Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seeing and Tuning Social Networks

Posted by michael on from the if-a-blog-falls-in-the-forest-does-it-make-a-sound dept.

Lisam writes "Jon Udell, in a fascinating column titled "Seeing and Tuning Social Networks", writes: "New forms of social software are one of the most hopeful green shoots erupting from a still-bleak technology landscape." Software is catching up with what we know about social networks: the greater the reach of your array, the more effective an actor you can be within an organization.In this column, Jon talks with two observers about software that maps social networks and their patterns..."

4 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. What we need... by evilocity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What this article points to most of all, at least for me, is the need for better tools to map abitrary dynamic non-hierarchical networks. Social networks, interlinked buearocracies, realms of knowledge (that whole noosphere thing), the internet itself, the list goes on. There are specific projects about looking into one or another of these, but few share the tools they develop to do the analysis, and those that do tend to release things very specialized to whatever they're studying.

    I know I for one am interested in collecting and mapping several datasets, for intellectual and practical gain, but lack the time, resources, knowledge and skill to develop full dynamic network visualization software (preferably in web-friendly form) all by my lonesome.

    So, uh... Hey! You! Open source developers! Get to work, chop chop!

    (to pre-emptively answer the 'why don't you start a project then?' question, I'm just an artist with geek tendencies who can write a little code, and I do mean a little)

    --
    ----- I don't believe in wisconsin.
    1. Re:What we need... by Carter+Butts · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There is actually quite a bit of SNA software available; check out the INSNA software page for some pointers. Some of this is free software, e.g., the sna package for the R statistical computing environment. Of course, most of this software is designed for research purposes (rather than visual excitement), but it is there for those who want it....

      -Carter

  2. Re:He didn't look very hard before calling it new. by Carter+Butts · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Actually, the SFI people are also quite new to this business. If you are really interested in learning more about the (large) body of empirical literature on the subject, I would recommend looking at past issues of Sociometry and Social Networks. (The latter now fills the role of the former, which was the primary outlet for such work from the 1930s through the 1960s.) Useful papers also appear in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology, the Journal of Mathematical Psychology, and (more rarely) the American Journal of Sociology. You can find all of the above in your local university library.

    You should also try Wasserman and Faust's (1994) book on the subject. It is showing its age a bit, but remains the best single volume on the subject.

    -Carter

  3. Re:but sadly by Carter+Butts · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Someone which sociologists are lacking in. You may call this a troll, but please go read up on sociology. It is just junk science.

    While I can sympathize with the general complaint that not all work in the field is sterling, your overall conclusion is simply wrong. Pick up any copy of one of the better journals in the field (e.g., the American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Social Forces, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Social Networks, or Social Psychology Quarterly (actually a sociology journal)) and you'll find genuine social science research. As in any field, some studies are better than others, but, on the whole, the discipline does manage to lurch forward despite the claims of naysayers.

    That said, I will not deny that there's a lot of non-science (and nonsense) which manages to fly under the "sociology" label. As a professional sociologist, this probably angers me a lot more than it angers you, but this is not a matter which can be rectified overnight. My colleagues and I try to do good science, to support others who do good science, and to encourage the use of rigorous standards in evaluating each others' research. Alas, many of those outside the discipline are more interested in throwing stones at the field as a whole than in aiding those who are trying to make a difference....

    So here's a hint: if you want to help improve the quality of sociology, stop painting the whole discipline with the "junk science" brush. The charicature is incorrect, and it serves to undermine the quiet majority of scientists who work hard to expand human knowledge in this area.

    -Carter