WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
Week 5
Feb. 13th: Communication in Networks
Hurlbert, Jeanne S., Valerie A. Haines, and John J. Beggs. 2000. “Core Networks and Tie Activation: What Kinds of Routine Networks Allocate Resources in Nonroutine Situations?” American Sociological Review 65:598-618. ![[PDF]](http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i203/s07/wp-content/acrobat_pdf_icon_sm.gif){kind=icon}
Ebadi, Yar. M. and James M. Utterback. 1984. “The Effects of Communication of Technological Innovation.” Management Science 30:572-585.
Feb. 15th: Social Structure, Connectivity and Information Flows
Matzat, Uwe. 2004. “Academic Communication and Internet Discussion Groups: Transfer of Information or Creation of Social Contacts?” Social Networks 26:221-255.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415-444.
posted by:
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
20 Comments Add your own
1. yliu | February 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“People tend to use close friends for emergency support” seems a pretty safe research hypothesis, as far as those things go. However, it is interesting to note that the authors found 63 percent of assistance were provided from out-of-network. I wonder if this may be slightly confounded by the magnitude of the “nonroutine” event that the authors chose as the observational case study. Hurricane Andrew was quite destructive (when I lived in Louisiana, the neighbors still bring it up now and then, especially about how people in their social networks were affected) and wreaked havoc across a large number of communities. The magnitude of the situation sometimes is such that one must activate a large number of ties, core or otherwise. There are a number of “nonroutine” situations, for some definition of nonroutine, that may not necessarily invoke out of network ties. Getting help to move to a new apartment, for example - I’d hypothesize that it is a rather core-network kind of affair. The authors’ point of how network structures can affect resource allocation still stand, but it might be interesting to see how the magnitude of “nonroutine-ness” affects tie activation.
I’m also curious as to if ties are considered one-way or two-way links. The research methodology, e.g. “name the last five minute you had important conversations with…” seems kind of vague (after all, people can have important conversations with others that they aren’t really tied to) to begin with, though perhaps I’d be more convinced if I’d chased down the citation to the GSS. In any case, would unequal ties matter? If A considers B core-network, but the reverse is not true, then it is conceivable that “activation” may not imply much actual support. It is somewhat out of scope for this study, but still may be worth examining.
The effects of homophily is quite interesting. Taken at face value, it seems that the strongest ties might be generated by locating the nearest-neigbhor, for all dimensions listed in the study. Does modern communication technology alleviate or exacerbate this effect? We’ve all heard that “on the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog”. Does the pseudo-anonyomity of the web mean that while the nearest-neighbor algorithm still applies, it simply forces us to align ourselves along a different set of dimensions?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 12. igorp | February 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
While reading the Hurlbert et al paper I kept thinking that somewhere I am going to catch them on circular reasoning. In the end, I am not sure that I can point to where it is, but I still have an uneasy feeling about some of their logic. The goal of the research was to answer the question “how the structure of routine interpersonal environment affects the degree to which individuals activate ties from preexisting social networks for social resources in a nonroutine situation” (whew!). So it’s the amount and architecture of network traffic they’re after and not the content. I agree that the specifics of an individual’s needs and situation lead them to develop a tailored social network. It’s logical to say that this structure will then affect how they use it.
The hypothesis put forward are good in the sense that one can try to verify them. At the risk of sounding like a nitpicking and sociologically lacking individual, I would venture they’re not ground shattering. Still, it is most definitely appropriate to empirically test them and I find no flaw with the authors’ overall analysis methods. They only vaguely refer to the fact that two of their hypothesis could be event specific. Hypothesis 4 and 5, referring to proportion of men and older individuals in networks respectively, both make great sense in an event where physical strength, or perception of it, is really the important social commodity.
In general, I think the authors miss an important view point. People create their networks to fulfill specific needs and conform so some external circumstances. It is reasonable to postulate that for a good number of individuals the external circumstances do not dominate, that is they have a choice as to how to design these networks. A self-reliant individual, for example, might choose to not create a dense network of kin or males or whatnot because s/he doesn’t need it or doesn’t like to use it. It isn’t that this person would activate a dense or large network if they could only get their hands on one during the hurricane - they wouldn’t because they don’t like or want them. This would morph the first hypothesis into something like “individuals with a dense network tend to utilize a large proportion of that network for informal recover support.” So individuals in large/dense/whatnot networks could not be compared to those in small/sparse/whatyes networks because of a lack of common basis.
