Complexity and Social Networks Blog

The following is an interesting case (MAP Project) of how a network is used as an alternative to the public service network to solve an issues of troubled teenagers in the Netherlands I stumbled upon during a conference on Innovations in Government.

Young people are frequently left behind in the bureaucratic public service systems. Among the disadvantaged, they are often the most difficult to help because they do not have the resources or experience to deal with the social service system. For example, a young woman (age 19), who has not completed a basic level of education due to family problems. Her family as a unit has a bad reputation among agencies. She has also a track record of being rejected by several welfare programs based on her behavior.

As a recipient of welfare, the benefits office wants her to work as a volunteer because her attitude makes her incompatible with the workplace. If she does not comply, her benefits will be stopped. Yet that money is a potential avenue for the young woman to get out of the family situation. Consequently, there is a disconnect between the two sides' needs. The benefits office will not allow this woman to work because of her attitude, but her attitude towards the public sector is so poor because she is not being allowed to pursue her own goals.

The program aims to allow people like the woman described access to the contacts and social networks they need to achieve their life-goals without shifting through bureaucracy. The Network Program for Adolescents Dealing with Multiple Problems attempts to bridge the gaps between young social service recipients and adult service providers. Its a highly personalized case oriented approach. Moreover, the program mobilizes social capital by putting the program participants (the teenagers in crisis) and adults (from different sectors in society) in meetings to expand the networks available to

Two moderators initiate the meetings and arrange training programs for the participants. For example the participants are asked to present themselves to the audience, find and how they would like to utilize their new contacts. The adults present, respond to the participants by asking questions, making suggestions, and offering information. Therefore, the established members in society offer their expertise for a short period, allowing disenfranchised participants to engage with adult networks and information in an informal ways. Both sides take each other serious. However, the program does not seek to establish a formal mentoring relationship. The primary goal of the program is to A. utilize social capital and B. build the latter for the participants by bypassing bureaucratic training programs to introduce them directly to the men and woman who can help them navigate the job market.

By training participants to identify their own solutions to their problems, th program facilitates a bottom-up approach to public service. Therefore, the program tries to activate self-expertise which also represents one of core values identified by the program. The program works outside regular government institutions to mobile the industrial and commercial job markets to assist young people in need, giving program beneficiaries access to private sector opportunities they might otherwise never find.

In general, the meetings cater three to five participants. The majority of participants attend only one meeting. To date, this project has served 71 young people in 15 meetings since April 2005. 60% of whom have subsequently returned to school or joined the labor market. 43 adults, the majority working in industry or commerce, and the others from the fields of public administration, education, health and politics have offered their advice. The program is funded through subsidies of various government subsidies of around EUR 140,000

The founders of the project (e.g. Clara Pels; Henny Werter) are enthusiastic as the MAP Project has been able to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaboration between organizations from different domains. Yet they also note that the programs informal nature is also its greatest weakness. Its very hard to truly measure the effects of the program.

Posted by Alexander Schellong at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Together with Timothy Huerta, Texas Tech University, and Jennifer van Stelle, Stanford University, I have written a paper on "How do networkers network?". We conducted a study of participants at the annual conference of INSNA (International Network of Social Network Analysts) to understand how young researchers are introduced into the community of senior researchers. The paper is work in progress at the moment and we would like to hear your comments, especially on our methodology.

You can find the paper in our working paper series (Working Paper # PNG07-005) and an abstract here:

This study was conceived during the 2005 INSNA conference by attendees who were interested in the evolving patterns of relationships among social network academics and consultants, and in how junior researchers were being integrated into the existing community. The study was also intended as a session- and space-planning aid for the 2006 conference organizers. Specifically, this paper describes a study of networking among social network professionals who attended the 2005 INSNA (International Network for Social Network Analysis) “Sunbelt” Conference. The attendees were asked to respond to two rounds of surveys regarding their experiences. We obtained data on existing and new ties in the first round of the survey, and tracked the maintenance or decay of those ties in the second round (approximately nine months later). We employ homophily arguments as well as theories of status and career/life cycle to determine what factors led to the establishment of ties from interactions at the conference. We consider the content of the new ties in addition to the above-mentioned theories to understand why such ties decayed or were maintained in the post-conference period. As well as applying the results of this study to the understanding of social network dynamics, we hope our findings will further the integration of new members into the existing community and enhance the session-scheduling and space-utilization aspects of conference planning.

Posted by Ines Mergel at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Last week Wayne E. Baker of the University of Michigan spoke on "Social Capital and Generalized Reciprocity". This is a belated entry to request reactions to the talk and topic. Here is the abstract he provided for the talk:

"Reciprocity is a human universal. It is the engine of social capital in groups, organizations, and communities. I present results from three pilot studies of generalized reciprocity in organizational settings. Using the Reciprocity Ring™ to collect data on generalized reciprocity, I explore three topics: network evolution, values and positive mood, and the role of pre-existing networks."

Let me briefly elaborate. The key question about reciprocity explored in the talk was why A helps B given that B may not be in a position to help A in the future. Prof. Baker has developed a particular research paradigm (the “Reciprocity Ring”_, in which a group is told to ask for and give help (on anything), where the empirical puzzle is what drives some people to be more helpful than others. In any case, if you were at the talk and reactions to his presentation, or if you had comments about the drivers of “generalized reciprocity,” so defined, please comment here.

Posted by David Lazer at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)