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  June 2007

SOCNET June 2007

Subject:

ego tie strength

From:

Bill Richards <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bill Richards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:08:36 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (294 lines)

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

Dear Ken,

You've described a few ways to operationalize "ego tie strength" 
(procedures you might use to measure it) but there didn't seem to be 
many words about your conceptualization -- what do you mean by "ego tie 
strength"? The problem is that if you don't know what you are trying to 
measure, you will never know if you are measuring it.
Unless, that is, you say the concept is defined by the procedure used to 
measure it. A conceptual definition must do more than tell how the 
concept will be measured. For example, to say that “intelligence is 
defined as that which the IQ test measures” neither defines intelligence 
nor tells you anything about it. It only ties the word "intelligence" to 
something called the "IQ test".
The most important part of a conceptual definition is the specification 
of essential qualities. Conceptual definitions should denote all of the 
essential qualities of the constructs and exclude nonessential ones. 
They should describe the construct clearly enough so that other 
researchers would classify phenomena (in terms of whether or not they 
are occurrences of the construct) the same way as the researcher who 
developed the conceptual definition.What are the essential qualities of 
the concept? In your case, what thing or combination of things must 
happen when "ego tie strength" is high? When that thing or combination 
of things doesn't happen, "ego tie strength" should be low.
The definition “violent movies are movies in which there are scenes of 
kicking, stabbing, clubbing, choking, hitting, slapping, shooting, and 
smashing” is not a good conceptual definition because it lists many 
activities that are not essential and it fails to describe the essential 
qualities. What are the conceptual qualities that must be present before 
you will call something “violent”? You may want to say something like 
“violent movies show scenes in which one person injures, maims, or 
causes pain to another.” This much shorter list of more abstract 
qualities would probably include all of the specific activities in the 
list above as well as many violent acts not on that list.
The specification of essential qualities is the most important part of a 
conceptual definition because it gives some very good clues about how 
the concept could be measured in a most straightforward way: look for 
the presence or absence of the essential qualities. For example, if you 
accepted the suggested definition of violent movies as those which “show 
scenes in which one person injures, maims, or causes pain to another” in 
the previous paragraph, you could determine whether or not a movie is 
violent, by looking to see whether it contained scenes in which one 
person injures, maims, or causes pain to another. ... But first you will 
have to decide what counts as injury or pain. (The proceeding was taken 
from Zen of Empirical Research; see www.sfu.ca/~richards)
In a similar way, the following may specify procedures you could use to 
get a number for each of a set of egos (but none of them tells you 
anything about what "ego tie strength" is): the mean of the closeness 
ratings that ego gives to his or her social ties, the mean of the 
products of the closeness and frequency ratings that ego gives to his or 
her social ties, the mean rank of ego's top 10 ties, the mean rank of 
ego's top 11 ties, .... , the result of some other mathematical 
procedure that somehow produces a single number that summarizes some 
rating that ego gives to some number of connections with a set of alters 
chosen by some yet to be specified procedure, and last but not least: 
ego's hat size multiplied by the number of dogs ego has owned in the 
past eleven years. No doubt the last example on the list seems to be a 
strange way to measure "ego tie strength," but we don't know what "ego 
tie strength" is, so we can't really rule it out, can we?
I think this is not an unusual situation with network research. A lot of 
people have spent a lot of time inventing a large set of metrics, 
scales, indices, etc., which are supposed to measure some network 
characteristic or another. We've got a lot of computer programs and 
algorithms to use in our efforts to analyze networks. It's easy to pick 
the tool you like and start analyzing. You'll get numbers. Because 
social networks are very complex things (they're a lot more than an 
adjacency matrix or the world's most beautiful multidimensional 
sociogram -- social networks have people with histories, memories, 
plans, dreams, desires, urges, diseases, jobs, families, fears, beliefs, 
friends, enemies, ......) you will probably be able to come up with an 
explanation for your numbers that makes sense. Worse, you will probably 
be able to come up with an explanation that will make absolutely good 
sense, regardless of what numbers you get.
So please spend at least a few hours trying to figure out exactly what 
you mean by "ego tie strength." While you're doing that, do everything 
you can to avoid numbers and mathematical procedures that turn one set 
of numbers into another number or set of numbers. What you're interested 
in is "what is ego tie strength?" -- not "how do I measure ego tie 
strength?" When you know what it is, write it down. Write it clearly 
enough so that someone who reads it will understand exactly what you 
mean by ego tie strength. Then you will have less trouble coming up with 
a way to measure it as long as you keep your conceptual understanding 
clear in your mind.

all the best,
Bill

> Date:    Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:35:34 +1000
> From:    Kenneth Chung <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Measure of Ego Tie Strength
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:44:56 -0700
> From:    Tom Valente <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Measure of Ego Tie Strength
>
> Ken
> You should treat tie strenght as a dyadic value.
> -Tom
>
> Kenneth Chung wrote:
>
>   
>> 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:
>>
>>     
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>       
>> --
>> 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]
>>
>>     
-- 
Bill Richards, Ph.D.
Professor
School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C. Canada  V5A 1S6
Web: http://www.sfu.ca/~richards

_____________________________________________________________________
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

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