Print

Print


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

Thanks for the advice on the appropriate way to ask my question.
Certainly no disrespect was intended.

Dave


Barry Wellman wrote:
> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
> 
> David Ouellette asks for advice.
> 
> The first piece of advice I would give is to first have a private
> correspondence with the authors before putting such a note up on the
> Internet.
> 
>  Barry Wellman
>  _____________________________________________________________________
> 
>   Barry Wellman   S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology   NetLab Director
>   Centre for Urban & Community Studies          University of Toronto
>   455 Spadina Avenue    Toronto Canada M5S 2G8    fax:+1-416-978-7162
>   wellman at chass.utoronto.ca  http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman
>         for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php
>  _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, SOCNET automatic digest system wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:19:43 -0400
>> From:    "David M. Ouellette" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Possible Error in a Published Paper
>>
>> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>>
>> Hey All,
>>
>> I am working on my dissertation in social psychology, and in the course
>> of reading Baker and Faulkner (1993), I suspect an error in computation
>> of graph closeness centralization. Their actor closeness (Eq. 3, p. 848)
>>   they call "farness" and later refer to it in note 8 as Sabidussi's
>> index. Wasserman and Faust (1994, p. 184) indicate that Sabidussi's
>> index is actually the reciprocal of this value. Further, their equation
>> is not standardized by multiplying by g - 1 (Wasserman &  Faust, Eq.
>> 5.8), causing a problem for comparing across networks of different size.
>>
>> One of their hypotheses was that the network with high information
>> processing (turbines conspiracy) should have the lowest graph
>> centralization, which I understand. They give Freeman's equation in
>> their Equation 4, but they compute closeness graph centralization using
>> their farness index rather than the standardized closeness index. I
>> interpret their number as unstandardized graph decentralization, but
>> they interpret it as regular centralization. In Table 1, they give
>> "Sabidussi graph centralization (farness)" numbers, and the turbines
>> network has the highest value. They conclude, "This illegal network
>> should be sparse and decentralized. This expectation is not supported by
>> the data. The turbines conspiracy network exhibits the highest density
>> and is the most centralized" (Baker & Faulkner, p. 850).
>>
>> Am I correct in reinterpreting their number as unstandardized graph
>> decentralization? If so, am I correct in surmising that their conclusion
>> is backwards? If this is the case, is there a way to take their number
>> and the network size and algebraically obtain proper graph centralization?
>>
>> I am rather confused by this and would greatly appreciate any advice you
>> can offer.
>>
>> David M. Ouellette
>> Psychology Department, Social Division
>> Virginia Commonwealth University
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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.