clearly, has a large impact on my social interactions and mediums of communication. It also changes who I go to for certain types of support. For example, I do not think that I would necessarily talk to Ali L. or Natasha as much as I do on the cell phone had my friends not gone abroad; however, they became different kinds of support for me this semester. This semester, I speak to my three best friends who are abroad on email or Skype only. This is not ideal, as they are my closest friends, and there is something really intimate about talking to someone who is far away on the telephone. Hearing the voice of someone that you truly miss and are close to is a feeling that can never be replaced by any modern technology. All of members of my close network were female. I found this to be exceedingly interesting. Just to give you a little context into my life, I do not have very many male friends(excluding my brother and my father) so when I do speak with people of the opposite gender, it is usually through a less intimate form of communication, such as instant messaging or text messaging. I think it is interesting to point out that whenever there is a romantic element involved between a male and female, it almost always is in the medium of text messaging. I am not sure why this is exactly; however I think that this technology has enabled us to be even lazier in the dating world. Wellman and Wortley describe gender as a very distinct social characteristic in determining social support: “Gender is the only personal characteristic that is directly associated with support. Yet gender is in many ways relational: it both reflects and determines social relationships. The involvement of women in providing emotional support to women friends and kin of both sexes is a product of their work as domestic relations specialists…men fix things; women fix relationships and keep households and networks going”(582). Although this does not exactly apply to my findings, it does hold some merit. Essentially, my mom and sister are my two fundamental pillars of support, which is partly due to their gender association with me, amongst other things. I am therefore more likely to use my cell phone, my most intimate medium for communication, to contact them. Thus far, my results suggest that the role of new media in our social networks has a very large impact on our social relationships and networks. My data suggests that there is a direct correlation with communication medium and tie strength, support, duration, distance, and gender when studying social network analysis. New media is giving us a chance to connect with people all over the world at any time of day, yet my results suggest that I am still in contact with a very intimate, small network on a daily basis. I think that it would have been beneficial for this study if we had analyzed all of our interactions (not just the top five people with whom we interacted most). Although my data suggests a correlation between communication medium and my ties, I am not ready to make the claim that this relationship will exist in on a larger scale. For my purposes, I found that I chose the cell phone as my favored communication medium, especially for support such as emotional aid and small services. I also found that I would prefer the cell phone over email, but that distance plays a large factor in this choice. Gender and age also played a role, and so did the duration of my relationships. 3. I do not think that there was significant data that showed a relationship between my choices to have public or private interactions. I think that it was completely based on circumstance and opportunity. I do not think that this choice had anything to do with the person or the tie strength to that person. I will say, however, that I prefer to have most conversations and interactions with people in the home. I am a very private person, and I find people walking down the streets on their cell phones to be completely obnoxious and unrelated. tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.546 2006-11-13T21:51:03Z 2006-11-13T21:53:53Z

In Lorne Tepperman’s article, “Deviance as a search process,” Tepperman defines a search process as “a set of steps followed in order to find something that is lost or otherwise hidden from sight” (1). The author identifies two different types...

rll In Lorne Tepperman’s article, “Deviance as a search process,” Tepperman defines a search process as “a set of steps followed in order to find something that is lost or otherwise hidden from sight” (1). The author identifies two different types of deviance (individual or group). The author’s main goal is to explore the utility of network analysis and the “search metaphor” in analyzing a specific search process. Tepperman labels three important distinguishing features of the deviant search process: “…the secrecy of the search, the importance of the intermediaries and the role of the sought after” (6). The author explains that there are various different strategies to conduct a deviant search—however, if the strategy is conducted in an unsystematic way, it may be extremely expensive and may not ever be completed. The author concludes by stating, “If there is a particular psychological, intellectual or cultural component to developing successful strategies, we should find this revealed by empirical comparisons of people who have and have not succeeded in committing deviant acts” (17). Chapter 8, “Diffusion Networks,” talks about how interpersonal communication drives the diffusion process by creating a critical mass of adopters. The article mentions several important terms, such as opinion leadership. Opinion leadership is defined as “the degree to which an individual is able informally to influence other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency”(300). This article then begins to evaluate the different models of communication flows that have been identified in the past, such as the hypodermic needle model and the two-step flow model. The distinction between homophily and heterophily is stressed, especially how each group type alters the communication flow. Next, the author looks at the different measuring techniques in evaluating opinion leadership (both monomorphic and polymorphic), such as the sociometric model. The most interesting section of this article is the evaluation of characteristics for a successful opinion leader, which range from external communication, accessibility, SES and innovativeness. The author then asks the question, “Do Opinion Leaders Matter?”(321). The author then analyzes many cluster studies, and applies them to the question within a broader framework. Lastly, the critical mass is discussed in relation to diffusion of innovations. I thought that the case study on the adoption of the Internet (see figure 8-6 on p. 347) was a great example of the diffusion of an innovation. Questions: 1.Do you see this theory of diffusion in such “black and white” terms? In other words, do you think that the author over-generalizes this phenomenon? 2.What types of situations would lend themselves to a different speed/ mode/ process of diffusion? 3.How does our social network makeup (i.e. diversity) at Penn affect our diffusion networks? Ronald S. Burt argues that opinion leaders are “not people at the top of things so much as the people at the edge of things, not leaders within groups so much as brokers between groups”(37). In his article, “The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders,” Burt makes the distinction that opinion leaders are essentially brokers that manage contagion and cohesion. Burt argues, “Opinion leaders as brokers bear a striking resemblance to network entrepreneurs in social capital research” (37). Burt argues that social capital research and the content of diffusion have a complimentary relationship, and when studied together, they create a very strong analogy. Burt explains, “Diffusion research describes how opinion leaders play their role of brokering information between groups, and social capital research describes the benefits that accrue to brokers”(37). Burt continues by identifying the network structure of contagion and the power of equivalence. According to Burt, equivalence has three properties: it equals cohesion, it corrects cohesion and it extends cohesion. Burt then compares opinion leaders to opinion brokers. He explains, “Opinion leaders are people whose conversations make innovations contagious for the people with whom they speak”(46). Burt argues that opinion leaders in the network structure of contagion are essentially opinion brokers who transmit information across social boundaries between status groups. He then evaluates the network structure of social capital. Questions: 1.Does article agree or disagree with Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “The Tipping Point”? 2.Do you agree with this analogy of an opinion broker? How might one disprove this theory? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.510 2006-11-05T21:05:08Z 2006-11-05T21:05:48Z