30c9 February 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 13. jerryye | February 13th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Leave it to a sociologist to conclude that social networks are important. Hurlbert et al hypothesized that having an extended social network could improve job search prospects over not having one, that family could be helpful in times of need, that younger people could be more helpful than the elderly after a devastating natural disaster. Ebadi et al proposed equally novel ideas and concluded that communication between team members in a project might actually help a project succeed. To see an author take such revolutionary stances can be entertaining at first but to see it continue for tens and tens more pages quickly turned infuriating. Forgive me, but I didn’t find either the Hulbert or Ebadi papers to be exactly enlightening. If only I were a magician with a disappearing act.
A specific problem that I had with the papers was the apparent neglect of possible outside factors. Ebadi sought to verify their hypothesis by surveying team members from a random sample of Sea Grant Research projects. While Ebadi did conclude that high levels of communication is positively correlated with project success, I found it astounding that something like project funding did not make it into the study. If the level of funding is indicative of project importance then there is going to be an increased likelihood of the project succeeding.
Generalization is also something that I have an issue with. While Hurlbert’s paper focused on the size of a person’s social network, it didn’t make the distinction between someone who owns a sparkly private jet and one who couldn’t afford beef jerky. While Ebadi’s paper comes to a glittery conclusion, it is not one that is true to all projects. After all, an inexperienced team could talk all month and not get anything done while, depending on project scope, a single brilliant but anti-social person could finish an entire project single-handedly.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:39 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 14. Ken-ichi | February 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Response to Hurlbert et al.
I found this paper hard to read and harder to become interested in, so I’ll try and apply it to a hypothetical situation. You live in the Sacramento River delta, and there has been a great deal of unseasonable rain. The forecast is only for more rain and possible flooding, so you make what preparations you can. Do you contact people you know to make preparations? I sort of doubt it. Stocking up on food and supplies is solitary. Perhaps modifications to your property to mitigate potential flood dammage might require support, like tools you don’t own or expertise you don’t have. I guess if your method of preparation is leaving the area then you’d probably stay with someone you know.
Ok, the levy breaks, your neighborhood is flooded, your house has a lot of water damage, and the car you left in the driveway is basically ruined. Who do you go to for help? Do you share food / resources with neighbors? Large scale damage gets handled by insurance if you have it, I assume.
Ok, Hurlbert et al.’s research suggests that the amount of help you get is influenced by “density” (is this spatial? or is “density” a function of literal intimacy?), proportion of men in your core network, gender diversity in your network, age of people in your network, and proportion of your network that are in your family. In addition to all these, they suggest that the size of your network also influences extent to which that help comes from your “core network.”
All that’s fine. The gender issues are interesting and might make for an interesting investigation of the potential causes. However, what does this have to do with information? Should we equate information with the kinds of material assistance discussed in this paper? Information has different kinds of quality issues and ease of distribution. You might tap your core network for material needs because you feel comfortable asking favors of them (you like them, you have a relationship stable enough that you’ll probably repay the favor, etc.), and emergency materials don’t (I hope) have too many quality issues: a hammer is a hammer, tape is tape. But do you go to your core network for information? If Uncle Jimbo says, “The rain’s a-comin’! Ah feel it in mah knee! Got shrapnel in there, y’know. Got it Nam. Always feel the rain comin’. I ever tell you ’bout Nam? We was playin’ strip checkers deep in the jungle when Charlie come outta nowhere…” Whether you like the source of info or whether you think you’ll provide them with info in the future doesn’t really say much about the info quality, which is crucial. If you want that vitally important weather forecast, you’ll tune into a centralized source, some source with a) authority, b) accountability, and c) actual access to instruments of proven efficacy.
