***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
This question about the relationship between behavior and people's
reports of behavior was debated heavily in the late 70's and throughout
the 80's. For a review of this work (Bernard, Killworth, Sailer,
Freeman and Freeman, Romney, Faust, Weller etc.) see:
J.C. Johnson. "Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Social
Networks: A Review." In (S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiowicz, eds.)
Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences. Sage: Newbury Park. 1994.
And
J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach. "Perceiving the Political Landscape: Ego
Biases in Cognitive Political Networks". Social Networks 24 (2002)
291-310.
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Michael Reed
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CSS & "A Million Little Pieces"
***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
I'm a cultural anthropologist who is new to new SNA; hence, I've turned
to
Krackhardt's High-Tech Managers data (including the 1987 article,
"Cognitive
Social Structures")--recommended by Wasserman and Faust (1994)--as a way
to
learn about a "simple," one-mode, 3-relation set of SNA data. (I'm about
to
conduct similar data collection with a group of 40 women entrepreneurs.)
As I was reading the 1987 article (expecting, modestly, to learn some
basic
SNA skills), I was struck by the actual focus of Krackhardt's research,
i.e., the contention that "...what people say...bears no useful
resemblance
to their behavior" (Bernard et al., 1982). The article bears down on
BEHAVIOR ("what actually happened") vs. COGNITION/PERCEPTION ("people's
perceptions, often in retrospect, of what actually happened").
I am intrigued by Figure 3 in the article, which shows Person 15's
"slice"
(how he/she sees relations between pairs of the 21 managers), vs.
Figures 1
& 2 (the "locally aggregated" and "consensus" structures). It is clear
that
Person 15's perceptions are wildly different from the more "objective"
measures. I personally would be concerned if my own perceptions of
"reality"
varied that much from "actual reality"! I would be tempted to say
cynically
that Person 15 is "living in a bubble"! (but that's no doubt unfair).
For
example, in my daily life, I frequently try to do "reality checks" to
make
certain that my thoughts and perceptions jibe, more or less, with those
of
other people.
Finally, I just happened to read the Krackhardt article right after
reading
Mary Karr's op-ed piece, "His So-Called Life," in the Jan. 15 NYTimes.
Here
she weighs in on the recent uproar about James Frey ("A Million Little
Pieces") and the question: Should a memoir be held to higher "factual"
standards than a piece of fiction? As someone who wrote a daily research
journal in Africa and who is now in the midst of trying to finish a
novel, I
am very interested in whether or not it is even possible for a memoirist
to
accurately document on paper "the way life and behavior ACTUALLY
occurred at
some past time." (As a novelist, I am most concerned with what I would
call
"emotional truth," although getting the "facts" straight is important,
too.)
I know my own memory to often be extremely "inaccurate"; I don't know if
this inaccuracy is a function of my advancing age (54) or simply of the
fact
that I didn't pay as much attention to memory when I was younger and
thus
didn't see how problematic it is. Sometimes I'm nearly resigned to
believing
that all human memory is basically a "creative reconstruction" (done in
the
present according to present needs and wants) of the past. That's why
historians turn to written, archival sources for help (not that they are
without bias or error--we can never escape the fact that fallible humans
are
involved).
Still, I do believe that something like actual, "objective" human
behaviors
happen in the world. The question is, How accurately can we humans
measure
or remember or understand those behaviors, i.e., "what really happened"?
Krackhardt ends his article by stating, "But the task of future research
should not be to show that behaviors are more important than cognitions,
nor
that cognitions are more important than behaviors. Rather, our task will
be
to show the consequence of each--behavior and cognitions."
As someone who believes that there IS an important difference between a
memoir and a piece of fiction, I would have to say that, in some sense,
the
behaviors must take precedence (although I admit that "behavior" is
itself a
cognitive creation; we never escape from our mental jail): we need to
make
certain that our cognition about the past doesn't willfully (or even
unintentionally) distort past behaviors.
Michael C. Reed, Ph.D.
Independent Consultant & Cultural Anthropologist
Kalamazoo, Mich., USA
[log in to unmask] Tel. 269-342-4025 Cell phone 269-808-8983
_____________________________________________________________________
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.
|
