Samenvatting
Samenvatting literatuur Social Networks In Theory And Empirical Research
Alle literatuur van het jaar van het vak Social Networks staan beschreven in dit document in het Engels
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 57 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 57 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
1 beoordeling
Door: martnieuwhof • 3 jaar geleden
Was nice and did what it said. Could have been a bit shorter but just my preference. Would recommend
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Literature Social networksWeek 1
1.1 Feld, S. (1981) The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 86(5): 1015-1053.
Granovetter (1973) has indicated the general significance of these social circles for communication,
community organization, and social conflict. My purpose in this paper is to present the basic
structure of a theory that can begin to explain the origins of the ubiquitous loosely connected social
circles. The theory is based upon the idea that the relevant aspects of the social environment can be
seen as foci around which individuals organize their social relations. A focus is defined as a social,
psychological,egal, or physical entity around which joint activities are organized (e.g., workplaces,
voluntary organizations, hangouts, families, etc.). As a consequence of interaction associated with
their joint activities, individuals whose activities are organized around the same focus will tend to
become interpersonally tied and form a cluster. A group's activities are organized by a particular
focus to the extent that two individuals who share that focus are more likely to share joint activities
with each other than two individuals who do not have that focus in common.
Theory:
The present theory is built upon Homans's (1950) social elements of activity, interaction, and
sentiments. He suggested that balance theory could be used as a single approach to integrate
propositions derived from these diverse sources. However, balance theory and the present theory
are based upon different conceptions of the underlying process. Balance theory is essentially
psychological: the process takes place within the heads of the actors. The present theory is
essentially sociological: the process depends upon the behaviors and interactions of individuals in a
social context.
The nature of foci
A relationship between two individuals does not necessarily arise from activities that are organized
around a focus. People may meet "by chance" or as a result of adjacency along some continuum;
neither of these situations includes a focus. The central point of the focus theory is that no matter
what proportion of ties arise from foci, the focused organization has structural significance. Foci may
be many different things, including persons, places, social positions, activities, and groups. They may
actively bring people together or passively constrain them to interact. Foci differ in size and
frequency of interaction. In general, larger foci will be less constraining, because it is difficult to
arrange for many people to have frequent joint activities. The structure of a network is dependent
upon the constraint and size of the underlying foci. The structural approach underlying the focus
theory suggests that the more severe the restrictions on time, effort, and emotion, the more
individuals will experience pressures to combine their interactions with various members of their
network by finding and developing new foci around which to bring more of them together. The more
compatible the foci, the more likely it is that the individual can find or invent some focus that can
organize joint activities.
Balance theorists suggest that psychological tendencies toward consistency lead individuals to bring
member of their network together. The focus theory suggests that the factors determining whether
direct ties will develop are characteristics of the social situation and the compatibility of the foci
underlying the indirect connections.
,Focus theory implications:
1. Transitivity (triadic closure)
Researchers have documented the tendency for two individuals who are both tied to a third
to also be tied to each other. This is called a tendency toward transitivity. The focus theory
suggests the conditions under which transitivity should be expected, and thereby the
conditions under which clusters are formed. In general, each individual who is related to two
or more foci can expect that many of his or her ties will be to others who are not tied to one
another. The main focus theory prediction is that transitivity will be present specifically
where ties are based upon highly constraining shared foci and/or where structural pressures
lead actors to create additional transitivity.
Increase: group size (lower size, easier triadic closure), balance theory explains this
better because this theory is all about triadic closure.
2. Local bridges
Granovetter (1973) has explained how ties which connect two individuals who do not share
ties to other individuals are important for communication and community organization; such
ties are called local bridges. Where there is perfect transitivity, there can be no local bridges,
because transitivity requires that every two individuals who are tied to each other must also
be tied to all of the same others. By definition, the more others to whom two people share
ties, the less bridging is a tie between them. Ties based upon foci are less bridging than other
ties, because the two people are likely to share ties to others associated with that focus.
3. The density of personal networks
The density of personal networks is the extent to which the associates of a particular
individual are tied to one another. If there is perfect transitivity, then all of an individual's
associates know one another, and the personal network is completely dense.
Basic Propositions
1.-Two individuals who are related to the same focus are more likely to be tied than two people not
so related.
2.-If two individuals are related to the same focus, the more constraining the focus, the more likely it
is that they will be tied.
3.-The more different foci that two individuals share, the more likely it is that they will be tied.
4.-Where two individuals are each tied to a third, based upon a different focus, the more compatible
are these foci, the more likely it is that the two individuals will be tied to each other.
5.-Where two individuals are each tied to a third, based upon a different focus, the more time,
energy, and emotion that these ties involve, the more likely it is that the two individuals will be tied
to each other.
(rest of propositions on page 1027 and 1028).
,Empirical support for the focus theory
Fischer et al. (1977) and Laumann (1973): An analysis was done where everyone chose 3 best friends.
