1 / 75

Seeing Networks

Seeing Networks. Barry Wellman, NetLab Department of Sociology University of Toronto wellman@chass.utoronto.ca. The Turn to Networked Individualism. Functioning in Encompassing , Densely-Knit, Bounded Groups  Fragmented, Sparsely-Knit , Permeable & Specialized Networks

mpeter
Download Presentation

Seeing Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Seeing Networks Barry Wellman, NetLab Department of Sociology University of Toronto wellman@chass.utoronto.ca

  2. The Turn to Networked Individualism • Functioning in Encompassing , Densely-Knit, Bounded Groups  • Fragmented, Sparsely-Knit , Permeable & Specialized Networks • MyFace (sic) is only the most media-hyped aspect

  3. The Triple Revolution • The Internet Revolution • The Mobile (Connectivity) Revolution • The (Social) Network Revolution

  4. The Internet Revolution • Builds on and Reinforces the Network Revolution • Instant Access to Diverse, Copious Information • If You Know Much to Look • Rapid, Low-Cost Communication • Distance, Time Much Less of a Constraint • Email as Frequent with Ties 3K km & 3 km • Yet most ties are local – people have bodies! • Supports Larger Networks • Increasing Volume and Velocity of Info & Comm

  5. Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity • Bandwidth • Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime • Convergence – Any Media Accesses All • Portability – Especially Wireless • Globalized Connectivity • Personalization

  6. Mobile Revolution • The Newest • Information & Communication Available • Wherever You Are • Wherever You Go • Always On, Always Connected • Multiple Venues of Connectivity – • Social Venues • Physical Venues – home, work, Starbucks

  7. The Network Revolution • The Subject of Our Talk • Actually Came First • We Think of Groups; We Function in Networks • No longer densely-knit • Fragmented – people switch & maneuver among nets • Specialized role relationships • Social capital from boutiques & not general stores • Premium on individual agency, rather than letting the group do it • Find your own information – no more 2-step flow • Maneuver/manipulate thru your networks.

  8. Traditional Ways of Looking at Social Interactions • Individuals as Aggregates of Attributes • All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of Individuals • Examples: Sex, Education, Bank, Rich Countries • Groups • (Almost) All Densely-Knit Within Tight Boundary • Thought of as a Solidary Unit (Really a Special Network) • Family, Workgroup, Community, Association, Soviet Bloc

  9. The Network Approach • Network • Set of Connected Units: People, Organizations, Networks • Relations: Direct relations or common affiliations • Talking, cheating, working together, trade, liking, partnership, citation, disease transmission, marriage, travel • Can Belong to Multiple Networks • Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, World-System, Internet

  10. Nodes, Relationships & Ties • Nodes: A Unit That Possibly is Connected • Individuals, Households, Workgroups,Organizations, States Relationships (A Specific Type of Connection) A “Role Relationship” • Gives Emotional Support • Sends Money To • Attacks • Ties (One or More Relationships) • Friendship (with possibly many relationships) • Affiliations (Person – Organization) • Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team • One-Mode, Two-Mode Networks

  11. Social Network Analysis • The Analysis of Networks! Simple enough, eh? • But network analysis implies a new perspective for understanding social behavior • Not a method, a cognitive perspective that has developed methods for applying that perspective to empirical research

  12. The Social Network Perspective • Relations, not attributes • No independence! • Dyadic relations operate in the context of broader social structures

  13. Networks Before Network-ing • Original ideas in the early 1900s – Georg Simmel • First research in the 1930s – J.L. Moreno • Modern Era of theory/research – mid 1960s: Harrison White, etc. • International Network for Social Network Analysis founded at U of Toronto, 1976 • Email in late 1980s • Networking software (Facebook) in this decade

  14. Networks, Not Groups • “Groups” are a short-hand for special kinds of networks: cohesive, densely-knit & tightly-bounded • Group = binary membership status • Network – varied levels of embeddededness, variable knit, often loosely bounded • Networks can comprehend multiple memberships & commitments, as well as conflicting interests

  15. A Network is More Than The Sum of Its Ties • A Network Consists of One or More Nodes • Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups, Nations • Connected by One or More Ties • Could be One or More Relationships • That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns • Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties • Emergent Properties (Simmel vs. Homans)

  16. Relations, Not Attributes Behavior of actors is best explained by: Position of actors in patterns of relations Not the attributes of actors (sex, SES, ethnicity) Although attributes may be correlated with positions: for example, central high-status white men

