Frontline workers in this study acknowledged that theyoften did not give second chances to clients they viewed as “abusers.”
I think this is a significant limitation of this work that the sanctions may be based on the subjective judgement of the caseworker rather than a variable related to the welfare recipient.
A Wald tes
The Wald test is also known as the Wald Chi-Squared test. I don't think I've ever encountered the "Wald" associated with chi-squared testing.
In addition, the study measures a number of belief systems or modes of thought that underlie these orientations. Biblical literalism is dummy coded from a question about how respondents understand the meaning of the Bible (see table 1 for details). Authoritarianism is measured using a set of questions about what characteristics respondents desire in children (Feldman and Stenner 1997; Hetherington and Weiler 2009; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009; Stenner 2005; Perrin, Roos, and Gauchat 2014). Government responsibility is measured using a scale of items about the govern-ment’s role in economic and social affairs (see Brooks and Manza 2013).
Interesting that the selection of independent variables isn't straightforward from a single variable/response, but derived by interpreting the response from a particular question or several questions.
The science-funding item was then reverse coded, so that higher values represent more positive views toward science.
Recoding!
(1) “Science is too concerned with theory and speculation to be of much use in making concrete government policy decisions that will affect the way we live”; and (2) “Even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal government.”
Two GSS variables
Since 2006, this survey has been included in the biennial General Social Survey (GSS).
The reason why this study starts in 2006, although the NSF report has earlier years
Building on recent theoretical advances, this study develops and empirically tests a multidimensional approach to political ideology that specifies both the belief systems and group solidarity aspects of political ideology.
Sure, this sounds great. I'm not sure about a larger debate around using the unidimensional orientation scale. Has there been a trend of researchers that have stopped using the orientation scale?
this study emphasizes the acceptance/disapproval of the culture frames that pro-fessional organizations, policymakers, and journalists use to construct science’s “public image,” rather than monolithic notions of “trust in science.”
Interesting distinction because there's a different set of literature related to "public trust"
Consistent with what researchers call the “deficit model,” numerous studies have also found an association between science literacy and greater public acceptance of science
Scientific literacy dominates earlier research around what factors increase public opinion of science. This is often measured by educational degree as proxy or sometimes by asking a series of questions about basic scientific knowledge/current news.
political ideology is both a belief system (or set of belief systems) as well as a group identity, and if properly conceptualized, likely profoundly influences individual cognition.
Alternative factor (political ideology) to understand what influences someone's opinion of science
(2006–2012)
This report is roughly biennial and more years are available prior to 2006.
Toward this end, the current study examines the cultural processes that underlie left-right polarization in perceptions of science, focusing on public support/disapproval of science-based government policy and the federal funding of science.
A different way of expressing the research question for this study
The science-policy image refers to the claim that scientific evidence can improve government policy through the objective evaluation of various policy positions and the identification of social problems. The science-funding image refers to the claim that large-scale government invest-ments are necessary and will yield societal benefits if scientific work remains autonomous from economic and political interests.
The two images related to science being examined in this study
First, what is the political context of scientific authority in the contemporary United States? More specifically, how can we best understand the association between political ideology and public perceptions of science in the current polarized environment?
Questions of interest for this study
These results provide apprecia-ble evidence in support of Hypothesis 1a: contact with the criminal justice system is associated with higher odds of not obtaining medical care when individuals thought they needed it.
This reminds me of intervening variables. What if contact with the criminal justice system can be associated with lower income, which might explain why someone would not obtain medical care?
(animal rights,t= 10.13,p< .001,g2= .24; environmental,t= 3.51,p<.001,g2= .21; political values,t= 3.81,p< .001,g2= .11;
After this week's assignment, I question why these aren't simply in the table below? This is much more difficult to read in text than in a table...
ifficulty preparing food (35.2%), bore-dom with food options (41.2%) and cravings for meat (54.9%) wereespecially problematic
I'm surprised health reasons didn't make the discussion. In Table 4, the health row has the highest means across all the categories of former limiters. The researchers mention that women support health reasons more than men, but isn't this a separate finding that health tops the list of reasons why these respondents stopped being vegetarian?
deliberative public opinioncannot be mea-sured, at least not in the sense that polls and surveys typically intend to measurepublicopinionon an issue.
