Dr. Freeman can speak for himself, of course, but since he hadn't yet, I thought I would mention his article in Connections 19(1):39-42  Some Antecedents of Social Network Analysis.   In it, he describes 6 articles from 1993 or earlier that focus on the social groupings of children.  His last two sentences are worth quoting:

"But those of us who come from the sociometric tradition seem to be pretty much unaware of this parallel line of work; at least we seldom cite psychologists working in this tradition.  The unfortunate consequence of this ignorance is that we have had to re-invent many of the ideas and tools that had already been introduced and adopted in developmental and educational psychology."

Not to gainsay Dr. Freeman, I just wanted to offer the opinion that periodic reinventing of the wheel is one of the most important things we can do.  You just have to remember where you left the last one.

Rich Rothenberg



Phillip Bonacich wrote:
*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/  *****

I agree with the injustice that old and current work in social networks
is being ignored.  However, this may be the cost we pay for joining a
larger intellectual community - literature written in our local dialect
is forgotten.  The benefit to us is that there is a great deal of
interest in our field.  Let's take advantage of the opportunities.

Phillip Bonacich
Department of Sociology
University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90095
(310) 825-3017


-----Original Message-----
From: Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Carter T. Butts
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 6:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Erroneous facts / NyT article on social networks

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/  *****

Mark Newman wrote:
  
And Rapoport touched on the same ideas even earlier in his work
on friendship networks, although he didn't specifically discuss
power-law degree sequences.

    

Indeed.  For that matter, there was a lot of very wonderful technical
work by physicists, biologists, and others on both social and biological
networks back in the late 1940s/early 1950s in the _Bulletin of
Mathematical Biophysics_ (of which Rapoport's work was part).  My sense
is that there is a fair amount of awareness of this literature within
the modern network community, but I'm not sure to what extent the
"scale-free" crowd is cognizant of it....

  
Still, as David Gibson points out, one shouldn't blame Duncan Watts
    
for
  
this.  In fact, Duncan gives ample credit to the pioneers of the field
in his new book.
    

I also noted that he was quoted as asking people to tone down the
hype....not that I expect the message to sink in.  Looks like we're in
for a bubble/crash cycle here -- I hope someone here is collecting data
on this!

-Carter

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). 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.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

  

--
Richard Rothenberg, MD
Professor
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
Emory University School of Medicine
69 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive  SE
Atlanta, GA 30303
email: [log in to unmask]
tele: 404-616-5606
fax: 404-616-6847