“The Structure of the Web,” looks at the evolution of the web as a new medium for communication. Jon Kleinberg and Steve Lawrence, point out that unlike other networks in our past, the web is a virtual network of different...

rll “The Structure of the Web,” looks at the evolution of the web as a new medium for communication. Jon Kleinberg and Steve Lawrence, point out that unlike other networks in our past, the web is a virtual network of different content and hyperlinks. This has led the web to be extremely decentralized, yet it still contains a vast degree of self-organization. In this article, Kleinberg and Lawrence have sought out to understand the structure of this powerful and vast virtual network. They conclude that: “A recent study (l) indicates that the Web contains a large, strongly connected core in which every page can reach every other by a path of hyperlinks. This core contains most of the prominent sites on the Web. The remaining pages can be characterized by their relation to the core…” (1849). In their structural breakdown of the Web, the authors identify four major components—core (which is very compact), upstream, downstream and tendril regions. The authors explain, “The shortest path from one page in the core to another involves 16 to 20 links on average, a ‘small world’ situation in which typical distances are very small relative to the overall size of the system” (1849). According to the authors, the structure of the Web is made up of hubs and authorities: “A hub is a page that points to many authorities, whereas an authority is a page that is pointed to by many hubs” (1850). The authors note that this new virtual environment is also altering information flow in the world—the authors believe that the Web will actually bringing individuals together with common interests by enabling and facilitating an easier way to communicate. Questions: 1. Are there any negative aspects to the structure of the Web described by Kleinberg and Lawrence? Are they overlooking anything? “Information is getting easier to merge, fuse and draw inferences from. There is money to be made and control to be gained in doing so. And I don’t see much that will stop it” (Tim Finin, Marks article). This quotation is just one of the many alarming excerpts from Paul Marks’ article, “Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites.” Marks describes a recent movement by the National Security Agency to build extensive, personal profiles of individuals. NSA hopes to tap the Web and fuse social networking analysis with other analyses to find deeper and stronger ways of identifying peoples networks, interests and core groups. Although there are still technical issues at hand (the web is incompatible with other formats), researchers hope to use Resource Description Framework to create a code for each type of data, essentially creating a universal language. There have been many legal issues with this movement, especially post September 11th. However, with websites such as “myspace” having up to 80 million members, there is much concern that this new technology could lead to serious issues, such as ‘automated intelligence profiling’ or ‘miscarriages of justice’. There is much ambivalence and controversy over merging social network analysis with other forms of intelligence, and I think that Jon Callas, chief security officer of PGP gives the best advice out there: “Callas thinks people have to wise up to how much information about themselves they should divulge on public websites. ‘It may sound obvious,’ he says, ‘but being discreet is a big part of maintaining privacy. Time, perhaps, to hit the delete button.’” Questions: 1. How can we protect our privacy (besides the delete button) against this new technology? 2. Do you think that this new technique is immoral or unethical in any way? The article, “Spatially Bounded Online Social Networks and Social Capital: The Role of Facebook,” looks at the relationship between the role of facebook and its relationship to social capital formation and maintenance, integration into college life and psychological well-being. The article notes that Facebook was created in early 2004 and has about 7.5million users (it is the 7th most popular site on the Web). There has been a lot of negative press for Facebook recently, altering students of the privacy issues and the possibility of offline and online identity theft. The motivation for this study was: “large numbers of highly embedded users, a unique geographically-bound target audience, high visibility, and widespread public coupled with few academic studies of the site”(2). In a 2005 survey, the results suggested that people seek out Facebook to connect with old friends, to meet new friends, to meet romantic partners and to increase professional networks. The researchers of this study found that the shift of many of these relationships went from offline to online. The authors in the study asked three research questions to a random sample of 800 undergraduate students at Michigan State University. The three research questions were: 1. Who is using Facebook? How are students using Facebook? What is the relationship between Facebook use and social capital? Out of the 800 students, a total of 286 completed the survey (35.8%). The measures for this experiment were demographic variables, Facebook usage measures, psychological measures and social capital measures. The three measures of social capital were bridging, bonding and high school capital. (The experiment showed that 94% of students were Facebook members) The results of this experiment showed that: … “there is a positive relationship between certain kinds of Facebook use and the maintenance and creation of social capital…intensive Facebook use is a significant predictor of bonding, bridging and high school social capital”(26). The study acknowledges that although there are some issues with privacy and management on Facebook, that there is a STRONG connection between Facebook users and indicators of social capital: “The Strong linkage between Facebook use and high school connections suggest how online social network help maintain relations as people move from one offline community to another…”(32). Questions: 1. About two months ago, Facebook created the newsfeed feature. How did that affect your Facebook usage or personal feelings towards the virtual network? Barry Wellman’s article, “Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking,” looks at the change in our communities, from solidary groups to individualized networks. The main concerns of the article are: how networks of communities exist in physical places (like neighborhoods and the internet) and how the development of computer-supported community networks affects access to resources. Wellman describes the rise of personalized networking in terms of these variables: broader bandwidth, wireless portability, global connectivity and personalization. Wellman argues that communities transcend the group and the locality via door-to- door interactions, place-to-place interactions, the domestication of communities and the domestication of the internet. Wellman suggests that the rise of networked individualism is due to several factors: person-to-person interactions, the shift from interhousehold networks to interpersonal networks, mobilization and computerization. Wellman concludes by explaining that: “Although physical place continues to be important, cyberspace has become cyberplace, affecting the ways in which people find and maintain community…This is a time for individuals and their networks, not for groups. The all-embracing collectivity has become a fragmented, personalized network. Autonomy, opportunity and uncertainty rule today’s community game…” (247-8). tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.454 2006-10-30T22:27:29Z 2006-10-30T23:28:53Z

The article, Science Fair Project overwhelms Computer,” is an anecdote concerning the extent and possibilities of the internet as an agent to expand our social networks. Shannon Syfrett, a ninth-grade student, set out to launch a chain letter over the...

rll The article, Science Fair Project overwhelms Computer,” is an anecdote concerning the extent and possibilities of the internet as an agent to expand our social networks. Shannon Syfrett, a ninth-grade student, set out to launch a chain letter over the internet for a science experiment, and estimated that within six weeks she might receive “2000 or 3000” replies. As Shannon soon realized, she drastically miscalculated the reach and magnitude of her “message.” Does her experiment expose a new, growing sense of community in the cyber world? In Wellman and Gulia’s article, “Net-Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities,” the authors examine the internet as a potential place to find a new type of community. They explain they there are two schools of thought on the issue: the Enthusiasts (they believe the internet has the ability to connect people regardless of race, gender of geography) versus the Manicheans(they believe that the internet will either create new forms of community or will destroy community entirely). Wellman and Gulia describe the feats that society has with the internet in terms of network connection, such as the loss of in-person contact, leading to the loss of contact with “real life”: “While all this razzle dazzle connects us electronically, it disconnects us from each other, having us ‘interfacing’ more with computers and TV screens than looking in the face of our fellow human beings”(Fox, 1995, p. 12). The two authors look at seven different questions about the structure and content of internet relationships. Their questions take into account types of support, the utility of weak ties, attachment and relationship reciprocity, the possibility of strong ties, the merging of this community with the ‘real-life’ community and network diversity. Wellman and Gulia derive many conclusions, but the core of their discussion can be summarized here: “Thus even as the Net might accelerate the trend to moving community interaction out of public spaces, it may also integrate society. The Net’s architecture supports both weak and strong ties that cut across social milieus, be they interest groups, localities, organizations, or nations. As a result, cyber links between groups that otherwise would be socially and physically dispersed”( Durkheim, Brieger, Wellman). Questions: 1) How has the new internet community affected life as a college student? How does the relationship vary due to age? What about SES? The article, “Social interactions across media,” compares college students’ interactions online, on the telephone and face-to-face. The results of the study showed that face-to-face communication was the principal form of interaction, even though the internet was a big part of their everyday lives. The results suggested that the students used the internet and the telephone equally. These results were than compared to earlier ideas/ studies of the role of the internet in social lives. The researchers looked at certain factors, such as proximity, quality of relationships and different types of interactions. The results of study 1 showed that although an online social life was a part of their everyday interactions, face-to-face remained the dominant form of interaction. Study 2 analyzed the different types of online media, and supported that email was the main internet medium for social interaction. A recent study found that 62% of college students used email as their main form of online communication. Questions: 1) Why is it that college students still prefer face-to-face interactions? Does this survey study prove the Manicheans wrong? 2) Will we always crave face-to-face interaction? Or will it soon cease to satisfy us as technology becomes more readily available, efficient, accessible and simple? Gustavo Mesch and Ilan Talmud’s article, “The Quality of Online and Offline Relationships: The Role of Multiplexity and Duration of Social Relatnioships,” looks at adolescent usage of the internet and social relationships. Studies in the past suggest that adolescents use the internet to maintain ties with distant friends and family and to create new relationships. The main argument of this article is: “…the quality of social relationships is dependent on duration and diversity of topics and activities carried together.” Mesch and Talmud look at the role of intimacy and time as predictors of the relationship. This specific study takes a sample from a adolescent population in Israel, and argue that closeness is related to social similarity, content multiplexity and duration of relationships. The authors also mention that the newly-formed internet relationships are considered to be less close and less supportive because of the above-mentioned factors. Questions: 1) This study was conducted in Israel. How do you think the results of this study would differ if it were conducted in the United States? Keith Hampton’s article, “Networked sociability online, off-line” makes a very strong argument about the utopian versus dystopian debate of community structure: “What this debate—arguing that community is either lost or completely recreated online—fails to recognize is that community has long been freed from geography and that the Internet may hold as much promise for reconnecting people to communities of place as it does from liberating people from them” (Hampton, 217). Hampton has a very optimistic outlook on the changing role of community in our everyday lives—he looks at the history of the rise and fall of community in the United States, the positive possibilities for a virtual community, the content of internet interactions i.e. e-mails and the local affordances of the internet. Hampton concludes that computer-mediated communication supports the formation of larger and more diverse social networks. However, Hampton stresses the fact that these ties are not deficient as compared to “real world” ties. He also argues that these online communities will not replace the public meeting grounds, such as bars and restaurants. Hampton strongly re-asserts his thesis by concluding: “If we accept the evidence of Putnam (2000) and others—that there has been an increase in privatism and a decline in public participation over the past quarter-century—then the internet may become a central force in reversing this established trend”(Hampton, 229). Questions: 1) Do you think that we will completely lose the need for face-to-face contact in the future? (maybe in 50 years?) tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.417 2006-10-22T20:15:06Z 2006-10-22T20:16:15Z

