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

With respect to academic performance, the following article takes
provides some evidence contrary to the intergenerational closure
argument:

Morgan, S. L. and A. B. Sorensen (1999). Parental Network, Social
Closure, and Mathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman's Social Capital
Explanation of School Effects. American Sociological Review. 64:
661-681.

We are currently collecting data on this issue in a large Chicago
public high school. Still a work in progress but would be happy to
share some preliminary results if you are interested.

-Spiro Maroulis


On Jul 7, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Ezra Zuckerman wrote:

> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
>
> Another word of caution: Density has very different implications (as
> does
> performance) depending on whose perspective you take.
>
> Consider Coleman's (AJS, 1988) classic notion of "intergenerational
> closure"--
> i.e., the extent to which parents in a community have ties amongst
> themselves
> and thus have the necessary "social capital" to keep their kids in
> line. This
> story makes it sound like density is great for "performance" (i.e.,
> achieving
> desired ends) and it has often been (mis)interpreted as antithetical
> to the
> idea that social capital is about low density among one's contacts (or
> "structural holes"). But now consider the situation from the
> perspective of
> the kids. Assuming that the kids do not want to listen to the adults
> (which is
> presumably Coleman's assumption since otherwise the adults wouldn't
> have to
> worry about keeping them in line), density among the adults is *bad*,
> not good,
> for their "performance" (and density among the kids is good for the
> kids but
> bad for the adults performance, as any parent who has ever separated
> his kids
> at the dinner table knows).
>
> Of course, this example assumes a zero-sum game and life is more
> interesting
> that that. The more general point is that whether ties between a pair
> of
> actors improves your performance depends on whether those actors have
> the same
> interests as you (tends to be good, though it's more complicated than
> that) or
> not (tends to be bad, though it's more complicated than that).
>
> A very good exposition of these points is in Burt's Toward a
> Structural Theory
> of Action (Academic Press, 1982). My recent papers with Ray Reagans
> and Bill
> McEvily (Org Science, 2001 & ASQ 2004) also use them to try to clarify
> some
> confusion in the demographic diversity literature.
>
> Best,
>
> Ezra Zuckerman
>
> Quoting "Johnson, Jeffrey C" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
>>
>> One needs to be theoretically cautious in using density as a measure.
>> Just
>> like the mean of a population, density only tells you a portion of
>> the story.
>> Two networks can have identical densities but have very different
>> structures
>> given the distribution of links. In a sense, this is like the
>> relationship
>> between the mean and the standard deviation. This is particularly
>> crucial if
>> one is interested in linking structure to outcomes (e.g.,
>> performance). A
>> discussion of this can be found in the following:
>>
>> J.C. Johnson, J.S. Boster, and L. Palinkas. Social Roles and the
>> Evolution
>> of Networks in Isolated and Extreme Environments. Journal of
>> Mathematical
>> Socilogy. Vol. 27/number 2-3 (2003): 89-122.
>>
>>
>> Jeff Johnson
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Social Networks Discussion Forum on behalf of David Lazer
>> Sent: Thu 7/7/2005 5:56 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Density...optimal and otherwise...
>>
>>
>>
>> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
>>
>> One more addition to this thread-- Allan Friedman and I have been
>> doing
>> work using agent-based models that suggests, consistent with Labianca,
>> Uzzi, and others (notably, work by Kratzer, Leenders, and van Engelen
>> on
>> creative teams), that increased density in collaborative networks can
>> result in inferior outcomes. Our analysis suggests that, however,
>> that
>> what really matters is not so much density as how rapidly the
>> structure
>> disseminates information (obviously, there is a relationship between
>> the
>> two, but one can have sparse networks that are very effective at
>> disseminating information, as well as fairly dense networks that have
>> multiple components and thus do not spread info effectively). We also
>> found that networks that disseminate information quickly do best given
>> short time horizons. We also found a curvilinear relationship
>> between long
>> run performance and density in random nets.
>>
>> We will have a revised version of our paper ready shortly (we are
>> presenting it at ASA)-- will post at www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov.
>>
>> In addition, related to this thread conceptually, Maria Binz-Scharf
>> has
>> done some work on project teams and the density of their informal
>> connections, arguing that dense connections are good for
>> exploitation, and
>> sparse networks for explorations, suggesting a task and/or temporal
>> contingency with respect to the impact of network density on
>> performance.
>>
>> chrs,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> David Lazer
>> Associate Professor of Public Policy
>> Director
>> Program on Networked Governance
>> Kennedy School of Government
>> Harvard University
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> A
>> Sent by:
>> To
>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
>> EDU
>> cc
>>
>>
>> Subject
>> 07/07/2005 03:58 [SOCNET] Density...optimal and
>> PM otherwise...
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> [log in to unmask]
>> A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
>>
>> Soc-netters: Here is a compendium of responses to my e-question(s)
>> earlier
>> today. Thanks for your input!
>>
>> cdr
>>
