Difference between revisions of "MCSN Tuesday, 1-Nov-11"

From CCE wiki archived
Jump to: navigation, search
(Affiliation networks)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
* People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.  
 
* People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.  
 
* Such affiliations define ''bipartite'' networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call ''actors'' and ''events'' (don't be confused - ''events'' could be more like groups)
 
* Such affiliations define ''bipartite'' networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call ''actors'' and ''events'' (don't be confused - ''events'' could be more like groups)
 +
* In a ''bipartite'' network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type B.  All lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.
 
* Affiliations define ''social circles'' which overlap.
 
* Affiliations define ''social circles'' which overlap.
* In a ''bipartite'' network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type BAll lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.
+
* Network representation of ''identity'' as a model for social belonging:
 +
** Culture model (common in traditional ethnomusicology):  each individual belongs to one "complex whole" as [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Edward_Burnett_Tylor#Ideology_and_.22Primitive_Culture.22 Tylor] put it in 1847.
 +
** Identity model (more common in sociology and contemporary ethnomusicology): each individual associates with multiple "simple parts", each person in a slightly different way.  These "parts" can be viewed as social circles whose intersection is the individual.
 +
** Note: social identity can't be captured in a single Pajek partition....why?  The concept of partition is closer to the traditional "culture" model of exclusive all-encompassing identities.
 
* Example:  [http://www.theyrule.net/ Interlocking directorates]
 
* Example:  [http://www.theyrule.net/ Interlocking directorates]
 
* Typical  assumptions about affiliation networks (critique! test!) (see p. 101):
 
* Typical  assumptions about affiliation networks (critique! test!) (see p. 101):
# Affiliations are institutional or structural -  less personal than friendships or sentiments.
+
# Affiliations are institutional or structural -  less personal than friendships or sentiments. [What do you think? How could we test this?]
# "Although membership lists do not tell us exactly which people interact, communicate, and like each other, we may assume that there is a fair chance that they will."
+
# "Although membership lists do not tell us exactly which people interact, communicate, and like each other, we may assume that there is a fair chance that they will." [what factors might impact the chances of actual dyadic interaction?]
 
# Actors at the intersection of ''multiple'' social circles...
 
# Actors at the intersection of ''multiple'' social circles...
 
## tend to interact even more
 
## tend to interact even more
 
## enable indirect communication between the circles as a whole.
 
## enable indirect communication between the circles as a whole.
 
# "Joint membership in a social circle often entails similarities in other social domains."  (i.e. ''homophily'' principle...Cause or effect?)
 
# "Joint membership in a social circle often entails similarities in other social domains."  (i.e. ''homophily'' principle...Cause or effect?)

Revision as of 07:32, 1 November 2011

Quiz

  • page 1 - bravo!
  • page 2, mainly bravo, but a few common misconceptions remain:
    • components can't overlap (because they're maximal)
    • cores: can't be determined from degree. For one thing, a vertex in the 4-core has to be connected to at least 4 others in the 4-core (by definition!). Therefore the smallest 4-core will have 5 vertices. Some people indicated a single node as belonging to the 4-core.
    • cliques: are defined to be maximal. So a triad isn't necessarily a clique, though if it's not a clique on its own it must be part of a larger clique. Note also that a square is not a clique unless it contains its diagonals.

4.8

  • How to define the flying teams?

Affiliation networks

  • People affiliate to groups (often defined by space, like the University of Alberta), and events (typically defined by space-time, like this class session), whether by choice or circumstance.
  • Such affiliations define bipartite networks comprising two kinds of vertex, which we can call actors and events (don't be confused - events could be more like groups)
  • In a bipartite network there are two kinds of vertex, type A and type B. All lines connect a type A vertex to a type B vertex - there are no direct connections between vertices of type A, nor are there direct connections between vertices of type B.
  • Affiliations define social circles which overlap.
  • Network representation of identity as a model for social belonging:
    • Culture model (common in traditional ethnomusicology): each individual belongs to one "complex whole" as Tylor put it in 1847.
    • Identity model (more common in sociology and contemporary ethnomusicology): each individual associates with multiple "simple parts", each person in a slightly different way. These "parts" can be viewed as social circles whose intersection is the individual.
    • Note: social identity can't be captured in a single Pajek partition....why? The concept of partition is closer to the traditional "culture" model of exclusive all-encompassing identities.
  • Example: Interlocking directorates
  • Typical assumptions about affiliation networks (critique! test!) (see p. 101):
  1. Affiliations are institutional or structural - less personal than friendships or sentiments. [What do you think? How could we test this?]
  2. "Although membership lists do not tell us exactly which people interact, communicate, and like each other, we may assume that there is a fair chance that they will." [what factors might impact the chances of actual dyadic interaction?]
  3. Actors at the intersection of multiple social circles...
    1. tend to interact even more
    2. enable indirect communication between the circles as a whole.
  4. "Joint membership in a social circle often entails similarities in other social domains." (i.e. homophily principle...Cause or effect?)