The article, “Auditing Information Structures in Organizations: A Review of Data Collection Techniques for Network Analysis” looks at the strengths and weaknesses of data-collection techniques in regards to organizational communication. The article, written by Zwijze-Koning and De Jonge, analyzes...

rll The article, “Auditing Information Structures in Organizations: A Review of Data Collection Techniques for Network Analysis” looks at the strengths and weaknesses of data-collection techniques in regards to organizational communication. The article, written by Zwijze-Koning and De Jonge, analyzes and criticizes each collection technique for its reliability, validity and applicability. This set of techniques, known as “communication audits” (429) is composed of several different approaches. The authors explain that new developments in this field have remained limited—therefore, they aim to find a better and more reliable solution. The authors also stress that network analysis focuses on the relationships between people as opposed to the characteristics of individual people—a very important distinction. The article explains the core of network analysis techniques as mapping communication patterns, identifying groups within organizations, establishing roles of employees, analyzing communication channels and mediums and the relationship between information types, and analyzing communication styles, message distortion and the effectiveness of the information flows versus the perceived effectiveness. The survey is mentioned as the most commonly used auditing technique, which the authors describe as having evolved into a standardized medium. Other techniques include sociometric questioning, diaries and observations, computer-mediated communication (via e-mail), episodic communication channels in organization and small world technique. The authors also study “between-method comparisons” (442). The conclusions of this artifice suggest further research is needed in order to link network characteristics to other communication measures such as communication satisfaction, organizational culture and commitment and identification to the organization. Questions: 1.What would be some inherent problems with CMC? 2.Why has the survey consistently remained the most commonly used auditing technique? What are some of its strengths and weaknesses? In the article, “Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator: Alternatives to Traditional Multiple and Single Name Generators,” Hampton and Marin compared the difference between using single named generators (such as the GSS survey) versus multiple name generators in regards to studying personal(egocentric) networks. This article looks at the actual technical measuring techniques used. The results of their comparison showed that all single generators failed to provide valid estimates across a spectrum of measures (including size and density). However, using multiple name generators is time-consuming, and respondents are unlikely to remain interested. Therefore, the authors then analyzed two new, alternative methods: the MMG (comprised of the two strongest name generators from the first study and a full set of name interpreters) and the MRGI(a series of multiple name generators with name interpreters given to a random subset of the survey). Both the MMG and the MRGI were strongly correlated with the effective full name generator model from study 1. *Also, the MRGI had the same validity as the multi-name generator in study 1(a cost-effective way of measuring network size with a sense of validity). The article then informs the reader of the history of name generators and then describes the methods, data collection etc. of this particular successful experiment. The authors conclude with a discussion of this experiment, noting that the choice of which method to use in network analysis is complex—however, they conclude by strongly urging the adoption of the MRGI over the MMG: “The MRGI maximizes content validity, reduces respondent burden, and provides a reliable spectrum of network measures. The MMG, while producing many reliable measures, is not as strong in its construct validity or its reduction of respondent burden” (19). Questions: 1. Can you think of another technique to measure network composition that combines new technology? Or is the MRGI our best tool at this point? 2. Can you think of any other weaknesses of the MRGI that were not mentioned in this article that are critical to its effectiveness as a measurement tool? Authors Nan Lin, Yang-chih Fu and Ray-May Hsung are concerned with the concept of social capital merging with conceptualization and measurement. The authors argue that “the scientific viability of social capital depends on the development of an approach that integrates theory and measurement of the concept” (57). The authors are concerned that without a clear distinction, social capital with be merged with anything deemed “social.” The authors ask the question, how then can we accumulate knowledge? The article has a four-fold purpose: evaluating a conceptualization of social capital, reporting on the development of the position generator (a measurement technology), demonstrating the utility of the measurement device regarding the function of social capital in testing mobility and stratification in the society in Taiwain and proposing more alterations to the measurement methodology to advance the concept of social capital. The results of the study show that gender-based inequality in access to social capital was based on the advantages of males being in the labor force and the disadvantages of females being in charge of the household. Amongst other findings, the position-generator method sheds light on the debate concerning whether the extensity of social contacts or the strength of ties generates better access to social capital—and both arguments are supported. The article by Van Der Gaag and Snijders, “The Resource Generator: social capital quantification with concrete items” looks at past research on studies of individual social capital. The