Social networks play a key role in shaping human behavior and outcomes. Research shows that individuals influence and are influenced by their social networks. Networks can spread emotions and behaviors through interconnection. Understanding social networks could inform public policy by revealing how small interventions may have large effects through network transmission. Further research is needed to better understand how values interact with different types of social networks and how to effectively impact networks to drive social change.
3. Social Networks – why are
they important?
“If Social capital is the currency of the
Big Society then social networks hold
the reserves of that currency.”
RSA – Connected Communities
4. What are Social Networks?
“A social structure that is neither individualistic nor holistic, but fundamentally relational.”
RSA – Connected Communities Report 2010
“Social networks shape virtually shape virtually every aspect of our lives. How we feel, whom we marry, whether we
fall ill, how much money we make, and whether we vote – everything hinges on what others around us are doing
thinking and feeling”.
Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler – Connected 2009
“The concept of social capital is currently the focus of an explosion of interest in the research and policy
community. It refers to social networks, informal structures and norms that facilitate individual and collective
action. This….interest is driven by the growing evidence of how social capital impacts on economic growth,
health crime and even the effectiveness of governments”
David Halpern – Institute of Government, Author of “Social Capital” 2005
“...we begin by making a distinction between two concepts that are often conflated: social networks and social
capital. We do this in order to highlight a distinct property of social networks – that they can be visualised. Social
network analysis can inform the optimal use of social goods (community assets which are publicly available but
scarce and contested).
RSA – Connected Communities Report 2010
“Yet it remains unclear to what extent the government’s vision is underpinned by deeper thinking about motivation,
which is informed by emerging knowledge of both behavioural economics (and how policy can ‘nudge’ citizens
to make different choices) and the role that networks can play....to be effective, the policy framework for the
twenty-first century must not only draw on the new insights that behavioural economics gives us, but also needs
to be underpinned by an understanding between this and how networks influence our choices and how these
change over time. Indeed, the impact of networks is potentially considerably greater than that of ‘nudge’. This
makes creating good policy harder while offering huge potential for change.”
Paul Ormerod – NSquared – RSA - 2010
5. Why this is important to TCC?
•Is a recognised field of social science research and
public policy debate
•Likely to be relevant to Big Society debates
•Is part of TCC’s recent work
• Community Communicators
• Health champions
•Is part of TCC’s developing offer:
• Values modes
• Communications: world views/narratives/framing
• Social network mapping
6. Social Network Research: Christakis and Fowler
• Humans are genetically predisposed to connect socially with one
another.
• These interconnections often have positive consequences for
humanity.
• Indeed, altruism is a foundational imperative of social networks.
• Nevertheless, people can suffer negative consequences from such
networks.
• People influence their networks and are influenced by them in turn.
• Individuals in a network can spread emotions like happiness, misery
and loneliness to other members.
• Most people meet their life partners through their social networks.
• Because of interconnectivity, the things you say and do can affect
thousands of people whom you don’t even know.
• Networks exhibit numerous lifelike traits: intelligence, memory and
“self-replication," as well as a useful “self-annealing” capability.
• With its ubiquitous interconnectivity, humankind is like a “super
organism.”
7. Social Networks – Key elements and laws
• Intelligence – By themselves, ants are mindless creatures. But together, ants can create vast
colonies and accomplish complex tasks. Humans working in groups may also exhibit
intelligence that is superior to that of the individual members. Wikis are good examples.
• Memory – Networks remain intact and maintain their structure and culture even when
individual members leave.
• “Self-replicating” – Networks can last indefinitely, even when individual members sever their
connections.
• “Self-annealing” – Networks “close up around their gaps.” For example, during a fire, if one
person drops out of a bucket brigade, another will quickly take his or her place.
• Christakis and Fowler set out 5 rules of social networks
• Rule 1 – We shape our network. People constantly shape and reshape their social
networks.
• Rule 2 – Our network shapes us. Social networks change their members: Someone
with no friends lives differently from someone with many friends.
• Rule 3 – Our friends affect us. The people in your network influence you. Humans
use one another as role models.
• Rule 4 – Our friend’s friend’s affect us. Effects move from one network member to
the next in a “hyperdyadic spread.” For example, feuds result when one person
takes up another’s cause.
• Rule 5 – The Network has a life of its own. Networks develop lives of their own, similar
to the way a swarm of insects moves purposefully without a central directing
intelligence.