I'm not sure that these two things seem comparable with how deliberative public opinion has been defined. Polls/surveys often attempt to be generalizable across a certain population. I don't think deliberative public opinion can make similar claims.
Participants are selected to reflect the diversity of the group(s) affected by theissues discussed, or considered to be representative of those groups according toother criteria.
This is starting to sound more like an organized conference with selected speakers than a "public."
Practical implementation of deliberative democratic principles takes many forms
I think that the Internet allows for social research into "mini-publics" through interactive forums (such as reddit), but also runs the risk of not being able to collect and verify demographic data. This deviation from "standard" methods makes some researchers doubtful of the value of online public discourse.
a mechanism for providing a meaningful opportunity for public input intocollective societal decisions, polls and surveys fail. Nevertheless, the failure of polls andsurveys in this regard does not detract from the fundamental need of decision-makers tobe cognizant of the values, interests and positions of their constituents on any particulardecision that will affect them. Thus, we not only require mechanisms to convey ‘publicopinion’ to decision-makers; we also require mechanisms to articulate that ‘publicopinion’ in the first place.
I'm still skeptical. Why else does political polling seem to matter so much to politicians? And constituents have the option to reach out directly to their elected officials, which is also not necessarily representative of the entire district. The analogy here might be that the U.S. is a representative democracy, not a true democracy. In the same way, polls and surveys attempt to discern the majority of opinions, but cannot reach every single voter.
Igo therefore suggests that ‘the public’ as a recognizable body, as wellas the individuals inhabiting it, is shaped by the availability of data produced throughmodern survey methods
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with this. As an analogy, should people be expected to form their own opinion of current events without the mass media as a filter?
the propositions embedded in the question incorporate claims that need to beaccepted in choosing a response option. For instance, respondents may agree withthe statement that ‘the welfare system does more good than harm’, but for reasonsother than ‘it provides assistance and training for those who are without jobs andlive in poverty’.
Actually, I would argue that the poll had bad statements. Combining the judgement (more good than harm) with the cause makes the statement "double-barreled," so it increases the uncertainty of what the respondent agrees with because sometimes it's not both parts.
Given the heterogeneity ofsociety, plurality of cultures, religious convictions and interest groups, it is strange to thinkthat one might characterize all of these using a universalizing construct like public opinionwhich lumps all of this into a single analytical unit – the public.
Isn't this why researchers not only collect "public opinion," but also kind of obsess over collecting demographic information?
They also show that the moderator responds tothese contextual evaluations in systematic ways that ultimately lead to participants’articulation of context-independent ‘opinions’ that are no longer linked to any par-ticular rhetorical purpose. The ways in which the moderator achieves this include: (1)ignoring certain statements by participants; (2) explicitly articulating the kind ofcontributions that are welcomed; and (3)stripping away the rhetorical context inwhich an evaluation was articulated.
I would agree the context around a topic influences our opinion of it (in this case, a focus group), especially if we did not really start with an opinion. For example, if I read some current news about an emerging technology, it may influence my opinion about how it might be beneficial or harmful. This argument seems to work best if assuming that people begin from a blank slate. However, the counterargument would be that we do have certain inherent opinions that could be articulated. For example, many people likely have pre-existing opinions about guns and gun control without the context of the latest school shooting.
It is therefore unclearhow individuals interpret the term when prompted to respond to the survey. Importantly,Marsh’s scale is not an anomaly reflecting bad research practice, but rather is typical ofattitudinal scales. Second, in the translation of participants’ own expressions into cate-gories the analyst uses to systematize and organize responses, the researcher by necessityglosses over contextual variation in the use of particular terms. The researcher thereforeimposes her or his own analytical categories in interpreting participants’ responses.
