Social Network Analysis

"Social network analysis is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers or other information/knowledge processing entities." 

----Valdis Krebs, 2002

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a study of patterns between actors which include people, groups, and other network members. Each participant in the community is called an actor and depicted as a node. SNA not only focuses on the actors and the relationship between them, but also values relations between actors which are depicted as links or ties. It is a method for visualizing our people and connecting power, leading us to identify how we can best be interacted to share knowledge.

In the context of knowledge management, SNA enables relationships between people to be mapped in order to identify knowledge flows: who do people seek information and knowledge from? Who do they share information and knowledge with? In contrast to an organization chart which shows formal relationships such as who works where and who reports to whom, a social network analysis chart shows informal relationships. It allows managers to visualize and understand the many relationships that can either facilitate or impede knowledge creation and sharing. Because these relationships are normally invisible, SNA is sometimes referred to as an 'organizational x-ray', showing the real networks that operate underneath the surface organizational structure. Thus, social network analysis is mostly used to meet the following specific needs:

• Facilitate identification of who knows who and who might know what.

• Identify isolated teams or individuals and knowledge bottlenecks.

• Improve the effectiveness of formal and informal communication channels.

• Accelerate the flow of knowledge and information across functional and organizational boundaries.

• Raise awareness of the importance of informal networks.

• Visualize relationships within and outside of the organization.

• Strategically work to improve knowledge flows.

Here are some applications of social network analysis:

Application of SNA in Social Psychology Research

Nowadays, SNA is increasingly being used to evaluate the communication patterns and status structures that emerge during students’ web-based discussions. SNA can reveal the most prolific and the most influential students, as well as those students who are isolated those who assume roles as mediators between their classmates.

Application of SNA in Knowledge Processes

SNA is now applied to analyze existing knowledge exchange processes in companies. In the past, these processes were mainly analyzed by traditional business process modeling methods, some of which are working with a specific knowledge perspective. The SNA however has no direct reference to processes; here persons with specific relationships (e.g. knowledge exchange) are mainly the object of interest. Therefore SNA metrics can be used to analyze knowledge and information flows in companies or in specific communities.

Application of SNA to Collaborative Team Formation

Team formation is a challenging problem in many large organizations in which it is entirely possible for two individuals to work on similar projects without realizing it. By applying social network analysis to mappings of co-authors and to mappings of related research paper keywords, it is easy to help generate teams of diverse individuals with similar interests and aptitudes.

Communication and Social Behaviors on the Internet

From lecture 5&6 we get to know about social psychology theories of groups and group behaviors, together with knowledge management and knowledge building. In the following part, I will describe them in details.

Social Psychology Theories of Groups and Group Behaviors

Firstly, let’s take a look at the meaning of group structure: The group is a structure consists of members with different roles, status, relations and communication networks, as well as subgroups. Members in a group typically coordinate their actions by communicating with one another, and communication can be defined as the process by which an individual transmits information to another person. So it is obvious that communication in groups may serve functions which include controlling group members, expressing emotions, and exchanging information.

A most significant function of groups is to make decisions. Here’s a particular rule: a group adopts can be influenced by the nature of the decision-making task. For example, if the task is to decide which restaurant to eat in, the group might adopt majority wins. Another thing worthy to say is that a group can have a leader, who enables groups to function as productive and coordinated wholes. In social psychology, leadership is a process of social influence through which an individual recruits and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal.

Knowledge Building Principles

Suggested by Marlene Scardamalia, there are 12 principles acting as a system to facilitate development of knowledge building communities such as Real Ideas, Authentic Problems, Improvable Ideas, Idea Diversity, etc. To find more about them and their supporting socio-cognitive dynamics and technological dynamics, please see http://lcp.cite.hku.hk/resources/KBSN/Q1/KB_Principle.html.

Finally, I want to talk about some influential factors. As we know, communication and social behaviors on the internet can be affected by the patterns of ties among people. The more people are socially connected, the more intensely they are likely to communicate using various media available to them. It is applicable to describe human relationships across two media too. Another obvious thing is that internet social communication supplements and is an extension of traditional social behaviors. The more a person interacts traditionally and the more intimate his/her relationships, the more he/she would use the Internet to maintain communication with others and the more intimate would be his/her online communication. Social motives and attributes have also been linked to online communication. Those with low or unsatisfactory traditional social contacts use the Internet more frequently than others. For example, a single child who is isolated uses an online support group more frequently than those who are not. 

Questions in Class Activity One and Two: 1. The definition of Social Cloud: A Social Cloud is a resource and service sharing framework utilizing relationships established between members of a social network. 2. The possible applications of a Social Cloud: The passage shows 5 different potential applications of a Social Cloud, which are: Social Computation Cloud; Social Storage Cloud; Social Collaborative Cloud; Social Cloud for Public Science; Enterprise Social Cloud.

What was the epistemic aims in (1) Class Activity One (individual work) and (2) Class Activity Two (group work)? Is there any change in epistemic aim? If so, why did you change your aims?

For individual work, the epistemic aims to obtain the right answer from the given article, which is mainly about understanding and acquiring true. But for group work, since we have already formed our own understanding individually, the epistemic aim changes to a higher level – reorganization of concepts through making discussion. By knowing others’ answers and explanation, we are able to reflect thoughts from a different view, which we didn’t have before. This helps improve our answers, as well as our way of thinking.

Is there any difference in terms of individual and group epistemic cognition, how?

I think so. Individuals get new knowledge only by themselves. They rely on their personal experiences to solve problems. There would be no feedback or opinions from other people. So it’s difficult for individual to justify the correctness of the new belief. But group members can get new knowledge from the others, forming a new platform of learning and gaining fresh ideas to solve questions. Through group discussion, various ideas and knowledge can be connected to reach a higher level of cognition.  

How did you approach to the problem individually and in group, respectively? Is there any difference in the processes involved?

Individually, my approach to the problem is: 1st, read the two questions; 2nd, scan the article quickly, and highlight several important sentences related to the questions; 3rd, focus on the highlighted sentences, summarize the answer.

In group, my approach to the problem is: 1st, finish individual work; 2nd, everyone explains his original answers; 3rd, make group discussion and form some general ideas; 4th, summarize answers, and everyone’s understanding of knowledge improves.

In conclusion, group epistemic cognition is based on individual epistemic cognition, and everyone’s understanding of knowledge will be improved after discussion.