So. I guess I need a little convincing on why we read this paper. Somewhat interesting sociology, I guess, but what does it have to do with information? It seems social network use for access to atoms could be very different from network use for access to bits.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 15. bryan | February 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
The future of social networks
The one thing that struck me while I was reading the paper was how networks have changed in the decade since Hurricane Andrew. As cliche as it is, the internet has caused a fundamental shift in the structure of social networks.
I would posit that for the younger generation (age 21 or younger — aka people who were college freshmen when Facebook because popular), have less dense social networks across the board, as it is easier to maintain a minimum level of social contact with people geographically and socially distant. Similarly, their networks will be less homogeneous, which is clearly related to density.
However, I don’t think that this decreased density will impact the potential activation of social ties for informal support in the way the paper predicts.
I see emerging social networks as essentially a long tail phenomenon. I think that if you eliminated the tail, which was far skinnier pre-Facebook/MySpace, I think networks would be even denser than before, because social networking applicaitons make it easier to create connections with friends of friends (2nd degree acquaintances) and also to identify interconnections between friends that were previous underreported in the old paradigm that was used by the authors of the paper.
(As an aside, for example, I found out that an elementary school classmate of mine went to my college and was friends with some of my friends there because of Facebook, something that in previous times probably would have gone unreported.)
In fact, such networks probably serve to increase density among the core group by identifying and reinforcing connections between members.
So I guess the point is that I believe that the conclusions drawn in the paper, while valid at the time, are or will no longer be predictive, as emerging social network platforms are fundamentally altering social structures, both by reducing the overall density of networks while increasing density among “core groups.”
February 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 16. n8agrin | February 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The Ebadi and Utterback paper is interesting in that it seems to confirm some expected outcomes of networked interactions, but I feel like they do not take into account other inherent social aspects of research projects.
Their hypothesis, while seemingly common sense, at least attempt to empirically demonstrate the validity of these seemingly obvious assumptions. On the other hand, they don’t take into account competition or rival tendencies these projects have. Based on my first hand experiences in academic research projects, it is not uncommon to have two independent researchers, both with clear channels of communication with each other, to be competing for the same resources. Often times, the contention over resources is literally based on their rush towards carrying out the exact same research goals.
Instead of focusing on this fact, Ebadi et al. make assumptions in their hypothesis that communication is essentially positive, or more accurately that network effects boost a project’s likelihood for success. Alternatively, I propose that sometimes communication across a network may not necessarily correlate to positive repercussions. A project might specifically fail because their network connections have provided them with dis- or mis-information about another project who then scoops their research.
While I doubt in this small sample size that these implications are really a weighty factor. Studying larger industries, such as biotechnology or subsets of the biotech field might provide a more interesting analysis of network effects within a research community. For example, it might be found that projects which are connected to other successful projects tend to be successful themselves. Or perhaps it would become obvious that in more competitive niches, denser network connections actually increases the probability that a project will not succeed.
I’m not surprised by their analysis and find their results overall interesting and applicable. At the same time, their general assumptions which have led them to formulate their hypothesis leaves me a bit wanting. I’m not sure that network connections generally imply positive repercussions, especially in a research environment hungry for results and grant funding.
2a83 February 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 17. cvolz | February 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
So, I was thinking about homophily today… no, seriously, I was… I was at the gym and had nothing else to do while I was on the making-me-run machine; anyway, two thoughts occurred to me. The first was about how people tend to congregate around similar people and how the longer they are around them the more similar they become. And, intuitively, that kind of makes sense. The more you’re around a certain group of people the more you will have shared experiences, shared viewpoints, etc. But, more than that, I think there’s some element of social assimilation at work. The a member of a group shares experiences with the group as a whole the more pressure there will be to come to a group consensus on how to interpret those experiences. It’s like whenever you join a new group (work, friends, whatever) there is a certain period of time where you try to figure out the dynamic: who’s connected to who, who knows what, what can and can’t be said, etc. etc. And once you’ve invested in learning those rules I’d say there is a certain inertia against changing them… because change is work and people are lazy.
