Print

Print


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

Ken
You should treat tie strenght as a dyadic value.
-Tom

Kenneth Chung wrote:

>Dear Tom,
>
>Thank you very much for your input. 
>
>If I understand you correctly, assuming that an ego elicits 10 alters, I'd
>rank the first alter a tie-strength-value of 10, with the last a value of 1.
>To then arrive at a tie strength (well, a mean value) for the ego, I'd then
>sum up the values of all ties in this case (10...1=55), and then divide it
>by ego's network size (ie. 10) yielding a mean ego tie strength of 5.5. Is
>this correct? If so, it seems to me that tie strength for the ego in such
>case is simply a function of how many alters are elicited or network size.
>ie. 10 alters would always yield 5.5, 11 alters yields 6 (66/11), and so on.
>
>Essentially, to test my research model, it seems necessary to arrive at a
>tie strength for each ego by consoloditating the tie strength of all other
>ties and averaging them. Burt's approach is at the dyadic level and relative
>to network proportions of the ego. Using this approach in my study means an
>ego will always have a tie strength of 1.
>
>I wonder if my notion of averaging tie strength and drilling it down to a
>single value for the ego is an incorrect conceptualisation. Any pointers to
>further papers/ideas would be of great assistance!
>
>Kind regards,
>Ken
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2007 9:38 PM
>To: Kenneth Chung
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Measure of Ego Tie Strength
>
>Ken
>I've used the rank order of the nominations as a proxy for tie strength
>since spending time with someone may not necessarily equate with tie
>strength.  So I treat the first person named as stronger, than the second,
>and second stronger than third, etc. We find this to be correlated with risk
>behavior, people tend to engage in riskier behavior with their closer ties.
>This can be done in both ego and socio-metric studies.
>- Tom
>
>Kenneth Chung wrote:
>
>  
>
>>*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>I am seeking ideas and suggestions on how one accounts for tie strength 
>>of an ego node, when you are studying over 100 ego nodes individually. 
>>In my study, relational data is collected from over 100 individuals, 
>>where each individual may elicit up to maximum 15 ties. The research 
>>model tests whether tie strength is associated with individual outcome, 
>>eg. attitude to performance.
>>
>>Tie strength in my study is measured by:
>>- closeness (4 point scale from very close to distant) and
>>- frequency of contact (5 point scale ranging from daily to less 
>>often), although data on other variables such as 'time known' and 
>>'relationship type' is also available.
>>
>>When it comes to calculation of tie strength for an ego node, how does 
>>one account for it? To the best of my knowledge and from what I've read 
>>    
>>
>>from literature, one may
>  
>
>>1. use the average strength of ties for an ego (ie. sum the values of 
>>each tie from ego to alter and divide by count of ties). In this case, 
>>the values of each tie may be:
>>	(i) the average of closeness and frequency values, or
>>	(ii) the product of closeness and frequency values 2. using 1, but 
>>take only the average of the top 5 or top 7 ties to the ego.
>>This allows for comparison using a common baseline.
>>
>>Other approaches have been to consider tie strength of a node in terms 
>>of network proportions (see Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network 
>>Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range.
>>Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.), however, I understand 
>>this only works for sociocentric networks and not for ego networks as 
>>in my study.
>>
>>I'd like to confirm whether my limited understanding is correct and 
>>welcome comments and suggestions from you all.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>sincerely,
>>Ken
>>
>>--
>>Kon Shing, Kenneth Chung
>>PhD Candidate
>>School of Information Technologies
>>University of Sydney
>>NSW 2006, Australia
>>P: +61 2 9351 5639
>>F: +61 2 9351 3838
>>W: http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~ken
>>
>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>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.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>--
>Evaluating Health Promotion Programs (Oxford U. Press):
>http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195141768.html
>
>My personal webpage:
>http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~tvalente/	
>
>The Empirical Networks Project
>http://ipr1.hsc.usc.edu/networks/
>
>---
>Thomas W. Valente, PhD
>Director, Master of Public Health Program http://www.usc.edu/medicine/mph/
>Department of  Preventive Medicine School of Medicine University of Southern
>California 1000 S. Fremont Ave.
>Building A Room 5133
>Alhambra CA 91803
>phone: (626) 457-6678
>fax: (626) 457-6699
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Evaluating Health Promotion Programs (Oxford U. Press):
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195141768.html

My personal webpage:
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~tvalente/	

The Empirical Networks Project 
http://ipr1.hsc.usc.edu/networks/

---
Thomas W. Valente, PhD
Director, Master of Public Health Program
http://www.usc.edu/medicine/mph/
Department of  Preventive Medicine
School of Medicine
University of Southern California
1000 S. Fremont Ave.
Building A Room 5133
Alhambra CA 91803
phone: (626) 457-6678
fax: (626) 457-6699
email: [log in to unmask]



_____________________________________________________________________
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.