LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  May 2005

SOCNET May 2005

Subject:

Re: Question about "Group"

From:

Shannon Clark <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 24 May 2005 14:01:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (178 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

On a practical note it is often hard/unknowable to determine how many
people get a specific group directed email

- some lists allow people to stay members but not get emails (Yahoo!
Groups and other web based groups for example)

- many other lists allow for digesting of emails - which would, I'd
guess, complicated considerably the analysis of the digest - some people
got the individual emails, many others the digest, the contents of which
are "from" multiple parties, to multiple parties

- group memberships change over time. Simple example is as people are
hired/fired/transferred within an organization, however memberships can
and do change for many other reasons, shifting interests for example.
Yet in most cases studying accurately the group membership may be
unknowable (i.e. not logged anywhere/logs deleted)

- in many cases there is a human actor (or more complicated multiple
human actors) who "moderate" the list, i.e. approve/disapprove/edit
emails prior to their delivery to the group. In these cases I would
imagine that if knowable it would be useful to track that moderation -
however moderation is quite often anonymous

- some lists transform/edit/modify the messages (sometimes in complex
ways). Simplest example is the transformation of text to HTML and the
insertion of advertising messages done by groups such as Yahoo! Groups.
However many other lists change the behavior of messages with
attachments (dropped by digests in most cases). While these
transformations are frequently ignored by the human receivers (when was
the last time the ad from a Yahoo! Group message registered) from a
technical analysis standpoint these transformations matter.

In part these transformations and modifications also suggest that while
tricky it would be valuable to map how messages received are retained
(and whether or not they are read) within a group. i.e. if everyone
within an organization's email and email archives were available for
study, you could look at who read and who did not read messages sent to
a group. You could also look at who chose what form to get the messages
and what they then did with them (i.e. the person who gets each message
as an individual note and who then frequently does something with those
messages (forwards them, replies to the group, replies to the author,
etc) clearly has a different interaction with that group (or at least
some subset of it) than the person who upon getting messages has the
automatically filed into a group, where they sit for months unread and
unopened.

As part of that analysis it might also be possible to look for
correlations of blocks of text across messages. This would match sent
mail with the received-from-group mail group members received (note in
many cases the author of a message sent to a group may not, themselves,
receive a copy of that message). This matching of blocks would also
capture in some meaningful manner the many cases where some content was
repackaged, as a quote for example, within an outbound communication
from one of the readers of a given site.

Shannon

Founder, MeshForum
"Connecting Networks"
www.meshforum.org
Join us for MeshForum 2006 - May 7-9 2006

333 W. North Ave #160, Chicago IL 60610
[log in to unmask]
W. 1.800.454.4929
C. 1.312.296.5034
Skype: rycaut

-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David Gibson
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about "Group"

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Isaac,

If you're aiming to do a conventional analysis of the resulting network,
you
have to decide whether to treat a group-directed remark as entailing
simultaneous communications from ego to each alter, or one communication
from
ego to a fictitious group actor (another column in the matrix -- though
perhaps
not one from which communications can issue), or a communication to no
one at
all. My preference has been to treat group-directed remarks and
ambiguously-directed remarks identically, mainly because they can be
difficult
to distinguish in practice. Daniel McFarland, in contrast, prefers to
think of
a group-directed remark in terms of simultaneously activated dyadic
channels.
His solution is more compatible with conventional network measures and
visualization.

If you're just aggregating through time, you might divide by the number
of
people to whom an utterance was simultaneously directed, so that a
direct
remark from me to you would add 1 to the i,j cell, while a remark from
me to a
group of ten people (excluding myself) would add .1 to each i,j cell. Of
course, interpretation will be tricky, for instance of centrality if you
don't
buy the implicit phenomenology behind that weighting. Another option
would be
to analyze the network of directed remarks and tendencies toward
group-directed
remarks separately.

Whichever approach you take, be warned that if you're aggregating
through time
in order to generate one summary matrix of who spoke to whom, you're at
risk of
eliding sequential dependencies, such as the fact that it's hard to
address
someone who didn't recently speak. In my view, time-collapsed
who-to-whom
matrices are partially artifacts of those kinds of sequential effects.

Some references:

Gibson, David R. 2005. "Taking Turns and Talking Ties: Network Structure
and
Conversational Sequences." American Journal of Sociology (forthcoming
May
issue, I hope).

Moody, James, Daniel McFarland, and Skye Bender-deMoll. 2005. "Dynamic
Network
Visualization." American Journal of Sociology 110:1206-41.

David Gibson

--
David Gibson
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
Harvard University
564 William James Hall
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Voice: (617) 495-3825
Fax: (617) 496-5794

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/gibson/



Quoting "Van Patten, Isaac T" <[log in to unmask]>:

> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> In analyzing the communications matrix of a group meeting (who
addresses
> whom) is it legitimate to include "Group" as a recipient of
> communications addressed to the group as whole in a directional
network?
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager