Networks+Emerging+Frameworks+for+Analysis


 * =Title= || Networks: Emerging Frameworks for Analysis ||
 * =Author= || Amelia H. Arsenault ||
 * =Date= || 2011 ||
 * =Summary By= || Sonja ||
 * =Summary= || Arsenault presents a literature review on four different approaches to the study of networks. Within all of them, networks are defined as “a set of relationships between objects (i.e. nodes)” (2). They can be informal or formal, and they can be foundational or peripheral. Within all three, structure is critical.

THEORY: Actor-Network Theory DEVELOPED BY: Bruno Latour and Michael Callon KEY IDEAS: Social life has always been organized around networks, regardless of our perception that it has changed with technology, and we need to take that into account in social theory. The association between nodes is the unit of analysis, as there is no meaning outside of associations. Distinctions between levels are not important, but we can see “moments of translation” (9) in the associations between nodes—that is what we study. It has been criticized for not taking into account power relations.

THEORY: Network Society DEVELOPED BY: Manuel Castells KEY IDEAS: Networks among individuals have existed for quite some time, but the information age has propelled networks into a greater position of power. We are, therefore, in a “network society,” where the power to program and the power to set the rules within the society are of critical importance. This move to a network society has had significant effects in where power is located, how mass communication happens, and on work and commerce. The network itself is the unit of analysis, rather than the nodes between the networks.

THEORY: Multi-theoretical, multilevel framework DEVELOPED BY: Nosh Contractor and Peter Monge KEY IDEAS: This is a more practical theory, asserting that we need to look at how networks operate on different levels of analysis. The unit of analysis occurs on the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. || = = = = = = = = = = = =
 * =Discussion points= || Clearly, in each of these theories there are assumptions about where power is located. In a different piece, Castells mentions "power over" versus "power to." Is it fair to assume, however, that power is in the immaterial things? What about capital, for example? How does a look at material forces change the way we think about these theoretical approaches? ||

= = = = = = = =

= =