Review of paper

So far I have three articles reviewed and I'm in the process of three more. Right now my thesis looks like this: Online social networking tools lead to stronger weak networking ties in result creating leadership.


Quality of Relationships
In the article, “The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships”, Gustavo Mesch and Ilan Talmud tackle the enormous task of bridging the gap between previous research in regards to the “effect of the Internet on existing relationships” and “online-only ties” (2006, p. 137). Mesch and Talmud (2006) argue, “that the quality of social relationships is dependent on duration and diversity of topics and activities carried together” (p. 137). Overall Mesch and Talmud (2006) discovered, “the closeness to a friend is a function of social similarity, content and activity multiplexity, and duration of the relationships” that “friendships originated in the Internet are perceived as less close and supportive because they are relatively new and online friends are involved in less joint activities and less topics of discussion” (p. 137)
Mesch and Talmud’s (2006) study was conducted as part of the annual national youth survey by the Minerva center for Youth Studies at the University of Haifa. The data for the study was collected between June and October of 2004 which covered a representative sample of 1,000 households. Of the 1,000 households contacted, 987 adolescents participated in the study. The average age of the respondents was 15.52 and the mix of girls versus boys was 48% to 52% respectively (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 140-141).
The survey used was constructed of questions relating to social and demographic characteristics of the individuals, sociodemographic characteristics of their closest friend, types of resources exchanged, and degree of perceived closeness to each friend. In addition, the survey asked for the names of six close friends as well as provide information on the friend’s age, gender, place of residence, and whether or not the friend was met for the first time at school, through extracurricular activities, in the neighborhood or online (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 140).
A few of the tools of measurement used to quantify the data was dependent variables of intensity of friendship, mulitplexity, strength of ties, and similarity. Intensity of friendship was determined by asking the “respondents to state how long they had known each friend” (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 140). Multiplexity was broken down into two parts, content and activity and two different scales were built to measure this. Content multiplexity was derived from asking the individuals to indicate frequency of topic of conversation between them and their friends on school, parents, family, friends, sports, personal problems, music and TV programs, romantic relationships, and dress and fashion. Activity multiplexity was indicated by asking the individual the activities they did with their first friend. Strength of ties was measured by questions on a 5-point Likert scale which referred to how close the individual felt to their first friend, how important they were to them, how much they would ask for help from them and how far they trusted them. Similarity was broken down into three parts and measured by propinquity, age, and gender. Propinquity was measured by place of residence of first friend and so was age and gender (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 140-141).
The findings of this study found, “partial support for the association of social similarity and various measures of relational intensity and content of relationship” (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 146). As previous studies had stated, Mesch and Telmud 2006) found, “that gender similarity and propinquity were positively related to the duration of friendship”, “adolescents of the same sex reported knowing each other longer” and residence “in the same location reported the same” (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 146-147). On the other hand, “in all the models measuring intensity and content of the relationships the origin of the relationship was found to be significant” (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 147) and confirmed their argument. Mesch and Talmud (2006) found, “Adolescents with an online friend reported that this friend was known for a shorter time than face-to-face friends, they discussed fewer topics, and they participated in fewer shared activities” (p. 147). According to Mesch and Talmud (2006), “The finding seem to indicate that online friends play a reduced and probably more specialized role in the lives of (the adolescents) than face-to-face friends at extracurricular activities and parties” (Mesch & Talmud, 2006, p. 147).
The Role of Strong and Weak Network Ties
Sarah L. Jack (2005) in the article, “The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analysis” demonstrates how the aforementioned aspects of both strong and weak network ties play out in an entrepreneurial setting. Jack (2005) uses a “qualitative ethnographic approach to explore in-depth the networking activities” and “aims to enhance understanding about the role of ties, how they are used and activated for business activity” (Jack, 2005, p. 1233).
Jack (2005) selected fourteen individuals, from the Highlands of Scotland, through the use of theoretical sampling from an initial group of forty. According to Alvesson and Skolberg (2000, p, 27) “theoretical sampling has two main steps” (as cited by Jack, 2005, p. 1240. Jack (2005) first minimized the differences between the groups by “identifying basic categories” and then maximized the differences “to enable the researcher to investigate these category properties in their greatest possible range and begin weaving them together into a more substantial theory” (Jack, 2005, p. 1240). The original forty respondents were interviewed and these interviews were used to “recognized and test emerging themes” (Jack, 2007, p. 1240).
The methods used by Jack (2005) were ethnography and interviewing. According to Gill and Johnson (1997) the ethnography used was “based on what are termed as ‘naturalist modes of inquiry’ such as participant observation and semi-structured interviews, within a predominantly inductive framework” (as sited in Jack 2005, p. 1239). According to Jack (2005) ethnography “allowed a rich body of contextual information to be collected from a wide range of primary sources and it provided a guiding framework for research” (Jack, 2005, p. 1240). In addition Jack (2005) states, “This material represented a resource for comparison with, and triangulation of, the emerging research themes and addressed the broader theoretical issues” (Jack, 2005, p. 1241). The interviews conducted were “based on a semi-structured schedule which contained specific areas on which respondents were questioned at length”. In order to keep with the ethnographic methodology, Jack (2005) conducted the interviews “wherever and whenever possible: chatting over a cup of coffee, lunch or a drink at the local pub, chance meetings on the street or in a local shop, community events and get-togethers” (Jack, 2005, p. 1242). All of the interviews varied in length from a couple of hours to over six and helped to “triangulate the data by clarifying meaning and identifying different ways in which the phenomena could be seen” (Jack, 2005, p.1242).