The second thing I was thinking about while I was on the making-me-run machine (aside from damn running sucks) was the collapse of community issue we were talking about in class today. I don’t really see community as collapsing as I see that new forms of communication and media are reinforcing homophily. I think we’ve all heard about the various echo-chambers out there. Liberals shout at liberals, conservatives shout at conservatives, but the two sides are pretty blissfully unaware of each other because people tend to consume the media they are most interested in, that they agree with, that is most like their own views.
In and of itself that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But we could be on the road to becoming more polarized about our view points and thus more hostile toward competing/differing views. (nerd reference: I would liken this to the various enclaves in Neil Stephenson’s “The Diamond Age”) And that’s the real concern, in my opinion. People find things they like by being exposed to them, and they only get exposed to new things by reaching outside their current boundaries.
Fortunately, I don’t think most people are willing to be so self-limiting. People may like what they like, and they may like hanging around the people who like the same things as they do. But I would not underestimate the curiosity of most people. And I think people’s innate curiousity + the relative ease of reaching beyond their current community will continue to ensure exposure to other communities / outlooks / viewpoints / opinions etc.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 18. megha | February 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I found the Ebadi and Utterback paper interesting and much easier to read as compared to Hurlbert et al. paper. Hurlbert et al. paper very difficult to comprehend and hence would not try to blog about it.
“Effect of communication on Technological Innovation” -
Nice empirical study of the effect of interorganizational and individual communication on project success and in overall process of innovation .The authors considered only frequency, centrality, diversity and formality aspects of communication while postulating the hypothesis. Effects of other factors such as time were not considered during the study phase. However, during the analysis process , time was considered as one of the factor while calculating the correlation between frequency and project success.
I absolutely agree with the fact that high level of formality negatively effects project success both at indivisual and aggregate level.It reminds me the numbers of times our project schedule had to be revised because of the hundreds of documents we had to update for small bug fixes, and this potentially led to a late release of a product.That also probably answers why startup companies have high efficiency, productivity and very short time-to-market when compared to giant companies ,which conform to high level of formalisms like CMM.
At the aggregated level, i think the term “centrality” of a project is directly related with the goals and focus of an organization. Even if there are many projects in a particular network, a project which is given very high priority and focus by the top management will tend to get centrality and hence more flow of information..Also, it depends on what is the success criteria as defined by the organization. If success of that particular project is defined as the prime organizational goal, then that project being highly centralized will increase the network’s centrality and success even if the other project’s success criteria is not met.As correctly mentioned in the paper, network cohesion is a very strong factor when it comes to the success of aggregated projects.
What is said at the conclusion is raising few questions in my mind though.”Researcher’s previous records of success and his/her past communication activities should be given weight by management in deciding whether to finance a project or not” - I know this is how organizations work and will continue to work, but does it not create bias and suppress new innovations? Someone who is not having great past history might have a wonderful innovative idea and due to his/her past records, the idea might not get its way to implementation. I agree experience counts , but for everyone there is a starting point. Thats why i guess many times people have to leave a current job and go for startups so that their innovative ideas get a platform to burgeon. There are instances when fairly experienced people fail terribly while implementing new ideas..The management decision of whether or not to finance a project should be based on a “risk VS reward analysis” when it comes to inexperienced researcher.
February 17th, 2007 at 10:56 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 19. johnson | February 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Communication has been the key for mankind since day one and it’s about time there is literature to capture its usefulness. My first impression from reading the piece by Ebadi and Utterback got me wondering why I’m spending time reading about something that’s so obvious. Of course, communication will positively affect the success of a project. But reading closer, I noticed that they actually went about proving this was so. I enjoyed seeing the scientific approach as it solidified what we’ve known all along. Communication with my colleagues at work is the reason I am able to maintain my job. It’s also a major part of my education as most of the experience I gathered from work was imparted through my interactions with the department. I also enjoyed the point that was made about formality and how it can adversely affect problem solving. The more formality that accompanies communication, the more people will hesitate to participate in the discussion. I’ve found this very true. I’m less inclined to interact with someone who speaks formally than I am with one a coworker who speaks informally like I personally choose to do. It’s clear that I prefer speaking to people who speak like myself because I know what to expect.