article notes that in the past, there has been a larger emphasis on measuring the social relationships versus the social resources. I think that this is an important distinction. The authors suggest two different methods in clarifying this measurement confusion. First, they offer a resource generator (an instrument with clearly-worded items covering general social capital in a population). The other method is to investigate social capital by “latent trait analysis”(1), essentially identifying four separate sub portions of capital—prestige and education, political and financial skills, personal skills and personal support. The hope of the authors is that through this theoretical model of conducting multiple measures of social capital, that measuring social capital will become more valid and specific. The authors are very careful in their considerations of measurement during this experiment and describe their methodology in detail. The results show that the percentage of respondents who say to know anyone who can give access to a resource item is high (76%) and almost all of the items were accessed by 50% of the respondents or more. Questions: What were some of the mistakes in this study? How can those mistakes be avoided in the future? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.350 2006-10-11T02:57:36Z 2006-10-11T02:58:27Z

1) The authors of this article describe the fundamental changes in our core network discussion groups over the past twenty years. As stated in the article and in the North Carolina Public radio show, Smith-Loving explains that people reported that...

rll 1) The authors of this article describe the fundamental changes in our core network discussion groups over the past twenty years. As stated in the article and in the North Carolina Public radio show, Smith-Loving explains that people reported that they now only consider two people to be in their close social networks instead of three, pointing to a major structural change that has occurred over the past twenty years. The authors take a theoretical approach in describing the reasons behind this big- scale social change. Firstly, the article reports that the increased amount of time we spend in the workplace and the dispersion of families to the suburbs play a big role in this structural change. The authors also point to the lack of involvement in community networks, such as neighborhood associations and groups, as possible explanations for the decrease in close social networks. What I found to be most interesting about the radio interview was the dialogue on the usage of internet and cell phones. The authors both recognize the importance of the influx of both technologies, as changing the face and structure of networks, yet they do not recognize those technologies as creating the same quality of close-knit networks. Smith-Lovin describes interesting findings with her sample survey—35 of her respondents(all of whom were picked from a random sample) were Katrina survivors and reported to have been missing both personal and collective “safety nets” in both the aftermath of the event and even before the hurricane struck New Orleans. If this is true, then there may be a causal link between strong personal networks and strong state governments, which Louisiana was definitely lacking. Another interesting explanation for this structural change came from Professor Burton from Harvard University. He offers the explanation that since 1966, there has been less trust in the government and less trust in other institutions as well. Does this apparent lack of trust correlate with the apparent lack of intimate bonds? I did not think that the gender or age explanations were very convincing, but I would like to see more research and debate on the topic of religious institutions and the relationship with close kin networks. 2) The social support provided by close-network ties can be summarized in one phrase: “the people who bring you chicken soup.” The Smith-Lovin etal. Article describes these core discussion groups: “…we may ask for help, probe for information, or just use the person as a sounding board for important decisions…”(Mcpherson, Smith-lovin, Brashears, 353). With the help of this core discussion networks (which, according to the abovementioned authors are slowly depleting), we have a network that can give us certain emotional, financial and occupational resources that can give us a more central position in society. The authors argue that a major trend in social networks has occurred over the past twenty years: “ We found a remarkable drop in the size of core discussion networks, with a shift away from ties formed in neighborhood and community contexts and towards conversations with close kin (especially spouses)…” (Smith-Lovin etal. 353). These newly-structured networks are more homogeneous, and begin to isolate us more in our society. In the article, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” the authors explain the significant variables, such as religion, gender, occupation and social class that all work to increase this homophily. The authors of this article explain: “…By interacting only with others who are like ourselves, anything that we experience as a result of our position gets reinforced. It comes to typify ‘people like us.’ These homogeneous, kin-based ties make it more difficult to form new social ties and to interact with people outside of your inner network. This changing form of social network implies that we are communicating with each other on a daily basis in different ways. In some ways, it has become harder to connect with people on an intimate, person level. Therefore, we must be optimistic about these changes and welcome them as part of our social evolution in order to sustain our levels of connection with one another. As Professor Burton says in his radio interview: “We have been in this position before…we must re-invent ourselves and create new ways of connecting with one another.” tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.317 2006-10-08T21:46:29Z 2006-10-08T21:47:49Z

McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Mcook’s article, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” discusses the relationship of similarity between people and connections, and, more specifically, social networks. The authors describe the different characteristics, demographics and situations which all add to...

rll McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Mcook’s article, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,” discusses the relationship of similarity between people and connections, and, more specifically, social networks. The authors describe the different characteristics, demographics and situations which all add to this phenomenon of homogeneous social networks. The authors begin their discussion by asserting that “people with different characteristics—genders, races, ethnicities, ages, class backgrounds, educational attainment, etc.—appear to have different qualities…Since generally people only have significant contact with others like themselves, any quality tends to become localized in sociodemographic space”(415). This article looks at the sources of homophily, such as social structures and cognitive processes, in relation to social network analysis. The article looks at each characteristic and different type of relationship as independent variables to predict social homophily. I found the most interesting discussion to be that of sex and gender, and the process of socialization of gender as a characteristic. While each characteristic posed interesting and different results, such as race being the strongest indicator of social networks, the article also looked at consistent structural variables, such as geography and family ties. While I thought that the research in this article was interesting, I was not all that impressed with it. The authors acknowledge that further research is indeed needed in the area, which is of course positive. However, what about the psychological reasons (i.e. comfort) behind social network homophily? I think that more questions would push this study to a new level. Questions: 1) Is homophily in our society a bad thing? What might be some missed opportunities of having completely homogeneous social networks? What about the positive effects of homophily in social networks? 2) Why do girls tend to play in smaller groups than boys at a young, developmental stage? The Killworth etal. study, “Estimating the Size of Personal Networks,” looks at a very simple question that has not such a straightforward answer: How many people are in an individual’s social network, and with how much overlap? The article describes the mistakes in the past with this type of quantitative research, such as researchers searching the proxies of the size of the person’s network rather than the actual size of the network itself. This article looks at a study conducted in Jacksonville and Mexico City, with 98 and 99 informants, respectively, in each location. The researchers used a “network suite” with modules of specific questions to ask the informants. The researchers came up with several issues/ questions along the way: What about repeat names or similar names? What about the use of phone books? How does gender affect network size? The results explained that informants using phone books could identify 1700 names, with a spread between 400-570 names. Although these results are a good starting point to estimating personal network size, there are still several issues with statistical reliability in this study that deem it necessary to approach this question from a different angle or a new strategy. Questions: 1)Why do informants in areas of low population density appear to have far more people in their networks than informants that live in medium and high population density areas? 2) What would be a better experimental design for answering this theoretical question? In The Hill and Dunbar aricle, “Social Network Size in Humans,” the authors look at social network size based on the ritual of exchanging Christmas cards. Their results showed that on average, per family, a network contained about 153.5 individuals, with 21% consisting of kin. This article looks at the passive and active factors that lead to network size. (The study is conducted as compared to primates). The method of the study was a questionnaire that each participant filled out while sending out their Christmas cards. The comprehensive results of the study proved that Christmas card networks: “…support the idea that they are utilized to make (at least annual) contact with all those individuals whose relationships are considered important. Total network sizes estimated from Christmas card lists are remarkably close to the value of 150 predicted for human social group based on the relationship between group size and brain size across primates”(69). The results of this study are very impressive, but I was left wondering at the end a few questions. Questions 1) What about families who do not choose to send Christmas cards? How do we account for them? 2) What about families who do not celebrate Christmas? I found the Pearson, Steglich and Snijders’ article, “Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users,” to be one of the most interesting articles we have read all semester. Finally, we see the interesting data applied to situations that affect us on a more personal level. The authors look at the problem of separating the effects of homophily and assimilation. The results of the study showed that a strong sense of assimilation is present amongst pot users and alcohol users, but not amongst tobacco users. This study looks primarily at the relationship between sport-active adolescents and substance abuse, and found that there was no strong relationship between the two. However, the results did show that those who did engage in substance using were less likely to be involved in sporting activity. The study focused on certain substances (alcohol, pot, and tobacco) and their effect on network evolution. The study was interesting but I found the hypothesized relationship for the purpose of the study to be somewhat random. Questions: 1) How have the newly-passed laws barring smoking in bars affected the strength of network homophily amongst smokers? 2) Do you think that the reason that substance users are less engaged with sporting activities is because they replace sober social interactions with substance using? 3) Do you think that substance users form stronger or weaker ties with each other than non-substance users? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.223 2006-09-26T16:40:09Z 2006-09-26T16:42:12Z

