Interesting problem in social anthropology or linguistics, if you ask me:
without complete info on how you actually asked the questions, if you asked
who each actor unit "depends on" that is asking them to map a different
social relation than "admits a connection" or whatever you actually asked.
Think heirarchically and non-reciprocally or in process terms
(inputs/outputs, directionality, e.g.) in orgs, IMHO. Further, whether or
not you want to prompt the respondent depends on what you want to map, and
what questions you wish to answer.
Best, Gavin Hougham
At 05:18 PM 9/4/02 +0100, Francisco Barbedo wrote:
>This is an interesting problem. My experience in organizational analysis
(which is short) tells me that in organization contexts (in public sector)
, people from different services usually donīt recognize themselves as
valid or useful interlocutors. For example one actor from project
management unit says he depends heavily on account and budget service.
Therefore he admits a connection with that service. But on questioning this
former service in no moment of the interview did the actor mentionned any
connections to the first one (project management). Now this gives me
something to think about: Should the analyst say to the interviwee the fact
that someone else did refer to him? Or would this be a bias to the data?
>> De: "David C. Bell" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Data: 04/09/2002 13:49:17
>> Para: [log in to unmask]
>> Assunto: Fw: Confirmed Relations
>> Dear Olaf,
>> I'm not sure whether you are asking about analyses that use only confirmed
>> relations or whether you are asking about the level of confirmation in
>> network data. We found relatively high levels of concordance among
>> partners' reports of their joint behaviors.
>> Bell, D. C., Montoya, I. D., & Atkinson, J. S. (2000). Partner concordance
>> in reports of joint behaviors. JAIDS: Journal of AIDS, 25(2), 173-181.
>> Some related studies:
>> Coates RA, Calzavara LM, Soskolne CL, Read SE, Fanning MM, Shepherd FA,
>> Klein MH, and Johnson JK. Validity of sexual histories in a prospective
>> study of male sexual contacts of men with AIDS or an AIDS-related
>> Am J Epidemiol 1988; 128(4), 719-28.
>> Clark A, and Wallin P. The accuracy of husbands' and wives' reports of the
>> frequency of marital coitus. Population Studies 1964; 18, 165-173.
>> Sobell LC, Agrawal S, and Sobell MB. Factors affecting agreement between
>> alcohol abusers' and their collaterals' reports. J Stud Alcohol 1997;
>> Wolber G, Carne WF, and Alexander R. The validity of self-reported
>> abstinence and quality sobriety following chemical dependency treatment.
>> J Addict 1990; 25(5): 495-513.
>> Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, and Coates TJ. Methodological problems
>> in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and
>> participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull 1990;
>> Good luck,
>> Dave Bell
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Olaf Rank" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:13 AM
>> Subject: Confirmed Relations
>> > Dear All,
>> > Does anyone know of network analyses using confirmed relations when
>> > gathering data through interviews (if i says that he has a relation of
>> > typ to j than j needs to confirm this relation to i in his interview)?
>> > I am especially interested in the degree of confirmation.
>> > Many thanks,
>> > Olaf
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Dipl.-Kfm. Olaf N. Rank
>> > Department of International Management
>> > University of Mannheim
>> > Schloss
>> > 68161 Mannheim
>> > Phone: +49/(0)621/181-1743
>> > Fax: +49/(0)621/181-1738
>> > http://www.bwl.uni-mannheim.de/Perlitz