Now that we have spent the first four weeks examining various overviews of research regarding the social issues of information, we are going to begin spending some quality time with specific research areas. This week is all about the role of social networks and network structures, with a focus on how they apply to information and information technologies. For Tuesday’s class we are reading one piece for a background in method and terminology (Wasserman and Faust). The second article is a classic theoretical piece (Granovetter’s ‘Strenght of Weak Ties’) that has been used to legitimize just about every social networking site on the Internet. We are going to get to the specifics of Granovetter’s argument and find out what the big deal is about these so-called ‘weak ties’.
On Thursday we will read an article that describes another commonly used (and often misused) social networking concept: homophily. McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook’s (2001) article is theoretically rigourous with excellent examples and supporting material. We will talk about the major arguments in the article and then talk about how and why the principle of homophily is so important to those of us who care about issues like the adoption and use of information systems and technologies.
February 18th, 2008
In week 3 we are going to start discussing specific research traditions, theories, and findings that help us make sense of the social implications of the Internet. Our Tuesday reading is an Annual Review piece by Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargattai, Russell Neuman and John Robinson. For many of you, this may be your first introduction to some social science concepts such as social capital, definitions of community, public-private distinctions, structural effects of technology, etc. This article is full of such terms– and part of what we are going to do in class on Tuesday is define and contextualize many of the key concepts that we want you to think more about in the coming weeks. Of course, we will also talk about the arguments in DiMaggio et al., and relate them to our discussion from the last two weeks.
While the Tuesday reading is a review of broader sociological issues and research surrounding the Internet, our Thursday reading is focused on some of the more micro-sociological implications of the Internet. In many ways this is a paper that tries to argue agains some of the most common beliefs about the Internet (i.e., that the Internet causes behavior; that identity and social interaction are somehow completely different on the Internet than in the ‘real’ world). We want you to think about the evidence that McKenna and Bargh present– do their arguments challenge any of your own assumptions about the interplay between the Internet and human behavior? As always, come prepared to discuss!
February 2nd, 2008