I think this is still bad survey design. Doesn't pre-testing help with avoiding differing interpretations? There seems to be a fundamental reliability question here.
In this I draw particularly on discursive psycho-logical and related work.
Now onto psychological theory...
In this context, Burgess (2014) notes that one particular challenge inher-ent in operationalizing concepts such as ‘the public’ and ‘public interests’ is thatalthough they are abstractions, attempts to consult publics necessarily presume or requiretheir explicit instantiation.
This is interesting because surveys require selection of a sample with decisions on random versus representative of the population, or weighing to account for availability/unavailability of certain groups in a population, etc.
Recently, Stilgoe, Lock and Wilsdon (2014) and Burgess (2014) have observed thatthere has been an important shift from ‘deficit to dialogue’, that is, from viewing thebroader public as deficient and therefore in need of being informed about science andtechnology, to viewing lay publics as key stakeholders to be involved in dialogue aboutthe governance of science and technology.
I'm starting to see how the author gets to "deliberative public opinion."
However, the study of public opinion on science and technology manifests somewhatdifferently from that of many other objects of social interest. For one, many discussionsof science and technology are future-oriented
The author argues public opinion on science and tech topics is different, partially because it looks at the uncertain future.
n policy contexts, public opinionholds a critical place in the assessment and justification of the allocation of resources, thedevelopment of programmes and the implementation and cancellation of services.
Furthermore, public opinion is supposed to matter because lawmakers use it to allocate resources or change policies.
Rowe and Frewer (2005) argue that surveys are limited to a one-directional flow ofinformation from public representatives to sponsors (and initiators) of the survey. As amechanism of public participation, therefore, surveys fail to provide opportunities fordialogue, shaping agendas and questioning the framing of issues.
So, public opinion is supposed to be a component of public participation in government. However, surveys can only measure public opinion and not make the additional connection to public participation.
The context that informs my argument is the governance of emerging and/or contro-versial science and technology (S&T).
Not sure yet how this will support the political legitimacy of "deliberative public opinion."
In thisarticle, I draw on criticisms from social constructionist scholarship to demonstrate prob-lems associated with many typical uses of ‘public opinion’. I then argue that as anexplicit social construction, deliberative public opinion has political legitimacy, whenconstituted appropriately.
The theory will be based on social constructionism for both showing the issues with using "public opinion" and supporting "deliberative public opinion."
In thefirst part of this article I draw on this body of work to demonstrate that there is currentlyno meaningful theoretical foundation for the construct of public opinion as it is typicallymeasured in surveys, polls, or focus groups.
I chose this article because this is an interesting argument to make. I'm somewhat skeptical that "deliberative public opinion" can exist in the real world rather than a theoretical ideal.
Study Methodology
I don't think this study was set up with a control. However, what is the standard rate of turnover across the tech industry vs all industry? And how are these rates different than the ones for certain demographic groups?
tech and non-tech job functions
Interesting. So, these results represent the tech companies more than tech employees because it may include admin or operations positions.
We recognize that the experiences describe within the report do not reflect all companies or all employees.
Basically, their results are not generalizable to all tech companies or all tech employees.
Other/Decline to Answer
A "more than one race" category is becoming more common for demographics questions, which this study did not use.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
This is a common definition, but can be somewhat questionable at times. Aerospace is not a tech field?
Unfairness was intentionally undefined for participants,
A definite choice, but somewhat questionable. A parallel study with unfairness defined would be interesting for comparison.
Summary of unfair experiences
I also wonder how many of the White respondents cited "reverse" discrimination.
Chinese, Female, Engineer
I find this example ironic, given the choice to combine White and Asian women as a category. It also leads to a question of whether the choice obscures the data: maybe the split of opinion between White and Asian women is different?
research questions
Five research questions seem like a lot. Academic articles seem to have much fewer, around 1-3.
