Warm urbino pais

1,126 views

Published on

Workshop on Advanced Research Methods
September 30, 2010

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,126
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
36
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Warm urbino pais

  1. 1. Workshop on Advanced Research Methods September 30, 2010 The structure of social network sites: a comparison between Facebook and LinkedIn – preliminary results – Ivana Pais – University of Brescia (pais@jus.unibs.it) Riccardo De Vita – University of Greenwich Roberto Marmo – University of Pavia Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  2. 2. Agenda  Social network sites: does one structure fit all?  Empirical setting: the case of Milan In  Methodology: exploring the data  Preliminary findings: different levels of analysis  Discussion and conclusion: the next steps Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  3. 3. Theoretical background  ‘Appropriable social organisations’ vs intentional organizations (Coleman, 1990)  Technological development  online social capital  Social networks are embedded in the variety of communication artifacts available in the current technoscape (Licoppe, Smoreda 2005)  different forms of Social Network Sites : registration-based vs. connection based, social vs. professional, online vs. offline… (O’Murchu, Breslin, Decker, 2004; boyd, Ellison 2007) Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  4. 4. Research question  The majority of the studies focused on the understanding of the effects of social networks; while the factors that generate, sustain and reproduce them partly remain to be explored (Smith-Doerr & Powell, 2005).  Little is known about the specific structure of online social network services (Lewis et al. 2008) RQ: Are different social network sites associated with different network structures? Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  5. 5. Milan In  A non-profit association set up in 2005 to allow members of LinkedIn living in Milan to physically meet up with each other.  Comparative study: o same organization & same actors o Linkedin Group Vs Facebook Group 4311 505 1357 Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  6. 6. Method  Structural Variables: connection on Facebook and Linkedin groups  symmetric networks  Composition variable: gender, education, job title, number of connections,...  Exploratory analysis of several network properties at the global and local level  Software: UCINET 6 (Borgatti, Everett and Freeman, 2002) and helper applications Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  7. 7. Linkedin Group – Members since 2005
  8. 8. …adding the members since 2006
  9. 9. …adding the members since 2007
  10. 10. …adding the members since 2008
  11. 11. …adding the members since 2009
  12. 12. Linkedin Group – Today
  13. 13. Linkedin vs Facebook Group Man; Woman N Components Isolates Density Centralization Avg Degree 505 6 5 0.027** 83.4 % 13.5 505 35 33 0.019** 79.0 % 9.43 (+1 dyad)
  14. 14. Multiplexity % of ties in the % of ties in the Linkedin Group Facebook Group 2.00% 2.86%
  15. 15. Clique size Overall Clustering Coefficient Facebook Group 0.584 Linkedin Group 0.494
  16. 16. Identifying relevant actors Degree Centrality Degree Centrality Top 5 actors in Linkedin Group Top 5 actors in Facebook Group ID Facebook Linkedin ID Facebook Linkedin 344 0 432 19 406 3 347 7 260 886 139 7 276 2 101 620 87 3 1031 5 91 696 75 2 16 25 90 497 74 40 5 Key Players KPP 2 – Using nodes Facebook Group Linkedin Group 714 344 19 16 394 321 482 1101 1236 530
  17. 17. Discussion  Different network structures are associated with online groups built for the same purpose but on different platforms o Specialization and different behaviour  Implications for academic debate and for organization management  Need to take a process perspective in analyzing network evolution Teaching excellence for over a hundred years
  18. 18. The next steps…  Data: o Relations  recommendations, physical interaction o Attribute data  questionnaire and deeper analysis o Homophily  Methodological approach: o Longitudinal analysis  Theoretical perspective: o Network structure and organizational development  Empirical setting: o Comparison with other online social networks Teaching excellence for over a hundred years

×