As Laumann reports, there are four possible patters on interrelations:
Proposition 1D - The fewer foci from which an individual draws associates, the denser will be the
personal network. This found in Fischer’s data. Single-source networks were much more likely to be
fully dense (57%) than three-source networks ( 17% ).
Proposition 2D.- The more constraining are the foci from which associates are drawn, the denser will
be the personal network. Table 2 shows that personal networks with family and work as primary
sources were more often fully dense than personal networks with other primary sources.
Proposition 3D. - The more foci that the individual shares with each associate, the denser will be the
personal network. There are no reported associations between density and multiplexity.
Proposition 4D. - The more compatible with one another are the various foci from which an individual
draws associates, the denser will be the personal network. One could obtain some tentative support
for this proposition by speculating about the compatibilities of foci, but Fischer did not analyze the
data in such a way that densities of personal networks with various mixes of foci were presented.
Proposition 5D. - The greater the proportion of the individual's time, effort, and emotion that the ties
involve, the denser will be the personal network. k. Density was related to average intimacy (gamma
-.13) and to average frequency of contact (gamma - .24) for the personal networks in these data; this
provides direct support for the prediction that individuals tend to bring together friends with whom
they relate intimately and frequently.
Conclusions
The nature of these foci may reflect the underlying structure of capitalist enterprise in a country.
Finally, ties of alliance among nations may be focused by location, membership in formal group
alliances (NATO, the Warsaw Pact), common resources (OPEC), ethnic identity (black Africa and the
Moslem world), form of economy or government (socialism, communism, free market capitalism,
fascism, etc.), or relations to the superpowers (those under U.S. vs. USSR domination). The patterns
change over time to reflect changing political, economic, and social realities.
Once one understands the focused organization, one can predict that transitivities will occur around
the foci, and bridges will be ties based upon weakly constraining foci or not based upon foci at all.
The focus theory will not be applicable under all circumstances. There may be situations where there
are no foci, and there may be situations where other processes (e.g., based upon similarities or upon
deliberate manipulations by the actors) override the effects of foci.
1.2 Höllinger, F. and Haller, M. (1990) Kinship and Social Networks in Modern
Societies: A Cross-Cultural Comparison among Seven Nations. European
Sociological Review, 6(2): 103-124
, In preindustrial society, social networks were determined almost exclusively by primary groups of kin
and village-community. In modern society the individual can shape an increasing part of his personal
network himself and change it during his life. This is true for more casual relations to acquaintances
as well as for more enduring relations to friends and kin. The local separations of household and
work-place has led people to spend an increasing part of their lifetime not with the family but with
peer groups of school-mates and work-mates. But primary groups of kin, friends and neighborhood
do still play a major role in their life, because of modern means of transport and communication.
Methods for measuring social networks
The most relevant model is the ‘ego-centered social network’. It covers an individual’s social relations
and allows for quantifiable statements on the number of relations maintained, the frequency of
contact as well as on the functions of these relations. Up to now, the contact patterns in large cities,
differences between rural and urban populations and between social classes have been the topics
most frequently studied. Most studies agree that the assumption that close kin relations have lost
their importance today cannot be confirmed. However, in larger cities as well as in middle classes,
relations with extended kin become looser, while those with friends and acquaintances gain in
importance.
Hypotheses
1. The take-off of the industrial revolution and the present state of socioeconomic development:
According to modernization theories, in countries with an earlier industrialization and higher
socioeconomic development the structural change of primary group relations will also be
more pronounced. Secondary group relations have become more important in social support
networks.
2. Degree of urbanization: In countries with a higher degree of urbanization, relations with kin
should have less and non-kin relations should have more importance as it is the case in
countries with a lower degree of urbanization.
3. Geographical mobility: geographic mobility often leads to large distances between family
members. The maintenance of contacts over such distances become more difficult. The same
might apply to neighborhood relations.
4. Sociocultural factors: in preindustrial times, family structures differed considerably within the
‘European cultural areas’. Children who did not hold any hereditary title to the farm of their
parents had to work as servants on other farms. These characteristics of rural economy led to
the members of a family living at growing distances. In contrast to Northwestern Europe, in
this region the old farmer remained the head of the household until he died. People married
earlier, more than one married son was allowed to stay on his father’s farm with his family
and no non-family workers were hired.
Most important: While modernization theory holds that industrialization led to the
disintegration of kin relations, these findings of historical family research suggest another
interpretation: The lower cohesion of kin-relationships was not only a result, but also a
precondition for the earlier industrial development of Northwestern Europe. Relatively weak
kin ties and a rural economy based on non-family servant workers allowed for higher
geographic mobility, one of the requirements for the industrial revolution.
Socioeconomic structure and sociocultural characteristics of the countries in the study
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper kirstenolthuis. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,09. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52928 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen