Sociological relationship

2,853 views
2,778 views

Published on

Introduction to Social Relationship. How to evaluate social initiatives.

Published in: Social Media
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,853
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sociological relationship

  1. 1. Social Model Relationship and Interactions Introductions Dr. Nicolò Guaita Diani
  2. 2. What is it for? • Evaluate the efficiency of a relational process and social relationship • Making strategic choices of social investment • Choose the best report for a more effective distribution of the benefits of social activities • Investigate the overall return of a wide range social intervention
  3. 3. What is it for? • Representation of Personal and Interpersonal Relations • Representing the effectiveness of Social Initiatives • Represent the rate of elasticity (ability to respond) of the social fabric • Representing the speed with which a social initiative can spread
  4. 4. Introduction Introduction Section to the logic of dissemination in the social fabric Introduction to quantitative techniques (simplified approach)
  5. 5. Subjects and Relations • Methodological Assumptions • Microworld models • Theory of diffuse relationships • Social Activities • Relationships are defined by the satisfaction of needs. • The relationship can not be unidirectional; they are recognized in a bidirectional way • Non-Social Activities • Relationships are defined by the assumption of manifest needs • The relationship can be one-way but are recognized only with a theoretical bidirectional construct
  6. 6. Assumption of a Doppler effect • Each observer can affect the result of observation and hence the phenomenon • The observer constructs is a two-dimensional theoretical projection • In the social sciences the interference problems is very high • The limited observable fields makes mandatory a collaborative or historicized observation
  7. 7. Dynamic context • The dynamic context can not be represented • The dynamic context may represent strengths or weaknesses in relational nodes • The dynamic context can be hypothesized as a greater or lesser frequency of relationship • The dynamic context characterized only multilateral relations • The dynamic context not be estimated if not bi-directional
  8. 8. Basic model: Single Relationship • Subjects: 1 • Observer: 1 • Omnia Visibility • Universal relationship
  9. 9. Basic model: Single Relationship The Observer (2) relates to the Subject(1) by creating a system of one-way non representative relationship.
  10. 10. Basic model: Real Relationship • Subjects: 2 • Observer: 1 • Omnia Visibility • Real relationship
  11. 11. Basic model: Real Relationship The Observer (2) relates to the subject (1) which has established a relationship with another subject (3). This relationship is the 1-3 and is bidirectional.
  12. 12. Basic model: Real Relationship Mark (1) tells the observer (2) about the friendship with Mary (3).
  13. 13. Basic model: unbalanced relationship The Observer (2) relates to the subject (1) which has established a relationship with another subject (3). The relationship 1  3 is more reliable and frequent compared to relationship 3  1.
  14. 14. Basic model: unbalanced relationship Mark (1) tells the observer (2) how often writes to Mary (3) but she never responds to his messages.
  15. 15. Basic model: Bidirectional Relationship Mark (1) tells the observer (2) how often writes to Mary (3) but she never responds to his messages. Mary (3) tells the observer (2) Mark (1) wrote to her often but she never responds to messages.
  16. 16. Basic model: Bidirectional Relationship Mark (1) tells the observer (2) how often writes to Mary (3) but she never responds to his messages. Mary (3) tells the observer (2) Mark (1) wrote to her often but she never responds to messages. RELATIONSHIP VERIFIED
  17. 17. Thematic model • Transition from Subjects to Elements: • Nodes • Vectors • Collection of common elements • Topic • Diffusion (experimentally) • Direct relations (deduction or black box) • Interaction between subjects and elements • Passive Relationship • Oriented Relationship
  18. 18. Theme Model: Simplified Mark (2) often sends out e-mails (3) to Mary (4). Mary (4) using e-mail (3) to work. Mark (2) is then in contact with Mary (4) through the mail (3).
  19. 19. Theme Model: Simplified Observer Role The Observer (1) only spoke with Mark (2). The observer does not know the e-mail (3) from personal experience.
  20. 20. Theme Model: Simplified Observer Role The Observer (1) talked to Mark (2). The Observer (1) talked to Mary (4). The observer does not know the e-mail(3) from personal experience.
  21. 21. Theme Model: Simplified Observer Role The Observer (1) talked to Mark (2). The Observer (1) talked to Mary (4). The Observer (1) know the e-mail (3) from personal experience.
  22. 22. Observer Direct Knowledge Mediated Knowledge
  23. 23. The paradox of universality • The observer can not know everything • The observer must be brought to the attention • The observer if placed in a relational context, it will become the focus • The removal of the observer must be validated • The observer is not a linking element in the study phase • The observer has limited relationships powers (eg, not a family member or friend) • The observer did not include forced elements of analysis (eg, viral messages) • The observer must justify each node and its socialized roots
  24. 24. Universal Observer
  25. 25. Removing Observer
  26. 26. Sample considered • Members Registration on the association "Friends of Animals Osimo NPO" (ITALY) • Based on direct relations (400 +) • Inference with variable weight (0-6) • Weight is not represented graphically
  27. 27. Relationship Sociology How to evaluate social initiatives A quantitative methodological approach Dr. Nicolò Guaita Diani

×