Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given the RC33 Eighth International Conference on Social Science Methodology. I argued that validity of social network analysis should be examined more, suggested a model dividing the ties based on publicity and intensity and finally presented certain ideas regarding the use of multiple platforms to get the social data. The full paper presents our argumentation in detail and can be accessed from http://files.humanisti.fixme.fi/2012_rc33_full_paper.pdf .
Citation preview
Categorizing and measuring social ties
Matti Nelimarkka & Juuso Karikoski
Huberman et al. (2009)
A (reciprocal) tie
Huberman et al. (2009)
A (reciprocal) tie
Q: What does the the tie mean?
A
B
Looking at some ties
Friend
Connection
Following
In one’s circle
In one’s address book
Mention ( @nick )
Like / Comment
Messages
Messages
Call
All ties are equal, but some ties are more equal than others
van
Cle
empu
t (2
010)
”Although it is obvious that a friendship in Facebook means something different to an offline friendship (in terms of the cost of making and maintaining the tie, for example, and in terms of the publicprivate nature of the action), it is perhaps easier to interpret a tie in Facebook compared with a hyperlink tie.” (Ackland, 2009)
”It is important that they carefully consider how the various biases demonstrated across these approaches will differentially impact the ability to answer varying questions.” (Adams, 2010)
All ties are equal, but some ties are more equal than others
van
Cle
empu
t (2
010)
”Although it is obvious that a friendship in Facebook means something different to an offline friendship (in terms of the cost of making and maintaining the tie, for example, and in terms of the publicprivate nature of the action), it is perhaps easier to interpret a tie in Facebook compared with a hyperlink tie.” (Ackland, 2009)
”It is important that they carefully consider how the various biases demonstrated across these approaches will differentially impact the ability to answer varying questions.” (Adams, 2010)
”Model”
Social Personal
Nominal Latent
Publicity of the tie
Inte
nsity
of t
he t
ie
Publicity of the tie
• Friendship in social networks can be used to singal social status (Donath & boyd, 2004; Donath 2007)
• Public consumption is linked to self-representation, changing the consumption patterns (Ratner & Kahn, 2002; Silfverberg et al., 2011)
Social Personal
Nominal Latent
Intensity of the tie
• Only a part of the social ties are engaged in active communication (Huberman et al., 2009; Golder et al., 2007)
• When asked, only part of the network is labeled as friends (Zinoview & Duong, 2009)
Social Personal
Nominal Latent
”Model”
Social Personal
Nominal Latent
Publicity of the tie
Inte
nsity
of t
he t
ie
Solution?
Data integration
McPherson et al. (2001)
Solution?
Data integration
Followees Tweets (replys, RTs)
Friends Likes, comments Messages
Contacts Phone calls, SMS Position
Self-reported data
… however
• selection bias, followup bias
• common identifier
• ethical consideration
• work between disciplines
Future work
Our previous work focused on ~ 20 college students, mobile phones and campus social media (Karikoski & Nelimarkka, 2011)
• Larger sample size
• New online medias
Conclusions
1. Validity: think what your ties are all about
2. Differences of the ties: publicity and activity
3. Data from multiple sources