  17. Dyads are Influenced by Network Context In a sentence: “To Discover How A, Who is in Touch with B and C, Is Affected by the Relation Between B & C” John Barnes, British sociologist, anthropologist, 1970s

  18. The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis • Method – The Most Visible Manifestation • Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality • Data Gathering • Theory – Pattern Matters • Substance • Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World System, Web • As an Add-On: • Add a Few Network Measures to a Study • Integrated Approach • A Way of Looking at the World: • Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis • Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

  19. The Social Network Approach • The world is composed of networks - not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups • Networks provide flexible means of social organization and of thinking about social organization • Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition • Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents • Networks are self-shaping and reflexive • Networks scale up to networks of networks

  20. How Do Network Analysts Explain Things? • Some don’t. Pure formalists discovering structure • How structure affects outcomes: • Sparsely knit networks provide a greater variety of resources • Structure as providing constraints and opportunities – manuverability of multiple clusters • Structure matters more than individual attributes • Structure helps explain individual motivations

  21. Explanation by Structure Alone • Understanding of motivation not necessary to explain outcomes • Harrison White: chains of opportunity (vacancy chains) • Jobs, homes

  22. Structure as Constraint & Opportunity • People pursue their goals within structure • Structure provides opportunities to pursue goals & constraints on action • e.g., Ron Burt’s Structural Holes

  23. Structural vs Other Explanations • Determine how much variation is accounted for by structure and how much by other explanations • e.g., Beverly Wellman: “Pathways to Back Care” • How people find alternative health care providers

  24. Structure as Source of Motivations • People “catch” peferences, goals, motivations, etc from their networks: • Epidemiology – attitudes to birth control; AIDs • Two methods: • Cohesion – from those to whey are connected • E.g., Poison Pills and Golden Parachutes • Equivalence – From those in similar network positions • Citation studies – White, Wellman & Nazer; Matzat

  25. Changing Connectivity: Groups to Networks • Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit • Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable • Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci

  26. Characteristics of a Networked Society • Multiplicity of specialized relations • Management by networks • More alienation, more maneuverability • Loosely-coupled organizations / societies • Less centralized • The networked society

  27. Little Boxes: Door-to-Door • Old Workgroups/ Communities Based on Propinquity, Kinship • Pre-Industrial Villages, Wandering Bands • All Observe and Interact with All • Deal with Only One Group • Knowledge Comes Only From Within the Group – and Stays Within the Group

  28. Little Boxes GloCalization Networked Individualism BW, “From Physical Place to Cyber Place”, Intl J of Urban & Regional Research, 2001

  29. Place To Place: GloCalization (Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit) Home, Office Important Contexts, • Not Intervening Space • Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities • Not neighborhood-based • Not densely-knit with a group feeling • Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities • Often Based on Shared Interest • Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site • Household to Household / Work Group to Work Group • Domestication, Feminization of Community • Deal with Multiple Groups • Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources • “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

  30. Person To Person: Networked Individualism (Cell Phones, Wireless Computing) • Little Awareness of Context • Individual, Not Household or Work Group • Personalized Networking • Tailored Media Interactions • Private Desires Replace Public Civility • Less Caring for Strangers, Fewer Weak Ties • Online Interactions Linked with Offline • Dissolution of the Internal: All Knowledge is External

  31. Role To Role Tailored Communication Media • Little Awareness of Whole Person • Portfolios of Specialized Relationships • Boutiques, not Variety Stores • Cycling among Specialized • Communities / Work Groups • Role-Based Media Interactions • Management by Network

  32. The “Fishbowl” Group Office:(Little Boxes) • All Work Together in Same Room • All Visible to Each Another • All have Physical Access to Each Other • All can see when a Person is Interruptible • All can see when One Person is with Another • No Real Secrets • No Secret Meetings • Anyone can Observe Conversations & Decide to Join • Little Alert to Others Approaching

  33. Neighbors have Hi Visual & Aural Awareness • Limited Number of Participants • Densely-Knit (most directly connected) • Tightly Bounded (most interactions within group) • Frequent Contact • Recurrent Interactions • Long-Duration Ties • Cooperate for Clear, Collective purposes • Sense of Group Solidarity (name, collective identity) • Social Control by Supervisor & Group

  34. The “Switchboard” Network Office:Networked Individualism • Each Works Separately • Office Doors Closable for Privacy • Glass in Doors Indicate Interruptibility • If Doors Locked, Must Knock If Doors Open, Request Admission • Difficult to learn if Person is Dealing with Others Unless Door is Open • Large Number of Potential Interactors • Average Person knows > 1,000 • Strangers & Friends of Friends May also be Contacted

