***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** > Perhaps (and this is addressed to Moses as well) the division between > academia and business is a false one. I cannot believe I am alone is seeing the irony in the seeming need of social network analysis to be organizational. Some people get this out it, some people that--just like governments, just like societies. It isn't a movement or an organization or even a discipline. Nor is it a field. By the way, this is a general trend of the times--things are becoming dis-integrated. You hear people in government whining about "hollow government" etc. Ten years ago all you heard about in business was "outsourcing." It is inevitable. Organizations are not efficient any more which should be a core theoretical area of SNA--but strangely it isn't. At some point networks may not be efficient--depending on the types of ends people want. According to economists, we all ought to be independent contractors in all things all the time. People only organize or network because they think they can be somehow safer, better, stronger, leaner, more communal, etc. And sometimes things are just random and are given meaning after they happen. The metaphors of outreach and "high and low" theory etc. are elements of people looking for funding--building infrastructure--gaining measurements and returns as if they were running organizations. These are commercial (organizational) interests. Science would not care much about that stuff. Physics didn't go forward because someone organized it. It went forward because people got interested in certain types of problems and that required organizations. Businesses get interested in problems but they by and large return pretty quickly to the problem of getting people to give up cash for some thing in a unit of time. It seems to me that the business people are opening up all sorts of avenues for research for those interested in problems. I am no saint, and I love recognition as much as the next guy, but what does it hurt? Does anyone really believe SNA has developed foundational knowledge that will be used in 20 much less 100 years? The killer irony of "social science" is that it conflates organizational objectives (the social) with attempts at permanent knowledge (science). That's like a final theory of marketing. To me it is nonsensical. Some signs that business and academia would either be a threat or help to each other... 1. They could identify the top X (say 10) problems facing SNA theorists/researchers... 2. They had a common theory of motivation for forming/growing/killing networks. 3. They had similar theories about how network businesses will grow, evolve, and die. 4. Their programmers were stealing code from each other or other technologies. 5. They had ways of agreeing when problems were solved. None of that seems present now. There are some notable efforts perhaps in each. But it just doesn't look to me like a field or discipline. I think SunBelt was/is an organization. The new businesses threaten the legitimacy of that (perhaps?). I have no theory explaining that. Ryan Lanham _____________________________________________________________________ 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.