In one of the recent Organizational Theory sessions about Social Networks some of the participants were discussing the potential in online social networking website datasets. The instructor pointed out that some of the social networking sites have began sharing their datasets with some researchers, but that access is still limited.
However, there are social networks that are completely open, like Twitter. You can see who follows who, how many followers a user has, who is talking to who and about what. It’s even possible to track “Retweets” to how a certain “tweet” is cited. Everything on Twitter is open aside from Direct Messaging between users, which I believe isn’t as common as it goes against the open conversation spirit of the social networks.
It’s then obvious that somebody could use Twitter for applying a Social Networks approach to investigate some of the related theories (status, power, influence, centrality, structural holes, diffusion, etc.). The only problem would be, how to convert or record Twitter into an analyzable dataset.
Some good people did that for you. If you want to explore this option, take a look at the following websites :
If you’re looking for some top-tier social networks approach readings, here are the recommended readings from our OT instructors:
Chris Marquis (Harvard Business School)
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.
Uzzi, Brian. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:35-67.
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Pages 1-49.
Podolny, Joel M. 2001. "Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market." The American Journal of Sociology 107:33-60.
Marquis, Christopher. 2003. “The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 655-689.
James Lincoln (Hass School of Business, Berkeley)
INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS: COHESION, TEAMWORK, KNOWLEDGE
Burt, R. 2004. “Structural holes and good ideas.” AJS 110:349-99.
Hansen, Morten T. 1999. “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
organization subunits.” ASQ 44:82-111.
Reagans, R. and E.W. Zuckerman. 2001. “Networks, diversity and performance: The social capital of R&D
units.” OS 12: 502-517.
Blau, P. 1955. “Consultation among colleagues.” Ch. 7 in DYNAMICS OF BUREAUCRACY. Chicago.
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. STRUCTURAL HOLES. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. 1987. “Social contagion & innovation – cohesion versus structural equivalence.” AJS 92: 1287-35.
Granovetter, M. 1973. “The strength of weak ties.” AJS 78: 1360-1380.
Ibarra, H. 1992. “Homophily and differential returns-sex differences in network structure and access in an
advertising firm.” ASQ 37:422-447.
Lincoln, J. R. and G. Zeitz. 1980. "Organizational properties from aggregate data: separating individual and
structural effects." ASR 45:391-408.
Lincoln, J. R. and J. Miller.1979. "Work and friendship ties in organizations." ASQ 4:181-199.
Manski, C. 1993. “Identification of endogenous social effects–the reflection problem.” REVIEW OF
ECONOMIC STUDIES, 60:531-542.
Podolny, J. and J. Baron. 1997. Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the
workplace. ASR 62: 673-693.INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS: TRUST, DlFFUSlON, AND EXCHANGE
Davis, G. 1991. “Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate
network.” ASQ. 36: 583-613
Keister, L. 2001. “Exchange structures in transition: Lending and trade relations in Chinese business
groups.” ASR 66:336-360.
Uzzi, B. 1996. “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of
organizations – the network effect.” ASR, 61:674-698.
Beckman, C. M., P. R. Haunschild. 2004. "Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market
uncertainty, and network partner selection.” OS 15: 259-275.
Baum, J., T. Calabrese, and B. Silverman. 2000. “Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and
startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology.” SMJ 21:267-94.
Haunschild, P. R. 1994. “How much is that company worth: interorganizational relationships, uncertainty
and acquisition premiums.” ASQ. 39: 391-411
Lincoln, J. R., M. Gerlach, and C. L. Ahmadjian. 1996. "Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in
Japan." ASR 61: 67-88.
Lincoln, J. R., M. L. Gerlach, and P. Takahashi. 1992. "Keiretsu networks in the Japanese economy: a dyad
analysis of intercorporate ties." ASR 57:561-585.
Macaulay, S. 1963. “Noncontractual relations in business.” ASR 28:55-70.
Mizruchi, M. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on
interlocking directorates. ARS. 22: 271-298.
Palmer, D. 1983. “Broken ties: interlocking directorates and inter-corporate coordination.” ASQ 28: 40-55
Podolny, J., T. Stuart and M. Hannan. 1996. Networks, knowledge, and niches: competition in the
worldwide semiconductor industry 1984-1991. AJS. 102: 659-689.
Sorenson, O. and T. Stuart. 2008. Bringing the context back in: settings and the search for syndicate
partners in venture capital investment networks. ASQ, December.
Stuart, T. 2001. “Exchange structures in transition: Lending and trade relations in Chinese business
groups.” ASR 66:336-360.
Uzzi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks
benefit firms seeking capital. ASR. 64: 481-505.
Westphal, J. D., R. Gulati, S. M. Shortell. 1997. “Customization or conformity? An institutional and
network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption.” ASQ 41:366-94
If you’re doing anything in the area, let us know.