1) I chose to give my folder to a good friend of mine, a junior girl by the name of Lauren Levy. I have known Lauren since freshman year, and she is a Biological Basis of Behavior major in the...

rll 1) I chose to give my folder to a good friend of mine, a junior girl by the name of Lauren Levy. I have known Lauren since freshman year, and she is a Biological Basis of Behavior major in the college. Lauren is an active member of the Penn community. She spends much of her time in the medical library and does research for “HUP” when she has free time. I knew that Lauren would be excited to participate in the small university experiment, because of a few reasons: she is a very theoretical person who loves challenges, she is also eager and willing to help a friend, and she is very connected in the Penn medical community. As my target person is Antonio Polley, Lauren seemed to me to be the most logical choice to start my experiment. I am hopeful that because Lauren is such a trustworthy and organized person that the folder will not only reach my target person, but will do so with relative speed and ease. I cannot hypothesize what will happen to the folder once it leaves Lauren’s hands, but I expect her to give the folder to someone who is as reliable as she is, and can only hope for the best after that. After re-reading Glawell’s article, “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg,” I began to worry. Although Lauren is a trustworthy, reliable friend, does she really fit the criteria of a connector? Lauren does not bring people together on a daily basis, and she is not affiliated with different clubs/activities at Penn. Gladwell describes people like Lois Weisberg as people who “connect varied and isolated parts of society” (Gladwell, 3). Will the fact that Lauren is extremely isolated in her medical world affect the chances of my folder reaching its target? Although Lauren was my only “bridge” to the medical school world, perhaps I should have approached my project from a different angle, perhaps through a weak tie? 2) My relationship with Lauren is very strong—we have weekly dinners together and have known each other for two years. We also had mutual friends in high school, as we both went to private schools in NYC. Lauren and I also have a very reciprocal relationship and are very close to one another. If I had a problem, Lauren would be one of the first people I would go to for advice. In Monge and Contractor’s article, “Theories of Communication Networks,” they describe frequency, stability and strength as some of the key measures of ties between two actors) Monge and Contractor, 31, table 2.1). Having met a large portion of the criteria, I expect that my folder will have a greater likelihood of reaching my target person. In the article, “Social Isolation in America,” the authors define the benefit of strong-ties: “The closer and stronger our tie with someone, the broader the scope of their support for us and the greater likelihood that they will provide major help in a crisis”(McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Brasherars, 354). Although it makes sense that a strong tie in my own social network would be very inclined to help me, it could also work against me. According to Mark Granovetter, weak ties are actually stronger in bridging communities. Granovetter explains, “The significance of weak ties, then, would be that those which are local bridges create more, and shorter paths”)Granovetter, 1365). I can only hope that Granovetter is wrong, or that his analysis doesn’t apply to my experiment. But, I thought it would be important to hypothesize about all possible outcomes. 3) My information on Antonio Polley is as follows: he is a lab technician associated with the school of medicine and the Wistar institute. Any other information about his personal characteristics would be complete surmises. I would guess that part of the point of this assignment is chose a random target, and not someone who is structured centrally in the Penn social network. He may be very active in his own network, but I doubt that he is a well-known and popular actor in other networks. This will, indeed, make it more difficult for my folder to reach him. Also, from his name, he sounds like he might have some different cultural background from me: maybe African-American or Hispanic? The article, “Social Isolation in America,” states that “Both blacks an other-race respondents have smaller networks of confidants than white Americans…This pattern is more apparent in kin-ship networks, which are markedly smaller among non-whites”(McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Brasherars, 362). What if Antonio is involved with only a few, small kinship networks? If this is the case, than my folder will have a great deal of difficulty reaching him without a really “strong” weak tie. 4) I think that the path of my folder will stay among students in the undergraduate medical school. I also believe that it will be mostly in the hands of women. I think that the person to actually give the folder to Antonio will be a male staff member in the lab technician department with a similar cultural origin to Antonio. 5) As in Milgram’s experiment, I think that roughly over 50% of the folders will be passed to Antonio from the same three people. If this is the outcome, then I would hope that the folder will reach Antonio only having touched the hands of 5-6 other people. I think that this will reach Antonio within three weeks, giving each person a couple of days to participate and pass on the folder. tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.205 2006-09-25T21:09:39Z 2006-09-25T21:11:21Z

“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...

rll “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? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.203 2006-09-25T00:41:59Z 2006-09-25T00:42:47Z

“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”...

rll “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? tag:www.mysocialnetwork.net,2006:/blog/481/y8//17.160 2006-09-18T21:38:23Z 2006-09-18T21:39:06Z

In the article, “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg,” Malcolm Gladwell looks at the power of “the ultimate connector” in social network analysis. There were many observations about his connector( Lois Weisberg) that I found to be interesting. As the body...

