Print

Print


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

My suspicion is that part of the melting going on in organizations right
now stems from the fact that information technology allows ready access
so norms are much harder to reinforce and cultural guides.  This is a
problem of networks.  Lurkers and fringe participants have little stake.
In short, they don't go to SunBelt and they don't care about the
editorial board of Connections.  As such, it is harder to norm them.  In
such circumstances you see appeals to basic politeness, civility--and
other cultural sticks and carrots.  

Organizing--organizations...departments, affinity groups, professional
associations, mostly arose when distant travel became technologically
feasible on a more regular basis.  Now travel is becoming less relevant
and information technology access much more relevant.  In a world where
money equals choice, status and prestige give way to "Ya, whatever.
That's not the way we do it at MySpace!"  Publishing becomes denormed
because the power of editors goes down--leading to things like the
non-edited web-based publications going on now related to Nature (the
journal), etc.  

The reason terrorist organizations are defeating armies is because they
are post organizational.  Post Weberian.  They will lose to the extent
they become Weberian.  What you see going on here is a constant struggle
on SOCnet between the Weberian SunBelt organization of network theorists
and the post-Weberian dabblers--the disorganized terrorists of academic
thinking.  The terrorists will tend to win because it becomes silly to
wear a coat and tie to movie when everyone else is comfortable and
enjoying themselves in jeans.  In short, culture tends to disintegrate.
To the extent you like order and stability in your ontological realms,
you will be angry.  To the extent that you are an outsider--a web Dalit,
you will revel in the chaos of dysculturation (globalization, etc.) 

Ryan Lanham  


*****  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.

_____________________________________________________________________
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.