(For best viewing select More: Fullscreen)

A Union Divided: Polarization in the Screen Actors Guild – Nina O’Brien
Presentation (PDF file)

Collective Action in Virtual Organizations, Networks of Collaboration in an Online Scientific Community – Nina O’Brien, Lauren Frank, Jessica Gould, Courtney Schultz, Matthew Weber, Peter Monge
Presentation (PDF file)

Ecological Dynamics of Discourse in Scientific Communities: Co-evolution of Conceptual and Social Networks – Drew Margolin
Presentation (PDF file)

Examining Online Organizations with Longitudinal Network Data from the World Wide Web - Matthew Weber, Peter Monge
Presentation (PDF file)

Predictors & Effects of Multiplexity in an Interorganizational Network – Amanda M. Beacom, Lauren B. Frank, Jonathan Nomachi, & Lark Galloway-Gilliam
Presentation (PDF file)

Team Assembly and Scientific Collaboration on NanoHub – Drew Margolin, Katherine Ognyanova, Cuihua Shen, Meikuan Huang, Yun Huang, Noshir Contractor
Presentation (PDF file)

The Importance of Place in Collaborative Inter-Organizational Networks – Lauren B. Frank, Amanda M. Beacom, Jonathan Nomachi, Lark Galloway-Gilliam
Presentation (PDF file)

We are happy to announce that the Annenberg Network of Networks has joined a new international initiative launched by the Web Science Trust. The Web Science Network of Laboratories (WSTNet) is a joint effort of researchers from leading institutions around the world. Its goal is to promote the ongoing development of Web Science.

From the Web Science Trust:

The list of the founding WSTNet labs includes:

• Annenberg Network of Networks, University of Southern California
• Decentralized Information Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Department of Computer Science, VU Amsterdam
• Digital Enterprise Research Institute, NUI Galway
• Institute for Web Science and Technologies (WeST), Universität Koblenz-Landau
• Oxford Internet Institute
• SONIC Lab, Northwestern University
• Tsinghua-Southampton Web Science Laboratory at Shenzhen
• Web Science Research Centre, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Web Science Research Group, University of Southampton

Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-network theorist

Bruno Latour

Reported by Drew Margolin & Anna Li

Bruno Latour, born in 1947 in Beaune, Burgundy, from a wine grower family, was trained first as a philosopher and then an anthropologist. From 1982 to 2006, he has been professor at the Centre de sociologie de l’Innovation at the Ecole nationale supérieure des mines in Paris and, for various periods, visiting professor at UCSD, at the London School of Economics and in the history of science department of Harvard University. He is now professor at Sciences Po Paris where he is also the vice-president for research of that school.

Professor Latour’s lecture combines a discussion of the core themes in Actor Network Theory with insights regarding the enormous quantities of data that are now being produced and made available to researchers.  Using a broad array of examples, including Isaac Newton, the Space Shuttle Disaster, and a comparison of Marcel Proust’s childhood to the world faced by youth today, Latour explains and elaborates on the idea notion networks should replace objects as our locus of attention.  In particular, Latour recalls the insights of Gabriel Tarde and his criticism of the idea that there exists “a society” which is an object separate from individuals.

Latour argues that the notion of society was invented to compensate for the lack of data available to researchers in earlier eras.  Social theory, he suggests, is a function of the “datascape” — what we can record about behavior.  Today we have access to enormous amounts of data, and it is a mistake to try to fit our treatments of these data into traditional constructs such as “the individual” and “society.”  Instead of trying to understand individuals, who are irreducibly complex, we should focus attention on the networks through which they distribute action.  Unlike the notion of society, these networks are simplifications rather than aggregations.

Latour ends the lecture by pointing to two challenges that face researchers.  First, he argues that we must confront the technical and theoretical challenge posed by the new mass of data.  Second, he cites Walter Lippman and his concern with controversy and the fragility of public discourse.  Latour addresses these remarks in particular to the climate change controversy and the role that scholars could play in re-inventing the newspaper.

The Dark Side of Metcalfe’s Law: Multiple and Growing Costs of Network Exclusion

Ernest J. Wilson III & Rahul Tongia

Reported by: Drew Margolin & Cuihua Shen

Ernest James Wilson III, Ph.D., is Walter Annenberg Chair in Communication and dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. He is also a professor of political science, a faculty fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School and an adjunct fellow at the Pacific Council on International Policy. He was elected the first African-American chairman of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting in September 2009.

Rahul Tongia is a Program Director at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) in Bangalore. His research focuses on infrastructure and technology for sustainable development, especially for underserved regions such as India or Africa. His current work covers the broad areas of Digital Divide, ICT for Sustainable Development, Smart Metering for Electricity Networks, and Energy for Developing Regions. He has a doctorate in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon, and an Sc.B. in Electrical Engineering from Brown University.

Dean Wilson introduces this work as an attempt to focus on the “dark side” of networks.  Much research has emphasized the collective benefits of network size to the individuals who are included in a network.  There is little research on the consequences to those who are excluded from the network.  Wilson and Professor Tongia address this topic with the following questions:

• Why is “exclusion” excluded from so much work on technology and networks?
• Who benefits from inclusion and exclusion?
• What are the distribution and utility of network membership? In this work we propose that inclusion should be paired with the issue of exclusion.

The discussion centers on the digital divide and related policy concerns, but it is informed by work in China, India and Africa where inclusion and exclusion from technology and institutions can be applied more broadly.

Tongia reviews several approaches to valuing networks based on their size.  Laws proposed by Sarnoff, Odlyzko, Metcalfe, Nivi, and Reed each posit that as networks grow, the utility to those in network also grows.  These laws do not specify, however, the consequences in utility to those who are excluded.  More broadly, there is a question of whether to value exclusion with an “inclusion framing,” wherein the cost of exclusion is the the opportunity cost of foregone inclusion, or an “exclusion framing” in which those that are excluded bear additional cost as their numbers fall.  For example, being the “last person on earth” that is not in the network may bring unique and substantial disadvantages beyond the foregone benefits of inclusion.

Tongia proposes several ways that such exclusion costs might be calculated depending on the framing.  Of particular interest is the case where growth in value is exponential, as in this case the excluded (or even those who join late) may be permanently prevented from capturing equal value.  He points out that in the early phases of network formation and growth, the inclusion benefits must be substantial to get people to join.  Conversely, when the being part of the network is the norm, it may become “a necessity,” imposing additional costs on those that still remain outside.

What are the costs to society as a whole?  In many areas societies must keep parallel/dual networks. For digital and analog television; a health insurance system and an emergency room system; a cell phone network and a pay phone system.  An exclusion framing of network utility would suggest that as the concentration of usage shifts from 50-50 to 85-15 the dis-utility to those excluded from the dominant system may outweigh the benefits to those who are included.  The public phones fall in disrepair as cell phones become more popular.  In some cases, the included also bear the cost for the excluded such as when the unpaid emergency room bills for the uninsured force hospitals to pass costs along to the insured.

Dean Wilson concludes the talk asking why there is so little scholarly attention to the excluded.  Is it because there are too few of them?  Perhaps it is because it is difficult to gather data on the excluded.  Or perhaps it is because of homophily — the included are doing the analysis and assume everyone is like them.

Discussion

The discussion featured comments on a variety of issues, including the theoretical and methodological approaches in the paper as well as the larger social implications of Wilson and Tongia’s findings.

Carter Butts and Michael Macy suggest ways the model might be more clearly bounded and described.  Butts argues that the notion of value in network inclusion models are from the operator’s point of view, whereas the paper asks about the value to the user.  He also suggests that the function is polynomic, rather than exponential.  Michael Macy suggests this model captures average value to the user rather than marginal value and is concerned with usual, rather than extreme cases.

Jonathan Taplin asks how this argument can be used in a policy debate regarding.  He asks, for example, whether public money should be used to subsidize broadband access for the poor?  Tongia points out that the argument applies here but also in any scenario where there are two infrastructures, what he refers to as “dual networks.”  David Grewal points out that this dual networks problem has been in political economy for some time, for example, Adam Smith argued that for a boy to go shoeless in Scotland there was no shame, but to go shoeless in London there was shame.

Fritjof Capra argues that the most harm brought by network exclusion is that alternative technologies are being eliminated. e.g., no more tellers, no more payphones.  There is s simple solution — companies should support “lifelines” of basic services.  A small tax on cell phone usage could pay for public phones.  Woody Powell suggests that the paper shows how far we’ve moved, in terms of politics and policy, away from suggestions like Capra’s .  He reminds the group that during the Carter administration the FTC seriously considered giving out “cable TV stamps” to be sure everyone had access.  Now this idea is laughable.

Several participants considered the application of this work to network research.  Nosh Contractor wonders whether the assumption that all individuals are completely connected to the network makes sense in all cases.  What if individuals in a telephone network don’t have the social capital to knwo whom to call?  How can the notion of exclusion be extended to an incompletely connected network?  Peter Monge points out that fully connected networks are extremely rare.  For example, in the densification study by Kleinberg they showed that in most networks the exponent of growth was very low — 1.45 or so in co-citation networks and 1.1 in e-mail networks.  Given these empirical findings, the fully connected network (as implied in the study) is not a very good generalization

Some scholars raise questions about the generalizability of this approach.  Macy argues that the effects for telecom networks may not generalize to other kinds of networks, such as terrorist networks.  Janet Fulk provides an example of a case where those included in the network experience costs because of those who refuse to join the network.  She describes the findings of a study she did of law enforcement agencies trying to pool data about their operations. The failure of the network to recruit key municipalities undermined the strength of the network as a whole. Butt suggests there might be a competency trap here. Those excluded may be doing very well. For example, the early elites cannot use email and the switching costs are high. So they have their assistants print out their e-mails for them.  People who are the last to adopt may be doing very well and they may well be the elites rather than the poor.

A Network Theory of Power

Manuel Castells

Reported by: Li Lu, Peter Knaack, & Lauren Frank

Manuel Castells is  University Professor and the Wallis Annenberg Chair of Communication Technology and Society at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Professor of Sociology and director of the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute at the Open University of Catalonia in Barcelona. He is also Professor Emeritus of Sociology and of City & Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught for 24 years.

Professor Castells started his talk with his view of how theory serves his work. He suggested that theory should be used to produce knowledge through research, so it is instrumental, not the value itself.  Therefore, theory should always be specific to context. Viewing the networked society as the background of the talk, Manuel proposed that power relationships are fundamental. In any society, those with power determine the rules. Fortunately, power is always balanced by counter-power. In this way, the society is going through constant challenges and evolving. Echoing Bruno Latour’s keynote speech, Castells pointed out that systems move through the actions of individuals.  In the current global network society context, specific social structures are produced, characterized by key organizational forms organized in interwoven networks, in which micro-electronic based technologies function as the key elements underlying these networks.

In suggesting that all this supports a theory of power and counter-power in the network society, Castells identified four different forms of power:

1)      Networking power refers to the power of the actors and organizations included in the networks that constitute the core of the global network society over human collectives or individuals who are not included in these global networks.

2)      Network power (as Grewall defined in the previous session) means the power resulting from the standards required to coordinate social interaction in the networks. In this case power is exercised not by exclusion from the networks but by the imposition of the rules of inclusion. Any social or network action requires social coordination, so it requires standards. These standards display network power. For example, once one protocol of communication gets accepted in the network, it becomes a form of power through imposing the rules of inclusion.

3)      Networked power indicates the power of social actors over other social actors in the network. The forms and processes of networked power are specific to each network. This type of power is the most complicated form. Throughout human history, there are two basic forms of power. The first one is coercive power. In this manner, actors can impose their will over others. The second form is persuasive power, which functions in the minds of people through constructing the meaning of actions. These two forms of power can combine in different proportions. But having the capacity to construct meaning through discourses (persuasive power) is fundamental. In other words, shaping the minds is the more effective way than torturing the bodies.

A worthy following question would be who has the networked power in a global network society. According to Castells, the answer is totally undetermined. However, that does not mean that dominance does not exist. Essentially, different forms of power organized in different networks of power are not unified. There is a distinction between the differentiation of power elite and the formation of ad-hoc elites in particular contexts. The traditional definition of power is not useful here; how these different networked powers connect to each other requires specific analysis.

4)      Finally, network-making power refers to the power to program specific networks according to the interests and values of the programmers, and the power to switch different networks by forming strategic alliances with different networks.  Programmers and switchers are not abstract concepts; they are simply people or actors in the networks. For instance, MIT establishes networks between scientific and military networks, which ensures the domination of MIT in scientific networks and of the US in military technology. Ultimately, these ideas materialize in the brains of social actors. Therefore, the key becomes connecting human networks via communication networks. Here, Castells emphasized that the shaping of communication networks has a decisive effect on other networks (e.g., agenda setting, gatekeeping effect of traditional media).

Of course, there are also mechanisms of counter-power in any society. People are not passive; they receive, challenge, and produce their own products. Thus, counter-power is exercised in a manner symmetrical to power. For instance, in the financial markets, a number of new criteria such as environmental standards have been introduced. Counter-power also works through disrupting network switches. For example, protests against the FCC remind the FCC to take the citizen rights into consideration.

Discussion

• Barzilai-Nahon: In terms of the identity of switchers and programmers, do these labels primarily refer to individuals, or can collectives have the same function? Is it possible that collectives create patterns of interaction which in turn provide the basis for the emergence of new switchers?

Castells: Actors in a network are not always individuals. However, when looking at the formation of an actor, individuals are at the root of collectives, and individuals are the ones that change the collective. However, not all individuals in a collective are equal. Spontaneous networks of protest emerge when individuals, by responding to some event, suddenly form a collective. A second example of collective action is the movement to control the FCC. Some individuals created a loose activist structure, and the identity of those who joined the movement and their reasons for joining have a decisive impact on the identity of the collective. This also has implications for movement evolution, something that is understudied in social movement research: the motivations and background of the first individuals that created a collective before it grew big are important but usually not observed.

• Capra: Networked power has existed throughout history, and might be even more representative of the Renaissance and other historical periods than of the network society.

Castells: Networked power is not unique to the network society. All of the four types of power presented above are present in the contemporary period. The important question in that respect is who is included in these networks, and who holds power positions within them. The answer to this question depends on the nature of the particular network, its goals, components, and technology.

• Latour: In the term network power, neither “network” nor “power” is enlightening.  First, he suggested abandoning the concept of power, asking if there is anything that is not power. Second, he pointed to the inflationary, even hegemonic use of the term network today. Latour asserted that because of the traceability of human action today we tend to call every phenomenon network, rather than using traditional categories such as territory, society, macro. In addition, Latour disagreed with Castells about the importance of theory – only theory can give precision to a confused concept of networks.

Castells agreed to disagree completely with Latour. For him, power is not everywhere. It is a fundamental, but particular type of relationship. He also distinguished between power as relational and domination as an institutional concept. In contrast to earlier societies, the core activities of the network society are organized in networks, based on information and communication technology. Therefore, there are quantitative and qualitative differences between contemporary networks and those of other societies and historical periods.

• Fulk: A them of the conference has been that those excluded from networks are less powerful.  Instead, depending on the network, the excluded can have more power than the included, using the examples of small-business and police coordination networks.

Castells acknowledged this as a very relevant point. He stated that the included are more powerful in terms of the program of the network itself. Therefore, criminal networks have no problem in being excluded. A second order analysis of the relationship between networks is important; power resides in those networks that succeed in competition and are able to impose their will onto other networks.

• Grewall: Does it make sense to distinguish between different kinds of programmers and switchers?

Castells agrees that programmers can be switchers and vice versa. Networks operate efficiently once they have a clear goal and program. He pointed to the connections between business and academic networks and how the former influence the latter’s research agenda. Therefore, switchers are important actors in all networks.

• Tongia: What is your opinion regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporations as individuals?

Castells returned to his point that corporations are ultimately run by individuals. He emphasized the connection between collective actors and the individual, which he hopes to connect ultimately to the individual brain.

• Powell: Social scientists until now have been unable to measure power. He expressed his doubts about mashing up network theory and the phenomenon of power. Powell suggested that Castells’ presentation could as well be titled the “technology of power”, and Powell is not sure whether the concept of networks is useful for an analysis of power.

Castells pointed to the transformative role of technology. He proposed a network theory of power in which power ultimately flows through communication networks. The construction of meaning is the most important form of power. For the first time in history, the system of communication networks provides the basis of this construction of meaning in immersive, interactive discourses that shape people’s minds.

Additional reading:

Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Varieties of Networks, Varieties of Power: Network Multidimensionality in Historical Perspective

David Singh Grewal

Reported by: Sandi Evans & Anna Li

David Singh Grewal, a Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows and a Director of the Biobricks Foundation, is a graduate student at the Harvard University’s Government Department. He studies network power in the context of globalization and is the author of Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization (2008).

Grewal began his talk on a tangent discussing how the Biobricks Foundation related to the previous talk on the semantic web. The Biobricks Foundation is a site for the emerging field of synthetic biology, and serves as an online registry for the standardization of biological parts. He described this integration of biological data and metadata as “Web 3.1″ – meaning biopower plus network power. Here, as in the earlier semantic web talks, the issue of privacy loomed large over this potential informational boon, though this topic was not the focus of the rest of this presentation.

Multidimensionality and a historical perspective
Grewal’s starting point consisted of three research questions: 1) what kind of power is at work in the network society? 2) how do networks structure power? 3) do different kinds of networks structure power differently? He then went on to provide a review of literature on network and anthropological theory. Because his presentation was exploratory he elicited and received a great deal of interesting feedback from the audience.

Grewal addressed the methodological argument that a synchronic approach to studying networks provides a single snapshot, and does not measure change over time, which can be considered problematic. By taking a historical perspective he suggests one can analyze networks as processes. Grewal provided a review of literature to support his ideas. First, Grewal discussed various theories of network power. Grewal included his own definition from his book “Network Power” (2008), and emphasized Castells’ (2009) typology: networking power, network power, networked power, and network-making power. Secondly, Grewal addressed a network typology of structures, which included references to Ouchi’s framework on organizational failure (1980), Powell’s (1990) research on network forms of organization, Lipnack and Stamps’ (2000) research on virtual teams, and Ronfeld’s (2006) research on organizational forms. Thirdly, Grewal addressed some anthropological views on networks and related topics such as tribes. He covered the development of tribes, transitions, and concepts of exchanges (reciprocity, redistributive) and related these concepts to communication networks. He also addressed historical models including the ancient, feudal and modern. This broad review of literature was rich in its coverage of conceptualizations about power such as the role of switchers and programmers and their function as the “new citizens” of the network society. He also provided a picture of the modern model where the state has removed the need for hierarchical reciprocity; instead, everybody can be connected through digital technology.

Questions from the audience
Because Grewal’s work was exploratory, the questions and comments from the audience were integral to this talk. Woody Powell suggested that he consider the political, economic and social networks as separate levels, each with its own network structure and then compare them in order to assess issues of power.

Another theoretical question that emerged from the audience was: under what conditions could you predict a major transition in networks? Members of the audience agreed that the focus on networks in transition rather than stages or periodicity was central, though there were many questions about how this question could be studied effectively. One audience member suggested that Grewal consider using cities as a level of analysis because cities, defined as large concentrations of work, could be considered as singular large networks or as a population.

Manuel Castells noted that trying to map out an evolutionary theory of networks was akin to “stepping into a minefield,” but that it was a worthwhile endeavor. He noted that networks need to be put in context in order to observe how they operate, and that the role of technology is integral to the study of networks, particularly in relation to the concept of a Network Society.

Overall, Grewal’s talk brought up several intriguing questions about the role of time and history in network analysis, and he provided a review on both network and anthropological theory.

Additional Readings

Grewal, D. S. (2008). Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. Yale University Press, 2008.