rll In the article, “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg,” Malcolm Gladwell looks at the power of “the ultimate connector” in social network analysis. There were many observations about his connector( Lois Weisberg) that I found to be interesting. As the body of the article takes the reader through “fluke” occurrences regarding Lois’ life and experiences, the reader begins to realize that this is not, in fact, a coincidence. Gladwell describes the process of Lois’ central position: “First, she reaches out to somebody—somebody outside her world. Equally important, that person responds to her”(2). Using network terminology, Lois is a specific type of person who seems to be able to connect people from all isolated parts of society. Perhaps Lois’ connector status can be best illustrated by the results of the Stanley Milgram study—the fact that over half of the letters sent to the stockbroker in Massachusetts reached him via two people, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown. Although they might not be the same level of connector as Lois, they are still connectors. Having known this concept, “Six Degrees of Separation,” before reading this article, the Kevin Bacon game helped to further illustrate the complex nature of the role of connector. It also shows how obsessed society is in feeling a direct sense of connection. The most interesting part of this article was the description of Lois’ personality: she is described as someone who belongs to different social circles and worlds, someone who has had many occupations and her observant nature, which allows people to find her and come together through her(reception at the Musuem of Contemporary Art). Questions: 1)Gladwell makes the point that part of the job of a connector is to have many, weak ties. Can you think of someone at Penn that illustrates this phenomenon? 2)Do you think that poorer people are isolated, and this is in fact what deprives them? Because earlier in his argument, Gladwell describes the close-knit nature of the ties that many poorer people are involved with. How do we make sense of this? Doesn’t having strong ties, even within your own SES and with similar backgrounds, still give you a chance to become successful, but in a different way? In Duncan J. Watts article, “The ‘New’ Science of Networks,” Watts explores the emerging trends and analysis involved with network theory. After giving a brief history of the science, i.e. Watts & Strogatz 1998, he predicted that all networks should be small-world networks. After doing further research, a scientist by the name of Kleinberg came to realize that social networks were both small and searchable. Therefore, he needed to create a class of “generalized small networks”, and an algorithmic equation to correct this problem. Watts also describes the new research that has been conducted in specific areas of network theory, such as network motifs, community structure and social contagion. Watts points out that all of the research and studies of the past have built on one another. For example, “the intuition that a few random ‘shortcuts’ in the midst of locally dense neighborhoods can generate the structure of small-world networks(1998) bears a remarkable similarity to Rapaport’s(1963) analysis of random-biased nets, which inspired Granovetter’s investigation of the strength of weak ties”(263). The history of this science helps to unveil the complexities of social network analysis and how we are always altering our definitions and theories. In Stanley Milgram’s article, “The Small-World Problem,” Milgram asks the question: “Given any two people in the world, person X and person Z, how many intermediate acquaintance links are needed before X and Z are connected?”(62). He beings his discussion by explaining that there are two views of the small world: one viewpoint explains that people from any walk of life can be connected by a few acquaintances, while the other explains that two people will not be able to connect so easily because their social circles do not intersect. Milgram conducted two major research projects, one starting in Kansas and one in Nebraska. Taking into consideration the theory of social structure(people tend to know only other people like them) and other factors(the possible reverse direction of chains), Milgram’s experiment are extremely sound and have fascinating results. He found that the chains resulted from 2-10 intermediaries, with a median of 5.One finding that is very interesting is that certain kinds of communications are actually strongly influenced by sex. I also thought that the discrepancy between intuition and fact were fascinating. Questions 1)Milgram describes the problems with chains dying only a few feet from the resident of the target person. How can we avoid this problem in our experiment? What incentives or techniques can we use to encourage people to participate? 2)As Milgram explains, “Social communication is sometimes restricted less by physical distance than by social distance” (66). Do you think that this will be the case for our experiment as well? In Korte and Milgram’s article, “Acquaintance Networks between Racial Groups,” the authors look at how race affects social network analysis. The results were very interesting—they showed that the number of completed chains was 2.5 times greater for a white target as compared to a black target. The results of this experiment discussed and analyzed. One interesting problem that arose was that black-target chains had to overcome certain barriers that white-target chains did not—essentially, they had to cross both within their own race and across to other races. The authors describe many different reasons as to why the specific outcome was reached. The results confirmed that acquaintance chains are very much tied with the social structure of our world. This analysis was very interesting Questions: 1)do you think that if this study were conducted today that the results would be similar or strikingly different? 2)does gender or religion play a role? “The accuracy of small world chains in social networks,” is an article that looks at the actual paths people take to reach their targets, using intermediaries. The article uses mathematical terms to first define the network. In this case, it was 105 telephone survey interviewers. This study looked at the actual path length for each of the interviews. The article then looks at the accuracy of those paths, using “r” as a significance indicator. The study concluded that when determining small world chains, that inaccuracy in selection of small world chain intermediaries is common. This mathematical model for determining accuracy seems sound, but I think that further research should be conducted in order to give it validity.