Suchergebnisse

While management and network scholars have long asked why some groups adapt to innovation more readily than others, such questions have been surprisingly absent in studies of new media production. We offer a network analytical framework which relates producers' informal networks to their capacity to adopt digital innovations. Through a network ethnography of 4264 romance writers, we find that established authors who reversed traditional advice patterns, by seeking advice from inexperienced newcomers rather than experienced peers, were more likely to adopt digital self-publishing. By linking the concept of relational labor to network structures, we demonstrate the value of "networking down" in a digitally disrupted cultural industry—a surprising finding in a business where networking up, to powerful actors, has seemed critical for success. We argue that strategic relational labor by established content creators facilitates adaptation to digital conditions and provides some measure of protection against precarity in a changing landscape.

AbstractReciprocity—the mutual provisioning of support/goods—is a pervasive feature of social life. Directed networks provide a way to examine the structure of reciprocity in a community. However, measuring social networks involves assumptions about what relationships matter and how to elicit them, which may impact observed reciprocity. In particular, the practice of aggregating multiple sources of data on the same relationship (e.g., "double-sampled" data, where both the "giver" and "receiver" are asked to report on their relationship) may have pronounced impacts on network structure. To investigate these issues, we examine concordance (ties reported by both parties) and reciprocity in a set of directed, double-sampled social support networks. We find low concordance in people's responses. Taking either the union (including any reported ties) or the intersection (including only concordant ties) of double-sampled relationships results in dramatically higher levels of reciprocity. Using multilevel exponential random graph models of social support networks from 75 villages in India, we show that these changes cannot be fully explained by the increase in the number of ties produced by layer aggregation. Respondents' tendency to name the same people as both givers and receivers of support plays an important role, but this tendency varies across contexts and relationships type. We argue that no single method should necessarily be seen as the "correct" choice for aggregation of multiple sources of data on a single relationship type. Methods of aggregation should depend on the research question, the context, and the relationship in question.

ABSTRACTAnthropologists have long been concerned with how reputations help people gain the support of others. Here, we study the support ties among adult residents of two Tamil villages, asking how reputational standing in each village mediates access to social support. We find that a reputation for influence has the weakest effect on support ties with others, while a reputation for generosity has the strongest. Further, a reputation for influence is not associated with greater connections to people of "high position" outside the village. Given the weak effects of a reputation for influence, we turn to a network measure of social capital, weighted PageRank centrality. While persons who are recognized as influential often also have an influential network position, there are many others who have similarly high centrality—including, notably, many women. Consequently, we suggest that much of the anthropological evidence for the benefits of prominence may actually reflect the returns to greater social capital and that both may be shaped in large part by acts of generosity and mutual support. By studying social capital, we can achieve a more complete accounting of the many different social strategies employed by all persons, not simply the few who achieve prominence. [reputation, social capital, network analysis, prominence, India]

Scale matters. When conducting research and writing, scholars upscale and downscale. So do the subjects of their work - we scale, they scale. Although scaling is an integrant part of research, we rarely reflect on scaling as a practice and what happens when we engage with it in scholarly work. The contributors aim to change this: they explore the pitfalls and potentials of scaling in an interdisciplinary dialogue. The volume brings together scholars from diverse fields, working on different geographical areas and time periods, to engage with scale-conscious questions regarding human sociality, culture, and evolution