Communication As A Spatial Problem

11/30/09 http://www.matei.org http://www.mentalmpas.info http://ww.visiblepast.com

Sorin A. Matei

Purdue University

Communication as a Spatial Problem: Methods

and Theories


One spring day….

A long time ago, too long to mention…

I receive a letter

From USC

Dear Mr. Matei

We are glad to announce you that you have been accepted….


Three months later, I am on the road…


Philosophical assumptions

Space is constructed

Space is social

Space is a set of relationally defined locations

Space is about vicinities and the communication processes they enable Vicinity is that space defined by our communication

practices


Space is of two kinds


Space is of two kinds…

Space is everywhere


Space is connections

Space is intangible Space is a set of network relationships Space is want we imagine space to be Space is social and communicative


Looking at space from a meso- perspective How to (relatively) small scale communities exist in

space? What kind of space? How does communication intersect with space? How does this intersection matter?


Integrity and viability of social spaces depends on communication infrastructures

Institutional: Media Channels Content: Group narratives, self-image, identity, perception of others,

perception of space

Communication infrastructure fosters a storytelling environment and a mental imagery of a place that

encourages residents to image themselves as a cohesive group

The communication infrastructure ceases to have a positive effect (integration) when it fosters fear and distrust – when it generates mental maps of fear especially during and after urban conflicts

Thematic assumptions. Three propositions


How do you capture affective mental imagery (geographies of fear)?

How do you assess the spatial goodness of fit between mental maps of fear and objective spatial reality?

How do you detect the role of the communication infrastructure in constructing spatial images of fear?

Measuring communicative construction of space and fear


Multilingual Telephone

Surveys

1812 Households LA

801 Lexington

699 Brasov

Communication Behavior

Media Connections

Belonging Index

Avoidance/Desirability

Demographics

LA Focus Groups

Community

Issues

Brasov/Lexington mail-out

Sociospatial Mapping

Of fear/Comfort

RESEARCH DESIGN


LOS ANGELES STUDY AREAS REFERENCE MAP


Paper and pencil map

Mental mapping Methodology

11/30/09 http://www.matei.org http://www.mentalmpas.info http://ww.visiblepast.comWestside Sample

COLOR KEY

Feared

Unknown

Cautious

Comfortable

Affective Maps of Los Angelesexampleexample


COLOR KEY

Very feared = -2

Feared =- 1

Unknown = 0

Cautious = 1

Comfortable = 2

ArcView Map digitization

1

-1

2

0

Constructing a mental map

Note: Lexington & Brasov, added one color to balance scale

Average the maps using their similar pixel structure


Los Angeles comfort composite map

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~smatei/MentalMaps/showcase/VRML/downloadandinstall.html


Lexington avoidance vs. desirability maps


Brasov center-periphery geography of fear with focus on Gypsy/migrant worker area


Research questionsSpatial Fear: Perceptions and Reality

General Is likelihood of crime victimization correctly represented in

people's geographic mental maps? Are social indicators of area desirability associated with fear? How do communication channels match avoidance/preference

goals and feelings in mapping avoidance/desirability? LA Specific

Are comfort and fear color-coded? What is the epicenter of fear in Los Angeles? What shaped the epicenter of fear in LA? (conflict related)


LA findings: TV and interpersonal connector

maps

Suggest that strong connection to the communication

infrastructure increases fear

Fear greatest of Hispanic/Black populations


LA violence and fear: The fear epicenter is situated in the 1965 riot hotspot


LA: TV instills greater fear of Watts

Dependent on television Dependent on newspapers

People with strongest connections to television fear Watts the most


Brasov vs. Lexingtongoals, avoidance, desirability, media

4344817411153Lexington

50530202523110Braşov

People related

37377154122513Lexington

2933121710152730Braşov

Instrumental

reasons

39458195115319Lexington

3340101411136915Braşov

Perceived place

qualities

49541639231664Lexington

274317252231345Braşov

PreferAvoidPreferAvoidPreferAvoidPreferAvoidSafety related

Other PeopleNewspapersTelevisionOverall Percent

•Americans > Romanians fear areas due to safety concerns

•Romanians > Americans prefer areas due to their perceived qualities (urban architecture, resources, etc.) •Romanians > Americans fear neighborhoods due to ethnic/cultural/social reasons

•Americans > Romanians prefer areas due to the quality of their people.