The concept of homophily really captures my attention. Throughout my life, I’ve noticed this theory taking place around me. In high school, where break and lunchtime encouraged group huddles out in the quads, I’d see groups of all compositions. There would be the Asians, the Latinos, the Caucasians, the African Americans. I never stopped to think much of why this was so. In each group you visited, you’d find that not only do they share racial similarity but also interests. I found most of the math club in the Asian group. I found most of the water polo/swim team in the Caucasian group, etc. Confirming this concept is pretty disturbing to me because, don’t we live in the United States, the world’s “melting pot”? We are encouraged to interact with everyone around us without regard to race/gender/education/age and yet, in reality, opposites don’t really attract. On a more personal note, I flocked to every group in hopes of getting to know everyone. I didn’t enjoy being in only one group and closing myself off to the world. And yet today, I look at myself and wonder where all my friends are. I don’t belong to any particular group because I was a social nomad back then in high school. I’m not going to go on about this but I think I’ve described enough how I feel about the topic. I definitely find this concept very accurate and controversial at the same time. We avoid talking about discrimination but it’s there ::cringes::
2308 February 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 110. zgillen | February 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I was a little overwhelmed with the intensity of the social networking papers this week, specifically my reaction to the “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks.” I went through various states of social, critical and personal reactions while reading and found myself with more questions then answers by the conclusion. Of course the authors, after consolidating seemingly hundreds of studies detailing this social phenomenon, ended the paper with questions outlining the need for future studies. In particular, I was interested in their notion of studying the “Co-evolution of foci and networks.” Most of these studies documented examples of homophily within a fixed point in time. They demonstrated the similarities of social networks given different structures of social demographics, but didn’t attempt to show the dynamic nature of these relationships.
Personally, growing up in the Bay Area and attending Berkeley High and public middle school, you would think that my social network would break some of these homogenous boundaries given the diversity of the community. In general, I managed to maintain a fairly heterogeneous group of close friends, although the school itself was incredibly segregated given the diversity. The insecurities and pressures of socializing within racial groups led to the increased homophily within the school. As a result, I lost close friendships with individuals I had known for years within other organizational social networks (Soccer, baseball, etc). In this case, increasing the diversity within the school seemed to lead to an increase in homophily.
Interestingly, I worked in the Florida Keys teaching experiential science programs after college. All the employees lived, worked and socialized together as there were no outside influences. This group was very diverse in ethnicity, religion and age although educationally and occupationally we were identical. In almost every single social encounter you can apply this concept of homophily, but what’s interesting is the evolution of the network over time. The changes made within my close social network are due to experiences, work, education and geography constantly in flux.
Technology is mentioned as something that has “loosened the bounds of geography by lowering the effort involved in contact, but these new modes have certainly not eliminated the old pattern.” Certainly this is true. Social networks outside of technology will always remain the dominant force. However, I would argue that studying the network evolution of people utilizing technology might show an increase in loose network ties beyond core social groups.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 111. lawan | February 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I agreed with the concept of homophile that people tends to interact more with those who are like them. I experience this myself since I was in school. I feel closer to my friends in high-school than my friends from other community like colleagues. This might be because we have the same education background. I mean not only the same level of education, but being in the same school since we were kids sort of blended our idea to be in the same way. We think quite alike, and we understand each other more than others. Also, I think it might also be because of we have the same background in term of age, family, process of thinking. However, it is not that I was not tried to be friend with others. I have a lot of friends from my workplace but it’s just that I feel closer to those since high-school. And if I have real problems, I will go to them.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 112. karenhsu | February 18th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Interestingly, the “strength of weak ties” was briefly discussed in our last lecture of MBA 209F: Business Fundamentals. Maintaining strong ties takes a lot of effort, whereas (as it is argued) accruing weaker ties allows you to more easily broaden your social network with a greater ROI.
We were told in class that studies show that managers who have a network density of 0.35 were most successful. What these studies are and where they come from is a mystery. However, for a mere $6.50, you too can compute your own network density in this network assessment exercise, offered here.