The sample was weighted to reflect the composition of adults across the United States, including accounting for age, gender, geographic region, race/ethnicity, income, household size, marital status, employment and education.
It seems like there would be a lot of weighing with the higher percentage of male and white respondents.
To date, there have been no representative studies of tech workplace cultures or what experiences drive employees out of the door.
The contribution that this study makes to existing research and the tech business world.
Although headline-worthy, how common are these accounts across the tech sector? Do these ex-periences affect retention? Does workplace culture create a revolving door for underrepresented groups?
Quick mention of the research questions in this executive summary.
Themostsigniücantoftheseisperceivedneighborhoodincivility
Significant dependent variable to be measured
Eventhoughthereissomecontroversyoverwhetherthisquestionisavalidmeasureoffearofcrime(seeFerraro1995),Americansareexperiencingheightenedanxietyabouttheirpersonalsafety
significant dependent variable, although debatable as a valid measure
Therefore,addi-tionalstudiesonadolescentfearshouldseektoreplicatetheseündings.
I think the random areas approach might lead to different findings
WeconducteditemanalysisontheindexandusedCronbach’salphatodetermineitsreli-ability.Theconstructdemonstratedaninternalreliabilityof.708
Reminder that Cronbach's alpha is used to test whether something consistently measures a concept and ranges between 0-1. However, results must be interpreted (some put the acceptable at 0.7 and unacceptable as under 0.5), so it's hard to say that higher is better because a too high score might indicate redundancy.
Thedataweregatheredfromschoolsrandomlyselectedwithinfourgeographicallydis-tinctareasofthestate
I wonder if random selection was the best method here. Why not select four comparable areas based on similar crime rates?
Despitetheabundanceofresearchexaminingfearofcrimeamongadults,therehasbeenscantattentionpaidtoexaminingfearofcrimeamongadolescents
how this study might contribute to existing research
Thereareanumberofindividuallevelvariablesthatareassociatedwithfearofcrimeamongadults.Numerousstudieshaveconsistentlyindicatedthatfemales,non-whites(particularlyAfricanAmericansandHispanics),individualswithlowerlevelsofincomeandeducation,andurbanresidentsaremorelikelytoexperiencefearofcrime
Setting up the framework for why the authors might have chosen those particular demographic variables
thepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminedeterminantsoffearofcriminalvictimizationamongadolescentsatschooltodetermineifthepredictorsoffearofcriminalvictimization(gender,race,etc.)amongadolescentsarethesameasthoseamongadults.
sociological question
hisstudyexaminedthepredictorsofadolescentfearofcrimeatschoolinanattempttodeterminewhethertheyaresimilartopredictorsofadultfearofcrime
sociological question
Usingarep-resentativesampleof742highschoolstudentsfromasoutheasternstate
Sample size and part of the methodology
Allclassificationsweremadebyapanelofthreeclimatescienceresearchers.Allpanelmembersattendedaverbalbriefingatwhichtheclassificationcriteriawerediscussedandclarified.
Wow, they did the sentiment analysis manually rather than using an algorithm!
Akeyimplicationisthatnetworkpositionwillaffectthelikelihoodthatanindividualwilladoptanewattitude/behaviour,anobservationthathasbeenusedtoinformsuccessfulnetwork-basedinterventions
This is interesting, but doesn't say which position yet. I wonder if high centrality or betweenness causes an individual to reexamine and adopt the same attitude.
In particular, Asian and Black gays exclude their own racial group at relatively high rates: Asian gays exclude their own race nearly five times more than do White gays, and Black gays exclude their own race just over two and a half times more than do White gays
Again, the discriminatory effects occur within minority racial groups.
Asians are the most self-exclusionary group, which suggests that they conform to homonor-mative ideals that position Asians as less desired
An interesting effect that Asians aren't immune to their own stereotype.
