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  October 2006

SOCNET October 2006

Subject:

Re: Is it possible to perform a social network analysis that is qualitative/ethnographic in nature?

From:

Ryan Lanham <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ryan Lanham <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:15:18 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

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

An afterthought on my muddled and grammatically embarrassing posting on
ethnography and SNA...as an aside, there is something very interesting going
on when we proofread or don't do so in a cultural sense...in a globalizing
age this is increasingly interesting...what does "clear" writing mean?
Regardless...

I have been using the following simple gimmick in a couple of papers.  It is
interesting.

Go to Google image search.  Enter "social network analysis" to get a
pastiche of the meaning of the concept.

Now enter "ethnography" or "qualitative research" or "actor network theory"

This is a sort of quicky visual postmodernist ethnographic tool of
perceptions of image for a topic.  

Yet another simple way to use these remarkable tools.  

Ryan Lanham


-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Lanham [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Is it possible to perform a social network analysis that is
qualitative/ethnographic in nature?

>Bill.Richards asks...on behalf of...
>
>Kevin Sherman, a PhD Candidate in the Centre for Communication Research 
>at the Auckland University of Technology:
>
>Is it possible to perform a social network analysis that is 
>qualitative/ethnographic in nature?  In other words, a network diagram 
>that is created in cooperation with the participants of an ethnography 
>in order to preserve and highlight above all else their own perceptions 
>of their network?
> 
>Please send a copy of your response to him at:  [log in to unmask]

This question embodies many possible answers depending on how one defines
certain terms.

Is SNA a field, a technology, a discipline, or an area of interest?  Most
would argue that it is a field of research I think.  

As a field SNA has many great advocates some of whom regularly write on the
SOCNET listserv.  These folks will be remembered as important theorists,
technologists, and thinkers, I'd guess.  Many use qualitative techniques in
one form or another.  Someone like Everett Rogers (a giant now deceased) did
much on diffusion studies using Tarde as a starting point.  Tarde is also a
god of Bruno Latour--who I mention below.  The link to both lines is
important.  There are many other links between SNA and science studies and
qualitative approaches (if that means anything) yet to be learned of or
locked in the minds of Harrison White, Barry Wellman, etc., I'm sure.  

According to a recent history on the topic by Freeman, a mathematical
approach was a sine qua non at the field's founding.  That sort of
definitive boundary setting is not too fashionable now because work like
that of Bowker & Star who wrote a book called Sorting Things Out (2000) and
other works in Science Studies tend to cast a lot of doubt on strong
categorizations and singular perspectives on knowledge or "science".  This
is putting pressure on disciplines.  Other works cast doubt on
quantification as method--as a means of finding things out--not as a tool
but as an approach.  This puts pressure on conventional methods for
quantitative social scientists, economists, etc.  A lot is changing--almost
daily.  

What I think it is fair to say is that things are messy right now and that
complexity means that perspectives, cultures, categories, methods, and
"science" as an ideal will never be straightforward again.  Most scientists
could give a hoot because they have their labs, grants, etc., but that is
really changing in some quarters--medicine notably.  

SNA predates that sea change and many of its older leaders might not care
much for the new thinking.  Science culture in departments is often rigid
and people have longstanding notions of what constitutes knowledge and
proof.  The idea that knowledge is situated (Donna Haraway) or
perspective-based (Michel Callon) is very upsetting to some even though it
need not contradict work they do.  

Now it is taking for granted in some areas that all learning is situated
Etienne Wenger, Jean Lave and John Paul Gee among many others now).  To some
that sounds like "relativism" or even "fashionable nonsense."  Sometimes it
is, but mostly it isn't, in my opinion.  You've got to decide what you think
and whether the organizations you need to work in can cope with that much
heterodoxy.

Sadly, active scientists are not that adept at understanding what they do in
their labs in anthropological or sociological terms--and are even less
prepared in epistemological terms.  They tend to hold relatively dated
philosophical approaches (like Popperian thinking) because they have little
training in these areas.  There are more and more exceptions.  Science
studies and philosophy of science have changed a lot of views, and those
fields hold many great minds right now--Peter Galison, Ian Hacking, Bruno
Latour, Michel Callon, Donna Haraway, John Law, Larry Laudan to name just a
few bright stars.    

Ethnography is not quantitative--it literally means writing about the
ethnos...which could be described as "world" or culture, etc. depending on
the translator.  Of course postcolonial issues and other "critical" factors
have transformed ethnography and it has different meanings in film, in text,
and in mixed media than it did in a classic age of Malinowski, etc.  Geertz
changed much with his approaches.  A good book like Anthropology in Theory:
Issues in Epistemology, Blackwell, 2006 starts to get at some of these
issues and change and relationships in the terms of anthropology.

"Qualitative" is a messy term that means little in my opinion.  John Law's
Mess in the Social Sciences (2005) is a good introduction there.  

Other streams include Symbolic Interactionism which has roots to Chicago
School Sociology and to Simmel (perhaps)...as does elements of SNA.  Recent
trends there include work by Adele Clarke like her Situational Analysis
(2005).  Grounded theory is in this path.  Could one do grounded theory of
networks?  I don't see why not.  Situational Analysis is just that under
certain circumstances.  

In some respects that is what one might call Harrison White's Identity and
Control.  Many of White's students have made contributions used in history,
anthropology, etc.

One stream (I think) gaining attention is Bruno Latour et al's
actor-network-theory.  ANT uses and espouses ethnography, but it is inchoate
and still forming even while some say it is passť.  The most comprehensive
work to date is perhaps Bruno Latour's 2005 book called Reassembling the
Social (Oxford).  It is part of an increasing stream of works in several
fields that intertwine with symbolic interactionist fields and with other
social sciences and humanities pursuits.  For example, the work by Bowker
and Star mentioned above is dedicated to Adele Clarke.  Bowker and Star is
considered pretty mainstream ANT by a lot of interested parties.  In short,
a network links these fields across anthro/socio/behavioro, etc.         
    
Beware!  Those who promote these new threads often use shock to make their
points.  They purposefully offend those who aren't as adept at dealing with
the arguments they have honed over time to get credibility and standing in
communities of practice (which is another way of describing SNA).  That is
unfortunate because everyone loses out.  I personally find Bruno Latour to
be civil in his recent writings but earlier on he was quite the rebel.  The
same can be said of others.  I myself have used shock and bluster on this
listserv to perhaps some help in understanding but also much reasonable
frustration and offense.  That is a silly failing of the sort advocates are
prone to--at least this one.  

So my answer to your question is that there are many methods to study
perspectives, groupings, relationships, etc.  Some that have one historical
track are called SNA.  It is up to you as to whether than term and its path
dependent developments is a venue for genuine research.  I would argue that
an ethnography in the Latourian tradition of SNA is long overdue.  I hope
you, me, or someone gets to it.  The work matters.  So I would argue for
ethnography of SNA rather than an ethnography as part of SNA.  That may not
fit your interests at all, of course.  

Best wishes, 

Ryan Lanham

_____________________________________________________________________
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

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