Communication Networks and the Process of Imparting or Exchanging Information - Book Report/Review Example

The analysis of communication networks provides a method to study the process of imparting or exchanging of communications in an association of individuals or systems. At present, the 21st century is demanding a closer look into the creation, formation, and maintenance of communication networks which, upon analysis, can provide in depth information on how knowledge is transmitted, how networks affect behavior, how links are formed and broken, and how the formation or destruction of these links can cause positive and negative consequences to the individual and to the system. “A basic … proposition is that individual behavior is influenced through relationships of the individuals with others;” therefore, comprehending the central role of communication networks in the influence of behavior is paramount to understanding the functioning of all organizations (83 – 84). The organization, used interchangeably with the notion of network, shifts in meaning as social values evolve due to social circumstance. Morgan argues that the Industrial Revolution correlated the organization to the metaphor of the machine, which “was replaced in succession by organization-as-living systems in the 1970s, organization-as-culture in the 1980s, and organization-as-computers in the 1990s. With the explosion of the Internet and the Web, there is little argument that the dominant metaphor today is organization-as-networks” (as cited in , , p. 314). Although the organization-as-network provides unlimited possibilities in terms of the creation of communication networks, it also poses a serious threat to individuals, networks, and even States if the nature of how and why these networks are formed is not fully understood. Therefore, Chapter 3 aims to utilize network analysis as a methodological approach to understanding human communication and its effect on behavioral change. In addition, Chapter 10 identifies theoretical mechanisms central to network creation while championing for the implementation of a “multitheoretical, multilevel approach to the study of communication and other forms of organizational and social networks” ( 293). The development of a multilevel approach is critical to “account for different properties of networks”, to investigate how network components can exist at varying network levels, and to introduce a three-tired approach to be used in conjunction which will provide a deeper understanding of network creation, composition and proliferation (294-5). These theoretical approaches will create a wealth of avenues to analyze the prevalence, importance and impact that the current forms of cyber-communication networks, most notably seen in the social network “Facebook”, are having on the act of communicating, the transmission and reception of information, the invention and reinvention of organizations, and the exertion of influence on behavioral change. Formation of a communication network requires the linking of individuals, personal networks, cliques or systems. Each of these parts are considered a node that links to other nodes through communication; the links are, for the most part, bilateral, in that “no sharp distinction is made between source and receiver, [and] communication flows occur among transceivers’ in the network, each of whom are both, in turn, transmitters and receivers” (83). Communication network analysis is the attempt to understand how communication is facilitated in a system, in which the transmission of communication flows through interpersonal relationships. The procedures of network analysis involve the following: 1. the identifying of cliques in the system 2. the understanding of specialized roles of each component in the communication structure, from liaisons, bridges, and isolates 3. the measuring of levels of connectedness within the communication structure (141) Collecting data from these procedures can be completed in three ways: through survey sociometry, which is the most dominant means of “obtaining and analyzing quantitative data about communication patterns among the individuals in a system”; although alternative options, including observation and unobtrusive methods, are aiding sociometry to ensure the collection of more accurate and objective results. In addition, as random sampling is optimal but difficult to achieve when looking at network links, sample designs for network analysis have branched out to include sampling intact groups, quasi-sociometry, snowball sampling, and non-sampling. These additional sample methods are being utilized because of the “particularly serious consequences of the usual methodological shortcomings of survey research,… [in that] most survey research organizations today regard 90 percent response rate as very satisfactory …[which] leaves huge holes in the who-to-whom data matrix, and hence in the communication structure” (111). This 10 percent gap unequivocally distorts the entire communication structure, which detrimentally obscures analysis of communication networks; therefore, advocates of this analysis argue that a multilevel approach is essential in dealing with these shortcomings. However, prior to discussing multitheoretical models of communication, it is imperative to look at the five units in networks that initiate and maintain communication links between each other. Communication by individuals can be investigated when it is from the individual level, such as opinion leadership and isolates. Their level of influence on others can be investigated, analyzed and measured. From the individual level, dyadic relationships that create two-way communication between two individuals forms a single link of communication. Although some level of homophily must exist between the two individuals in order to create the communication link, information is disseminated to other individuals in the network as a result of the individuals in the dyad being somewhat heterophilous. In addition, information-exchange requires a certain degree of proximity between personal communication networks, which positively correlates proximity and degree of heterophily in communication to the “trickling down and out” of information (142). “Another unit of analysis is the personal network, consisting of those individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows to a focal individual;” this network consists of two possible forms, the radical personal network and the interlocking personal network (p.142). Radical personal networks include dyads of communication relationships that are not necessarily known to each other; whereas the interlocking personal network is composed of dyadic relationships that know and communicate with the others. The latter formation poses a particular problem for the dissemination of information because of the homophilous nature of the network, which seeks little outside communication. The fourth unit, cliques, involves few dyadic relationships, of the homophilous variety, that interact frequently within the group, and have great potential to instigate change in its members. Finally, the network is the sum of the subsequent four units of communication. As a result of the complexity of the communication network, employing a multiple theory approach to analysis is important for three reasons: “first, theorists have yet to develop single, omnibus theories that account for a full array of network characteristics”; “second, most theories account for relatively modest amounts of variance in network properties”; and “finally, multiple theories provide different prisms through which to explore network configurations, thus providing richer, more textured insights” (p. 295). Why networks are formed is as an important a question as how they are maintained; therefore, there are several social theories available to analyze how a network is realized. The theory of self-and mutual interest examines how acting in one’s best interest or in the best interest of a collective affects network formation. Contagion, semantic and cognitive theories argue that networks are formed based on the ‘contagious’ nature of certain attitudes and behaviors, on the semantic similarities of perceptions of certain organizations and experiences, and on maintaining consistency between units in the network (299 – 301). Exchange and dependency theories argue that networks are created when individuals need information from others, and when they have information to provide others. Homophily, physical proximity, electronic proximity and social support theories were addressed in the previous section, in which the sameness, physical or electronic (cyber) closeness, and perceived assistance of other individuals results in the formation of a network. Coevolutionary theory involves a symbiotic relationship that required units to contribute through interaction to guarantee a space within the limited network. Finally, small world theories are networks “where the nodes have a high degree of local clustering with a small fraction of the notes ...while at the same time being no more than a few degrees of separation from all of the remaining nodes” (p. 308). These theories are especially important for understanding the nature of the new communication network – the cyber network that is reaching beyond the capabilities of pre-Internet networks. A multilevel approach to analyzing cyber communication networks is becoming increasingly important in a world where groups can be formed, information can be exchanged, and plans can be devised across continents, between any individuals, in a matter of seconds. Weimann’s article, “Terror on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube,” demonstrates that post-modern terrorists are taking advantage of the fruits of globalization and modern technology – especially advanced online communication technologies that are used to plan, coordinate and execute their deadly campaigns. No longer geographically constrained within a particular territory, or politically or financially dependent on a particular state, they rely on technological modern forms of communication (2010). In addition, the new cyber communication network is particularly powerful in terms of simultaneously creating integrated personal networks, which encourage the formation of highly homophilous and influential peer networks, and also radical personal networks, that connect a vast number of individuals and networks and provide these individuals with an unlimited amount of personal information. The first network is of growing personal concern to educators and public policy makers who are discovering that cyber networks are allowing for more intensified personal attacks – cyber bullying – on certain individuals and groups. In addition, the fact that an individual’s personal communication network has expanded beyond traditional means to include literal strangers as virtual friends poses serious problems in terms of providing too much access and information to individuals within the network. Countless stories of children being abducted by chat-room predators demand that the new cyber communication network is further analyzed and regulated in order to provide safety measures against a network system that is not entirely understood at present. In conclusion, previous studies on communication networks have suffered from focusing on the individual and utilizing a survey sociometry to collect incomplete and biased data on network formation. However, current trends in communication networks analysis demand a multilevel approach to understanding how groups are formed and maintained, what purpose they serve the units in the network, and the consequences that may arise from the influence of these networks on individuals. Without a doubt, the Internet has enabled networks to form between unexpected units, which is causing public concern over the seemingly limitless possibilities of the new communication network. Although the new networks have created a fertile environment for the formation of stronger social support networks and the dissemination of endless amounts of information, it has also created a space for “terrorists, criminals, separatists, drug cartels, and radical activists” to converge with little interference from law enforcement (p. 324). In the end, understanding communication networks is of paramount importance to the international community who is desperately seeking a way to define and monitor the unruly virtual state. References Weimann, G. (2010). Terror on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(2), 45+. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5045052650 Read More