In an article published in the October 2010 issue of the Academy of Management Journal, Francis J. Flynn of Stanford University and Scott S. Wiltermuth of the University of Southern California report that being a broker in one’s intra-organizational network—that is, acting as the link between two or more people in one’s organization who would otherwise be unconnected—may impair one’s ability to assess network members’ agreement on ethical issues. Their findings stand in contrast to many reports in the network literature of the benefits accrued by network brokers. Write Flynn and Wiltermuth, “We provide a counterpoint to research showing that many forms of centrality in social networks can improve social perception (e.g., Krackhardt, 1987), suggesting instead that an individual’s judgments of ethical standards (i.e., the ability to gauge a consensual position) may be impaired by occupying a broker role (i.e., by having more betweenness)” (p. 1075).

 From their abstract:

 “We propose that organization members overestimate the degree to which others share their views on ethical matters. Further, we argue that being a broker in an advice network exacerbates this false consensus bias. That is, a high level of “betweenness centrality” increases an individual’s estimates of agreement with others on ethical issues beyond what is warranted by any actual increase in agreement. We tested these ideas in three separate samples: graduate business students, executive students, and employees. Individuals with higher betweenness centrality overestimated the level of agreement between their ethical judgments and their colleagues’.”

Two articles published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Communication examine relationships between social networks, Internet use, and the public sphere. In the first article, Jennifer Brundidge of the University of Texas at Austin analyzes national survey data to determine whether Internet use—specifically, engaging in online political discussion via chat, instant messaging, and e-mail, and accessing online news—affects the heterogeneity of one’s online and offline political discussion networks. Writes Brundidge,

 “Advanced and tested herein is the inadvertency thesis, which theorizes that limitations of selective exposure processes combined with weakened social boundaries found in the online environment suggest that people may be exposed to at least some additional political difference online, if only inadvertently. Hierarchical regression and mediation analyses confirm that online political discussion (directly) and online news (directly and indirectly) bear small yet significant relationships to the overall heterogeneity of political discussion networks, and that partisanship moderates the relationship between online political discussion and political discussion network heterogeneity.”

 In the second article, Keith N. Hampton, Oren Livio, and Lauren Sessions Goulet of the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School report how use of municipal and community wi-fi and 3G mobile phone networks in public spaces affects one’s social networks and democratic engagement. From their abstract:

 “Findings reveal that Internet use within public spaces affords interactions with existing acquaintances that are more diverse than those associated with mobile phone use. However, the level of colocated social diversity to which Internet users are exposed is less than that of most users of these spaces. Yet, online activities in public spaces do contribute to broader participation in the public sphere. Internet connectivity within public spaces may contribute to higher overall levels of democratic and social engagement than what is afforded by exposure within similar spaces free of Internet connectivity.”

For the full articles, see the Journal of Communication Web site.