•Television affects the most perception of safety in both groups (as do newspapers and other people, but not significant under log linear testing)


Conclusions/recommendations Perceptual redlining (LA, but NOT ONLY) Television creates and maintains image of fear Combination TV/interpersonal effect on maps of fear Television involved in proroguing images of past conflict Interpersonal communication heightens media effects

Recommendation It the TV, stupid! Education of television producers/station managers

TV constructs space TV dramatic coverage during urban conflict constructs fear TV constructs stereotyping even when it uses spatial labeling

Public/audience education Watch out what you are fearing! It might come true!

http://www.mentalmaps.info

http://www.mentalmaps.info/

http://www.mentalmaps.info/


Looking at space from a macro-perspective What kind of spaces do telecommunication ties

describe? How do nations bunch together in this space? Over time, do we see a process of uniformization or

of fragmentation? Heterogenization vs. Homogenization?


Research question

Three ways of asking the same question:

If we analyze flows of exchanges between nations, should we expect an increasing alignment of nations that share same cultural/civilizational characteristics?

Do nations that speak the same language or have the same beliefs send more information to one another?

Is there evidence of a “heterogenization” effect in technoscape?


Data

2 who-to-whom matrices—networks—of international telephony ties between 107/110 nations (80% world population) – 1989 – 1999

Matrices define “telecommunicative neighbors” Countries are neighbors of each other if they send at least 5%

of their traffic to each other 5% threshold is based on analysis of tie distribution

Logarithmic A nation typically sends 80% of its outgoing traffic to 4

nations These nations typically absorb between 5 to 90% of the traffic

(average 35%), each All the other nations (109) absorb under 5%


Data cntd.

Node attributes: cultural afilliation (linguistic): rated civilizational affiliation (religious): percentage

4 linguistic and 4 civilizational areals English French Arabic Spanish

Protestant

Catholic

Islamic

Buddhist-Hindu


Statistical Analysis

Spatial correlation (Moran’s I)

Measures likelihood of countries that have high values on certain attributes to be surrounded by nations that are like them

Global and Local Versions


Global Moran’s I

Global version: what is the magnitude of spatial association in the entire dataset?

0 - 1: Countries are systematically surrounded by nations with similar values on the key attribute

-1 - 0: Countries are systematically surrounded by nations with dissimilar values on the key attribute

0: No association


Local Moran’s I

Magnitude of spatial association between each observation and its immediate neighbors

Values range between larger values

Compares the value of each observation with the average of the observations considered to be its neighbor

Produces cluster of “highest correlated” nations


Results: Global values

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

English

French

Spanish

Arabic

Protestant

Catholic

Islam

BuddHindu

Cultural and civilizational areals

Mo

ran

's I

valu

e

1989

1999

Global Moran’s I values increase for all, except one areal, ArabicValue increases are significant (t-test for paired samples), except for the Islamic arealThere is an increasing tendency of countries that are similar culturally or civilizationally to cluster together in telecommunicative space


Results: local values

Clusters are generally bigger in 1999; Overall more countries are + highly correlated with their neighbors in 1999 (9 join, 4 drop) Average values for cluster-level local correlations generally increase in 1999 (exception, English areal) Supporting evidence, the burden of the proof is on the global analysis

Clusters=Local moran value > 0 and significant


Discussion

Evidence for heterogenization Countries of common cultural and civilizational heritage more

likely to be surrounded by their peers Small decline in English cluster size a fortiori evidence

Exception to the rule: Islamic & Arabic areals Arabic nations less likely to connect with each other (rich

nations leave poorer nations behind) Islamic nations stagnant (no sig diff) In these areals we can talk about a loss of local ties Signs for the backlash to come?


Let’s have a conversation

How can we apply these methods to organizational communication?

How can we extend this paradigm? What kind of research issues would you address

with this toolkit?

Technology

Communication As A Spatial Problem