***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
- interaction provides the basis of ANY link - as in SNA - whatever
communicative act, it has to be 'reciprocated' to establish a link (I
hope I defend this position in my book)
- I also argue against the Latourians for not distinguishing between
human and non-human act. However, I fully embrace their concepts and
apparatus on the role of context, and this is what I call the 'cultural
approach' to network analysis - discursive, and aiming to deconstruct
network processes, or what stands behind network structure, i.e. what
stands behind the 'network map', which most of us agree - is a tool in
the hands of 'skilful' ones.
- We can call the Latourians 'the non-conformists' in SNA. We should
make some place for them on the table, trying to learn their language -
as long as they try to reciprocate, i.e. to learn some SNA language -
which is emergent anyway.
Dr. Emanuela Todeva
School of Management
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, GU27XH
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44(0)1483 68 2056
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: 10 January 2007 09:47
To: Todeva E Dr (SoM)
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Networks and conformity
Thank you for the correction. Other human beings are no contexts because
of the "double contingency" in interhuman relations (Parsons, Husserl).
Interaction provides the basis for intentional communication.
I fully agree with that. My intervention was directed against the
Latourians who no longer wish to make a difference between human and
non-human contexts. I agree that it is a bit off-track. However, it is
relevant because of the emphasis on selection as a deterministic
mechanism at the systems level, while variation (in relations) can be
With best wishes, Loet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Networks and conformity
> In defence of context:
> Loet, some context matter - other does not.
> Your age and the type of PC are irrelevant to our communication and to
> our interaction - as long as I can understand your writing and
> interpret it in a meaningful way.
> Other context is critical - to derive at a meaning of what you are
> trying to say with your 'words' and 'postings'. For example, your
> signature (i.e. institutional affiliation), helps me a lot to
> interpret what you are trying to say, and to derive at a meaning.
> Unfortunately, due to lack of time, I can not engage in a regular
> communication and interaction (the relevance of my
> context) - to get to more precise meaning. Hence, on some occasions I
> understand only vaguely what you are trying to say, and although I
> mostly agree, this time, I 'felt' I disagree with you.
> This single posting - as 'intervention' into your 'discussion' with
> - will serve very little to convey my understanding of all the issues
> that have been discussed under this 'heading', and in addition I
> 'choose' to put some words in overted commas - in case you would like
> to think about it - what do I 'mean'
> by that (which is another context, i.e. of my thought
> processes) - relevant to our understanding, shared meaning,
> communication, interaction.... or what I try to convey.
> Other relevant context, which I picked up, and which helps me to
> interpret your communication is - fluent English, quick response,
> passed correspondence, sharp mind - I guess these are a mixture of
> 'facts' and my subjective interpretations / judgements, where the
> communication processes is immersed into my context, and crystallised
> into interpretative frameworks - that help me to understand your
> My 'interpretative frameworks' are very relevant context
> - for the communication process to take place - beyond a single
> communicative act.
> Best wishes
> Dr. Emanuela Todeva
> School of Management
> University of Surrey
> Guildford, Surrey, GU27XH
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: +44(0)1483 68 2056
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
> Sent: 10 January 2007 07:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Networks and conformity
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
> Dear Ryan,
> Do you really believe (like most STS scholars) that contexts are so
> important? For example, can you discover from this message whether it
> was written on a laptop or a desktop, on a PC or a Macintosh? If you
> would not know, could you recognize my age or gender from it? No: this
> is STS rubbish.
> (It enables them to legitimate the writing of thick histories.)
> Contexts matter only if they are structural. For example,
> university-industry relations may matter in pharmaceutical research or
> in the food industry. But it would not matter in itself whether I had
> a brother who was running a company. The crucial question is whether
> variation is significant. If it is, we may be able to hypothesize
> structural factors.
> With best wishes,
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal
> 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [log in to unmask] ;
> 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.