The formula used is more or less D = C/M, where
D = network density
C = the number of relationships among people in your (core) network
M = the number of relationships in the case of maximum density (if everyone in your network knew each other)
Just FYI.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:45 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 113. bindiya | February 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
While reading “Effects of Communication on Technological Innovation” it was interesting to see how the various hypotheses were formed and tested, and how project success is measured. Although we all know communication is extremely important in projects and organizations, we do tend to take it for granted. It was intriguing to read about the diversity of communication during different phases of innovation. Communication has become more important than ever before in the business world today. Within an organization, communication flowing smoothly downstream as well as upstream is equally important. In today’s competitive corporate arena, work relationships are given a lot of significance. Everybody is becoming extremely conscious of their social network and contacts at their work place. Communication not only within organizations but even externally is vital. In consulting companies especially, managers stress a lot on maintaining good relationships with their clients to ensure getting future projects. Communication is the foundation of networking which is an important aspect of success today. In the “Doing Business in China” class last semester, many lectures were spent on talking about how have a strong network was an important part of doing Business in China. The term they use for their networks is called “Guanxi” and it almost defines success for people in china. It is fascinating how people there decide on whom to sign deals with depending on how strong the person’s Guanxi or social network is.
2371 February 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 114. jbward | February 18th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
After reading this past week’s (and the previous week’s) readings, I had a hard time not seeing diffusion and homophily all around me in my everyday life. From my adoption of email and the cell phone to my choice of clothes and friends, it was difficult not to view these in the light of diffusion and homophily.
I was also more conscious of my participation in what Valente might describe as collective behavior. Valente touched upon collective behavior just briefly, mostly to draw a distinction between it and the diffusion of innovations. One specific example of collective behavior that came to mind was that of applause at concerts and lectures. When we attend a concert, regardless of how we feel about the performance, we generally temper our applause based on the applause we hear around us. Even if we have strong positive feelings about a performance, most of us would prefer not to be the lone person cheering long after the rest of the audience has stopped. If we stop applauding based on external queues, is it that we wait for the applause to reach a certain threshold of decay? If so, who determines an audience’s length of applause? Is it an average of an audience’s enthusiasm, or is applause led by a subset of the audience?
February 18th, 2007 at 3:34 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 115. daniela | February 18th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
After reading the majority of posts this week, I notice an overwhelming personal reaction to the concept of homophily. Somehow homophily attracts us the same way those similar to us attract us. Rather than exploring the concepts each paper studied, I enjoyed following each paper’s strategy for conducting their research, often by extending previous work. The Hulbert study was a nice example of how a more comprehensive understanding of existing research can be conducted by exploring the nuanced aspects of the original research – in this case, by determining alternative factors involved in network success. Although the study did confirm earlier conclusions, such as that the frequency of communication positively effects project success, other less obvious factors also correlated with success of the project. Most odd was that the aggregate centrality of communication positively correlated with network success. Also interesting was that the diversity of communication varied in its effect depending on the frequency of communication.
Earlier work also laid the groundwork for research presented in the Matzat paper. The paper pieced together conclusions from theoretical and empirical work, while pointing out the critical perspectives previously ignored. For example, it pointed out the importance of when and in what context the communication of researchers took place. Although this subject was brought up in the discussion of the hypotheses, it eventually had little effect on the paper’s results. The paper concluded that social benefits were more salient in IDG communication than information. It was also interesting that although IDGs were not shown to decrease inequalities between difference researchers, they did have a greater effect on those with fewer ties to other researchers. Some of the expected outcomes based on earlier studies were proven wrong and others proved right. Seems there’s some value in the “implications for future research” section afterall.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:42 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 116. nfultz | February 19th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I’ve been reading John Robb’s blog for a while now, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in 4GW. He also has some interesting links to articles on black hat social networks like Al Qaeda and the carding sc3n3.
Since Stripling uses a weighted directed graph, and also includes some simple state transition rules, he comes up a with a pretty rich model that has a bit more variety than the networks we have been looking at in school. He also argues that the elimation of certain hubs could create cascading failures, but these nodes are at the edge of the core, and not in the ‘leadership’ clique itself. Just like power grids and LANs, social networks have systempunkts that can be exploited.
