Xi'an Jiaotong University lectures

From InterSciWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Xiaoyi Jin - Li Shuzhuo - Haifeng Du - Ren Feng

mpgs of the six lectures

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/NO.1.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/N0.2.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/NO.3.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/NO.4.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/No.5.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/N0.6.mpg
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/uvs090503-001.MPG
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/uvs090503-002.MPG
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/uvs090503-003.MPG
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/uvs090503-004.MPG
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/Lecture-Xi'an-2008/uvs090503-005.MPG

Schedule

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pw/ScheduleXian2008.doc Haifeng Du

General Public

1 hour

Foundations (society and networks)

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/Xian_Lectures1d.doc
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/XianPublic1.ppt
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/XianPublic1.pdf

Conclusions (networks and complexity)

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/drw/ISC_PIF_Summer_SchoolPart1.pdf
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/drw/ISC_PIF_Summer_SchoolPart2.pdf (partial)
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/AS2005_Kejzar.pdf further findings
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/drw/ISC_PIF_Summer_SchoolPart3.pdf (partial)
Realistic dynamical modeling

Teachers of Douglas R. White

World trade dynamic network

Classroom

1.5 hour lectures (5) http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/href.htm

1 Organizational Cohesion and Innovation: The Global Biotech Industry

http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/Biotech_Lubj05.pdf
http://www.nd.edu/~networks/Linked/newfile18.htm
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Movie/
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Movie/BiotechMovie.mov
The Generative Feedback model
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/AS2005_Kejzar.pdf

2 Civilizations as Dynamic Networks

http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/pub/WorldCities.pdf 
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/DRWsfiAug04a.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/CivsAsDynNetsSASci.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/BudaCivsAsDynNets.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/CivilizationsasDynamicNetworks.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/QuantitativeNetworkAnalysis2.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/Eurasian_city_system_dynamics_in_the_last_milleniumColumbia.pdf

3 Kinship, Class, and Network Dynamics

Genealogies and networks from anthropological field data

http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/Anthro4Ljubljana.pdf
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/ppt/Why_Complexity1b.pdf

4 Thirty Physicists can be wrong: Community structure and structural cohesion

An example for community detection
So can 20 sociologists be wrong
Meta-analysis can be wrong: Finding Social Groups: A Meta-Analysis of the Southern Women Data[1] In, Ronald Breiger, Kathleen Carley and Philippa Pattison (eds.) Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis. Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press, 2003.Reprinted: Social Networks Analysis. Four Volume Set. Edited by: Linton Freeman
see Cohesive.blocking (for the Southern Women data)

Click each image twice to enlarge.

Install R, copy http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/mwExample1.net to your directory, then 
Cut and paste into R as a command
source("http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pub/MW.R")

Interpreting the Southern Women data

P5FreemanMetaSouthernWomenFig1.png

Davis, Gardner and Gardner (1941) "collected systematic data on the social activities of 18 women whom they observed over a nine-month period. During that period, various subsets of these women had met in a series of 14 informal social events. The participation of women in events was uncovered using “interviews, the records of participant observers, guest lists, and the newspapers” (DGG, p. 149). Homans (1950, p. 82), who presumably had been in touch with the research team, reported that the data reflect joint activities like, “a day’s work behind the counter of a store, a meeting of a women’s club, a church supper, a card party, a supper party, a meeting of the Parent-Teacher Association, etc.” (Linton Freeman 2003).

Each of the 18 women are labeled as Ms. or Mrs., which might constraint the Parent-Teacher Association to be married (Mrs.) and the "day’s work behind the counter," given that married women usually did not work in the 1930s, to the unmarried women (Miss). This might make a difference to clustering of different marital statuses, with some connecting events that are attended by both (e.g., a church supper where mothers and daughters attend).

While weakly clustered by marital status, however, women of both Ms. and Mrs. statuses are found in equal numbers in each of the cohesive levels and opposite ends of the overall structure as shown in the cohesion diagram. There might be clustering that indicates of different social class functions, but that is undetermined.

5 Laying claim to the F=MA law for social cohesion 2008/02/25

 F = \Big[M\delta_M\Big]_\kappa states that the greater the destructive force F exerted by an outside group against a metaethnically distinct group of size M and structural cohesion \kappa the greater the increase \delta_M in the resistive size M of the group under attack. \kappa is an intensive variable in that it measures cohesive resistance independent of group size \big[M+\delta_M\big]. As an intensive variable it can be moved inside the equation F = \Big[\kappa M\delta_{\kappa M}\Big], which states that the product of number and structural cohesion will increase in the resistive group proportionally to the external force exerted.