Once the data was collected it was sorted for analysis. The interviews were “taped and transcribed, field notes were collated and observations were written up” (Jack, 2005, p. 1242). “The ‘raw’ data was then written up in ‘cases’” which provided a way to “sort the rich data that had been gathered through documents, interviews, observations and discussion” (Jack, 2005, p. 1242). The cases were then analyzed and compared, “to determine categories and general patterns of activities; each incident was continually compared with others within the emergent categories to refine both description and explanation” (Jack, 2005, p. 1242). Finally, themes were derived from the literature and the data was examined for details relating to these themes.
Jack (2005) findings “propose that it is strong ties that are activated by the entrepreneur to draw information and resources into the business” (Jack, 2005, p. 1252). In addition, Jack (2005) states, “the data also highlights the complex nature of networking. It seems that the nature of networks is about the links and bonds that form the foundations of the network and shape its actual structure” (Jack, 2005, p. 1254). Jack (2005) applies Granovetter’s strong and weak tie hypothesis to the findings and questions the way ties are defined as well as indicates the defiencies in this hypothesis. Jack (2005) writes, “for instance, differentiating ties in terms of interaction, looking to weak ties for diversity and opportunities in resources and information and perceiving networks built predominantly on strong ties to be inefficient” (Jack, 2005, p. 1254). Jack (2005) believes future research needs to be done in order to consider the “actual function and utility of network ties” (Jack, 2005, p. 1245).
Weak Ties in Networked Communities
Andrea L. Kavanaugh, Debbie Denise Reese, John M. Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson, (2005) in Weak ties in networked communites, explore how both strong and weak social networking ties across groups are more effective for collective action. Kavanaugh et al (2005) state, “Communities with ‘bridging’ social capital (weak ties across groups) as well as ‘bonding’ social capital (strong ties within groups) are the most effective in organizing for collective action” (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 119). Kavanaugh et al (2005) believe using communication media such as the Internet enhances the capability to educate community members and to organize for collective action. Ultimately, Kavanaugh et al (2005) look to prove that people with weak (bridging) ties across groups have “higher levels of community involvement, civic interest, and collective efficacy than people without bridging ties” (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 119).
Kavanaugh et al (20005) used a survey questionnaire to a stratified random sample of 100 households in Blacksburg and Montgomery Counties, Virginia. The households were stratified based on education level, Internet use, and location. When the household had accepted to participate, each member completed a survey questionnaire (modified for younger participants) and a group interview was conducted. The adult survey questionnaire inquired about community involvement, organizational memberships, level of organizational participation, Internet use, social circles, collective efficacy, psychological attributes, significant life changes and basic demographics. Out of the nine categories of questions used, six research themes emerged: community involvement, activities and/or interests, collective efficacy, Internet behavior and effects, social networks and psychological scales.
Community involvement was organized into three topics of community involvement, community attachment and local organization affiliation and roles (leader, member, attendee). Each topic used a frequency scale, ranging from never or almost never to several times a day, over the past 6 months. A typology of aggregating variables related to common constructs was created and then the correlations on the variables for each construct were run through reliability tests. The Internet use was measured including amount of use (number of hours in a typical day) as well as the type and frequency of online activity over the past 6 months. The use of measurement was a frequency scale ranging from “almost never” to “several times a day”. The participation in local groups and organizations was measured by asking the participants to write down the name of each local organization in which they were involved and then the role they served, choosing from a list given including attendee, member, financial contributor, and/or leader, within that organization. From this, the participants were then broken down into two categories of bridges (members or leaders into or more organizations) and nonbridges (members or leaders in one or no organizations). Lastly, community efficacy was measured by a 13-item scale where each item pertained to a key area of community challenge and/or achievement. The directions was to rate the community’s ability to achieve each goal listed and the 5-point scale used was not well at all, not too well, somewhat well, pretty well and very well (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 122-123).
Kavanaugh et al (2005) found, after all data was analyzed, “the average number of local organizations with which respondents are affiliated is 2.4 groups” which was just above other studies and shows “two local affiliations to be about average” (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 123). Kavanaugh et al (2005) also found, “just under half of respondents are classified as bridges” and “just over half of respondents are categorized as a ‘nonbridge’ (Kavanaugh et al (2005), p. 123). In addition, Kavanaugh et al (2005) found, “Leader bridges report a higher number of weak ties (acquaintances) than both member bridges and nonbridges, and they e-mail a higher percentage of acquaintances than either member bridges or nonbridges do. Member bridges also have a higher number of weak ties than nonbridges, and email a higher percentage of acquaintances than nonbridges” (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 124).
Overall, Kavanaugh et al (2005) states, “the data show that people who act as weak ties (bridges) between groups are better educated, more informed, and more extroverted (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 127). The research by Kavanaugh et al (2005) shows that individuals considered “bridges” have “higher levels of activism, trust, community involvement, participation, civic interest, and community attachment” (Kavanaugh et al (2005) p. 127). Lastly, Kavanaugh et al (2005) found, “Leaders or members of multiple groups, serving as weak social ties across diverse groups, use computer networking to exchange information an ideas across diverse groups, thereby increasing the pace and scope at which communities can educate and engage citizens and act collectively to solve problems” (Kavanaugh et al, 2005, p. 130).