8. Social Network Research: Ormerod and the RSA
•Paul Ormerod’s research: there are three
main types of network:
• Random – random connections. Does
this sort of network really exist in real
life? Would need critical mass for
change.
• Scale-free – the Gladwell “hub”
network of mavens, connectors and
salespeople – Influencers work here
• Small-world – friend’s of friends – small
number of long-range connections –
probably needs critical mass
•Need initial Nudging (or perhaps steering)
then networks take over
9. Social Network Research: RSA Connected Communities
• RSA Connected Communities Research in New Cross and Bristol 2009/2010. Main
Research Findings
• A quarter of respondents could not name anyone in their social network
who they thought was a) good at bringing people together or b) could
help them contact someone with influence, power or responsibility to
change things locally.
• One in fifty of our respondents did not know anybody in their local area
that supported them or helped them to make changes in any way.
• ‘Familiar strangers’ like postmen and dustmen appear to be under-
utilised community resources; in our case study more people recognise
and find value in their postman than their local councillor.
• People who are relatively isolated are not making use of the
connections they have.
• Our geographic sense of what is central to a community is highly
misleading, and often conflicts with measures of network centrality.
• Community hubs, including pubs and sports clubs, are an important
aspect of community resilience and empowerment.
• People who value neighbourliness are more likely to have large social
networks.
10. Social Network Research: RSA Connected Communities
Policy
• Any public policy intervention benefits from an
understanding of social networks.
• Social network research is a relatively benign and
participatory form of research.
• Creating and visualising social networks increases
social reflexivity, which may help to foster pro-
social behaviour.
• Understanding patterns of connectivity and the
transmission of social values and behaviours offers
a new approach to policy making, in which small
interventions have the potential to make a big
impact through network effects.
11. Social Network Research: RSA Connected Communities
What does our research mean for the Big Society?
• ‘Big’ can be measured in terms of network size and shape to make the ‘Big
Society’ more tangible.
• We can use social network information to help identify community
organisers.
• Network information can direct strategies to promote participative
behaviour and volunteering.
• One of the most constructive ways to contribute to your ‘square mile’ is by
measuring the social networks it contains.
• Network perspectives can help to clarify what ‘efficiency’ means at a
local level
• Lessons from Community Policy and Practice
• An exclusively geographical conception of community is unhelpful.
• Recent policy emphasis on social capital and social assets needs to be
augmented through a more detailed study of social networks.
12. Social Networks – Key laws
Connected Communities sets out seven laws of social networks
• Law 1: Six Degrees of Separation, Three Degrees of Influence – similar to Rule 4 of
Connected. Whilst everyone in six people away from everyone else. Influence only runs
to three people
• Law 2: Birds of a Feather Flock Together. People tend to self-select like-minded people.
This is where values has a key role
• Law 3: Location, Location, Location. This is about people’s level of connection within the
network as well as how geographical ties are useful to understand. Mapping, networks,
values and geography could help with oblique interventions
• Law 4: Imitation Drives Contagion. – similar to Rule 3 of Connected. Social norms are
important. This tends to be visible things such as obesity rather than invisible things such
as Trust
• Law 5: It’s Not What You Know, it’s Who They Know. – similar to Rule 4 of Connected.
More argument for hyperdyadic spread.
• Law 6: Experimentation Gets Results. There is a lack of predictability, so experimentation
and the acceptance of failure makes sense. This is also the case for oblique
interventions.
• Law 7: Weak Ties Get You Working. This is bridging and linking social capital. One clear
piece of evidence, is that increasing these strengthens the resilience of communities, as
more people likely to be employed.
13. Social networks and values
"Networks and Values are absolutely important to the delivery of
social policy“ Paul Ormerod RSA Lecture 16/11/2010
• However this is still in its early days with deep values
confused with attitudes
• Christakis nor Connected Communities segmented their
networks except through some traditional
geodemographics
• TCC with its understanding of segmentation, would that
self-selecting social networks are likely to be often values
based . Values birds of a feather flock together
• Question – how would a values based approach fit in with
social networks?
14. Further research
• Types of social networks. We need to understand where these
operate?
• Can we use surveys in current projects to achieve this?
• Where do influencers or critical mass apply and what is the role of
values here?
• Ways to impact on different social networks: a mix of values,
influencers and critical mass?
• Differences between social networks and social norms?
• Understanding network inequalities from a demographic and
values base
• Collaboration with others working in the field: RSA plus their Social
Capital Innovation Network – launching 14 December at the RSA
