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

Subject:

Re: Measure of Ego Tie Strength

From:

Date:

Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:56:06 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (138 lines)
 ```***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** Dear Tom, Thank you very much for your input. If I understand you correctly, assuming that an ego elicits 10 alters, I'd rank the first alter a tie-strength-value of 10, with the last a value of 1. To then arrive at a tie strength (well, a mean value) for the ego, I'd then sum up the values of all ties in this case (10...1=55), and then divide it by ego's network size (ie. 10) yielding a mean ego tie strength of 5.5. Is this correct? If so, it seems to me that tie strength for the ego in such case is simply a function of how many alters are elicited or network size. ie. 10 alters would always yield 5.5, 11 alters yields 6 (66/11), and so on. Essentially, to test my research model, it seems necessary to arrive at a tie strength for each ego by consoloditating the tie strength of all other ties and averaging them. Burt's approach is at the dyadic level and relative to network proportions of the ego. Using this approach in my study means an ego will always have a tie strength of 1. I wonder if my notion of averaging tie strength and drilling it down to a single value for the ego is an incorrect conceptualisation. Any pointers to further papers/ideas would be of great assistance! Kind regards, Ken   -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2007 9:38 PM To: Kenneth Chung Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Measure of Ego Tie Strength Ken I've used the rank order of the nominations as a proxy for tie strength since spending time with someone may not necessarily equate with tie strength. So I treat the first person named as stronger, than the second, and second stronger than third, etc. We find this to be correlated with risk behavior, people tend to engage in riskier behavior with their closer ties. This can be done in both ego and socio-metric studies. - Tom Kenneth Chung wrote: >***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** > >Dear colleagues, > >I am seeking ideas and suggestions on how one accounts for tie strength >of an ego node, when you are studying over 100 ego nodes individually. >In my study, relational data is collected from over 100 individuals, >where each individual may elicit up to maximum 15 ties. The research >model tests whether tie strength is associated with individual outcome, >eg. attitude to performance. > >Tie strength in my study is measured by: >- closeness (4 point scale from very close to distant) and >- frequency of contact (5 point scale ranging from daily to less >often), although data on other variables such as 'time known' and >'relationship type' is also available. > >When it comes to calculation of tie strength for an ego node, how does >one account for it? To the best of my knowledge and from what I've read >from literature, one may > >1. use the average strength of ties for an ego (ie. sum the values of >each tie from ego to alter and divide by count of ties). In this case, >the values of each tie may be: > (i) the average of closeness and frequency values, or > (ii) the product of closeness and frequency values 2. using 1, but >take only the average of the top 5 or top 7 ties to the ego. >This allows for comparison using a common baseline. > >Other approaches have been to consider tie strength of a node in terms >of network proportions (see Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network >Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range. >Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.), however, I understand >this only works for sociocentric networks and not for ego networks as >in my study. > >I'd like to confirm whether my limited understanding is correct and >welcome comments and suggestions from you all. > >Thank you, > >sincerely, >Ken > >-- >Kon Shing, Kenneth Chung >PhD Candidate >School of Information Technologies >University of Sydney >NSW 2006, Australia >P: +61 2 9351 5639 >F: +61 2 9351 3838 >W: http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~ken > >_____________________________________________________________________ >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. > > > > -- Evaluating Health Promotion Programs (Oxford U. Press): http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195141768.html My personal webpage: http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~tvalente/ The Empirical Networks Project http://ipr1.hsc.usc.edu/networks/ --- Thomas W. Valente, PhD Director, Master of Public Health Program http://www.usc.edu/medicine/mph/ Department of Preventive Medicine School of Medicine University of Southern California 1000 S. Fremont Ave. Building A Room 5133 Alhambra CA 91803 phone: (626) 457-6678 fax: (626) 457-6699 email: [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.```