Difference between revisions of "MCSN Tuesday, 1-Nov-11"
(→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. | ||
| − | * | + | * 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 08:32, 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):
- 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." [what factors might impact the chances of actual dyadic interaction?]
- Actors at the intersection of multiple social circles...
- tend to interact even more
- 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?)