Another limitation is that Match.com does not provide users with categories for role/sex position preferences, which may be gendered and racialized, for example, gay Black men primarily valued as dominant and/or insertive partners versus Asian gays primarily valued as submissive and/or receptive partners (Han 2006) or butch/tomboy/femme as a key part of pairing among lesbians
Another reflection of the controlling images discussed previously about the Black hypermasculine stereotype = dominant partner. Interesting with how lesbians aren't characterized the same way here.
Homonormativity envisions intersections such as race and gender as co-occurring, collec-tively produced features of desire with impli-cations for inequality and, thus, can, for example, account for why a minority gay man might prefer White, masculine men and not minority and/or effeminate men.
Homonormativity as the new racism?
racial heterophily is tied to ideal racialized masculinities and femininities that privilege Whites. Thus, while demographic studies indi-cate that gays and lesbians often couple inter-racially and suggest that this is due to partner availability, we argue that underlying these patterns are gendered and racial ideals that gays conform to more than lesbians
Interesting finding that races have been linked to gendered ideals, so it's not entirely racial heterophily (which is the uncontexualized outcome), but the intersectional view of race and gender ideals.
To explain these differences, scholars argue that intersections of race, masculinity, and femininity shape ideals of desirability. For example, controlling images that permeate society depict Black women as masculine and Asian men as feminine; they thereby tend to be viewed as less desirable than Black men and Asian women who are seen as more masculine and feminine, respectively (P. H. Collins 2004; Feliciano, Robnett, and Komaie 2009)
Controlling images of desirability based on masculinity and femininity.
In the future, we will extend our study in three majordirections to address some limitations of the current study.
While I recognize that this is a slightly older paper (2007), I think blogs might be an outdated mode of identifying online hate groups now. How did word spread about Charlottesville? That might provide a good example of a way to trace information flow through current networks. I also feel that the authors didn't deliver enough of a "so what" in monitoring and understanding hate groups, but this might be another sign of reaction to current events.
Subscrip-tion link is important because it means that the subscriberis interested in reading the subscribed blogs. It suggeststhat there is an information flow between the twoindividuals.
I would argue with this assumption that a subscription indicates interest. Sometimes, I think there's an etiquette for reciprocating subscriptions (or Twitter follows) in order to boost everyone's audience, especially if the blog allows for paid advertising banners or links.
Community analysis is to identify social groups in anetwork. In SNA a subset of nodes is considered acommunity or a social group if nodes in this group havestronger or denser links with nodes within the group thanwith nodes outside of the group (Wasserman and Faust,1994).
This sounds like k-core analysis.
We use three statistics that are widelyused in topological studies to categorize the extractednetwork (Albert and Baraba ́si, 2002):average shortest pathlength,clustering coefficientanddegree distribution.
Interesting that they use the term "topological analysis" for these measures.
Based on our review, we pose the following twosets of research questions: (1) Can we use semi-automatictechniques, such as automated text collection, text analysis,and network analysis, to identify hate groups in blogs? (2)What are the structural properties of the social networks ofbloggers in the hate groups? Are there bloggers who standout as leaders of influence in these groups? What is thecommunity structure in these groups? What do thestructural properties suggest about the organization ofthe hate groups? What are the social and politicalimplications of these properties?
Research questions
Ithas been reported that many terrorists and extremistgroups have been using the Web for various purposes(Zhou et al., 2005;Qin et al., 2006). Analysis and mining ofsuch content can provide useful insights that are importantto national and international security.
While some content is online, I would think that other content would be veiled by references or behind walls (user name/password sites or invitation only). This might be a limitation that the mining techniques can find open and obvious content.
This suggests not merely an inequitable distri-bution of foundation resources, but also potential wastage or inefficiencies in the distribution of philanthropic support for higher education.
I'm surprised that some foundations don't deliberately seek out to reduce this inequality. Maybe just the limited scope of this study?