  35. Sparsely-Knit • Most Don’t Know Each Other • Or Not Aware of Mutual Contact • No Detailed Knowledge of Indirect Ties • Loosely-Bounded • Many Different People Contacted • Many Different Workplaces • Can Link with Outside Organizations • Each Functions Individually • Collective Activities Transient, Shifting Sets • Subgroups, Cleavages, Secrets Can Develop

  36. Little Boxes  Ramified Networks **** Each in its PlaceMobility of People and Goods **** • United Family  Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody • Shared Community  Multiple, Partial Personal Nets • Neighborhoods  Dispersed Networks • Voluntary Organizations  Informal Leisure • Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication • Public Spaces  Private Spaces • Focused Work Unit  Multiple Teams • Hierarchical Org.  Networked Organization • Job in a Company  Career in a Profession • Autarky  Outsourcing • Office, Factory  Airplane, Internet, Cellphone • Ascription  Achievement • Conglomerates  Virtual Organizations/Alliances • Cold War Blocs  Fluid, Transitory Alliances

  37. Ways of Looking at Networks • Whole Networks & Personal Networks • Focus on the System or on the Set of Individuals • Graphs & Matrices • We dream in graphs • We analyze in matrices

  38. Network Data • Observation • Archival • Name Generators/Interpreters • Position Generators • Resource Generators

  39. What Do Network Data Look Like? • Most quantitative data = one row per unit, with variables representing unit's attributes • Network data = data about relations between units • We dream in graphs; we analyze in matrices

  40. Whole Social Networks • Comprehensive Set of Role Relationships in an Entire Social System • Analyze Each Role Relationship – Can Combine • Composition: % Women; Heterogeneity; % Weak Ties • Structure: Pattern of Ties • Village, Organization, Kinship, Enclaves, World-System • Copernican Airplane View • Typical Methods: Cliques, Blocks, Centrality, Flows • Examples: (1)What is the Real Structure of an Organization? • (2) How Does Information Flow Through a Village?

  41. Whole Networks vs. Ego Networks • Personal Networks = the network surrounding one person (node) • Person tied with Alters • Alters’ characteristics • Connections between alters • Normally collected for multiple Egos • Whole Networks = Network of a particular setting or population. Bird's eye view of network, not focused on one person

  42. Network Graphs Whole Person

  43. Costs of Whole Network Analysis • Requires a Roster of Entire Population • Requires (Imposition of) a Social Boundary • This May Assume What You Want to Find • Hard to Handle Missing Data • Needs Special Analytic Packages • Becoming Easier to Use

  44. Duality of Persons & Groups • People Link Groups • Groups Link People • An Interpersonal Net is an Interorganizational Net • Ronald Breiger 1973

  45. The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

  46. Network Size Matters • (Robert) Metcalfe’s Law – (Xerox PARC, 1973) • For every network member added • The number of possible ties grows by N2 • 10 people => 102 possible ties = 100 • (David) Reed’s Law (MIT emeritus, 1997) • For every network member added • The number of possible (sub)groups grows by 2N • 10 people => 210 possible groups = 1,024 • Not only does Reed give a higher number than Metcalf • The disparity increases greatly as N increases • However, many of these subgroups are very similar

  47. Personal Social Networks • Ptolemaic Ego-Centered View • Good for Unbounded Networks • Often Uses Survey Research • Example: (1)Do Densely-Knit Networks Provide More Support? (structure) • (2) Do More Central People Get More Support? (network) • (2) Do Women Provide More Support? (composition) • (3) Do Face-to-Face Ties Provide More Support Than Internet Ties? (relational) • (4) Are People More Isolated Now? (ego)

  48. 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% Percentage of valid cases 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 # of network members Network Size: The Myopia of “Bowling Alone” 40 30 20 10 0 Very Somewhat

  49. Social Network Analysis: More Flavors • Diffusion of Information (& Viruses) • Flows Through Systems • Organizational Analyses • “Real” Organization” • Knowledge Acquisition & Management • Inter-Organizational Analysis • Is There a Ruling Elite • Strategies, Deals • Networking: How People Network • As a Strategy • Unconscious Behavior • Are There Networking Personality Types?

  50. Branching Out (II) • Social Movements • World-Systems Analyses • Cognitive Networks • Citation Networks • Co-Citation • Inter-Citation • Applied Networks • Terrorist Networks • Corruption Networks • Web Networks

More Related