Print

Print


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

Hello socnet,

Somebody has a specific reference for Lazarsfeld and the concept of
"Latency" that Loet Leydesdorff mentioned ?

I´m a graduate student in Spain-Barcelona working around that concept.
(latent contacts-relations). I´ll be gratefull if someone gives to me a
clue. Thanks in advance. Great discussion these days, specially for the
newbies

Rodrigo Araya D.

Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona
Research Group: http://www.egoredes.net
Revista REDES: http://revista-redes.rediris.es



> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> Dear Moses:
>
> SNA and ANT, in my opinion, have in common that both stress relations and
> graphs, while we know since Burt (1982)--and some of us even before that
> date--that non-relations are very important for the development of
> (eigen-)structure. (I know that one explore an eigenstructure using
> UCINET,
> but it is easier and with more options using SPSS.)
>
> Furthermore, both types of analysis are more focused on taking snapshots
> than on theorizing the (non-linear) dynamics. ANT does the latter because
> of
> its focus on action and change, but the relationship with the pictures is
> not easy because of the emphasis on relations in the latter. SNA catches
> dynamics (e.g., preferential attachments) insofar as they can be made
> visible as a sediment in the data (e.g., a negative power law).
>
> In other words, concepts like "latency" (Lazarsfeld) and the virtual
> character of structure (Giddens) are not fully theorized in these
> methodologies. As you know, I think that self-organization theory
> (Maturana,
> Luhmann) can help us further because a model for how a complex
> dynamics--composed of several subdynamics--evolves, is proposed. It is
> sometimes easier to connect this model with simulation studies than with
> empirical traditions like SNA and ANT, but visualizations remain most
> useful
> for communication of the understanding.
>
> With best wishes for 2006,
>
>
> Loet
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Social Networks Discussion Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moses Boudourides
>> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:50 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: SNA is not a method
>>
>> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>>
>> Socnet, Happy New Year!
>>
>> My two cents on SNA, heterogeneity and ANT (I'm just reading
>> Bruno's last book these days.. :-)
>>
>> Emanuela, concerning heterogeneity, the right place to look
>> for it in SNA is on 2-mode (or in general n-mode) networks.
>> Among the methods used in such studies, one encounters:
>> Galois lattices (and other discrete data
>> analyses) (cf., Freeman, D. White, Schweizer, Mohr, Duquenne,
>> Roth, Pattison, Robins, Mische et al.), correspondence
>> analysis (Faust, Skvoretz, Roberts et al.), affiliation
>> networks and blockmodeling (Breiger, Borgatti, Everett and
>> many others), generalized blockmodeling (Doreian, Batagelj,
>> Ferligoj) etc.
>>
>> ANT is quite different than SNA in many respects. (Have
>> people in this list ever heard about ANT?) It's funny but
>> Bruno Latour believes quite the opposite to what Barry
>> Wellman considers about SNA (and more or less I agree with
>> Barry - but I was wondering, Barry, is this the Toronto-Paris
>> anti-link? :-) Latour stresses that ANT is a method or a tool
>> and it is different from a network in the same way that
>> drawing with a pencil is not the same thing as drawing the
>> shape of a pencil.. In any case, until now, I haven't seen
>> any analytical or formal work in ANT and this is normal
>> because of its interpretive priorities. But even in this
>> respect, it's hard to compare, say, Harrison White and Eric
>> Leifer with Bruno Latour and John Law. Sometimes, reading the
>> most provocative manifestos of the field, I have the feeling
>> that ANT deliberately confuses contextualism with relationism
>> and constructivist anti-essentialism with structural
>> anti-individualism. But I'm not sure, I might have
>> misunderstood their arguments.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Moses Boudourides
>>
>>   Department of Mathematics
>>   University of Patras
>>   265 00 Rio-Patras
>>   Greece
>>
>>   Tel.: +30-2610-996318
>>   Fax:  +30-2610-996318, +30-2610-992965
>>
>>   http://www.math.upatras.gr/~mboudour
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, E.Todeva wrote:
>>
>> > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>> >
>> > Yes, I agree with you that 'network science' is more
>> appropriate for what we are aiming at, and that 'actors' can
>> incorporate a broad range of 'social/cultural/technological'
>> artefacts such as organisations and web pages.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not sure though how SNA deals with heterogeneity, and
>> what are the appropriate methods/ methodologies.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Emanuela Todeva
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > From: Stanley Wasserman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> > Sent: Thu 05/01/2006 20:11
>> > To: Todeva E Dr (SoM)
>> > Subject: Re: SNA is not a method
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > just because it is called "social" does not mean it only deals with
>> > people.
>> > social network analysis deals with interrelations among
>> social actors,
>> > which can be
>> >     nations, organizations, webpages, and so on.
>> > to me, it all should be referred to as "network science".
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 5, 2006, at 2:15 PM, E.Todeva wrote:
>> >
>> > > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>> > >
>> > > Dear Barry,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Knowing the legacy of your contributions I understand why
>> you would
>> > > like to defend this position. But maybe we need to re-think this.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What about calling 'Network Analysis' a paradigm that
>> incorporates:
>> > >
>> > > 'social network analysis' with
>> > >
>> > > 'business network analysis',
>> > >
>> > > 'actor-network theory', and other methods / approaches /
>> > > methodologies for network analysis.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Can we go beyond interconnected human beings, to interconnected
>> > > organisations and business units, and even heterogeneous
>> systems of
>> > > interconnected people, organisations, institutions, assets/
>> > > resources, technological/cultural artefacts... My social
>> capital is
>> > > not only my social contacts, and I hardly could capitalise on all
>> > > potential social contacts that I have through SOCNET (for
>> example).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Emanuela Todeva
>> > >
>> > > University of Surrey, UK
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > >
>> > > From: Social Networks Discussion Forum on behalf of Barry Wellman
>> > > Sent: Thu 05/01/2006 18:15
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: SNA is not a method
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>> > >
>> > > Dear Sergio Romero (and others),
>> > >
>> > > Your homework assignment is to write 100 times:
>> > >
>> > > "Social Network Analysis is not 'a method' but a paradigm.
>> > > A way of looking at the social world and analyzing it."
>> > >
>> > > To see it as only a method is to miss the whole point of SNA.
>> > >
>> > >  Barry, INSNA founder
>> > >
>> > >
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> > > _
>> > >
>> > >   Barry Wellman         Professor of Sociology
>> NetLab Director
>> > >   wellman at chass.utoronto.ca
>> > > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
>> > >
>> > >   Centre for Urban & Community Studies
>> University of Toronto
>> > >   455 Spadina Avenue    Toronto Canada M5S 2G8
>> fax:+1-416-978-7162
>> > >              To network is to live; to live is to network
>> > >
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> > > _
>> > >
>> > >
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>> > > _ 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> > 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.
>>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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.