* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Social Networks
Survey
Document related concepts
Frankfurt School wikipedia , lookup
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Social rule system theory wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic interactionism wikipedia , lookup
Social constructionism wikipedia , lookup
Six degrees of separation wikipedia , lookup
Structuration theory wikipedia , lookup
Network society wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of knowledge wikipedia , lookup
Structural functionalism wikipedia , lookup
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Actor–network theory wikipedia , lookup
Social exchange theory wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Social network wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
SOCIAL NETWORK THEORIES Social network analysis is periodically accused of being merely “methods in search of a theory.” Theoretical underpinnings of network models often unstated or vague. No orthodoxy dominates SNA, but several theoretical perspectives provide useful micro-level core concepts and explanatory propositions for network theory construction: • Graph theory • Cognitive and structural balance • Communication & information diffusion • Social & generalized exchange • Power-dependence • Structural embeddedness GRAPH THEORY SNA tied to graph theory branch of finite mathematics since Harary & Norman (1953). Many Social Networks articles use graph ideas, but “its theorems..are generally neglected” (Barnes & Harary 1983). ► Like all mathematics, graph theory is a set of interconnected tautologies ► Rigorous language to state unproved axioms about two primitive terms (point, line) ► Logical deduction to derive and prove new theorems ► But, validity of graph model implications for real social behaviors is often unclear Algebraic theory of semigroups (homomorphisms) also a math formalization; EX: analyze kinship systems (Boyd 1969) BALANCE THEORIES Fritz Heider’s (1958) cognitive balance theory of attitude change based on cognitive dissonance principles. When beliefs are unbalanced, psychological stresses create pressures to change a person’s sentiments (liking, disliking) or unity (proximity, membership) into a congruent pattern. Balance exists when a set of beliefs is equally positive or negative; dissimilarities produce imbalance. Balanced relations are evident in well-known folk sayings: ► The friend of my friend is my _______________. ► The enemy of my friend is my _______________. ► The friend of my enemy is my _______________. ► The enemy of my enemy is my P–O-X Heider examined triads of positive and negative links off Person, Other, and Object . Balance means positive product of the 3 ties. Balanced: BLAIR O P BUSH O P X IRAQ WAR O P X X Unbalanced: SCHRÖDER O P BUSH O P X IRAQ WAR O P X X To restore balance, P must either change its sentiments about O or X, or alter its beliefs about the O-X link. STRUCTURAL BALANCE Cartwright and Harary (1956) applied graph principles to formalize and extend Heider’s cognitive balance theory to structural balance of the behavioral links among triads. Davis, Holland & Leinhardt (1979) studied clustering in graphs: Any balanced graph divides into two cohesive subgroups, with only positive ties internally (e.g., a friendship clique) & only negative ties between clusters (e.g., feuding factions). Actors avoid intransitive triads, prefer to form transitive triads: In a balanced graph, all the intransitive triads vanish. UCINET transitivity program conducts a “triad census” of a directed graph, tabulating the 16 MAN triad classes (see diagrams in Wasserman & Faust p. 566). INFORMATION DIFFUSION Network models of communication and information diffusion help explain patterns of innovation adoption (farming technology, family planning), contagion in epidemics like HIV & Ebola, recruitment to high-risk social movement actions (MS Freedom Summer). Diffusion analysts seek answers to key question: “Who influences whom?” When did Illinois physicians first prescribe new tetracycline drug? Timing varied by network ties to early adopters (Coleman et al. 1966) Uncertainty about outcomes compels more the risk-averse persons to consult high-risk early adoptors for information, advice & reassurance. Personal threshold hypothesis: As N of adoptors in ego-centric network rises (both direct & indirect ties), pressures increase on ego to conform. Relational network diffusion focuses on direct ties among individuals. Structural network diffusion focuses on ego’s position in the social structure, e.g., centrality & structural equivalence (Valente 1995). STRENGTH of WEAK TIES Granovetter’s (1973) classic article on finding a job argued that weak-tie relations (casual, indirect) give better access to new information and opportunities. Strong ties (direct, emotionally intense) restrict information flows from outside sources. ► Intimates (kin, close friends) share knowledge, norms, beliefs ► Although strong ties offer beneficial social support (“haven in a heartless world”), they also result in impacted information & coercive conformity to the social circle’s expectations (folkish society) ► Weak relations (acquaintances, coworkers) serve as bridges to other social groupings having information & resources unavailable within one’s intimate social circle; provide opportunities of individual autonomy via unique structural location [Simmelian cross-cutting] ► Persons with many weak gain speedy advantages in learning about and cashing in on new opportunities ► Thus, weak ties actually provide a strong form of social capital for career advancement, financial manipulation, conference invitations SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORIES Economics model assumes rational, utility-maximizing individual unaffected by social contexts. Exchanges of valued goods & services occur only when both parties’ subjective expected utilities are positive. Pricing mechanism provides sufficient information to clear the