These findings suggest that the institutions that are advantageously positioned in the network are highly selective, research-oriented institutions that admit few students requiring federal financial aid. In short, these are the most prestigious institutions in the state
Interesting relationship between high connectedness and type of institutions
Given our research question, degree centrality and eigenvector centrality best demonstrate those institutions in the network that are important, highly visible, and popular
Node centrality measures used for this study
Because there are two different types of nodes in the network (institutions and foundations), the resulting matrix was treated as two-mode—otherwise known as an “affiliation matrix” (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013).
nodes in the network: the two-mode is interesting here
In this matrix, donations represented the ties between foundations and institutions.
edges in the network
Secondly, we main-tain that institutional attributes such as having infrastructure for seeking external money, being selective in admissions, serving wealthy students and their families, and encouraging research productivity contribute to centrality within the network and the ability of institutions to compete for and receive foundation donations.
Here's some of the inequity: institutions better at obtaining private money might get more foundation money and admitting wealthier students also helps them get more money.
In other words, studies of positional achievement explore whether organizational attributes can help to explain an organization’s position in the network and, by extension, their social capital. The research question in this study asks which institutions are advantageously positioned in a network involving other institutions and philan-thropic foundations and whether certain attributes help to explain their “positional achievement.”
For social network analysis, the authors have looked at an institution's position within a network to determine significance and a their attributes to explain why.
Social capital is the primary construct on which social network theory is based. According to Lin (2001), social capital constitutes “the resources embedded in social relations and social structures which can be mobilized when an actor wishes to increase the likelihood of success in purposive action” (p. 24). Like other forms of capital (e.g., human, economic, or cultural), social capital is a resource from which organizations and individuals can draw in order to realize certain outcomes (Perna & Titus, 2005). Additionally, as in other forms of capital, there are disparities in the distribution of social capital across a population of individuals and organizations.
This is also interesting. I wonder if the disparities might be due to factors such as prestige and reputation of certain educational institutions. Would smaller colleges give more to have a network connection to an Ivy League university?
Of these six factors, Ferris et al. (2008) found that all but public interest or media attention were driving factors in foundations’ decisions to engage in education policy reform, with influence of people in leadership posi-tions and mission/philosophy as the top two reasons.
An indication that foundations do not choose to participate in the public sphere?
Arnove and colleagues (1980) vociferously critiqued the ongoing ties between philanthropic foundations and educational institutions, viewing the influence of foundation money as intricately connected to the maintenance of capitalism and its inherent inequities. They argued that, far from benevolent patrons, foundations are largely unregulated and unaccountable to the public. Moreover, they accused foundations of shaping education policy and practice in ways that, rather than promoting social mobility, reproduced social class inequalities.
This is an interesting argument and paints all foundations with a broad brush. Does it still hold true today? According to their website, the Gates Foundation tries to reduce inequity by targeting poverty and access to opportunity.
The study was guided by a two-part research question: Which institutions in North Carolina are advantageously positioned to compete for foundation donations? Furthermore, are there particular institutional attributes that help to explain this advantage?
Research questions being studied
Previous research examin-ing the content of online ads posted by gays shows that preferences for Blacks, Asians, and Latinos are highly stereotyped: “Asians as exotic, docile, loyal partners; Hispanics as pas-sionate, fiery lovers; and Blacks as ‘well-endowed,’ forbidden partners” (Phua and Kaufman 2003:992).
Controlling images determining personality traits based on race.
for example, gay Black men primarily valued as dominant and/or insertive partners versus Asian gays primarily valued as submissive and/or receptive partners (Han 2006) or butch/tomboy/femme as a key part of pairing among lesbians
Controlling images determining role/sex position preferences based on race/gender.
For example, Pyke (2010a) finds that second-generation hetero-sexual Asian women’s exclusion of Asian men and preference for White romantic partners indicates internalization of negative Asian ste-reotypes and not just superiority of White mas-culinity.
Potential for controlling images, depending on the negative Asian male stereotypes and the positive ("superior") association of White masculinity.