>> QUESTION: Can anyone point to specific theories or studies wherein
>> increased density is assumed to lead to increased output or improved
>> performance? I assume
>> that if one is studying communication networks that this assumption
>> might
>> hold. In other cases, maybe not (I am thinking of the value of 'weak
>> ties'
>> and
>> 'structural holes').
>>
>> Alternatively, has there been work done (comparatively speaking) to
>> uncover
>> 'optimal' densities as it relates to networks?
>>
>> Any help that you can offer in this would be great!
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> IBM Global Services and I did some research on adaptive
>> organizations... we found some high correlations [> 0.55] between some
>> network metrics and high scores in 'managing change'/adaptability --
>> those orgs who managed change well had different network patterns than
>> those that did not. Density was NOT one of the key metrics...
>>
>> Valdis
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>> Cami:
>> We presented a paper on this topic in the area of community coalitions
>> expecting increased density to lead to increased uptake of prevention
>> programs and policies. We found this not to be true, however, and
>> found
>> that increased density was associated with less adoption. It surprised
>> us, but was consistent with 2 other presentations at the conference.
>> The paper reporting our results is currently under review, but I can
>> send you a copy if you'd like.
>> - Tom Valente
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>> Cami,
>>
>> There's an article by Podolny and Baron in the ASR, 1997, that shows
>> that certain kinds of egocentric networks are conducive to upward
>> mobility in a firm. My recent stuff on bankers (ASR, 2001) has shown
>> that sparse networks facilitate successful deals, but I have an
>> in-progress paper that shows that high density approval networks among
>> the same bankers are associated with higher year-end bonuses. I
>> should
>> have a version of that paper posted on my website within the next
>> month
>> or so, but if you send me a reminder in early August I'll send you a
>> copy, since it should be revised by then.
>>
>> Mark S. Mizruchi
>> Professor of Sociology and Business Administration / University of
>> Michigan
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> Cami,
>>
>> there is a paper [1] I published at the 2004 P2P Knowledge Management
>> Workshop which makes some observations about query routing
>> performance when
>> a self-organized P2P network assumes states with different clustering
>> coefficients (with a fixed maximum outdegree -- i.e. routing table
>> size --
>> per participant).
>>
>> The bottom line is that you can "over-cluster", leading to what Duncan
>> Watts (I think it was him) has dubbed "caveman worlds" -- dense
>> clusters
>> which are poorly connected to each other, making it difficult to get
>> messages across at all.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>> [1] Christoph Schmitz. Self-organization of a small world by topic. In
>> Proc. 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management.
>> Boston, MA, August 2004.
>> <http://www.kde.cs.uni-kassel.de/schmitz/publ/p2pkm.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> -- Christoph Schmitz <[log in to unmask]>
>> -- FG Wissensverarbeitung, FB 17, Universität Kassel
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> Cami,
>>
>> This paper by Oh might be helpful regarding your question on "optimal"
>> networks. He points to a middle ground rather than
>> maximized density as best for performance.
>>
>> Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labiance, G. (2004). Group social capital and
>> group
>> effectiveness: The role of informal socializing
>> ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860-875.
>>
>> There's also Coleman's work on network closure:
>>
>> Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
>> capital.
>> American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
>>
>> Jean
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> Hi Cami,
>>
>> I have an empirical piece where we demonstrate an inverted U effect of
>> density on performance:
>> Oh, H., Chung, M-H., & Labianca, G. (2004) "Group Social Capital and
>> Group Effectiveness: The Role of Informal Socializing Ties." Academy
>> of
>> Management Journal, 47: 860-875.
>> and a theoretical piece:
>> Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M-H. (forthcoming). "A Multilevel
>> Model
>> of Group Social Capital." Academy of Management Review. (Available
>> on my
>> website -- see signature below for URL).
>>
>> I would also refer you to Ray Reagans' work in this area:
>> Reagans R., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Networks, diversity, and
>> productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization
>> Science, 12: 502-517.
>> Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge
>> transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science
>> Quarterly, 48: 240-267.
>> Good luck with your project,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> Hi,
>> There is also:
>> OBSTFELD D. (2005), Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation,
>> and
>> inovolvement in
>> innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,, p. 100-130.
>> ... if I am correct
>>
>> He shows that density positively impacts individual innovation
>> involvement
>> (arguing about
>> Tertius Iungens as an alternative to the Tertius Gaudens strategy)
>>
>>
>> For work on the negative effects of a too-dense network on
>> organizational
>> performance, see:
>>
>> Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm
>> networks: The
>> paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly v42, p35-67.
>>
>> Kari
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> 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.

_____________________________________________________________________
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.