Introduction to Social Relationship. How to evaluate social initiatives.

1. Social Model
Relationship and Interactions
Introductions
Dr. Nicolò Guaita Diani

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. 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. Introduction
Introduction Section to the logic of dissemination in the social fabric
Introduction to quantitative techniques (simplified approach)

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. 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. 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. Basic model: Single Relationship
• Subjects: 1
• Observer: 1
• Omnia Visibility
• Universal
relationship

9. Basic model: Single Relationship
The Observer (2)
relates to the
Subject(1) by
creating a system of
one-way non
representative
relationship.

10. Basic model: Real Relationship
• Subjects: 2
• Observer: 1
• Omnia Visibility
• Real relationship

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. Basic model: Real Relationship
Mark (1) tells the
observer (2) about
the friendship with
Mary (3).

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. Basic model: unbalanced relationship
Mark (1) tells the
observer (2) how
often writes to Mary
(3) but she never
responds to his
messages.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Observer
Direct Knowledge Mediated Knowledge

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. Universal Observer

25. Removing Observer

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. Relationship Sociology
How to evaluate social initiatives
A quantitative methodological approach
Dr. Nicolò Guaita Diani