Black men are often treated as hypermasculine sex objects and Asian men as effeminate undesir-ables (Wilson et al. 2009).
Further example of the above controlling images.
For example, controlling images that permeate society depict Black women as masculine and Asian men as feminine; they thereby tend to be viewed as less desirable than Black men and Asian women who are seen as more masculine and feminine, respectively (P. H. Collins 2004; Feliciano, Robnett, and Komaie 2009)
Controlling images of black women as masculine and Asian men as feminine influence dating choices.
Opportunities offeredby new social and economic structures also influenced newgenerations within the congregations and created new re-quirements and necessities (Sargut2009).
Interesting... so this is gradual a change over time.
While previousstudies presented that social networks have an influence onreligiousness, they did not respond to the question of howreligious ties structure attitudes and relations in the orga-nizational field (
Turning the research question around to ask a new question.
A list of hashtags,
I usually wonder where hashtags come from. Does everyone make them up according to common sense? Do people look up the official hashtag before posting to it? What happens with typos, such as LCMS instead of LCSM? This represents the "clean" data and therefore minimum rather than maximum of possible tweets.
the difficulty through which producers of skilled and social and entertainment content translate their creations into financial capital deserves further examination
I had no idea until recently that Justin Bieber got his start from YouTube (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber). The question I wondered about is whether this might have happened to a non-white teenage boy? I also will fully admit that I don't follow the teen music scene, so it is entirely possible that one exists.
it suggests that adifferent kind of social network may be more important, suchas a fisher’sfishingpartners.ItiswithinwhatLaveandWenger (1991)call‘communities of practice’that skills andexpertise are maintained and regenerated
Alternate possibility for social networking analysis rather than expertise
The second important finding is that measures of net-work centrality were not positively associated with eco-logical change detection abilities.
Second finding
Due to time constraints, we were able to findand interview only 15 of these individuals to represent thetotal social network sample of 32 individuals. Since half ofthe population in a typical Solomon Islands village is underthe age of 18 (Solomon Islands Government2011), our socialnetwork sample of 32 individuals was approximately 13 %(32 out of 250) of villagers 18 years or older and one-third(29 %) of village households (assuming each interviewee rep-resents one household).
Is this sufficient to be generalizable? Is this sufficient to be convincing?
In 2010 we conducted 58 surveys in Kinamara (n=28),Kinda (n=6), and Saika (n=24) where information waselicited to show the extent of villagers’IEK and ninesocioeconomic variables that, according to previous re-search, may influence levels of knowledge: age, gender,number of years of local residence, level of education,type of occupation, days per week marine food is con-sumed, days per week spent fishing, monthly income,and average weekly expenditure on processed food(Table1)(Zent2013). The number of surveys conductedin each community was based on population size and thetotal sample size represents approximately 50 % of house-holds in the three villages. A relatively even number ofmen and women from different age groups was chosen torepresent all ages over 18 years of age.
Description of survey and sample methodology
The threevillages have approximately 110 households with a total pop-ulation of 500 individuals. S
Fairly small population and may not need sampling techniques depending on the researcher. These authors did sample, see annotation on p5.
benthic
Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: of, relating to, or occurring at the bottom of a body of water; of, relating to, or occurring in the depths of the ocean
Typically, individuals with many non-negative social ties in-volving friendship or trust tend to be more effective dissemi-nators of information (Katonaet al.2011), which is importantsince studies suggest that occupying central positions withinnetworks may result in a higher level of ecological knowledge
Measure of closeness centrality
To explore pathways of knowledge acquisition and itstransmission through communities, researchers in many fieldshave employed social network analysis,
The nodes would be individuals and the pathways as directional edges. Clusters might indicate communities.
Indigenous Knowledge, Social Networks, and Situated Practices
I chose this article because I'm curious about the role of expertise, particularly in science-related networks. I'll also apologize in advance for the somewhat esoteric and scientific nature of this piece!
