SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

QUESTION: DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE OF “SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS.”

{THE GRADE IS BASED ON THE DEMONSRATION OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS AS A THEORY AND A METHOD, THROUGH THE INTEGRATION OF CLASS MATERIALS AND TEXT MATERIALS – YOU WERE NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLICATE THE DIMENSIONS, PROBLEMS, OR CRITIQUES}

SOCIAL NETWORKS ARE FORMS OF URBAN COMMUNITY, CONSISTING OF FAR-FLUNG WEBS OF KINSHIP, WORKPLACE, FRIENDSHIP, NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND INTEREST GROUP TIES.

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IS THE STUDY OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN SOCIAL ACTORS – WHICH INCLUDE PEOPLE, ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS.

IT ARGUES THAT, JUST AS TONNIES AND DURKHIEM RECOGNIZED THAT THE TRANSITION FROM AN AGRARIAN TO A COMPLEX, INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNITY, WE, TOO, MUST RECOGNIZE THAT OUR SOCIETY IS UNDERGOING CHANGES THAT MAY AFFECT HOW WE RELATE TO THOSE AROUND US.

SO, WHERE TONNIES AND DURKHEIM (AND CLASSIC URBAN THEORY) POSTULATED “THE BREAKDOWN OF SOCIAL RELATIONS” IN THE CITY [CAUSED BY INDUSTRIALIZATION], CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL NETWORK THEORISTS POSTULATE “THE DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS” IN THE CITY [CAUSED BY POSTINDUSTRIAL/KNOWLEDGE-BASED ENVIRONS].

{EXPLANATION/RATIONALE} IT POSTULATES THAT MODERN CITIES ARE EXTREMELY HETEROGENEOUS, RESIDENTS ARE HIGHLY MOBILE, AND PEOPLE REGULARLY COME IN CONTACT WITH DIVERSE OTHERS IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS ====> THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE AUTOMOBILE, THE TELEPHONE, AND THE INTERNET, FACILITATE THE FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AT A DISTANCE =====> THESE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS – INDEED, IT IS ARGUED, MOST PEOPLE HAVE MORE FRIENDS OUTSIDE THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD THAN WITHIN IT.

HENCE, SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS EXPLORES THE EXTENT TO WHICH POST-INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS LEAD TO A NETWORK SOCIETY, WHERE COMMUNITIES CONSIST OF FAR-FLUNG SOCIAL NETWORKS OF KINSHIP, WORKPLACE, FRIENDSHIIP, NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND INTEREST GROUP TIES – THAT PROVIDE AID, SUPPORT SOCIAL CONTROL, AND LINKS TO MULTIPLE SOCIAL SETTINGS.

COMMUNITY IS NOT LOOKED AT (ONLY) IN TERMS OF LOCALITY OR PLACE OR NEIGHBOURHOOD, BUT IN TERMS OF A NETWORK OF SOCIAL RELATIONS. FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT IS BUT ONE MODE OF SOCIAL CONTACT, IN ADDITION TO TELEPHONE, POSTAL MAIL, E-MAIL, AND OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNICATION THAT CAN BE USED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

{TEXT CONTROVERSY}THERE IS SOME INDICATION – IN THE WORK OF ROBERT PUTNAM (2000) AND OTHERS – THAT COMMUNITY MAY FACE NEW CHALLENGES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. TELEVISION AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES REDUCE SOCIAL CAPITAL AND MAY PROMOTE A PRIVATISM THAT REMOVES US FROM DIVERSE NETWORKS OF SOCIAL TIES IMPORTANT TO COMMUNITY.

ALTERNATIVELY, THERE IS SOME INDICATION – IN THE WORK OF BRIAN WILSON (EXAMINING “YOUTH ACTIVISM” AND URBAN SUBCULTURES) AND OTHERS – THAT TECHNOLOGIES OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY MAY PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE AND PURSUE INTERESTS AND CONNECTIONS THAT FAR EXCEED THE DIVERSE INTERACTIONS OFFERED HERETOFORE BY THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT {A NEW DYNAMISM}.

{TEXT THESIS: KEITH H. HAMPTON – CH. 5 SOCIAL TIES AND COMMUNITY IN URBAN PLACES – ARGUES} HOW THE STRUCTURE OF OUR COMMUNITIES CHANGES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WILL ULTIMATELY DEPEND ON HOW THE NEXT GENERATION OF CANADIANS MEET THE CHALLENGES AND INNOVATIONS OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY.

CRITIQUES:{OR SIGNIFICANT EXPLANATORY SHORTCOMINGS}

1. IT IS A MACRO-THEORY {GLOBAL} AND A MICRO-METHOD {LOCAL}

2. PROBLEMS IN IDENTIFYING CRITERIA FOR “WHOLE NETWORKS” {AT THE GLOBAL/STRUCTURAL LEVEL} AS OPPOSED TO “PERSONAL {OR EGO} NETWORK” {AT THE INDIVIDUAL/INTERACTIONAL LEVEL} ===> TIES AND FORCES OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF “CONSENSUAL” COMMUNITY ARE OBSCURE ===> MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE ADOPTED THE PERSONAL COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE ====> THIS MEANS IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO “MICRO” THAN “MACRO” ANALYSIS.

THE ACCENT ON INDIVIDUAL NETWORKS IS ABSENT TO STRUCTURAL FORCES {POLITICAL ECONOMY/ “CONFLICTUAL” POWER RELATIONS}.

3. TENDS TO BE A DEPOLITICIZED AND DERACIALIZED PERSPECTIVE {CONSIDER: HOW “RACIALIZATION” IMPACTS NEIGHBOURHOOD SELECTION, LAROUR-MARKET EXPERIENCE, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, AND SO ON. HOW DOES NETWORK ANALYSIS EXPLAIN “SUBURBIA [ESCAPE FROM THE CITY THESIS],” “SLUMS,” “INCREASING GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR” AND SO ON? ===> {DOES LAND USE REVOLVE AROUND THE CONTESTATION OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL ACTORS? IS THE CITY CHARACTERIZED BY “RACIAL POLARIZATION” ?}

{METHODOLOGICAL} DIMENSIONS OF NETWORK VARIATION:

1. NETWORK SIZE (THE NUMBER OF ACTORS IN NETORK)

2. FREQUENCY OF CONTACT (BETWEEN ACTORS)

3. SPATIAL PROXIMITY (OR AVAILABILITY OF MEMBERS)

4. DURATION (OF A SOCIAL TIE)

5. MULTIPLEXITY OF A TIE (DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXCHANGE)

6. DENSITY (TOTAL TIES BASED ON NUMBERS POSSIBLE)

7. RANGE (OR NETWORK DIVERSITY, SIZE, HETEROGENITY)

8. CENTRALITY (FLOW OF INFORMATION OR RESOURCES)

9. TIE STRENGTH (CLOSENESS OR INTIMACY OF ACTORS)