The extrapolation of Simmel's triadic or cohesive stability principle is that once a group \big[G_{\kappa M}\big] of strength \equiv \kappa M arises, it stabilizes at that connectivity and number.

 \equiv F_{c,k,n} = M_{k,n} A_{k,n} is a proposed dynamical law for social cohesion, where M_{k,n} \equiv a maximal group of size n with cohesion k, F_{c,k,} \equiv the conflictual or competitive social force exerted by an outside group with size n and cohesion k (the c itself the destructiveness coefficient), and A_{k,n} \equiv the accelerated growth in resistive cohesion k and resistive recruitment for size n. Note for example the new nation of Kosovo occurring in February 2008 at boundary of conflict described by Yaneer Bar-Yam et al. in Global Pattern Formation and Ethnic/Cultural Violence.

This idea is a generalization of Georg Simmel's law (the Simmilian triad) that dyadic relations embedded om triads (or I would say, structurally cohesive groups) are "more stable over time" (Krackhardt 1998) and "exert more pressure pressure on people to conform to clique norms and behavior" (Krackhardt 1999), also expressed by Nutini and White (1977) and White, Schnegg, Brudner and Nutini (n.d., 2002), and others, and as described in:

Krackhardt, David, and Mark S. Handcock. in press. "Heider vs Simmel: Emergent Features in Dynamic Structure" The Network Workshop Proceedings. New York: Springer.

"Fifty years prior to Heider, Simmel proposed a triadic model of social analysis, one that has distinct parallels with Heider but has a structural/sociological rather than psychological base. Simmel’s model, while it also explains the relatively frequent existence of reciprocated and transitive ties, is based on a simpler premise."
Simmel "began by noting that the dyad, the fundamental unit of analysis for anyone studying relationships, including social networkers, was not the best focus for understanding social behavior. Indeed, he argued that before making any predictions about how two people in a relationship might behave, it is important to understand their context. The context, Simmel continues, is determined by the set of third others who also engage in various relationships with the two focal parties. In other words, Simmel argued that the triad, not the dyad, is the fundamental social unit that needs to be studied.
"The presence of a third person changes everything about the dyadic relationship. It is almost irrelevant, according to Simmel, what defines a relationship (marriage, friendship, colleague); Simmel (p. 126-127) even goes so far as to say that “intimacy [the strength or quality of a relationship] is not based on the content of the relationship” (emphasis his). Rather, it is based on the structure, the panoply of demands and social dynamics that impinge on that dyad. And those demands are best understood by locating the dyad within its larger context, by finding the groups of people (of at least three persons) that the dyadic members belong to."
"Members of a dyad experience an “intensification of relation by [the addition of] a third element, or by a social framework that transcends both members of the dyad” (p. 136). Similarly, members of a dyad are freer to retain their individuality than members of a group. “[A dyad by itself] favors a relatively greater individuality of its members.... [W]ithin a dyad, there can be no majority which could outvote the individual.” (p. 137). Groups, on the other hand, develop norms of behavior; they develop rules of engagement. Individuality is less tolerated in a group, and conformity is more strongly enforced.
"Conflict is more easily managed within a triad than in a dyad. Dyadic conflict often escalates out of control. The presence of a third party can ameliorate any conflict, perhaps through mediation, or perhaps simply through diffuse and indirect connection. “Discords between two parties which they themselves cannot remedy are accommodated by the third or by absorption in a comprehensive whole” (p. 135).
"Perhaps most central to Simmel’s idea about triads is that groups develop an identity, a “super-individual unit” (p. 126). It is a social unit that is larger in meaning and scope than any of its individual components. A consequence of this super-individual identity is that it will outlast its members. That is, people may leave, they may even die, but the group is presumed to carry on. In a triad, the emergent “super-individual unit ... confronts the individual, while at the same time it makes him participate in it” (p. 126). In contrast, dyads by themselves do not reflect this transition to a larger-than-self unit. The dyad’s existence is dependent on “the immediacy of interaction” of the two members of the dyad (p. 126). Once one person withdraws from the relationship, the dyad ceases to exist. “A dyad... depends on each of its two elements alone — in its death, though not in its life: for its life, it needs both, but for its death, only one” (p. 124). Thus, he argues, the presence of a third party creates a qualitatively different unit of identity, one that is more stable over time, and one that is more difficult to extricate oneself from.
"Finally, Simmel also notes that, while triads are the smallest form of group, increasing group size does not significantly alter its critical features. “[T]he addition of a third person [to dyads] completely changes them, but ... the further expansion to four or more by no means correspondingly modifies the group any further” (p. 138).
"Thus, a triad is substantively different from a dyad. The triad is the smallest form of a group. But its existence transforms the nature of all its dyadic constituencies in several important ways. It makes the relationships stronger; it makes them more stable; it makes them more controlling of the behavior of its members."

Krackhardt, David, and Martin Kildu. 2002 "Structure, Culture and Simmelian Ties in Entrepreneurial Firms." Social Networks 24(3): 279-290.

Krackhardt, David. 1999 "The Ties that Torture: Simmelian Tie Analysis in Organizations." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16:183-210.

Krackhardt, David. 1998 "Simmelian Ties: Super Strong and Sticky." In Roderick Kramer and Margaret Neale (Eds.) Power and In°uence in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage, pp 21-38.

White, Douglas R., Michael Schnegg, Lilyan Brudner & Hugo G. Nutini. "Multiple Connectivity and its Boundaries of Integration: Networks of Local and Class Cohesion in Rural Tlaxcala" submitted to American Journal of Sociology, 1999.

White, Douglas R., Michael Schnegg, Lilyan Brudner & Hugo G. Nutini. 2002 "Conectividad Múltiple, Fronteras e Integración: Compadrazgo y Parentesco en Tlaxcala Rural" (drw, Michael Schnegg, Lilyan Brudner & Hugo G. Nutini), pp. 41-94, Análisis de Redes: Aplicaciones en Ciencias Sociales, Eds. Jorge Gil-Mendieta y Samuel Schmidt. Mexico, D.F.: IIMAS- UNAM. (Instituto de Investigaciones en Mathemáticas Aplicadas y en Systemas- Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)

Nutini, Hugo G., and Douglas R. White. 1977 Community Variations and Network Structure in the Social Functions of Compadrazgo in Rural Tlaxcala, Mexico Ethnology 16:353-384

p377: "Kapferer (1973: 101) notes two basic propositions linking exchange theory with the structure of social networks: (I) The greater the extent to which two persons have overlapping social networks with other persons who are known to each other, the more these other relationships are put at risk if one fails to discharge his obligations toward the other. (2) The greater the concern to protect one's social investments with as many people as possible, the more one will concentrate time and effort on key relationships central to the social network."

Kapferer, B. 1973. Social Network and Conjugal Role in Urban Zambia: Towards a Reformulation of the Bott Hypothesis. Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction, ed. J. Bossevain and J. C. Mitchell. pp. 83-110. The Hague.

UCI announcement

Doug White gives two public lectures, on social networks and networks and complexity, at Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China, while a visiting professor at the Population and Development Research Institute on a three-week quarter break leave. He will give five short seminars for the joint research project on Network Analysis of Chinese Rural to Urban Migrants.

March 4th, 2008 Heather Wuebke

White travels to China to analyze social networks in Chinese factories Douglas White, anthropology professor, will travel to China on March 10 to take part in the analysis of a landmark study on social networks within factory worker communities in the major industrial zones of Guangdong in China. The study, performed in 2005 by researchers from the Institutes of Demography at Stanford and at Xi'an Jiaotong University in China, is the biggest survey and network analysis project ever done in China, says White.

Using data collected from the study, White will help analyze how workers from five different factories – each with an average of 200 people – network together for mutual help, advice and support within the compound-like communities in which they live.

“Initial findings,” says White, “show that networks of men and women are quite different; women tend to have a hierarchy of altruism of women helping women whereas men are in mutually exclusive cohesive groups.” He will seek to determine how these different networks relate to levels of income of factory workers, types of employment, and government support for factories and factory workers in China. A follow-up study is planned to study the effects of rising wages as factories employ increasingly skilled workers.

His modeling approaches to network cohesion and complexity will be the subject of two public lectures and five seminars while a visiting professor for several weeks at Xi'an Jiaotong University in Xi'an, China.