Known as practice-based ap-proaches or processural perspectives, these conceptualizeknowledge as dynamic and situated practices with distributed,emergent, experiential, and heterogeneous characteristics. Asa result, the focus of research shifts from documenting theshared values, beliefs, patterns, classifications, and rationalesof communities to understanding the individual variation, dis-tribution, change, flow, and emergence of environmental orother knowledge
The emphasis on dynamic knowledge and experiential variation remind me of intersectional theory. However, this article doesn't delve into race/gender/or other aspects that fit well into intersectionality. What other sociological theories would support these analyses?
We compare the results ofmarine science surveys with local ecological knowledge of thebenthos. We also examine multiple socioeconomic variables,and employ social network analysis to measure the influenceof social and expert networks.
Using multiple methods to gather data and validate the results. Social network analysis seems best when combined with other methodologies, rather than standing alone.
Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 all graphically represent the off-season and postseason social networking maps of the two teams. A line between two actors indicates a relation-ship exists and the arrowhead represents the direction of the relationship.
Does this mean that two nodes could have one line for each of the 4 measures? Or 8 because they're directional? Or did the software's density calculator combine the 4 into 1?
The criteria employed to generate the four networks were concise, which is consistent with standard network methodology: I went to this person for advice; I trust this person; I considered this person a close friend (regularly got together outside of team functions); I felt confident about this person’s basketball-related knowledge and/or ability. Participant responses to these indices were then imported and for-matted, as square adjacency matrices comprised of the aggregated responses of each individual regarding his or her teammates.
Now, this gets at the methodology I expected. Is this how other researchers find the relationships for SNA?
This is important not only because the contexts are, of course,different, and because it affects the implementation of those practices andnetworks that characterise academic capitalism, but also because in this way itis possible to realise that even if some elements of academic capitalism(as found in the United States) are not present in some different nationalcontext, it does not necessarily imply that the concept and theory of academiccapitalism would be irrelevant in that other context.
This kind of sounds like unconnected nodes. The elements could be represented in a graph, but the tuition node has no edges connecting it to the Finnish nodes.
activecollective and individual actors who have used (and use) ‘a variety of stateresources to create new circuits of knowledge that link higher educationinstitutions to the new economy’
Creation of edges in a social network
At the same time, much more fuzzy mechanisms of sharing are at work (John 2013): in order to participate, peers must provide identity information – share themselves. The design mechanisms of identity production are elements of a socio-technical architecture which is not developed by peers, but delivered by entrepreneurs, programmers, and designers.
Horkheimer would argue that the individuals aren't really sharing themselves as individuals because the business dehumanizes them into the useful tools that keep the service running.
Airbnb, Uber, and TaskRabbit do not meet utopian visions of communal sharing; rather, CEOs and designers deliver a matching service to entrepreneurial individuals and derive a share through monetizing those peer to peer services. A hybrid market niche for mediated – or rather: managed – peer to peer services seems to have emerged – a phenomenon that calls for an organizational analysis.
Here's the Marxist class struggle: CEOs and designers versus individuals, based on economic production (money).
We are not so much stuck in that iron casing as we are voluntarily stepping onto new iron platforms that efficiently and appealingly organize processes we feel compelled to participate in.
The "voluntary" nature of participation is hegemony of the ruling class.
If (a) and (b) are true, and if it costs me anything to help produce the good, then the rational actor will not contribute to the good.
This article seems to simplify the free rider problem by implying that it's the only rational choice. ADE offers several solutions that fit within rational choice theory: 1) selective incentives that reward individuals who bear the cost of the goods, 2) intangible benefits of participation, 3) enforcing participation or using negative sanctions for not contributing to the public good.
altruism and philanthropic behaviors are adequately explained as still being rational behaviors
Coleman's discussion of norms applies to why altruism is a rational individual choice if a society chooses to value philanthropy, promoting it with positive consequences (good reputation) or imposing sanctions (disapproval and bad reputation).