The phising article is also right on, if a bit alarmist. No, EFNet is not really jam-packed full of criminals.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:31 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 117. srini | February 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am
In the paper ‘The Effects of Communication on Technological Innovation’ the authors investigate the effect of communication on technological innovation at individual and organizational level. It reveals that the frequency of communication is highly correlated to the project’s success. I feel that it is not the case only in terms of technological innovation, but its true for all team work. In ‘The Social Life of Information’ the authors cite an example of Xerox technical representatives who serviced and repaired the copiers at the customers site. The authors pointed out that though the technicians were trained and provided with manuals and other additional documents they found the discussion with their colleagues very helpful when they confronted strange issues. Although one might argue that the increase in frequency of communication might not necessarily be aimed at the project, good interaction would definitely contribute towards the success of the project in one way or the other.
Though project centrality and diversity are positively correlated with project success, it may differ across projects according to the stage and nature of the project. The negative correlation of communication is also explained by the Xerox technicians example which I mentioned earlier. When the formality of communication between technicians is reduced and socializing increased, they shared knowledge about every day issues which improved their efficiency in solving the issues.
In this paper the authors primarily studied the communication between principle investigators, and it would be interesting to study the same factors between the PI and the researchers under his project.
2049 February 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 118. srini | February 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am
The famous adage ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ puts homophily in a precise way. Yes, we are social beings who join various groups across our lifetime. Though the group in which a individual participates varies across his lifetime, he exhibits a pattern among the groups he get involved. These patterns are captured by the social scientists in a succinct manner. It is remarkably interesting to note that these patterns are robust over the widely varying types of relations. As race and ethnicity proved to be the primary factors of homphily, it could be attributed to the culture. As culture gets imbibed within humans in the early part of life, they tend to seek homophilous groups. Other dimensions such as age, gender, religion, behavior, etc are clearly observed in everyday life.
After reading the article I asked myself whether I had participated in any heterophilous group. Though I could think of some, but I could find some pattern even there. The concept of ‘hot desking’ strikes me here, as it reduces the possibility of homophily as the neighbours are not constant in such environment. Is this the main reason that hot desking did not diffuse?
When I started thinking about homophily in the current world some questions sprang on my mind. Is this internet era opening the doors of heterophily? This global network has ratinolized communication among people across the world and extended the ‘foci of formation’. The plethora of social network sites and other modes of interaction definitely increases the possibility of interaction among variety of individuals.
Does other factors such as advancement in technology, innovation, globalization, etc have any implications on homophily?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 119. Bernt Wahl | February 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Newsgroups (Internet Discussion Groups)
What kept it special was your peer group’s devotion to a specified topic; often leading players in a field would be members of their related group. I remember being a part of the ‘fractal’ group. If I had a challenging question there was usually someone who could point me in the right direction. It was a close group. Over time as the group grew it lost its focus and the academic elements became more watered down as more users started posting more general questions. Over time the value that the site provided for users waned and I was back to sending emails to my more intimate circle of fractal mathematician friends.
If academic networks are to work, it is most likely in the context of a core of individuals that derive benefits of the association of its members. When that goes away the value diminishes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 120. Bernt Wahl | February 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
In the early 1990’s Newsgroups (Internet Discussion Groups) played an integral part in the research collaboration. It was comprised for the most part of scientists or university students that had access to Internet communications. The bar consisted of gaining Internet access. There was a level of self-regulation observed by members enjoying the access of an almost utopia online society. If you did not fit in one there were hundreds and eventually thousands of others you could join. What kept it special was your peer group’s devotion to a specified topic; often leading players in a field would be members of their related group. I remember being a part of the ‘fractal’ group. If I had a challenging question there was usually someone who could point me in the right direction. It was a close group. Over time as the group grew it lost its focus and the academic elements became more watered down as more users started posting more general questions. Over time the value that the site provided for users waned and I was back to sending emails to my more intimate circle of fractal mathematician friends.
If academic networks are to work, it is most likely in the context of a core of individuals that derive benefits of the association of its members. When that goes away the value diminishes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed