- Exploring social networks - The Third Entity in the Dyad: The Relationship Diana Jones Presented at Sunbelt Conference, Vancouver April 2006 INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana

Historical Development of SNA –The Key Players © Diana Jones Anthropology + Mathematics Mathematics Sociology Psychology Harvard SNA Moreno KEY Working in Same field Influence on Anthropology

ARROW KEY Influence of individual Influence of entire field ANZPA Conference, Brisbane. January, 2006 The Interdisciplinary Foundations of SNA Homans - Sociology (INSNA) SNA Psychology Sociology AnthropologyMathematics Gluckman ( Manchester ) Barnes Bott Mitchell Köhler Granovetter Lee White ( Harvard ) Harary (Michigan Uni) Lazarsfeld Wellman Nadel Lewin Warne r Mayo - Busines s Hawthorne Studies Moreno Social Psychology Social Economics - Harvard Cross Borgatti Burt Freeman INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

Assists us explore,integrate, and build a body of knowledge on working with Isolates Structural Holes One way relationships Negative relationships, the choose not to……. Exploring the relationship between the dyad……… INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

- Tele - the flow of feeling between people People are: attracted to one another on specific criteria; like molecules of hydrogen and oxygen repulsed; or move away from one another, similar to magnetic poles, or oil and water neutral, i.e. dont have a sense of the other. (Think of falling in love with someone who doesnt know you exist - they might just prefer to have coffee with you.) (Moreno 1953; Moreno 1987; Moreno 2000) INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

B Symmetrical Mutual, Reciprocal The relationship is of mutual benefit to both actors Mutual positive relationship B chooses C on this criteria/question, and C chooses B C AB Asymmetrical Non-mutual, One way This relationship is of benefit to B, As response to B is unclear. A may be unaware of B, be negative to B on the criteria or question being explored. Expert networks are often characterised in this way A

Third option: what is the relationship between this dyad? A B C INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones Is this relationship a structural hole? Are the A and C aware of one another? Do A and C not choose one another on the criteria being researched What is the significance of this to the work of this group?

Collecting social network data 1.Questions typically asked in networks are: Who do you go to for information….. Who do you go to for decisions on ….. Who do you go to for expert advice on….. Who do you rely on to assist you get your work done….. 2.Elicit a structural response related to job function, whereas…. Who do you go to for advice…. Who do you trust to…… Who do you discuss work concerns with……… Who do you discuss and explore innovations with……… Who do you go to to find out whats happening in the organisation? 3.Go to the heart of the socio-emotional networks of the groups you are working with. © Diana Jones

Case Study Criterion for exploration in this group: who in this group do I trust to solve a work problem with me, so we enhance consistency and quality in our organisation? INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

General Manager Manager Business Support Manager TL 4 Staff (3 Permanent, 1 Temp) 7 Staff (6 Permanent, 1 Temp) 6 Staff 7 Staff (6 Permanent, 1 Temp) 12 Staff (6 Permanent, 6 Temp) 6 Staff 7 Staff (6 Permanent, 1 Temp) 10 Staff (All Temps) 8 Staff (7 Permanent, 1 Temp) 4 Staff 15 Staff (10 Permanent, 5 Temp) Site 4 Sites 1, 2 and 3 Management Team, located at Site 4 Site 4 KEY Formal Organisation Chart INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones Site 5

Density: Group Size: 17 Potential Ties: 272 Actual Ties: 143 Density: 53% Average number of positive choices made/received:9 Range of positive choices received:3-15 Range of positive choices made:4-16 Average number of negative choices made/received:2 Range of negative choices received:0-7 Range of negative choices made:0-8 Average number of mutual positive choices:6 Range of mutual positive choices:2-12 Group Statistics INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

All Positive Choices INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones Density of positive relationships is 53% Sites 1, 2 and 3 Management Team, located at Site 4 Site 4 KEY Site 5

All Positive Mutual Choices INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones There is a density of 46% of mutual relationships. This accounts for the strong work ethic with the group. If we now look at one of these dyads, what do we discover? Sites 1, 2 and 3 Management Team, located at Site 4 Site 4 KEY Site 5

A mutual negative Choice INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones While positive mutual relationships are the glue in groups, negative choices are a natural aspect of group life. In looking at this group there appeared to be a high number of negative choices. The one relationship we are considering here shows a mutual negative relationship. This means both people did not choose the other with the criteria: who in this group do I trust to solve a work problem with me, so we enhance consistency and quality in our organisation? This relationship of not choosing, is not displayed on the sociogram. However, a powerful force remains between these two people, affecting the group. Participants in this exploration received their individual choices, and many shared their reasons for choosing or not choosing one another. As a result participants developed clearer perceptions of what constituted trust and collaboration in this group and in doing so a number of people developed positive relationships with more colleagues.

Summary Looking at only positive choices on criteria provides a small part of the relationship picture Wise judgment and group facilitation skills are needed when gathering data, exploring and displaying negative choices When SNAers researcher need to have clear agreements with participants on the purposes data is being collected for, how it will be used and who will see what is generated. © Diana Jones

Diana Jones © Diana Jones