market. Transaction cost analysis in org’l studies based on economic exchange. George Homans (1958) - Behavioral psychology propositions can fully explain social exchanges. Larger societal structures arise because rational self-interested persons repeat rewarded actions. Peter Blau (1964) - Ambiguity in economic prices of indirect social exchanges: actors extend generalized credit which is repayable later (the reciprocity norm, an obligation to return favors). EX: Supervisor gives job advice and assistance to a bureaucratic subordinate Power/inequality in a dyadic relation arises from ego’s control over some resource valued by alter. GENERALIZED EXCHANGES Modern socioeconomic systems constructed as lengthy chains of indirect transactions, where direct reciprocity to a “giver” is often impossible. EX: Mentoring. Free-riding and opportunism problems; importance of interpersonal trust in complex transaction networks. ► Giving blood after a disaster (e.g., 9/11) ► Mafia criminal networks: code of omerta (see The Godfather) ► Scholarly publication reviews & promotion/tenure evaluations Kula Ring A complex system of visits and gift exchanges to foster social solidarity among the Trobriand Islanders, as described by Bronislaw Malinowski (1922). Necklaces and armbands circulated in opposite directions among islands residents. Persons giving the most gifts generate greatest dependencies in an obligatory network. Bearman’s (1997) blockmodel of generalized exchanges of wives across the Aborigine marriage classes of Groote Eylandt, where normative rules couldn’t be implemented. POWER-DEPENDENCE Richard Emerson (1962) theorized about the impact of macro-network structures on dyadic exchange processes and outcomes. Interconnected complex exchanges reinforce inequalities (imbalances) and change actor dependence on others. Power is a structural relationship, inverse to the cost that one actor willingly pays to another for an exchange. If actor B accepts a higher cost than actor A, then B has a greater dependence on A. Other ties mediate the dyad: “A’s power over B is (1) directly proportional to the importance B places on the goals mediated by A and (2) inversely proportional to the availability of these goals to B outside the A-B relation.” NETWORK EXCHANGE EXPERIMENTS Power-dependence theory spawned a cottage industry of experimental & simulation studies based on computerized laboratories. Sociologists tested theoretical propositions about variations in communication network forms that give some structural positions greater control over resources and increased power to extract higher rewards from exchange transactions. (For overviews see Willer [1992, 1999] and Molm [1997].) ► Power-dependence principles explain power distributions better than does graph theory centrality (Cook et al. 1983) ► “Weak power” in resource acquisitions is highly conditioned by actors’ experiences, orientations, & negotiation strategies (Markovsky et al. 1993) ► Negotiated vs. reciprocal exchanges (Molm et al. 1999) SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS Mark Granovetter (1985) argued that economic behaviors are embedded in social relations and network structures that have substantial exogenous influences on markets, firms, and workers. EX: Ethnicity, kinship, and friendship ties reduce the risks of opportunism & need for safeguards by small businesses. Mutual trust lowers transaction costs and increases profitability above market levels. Embeddedness contradicts economists’ rational actors whose utilitymaximizing cost/benefit calculi use only prices & budget constraints, without constraints from their contexts. Embeddedness concepts influenced developments in the “new economic sociology” (Uzzi 1996) and organization studies (Dacin et al. 1999) References Barnes, J.A. and Frank Harary. 1983. “Graph Theory in Network Analysis.” Social Networks 5:235-244. Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Boyd, John Paul. 1969. “The Algebra of Group Kinship.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6:139167. Cartwright and Frank Harary. 1956. “Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory.” Psychological Review 63: 277-292. Coleman, James S., Elihu Katz, and Herbert Menzel. 1966. Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New York: Bobbs Merrill. Cook, Karen S., Richard M. Emerson, Mary R. Gillmore, and Toshio Yamagishi. 1983. “The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results.” American Journal of Sociology 89:275-305. Davis, James A. 1979. “The Davis/Holland/Leinhardt Studies: An Overview.” Pp. 51-62 in Network Research, edited by Paul W. Holland and Samuel Leinhardt. New York: Academic Press. Emerson, Richard M. 1962. “Power-Dependence Relations.” American Journal of Sociology 27:31-41. Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360-1380. Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91:481-510. References Harary, Frank and R.Z. Norman. 1953. Graph Theory as a Mathematical Model in Social Science. Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michogan Institute of Social Research. Heider, Fritz. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Homans, George C. 1958. “Social Behavior as Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 63:597606. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton. Markovsky, Barry, John Skvoretz, David Willer, Michael J. Lovaglia and Jeffrey Erger. 1993. “The Seeds of Weak Power: An Extension of Network Exchange Theory.” American Sociological Review 58:197-209. Molm, Linda. 1997. Coercive Power in Social Exchange. New York:Cambridge University Press. Uzzi, Brian. 1996. “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect.” American Sociological Review 61:674-698. Valente, Thomas W. 1995. Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Willer, David. 1992. “Predicting Power in Exchange Networks: A Brief History and Introduction to the Issues.” Social Networks 14:187-211. Willer, David. 1999. Network Exchange Theory. New York: Praeger.