在调查研究中

S. Sattler, M. Diewald
{"title":"在调查研究中","authors":"S. Sattler, M. Diewald","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1358760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring ego-centered networks is an especially time-expensive endeavor. However, to be included in multi-thematic surveys, parsimony is needed instead of following a maximizing strategy. Therefore, one pressing questions is, whether and which type of parsimonious data collection produces what losses of information. We address these questions by comparing three different, but closely related operationalizations of ego-centered networks in three different surveys: the German Socio-Economic Panel Study as a multi-thematic large-scale survey, IDUN as a small study designed as a single-purpose instrument to measure egocentered networks in great detail, and the \"Minipanel\" as something in between these two. Different setup parameters are the number and type of name generators and descriptors of alteri and a numerical limitation of naming ties. We look specifically whether there are effects on the size of the networks, the composition of networks, and the sociostructural differences with regard to availability of positive aspects of social networks, especially different types of social support. Additionally, we examine the differences between effects of network variables on perceived satisfaction in the surveys. Among others, and above the highly expectable differences in network size, we find an effect of different operationalizations on the network composition. Compared to IDUN, GSOEP produces a considerable overestimation of family ties and a considerable underestimation of relations stemming from school, vocational training and leisure time. We show that specific strategies of parsimony not only lead to losses of information and distortions of network characteristics but can lead in addition to different conclusions about the availability of social capital.","PeriodicalId":343564,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Networks","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Costs and Benefits of Parsimony - Measuring Egocentric Social Networks and Social Support in Survey Research [Kosten und Nutzen der Sparsamkeit - Zur Erhebung sozialer Netzwerke und sozialer Unterstuetzungspotentiale in der Umfrageforschung]\",\"authors\":\"S. Sattler, M. Diewald\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1358760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Measuring ego-centered networks is an especially time-expensive endeavor. However, to be included in multi-thematic surveys, parsimony is needed instead of following a maximizing strategy. Therefore, one pressing questions is, whether and which type of parsimonious data collection produces what losses of information. We address these questions by comparing three different, but closely related operationalizations of ego-centered networks in three different surveys: the German Socio-Economic Panel Study as a multi-thematic large-scale survey, IDUN as a small study designed as a single-purpose instrument to measure egocentered networks in great detail, and the \\\"Minipanel\\\" as something in between these two. Different setup parameters are the number and type of name generators and descriptors of alteri and a numerical limitation of naming ties. We look specifically whether there are effects on the size of the networks, the composition of networks, and the sociostructural differences with regard to availability of positive aspects of social networks, especially different types of social support. Additionally, we examine the differences between effects of network variables on perceived satisfaction in the surveys. Among others, and above the highly expectable differences in network size, we find an effect of different operationalizations on the network composition. Compared to IDUN, GSOEP produces a considerable overestimation of family ties and a considerable underestimation of relations stemming from school, vocational training and leisure time. We show that specific strategies of parsimony not only lead to losses of information and distortions of network characteristics but can lead in addition to different conclusions about the availability of social capital.\",\"PeriodicalId\":343564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics of Networks\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics of Networks\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1358760\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1358760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

衡量以自我为中心的网络是一项特别耗时的努力。然而,要纳入多主题调查,就需要节俭,而不是遵循最大化战略。因此,一个紧迫的问题是,是否以及哪种类型的数据收集会造成什么样的信息损失。我们通过比较三种不同但密切相关的自我中心网络在三种不同调查中的运作方式来解决这些问题:德国社会经济小组研究是一项多主题的大规模调查,IDUN是一项小型研究,旨在详细测量以自我为中心的网络,而“迷你小组”是介于两者之间的东西。不同的设置参数是名称生成器和描述符的数量和类型,以及命名关系的数量限制。我们特别关注的是,在社交网络的积极方面,尤其是不同类型的社会支持方面,是否会对网络的规模、网络的构成以及社会结构差异产生影响。此外,我们在调查中检查网络变量对感知满意度的影响之间的差异。除此之外,在网络大小的高度可预期的差异之上,我们发现不同的操作方式对网络组成的影响。与IDUN相比,GSOEP大大高估了家庭关系,大大低估了源于学校、职业培训和休闲时间的关系。我们表明,特定的节俭策略不仅会导致信息的损失和网络特征的扭曲,而且还会导致关于社会资本可用性的不同结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Costs and Benefits of Parsimony - Measuring Egocentric Social Networks and Social Support in Survey Research [Kosten und Nutzen der Sparsamkeit - Zur Erhebung sozialer Netzwerke und sozialer Unterstuetzungspotentiale in der Umfrageforschung]
Measuring ego-centered networks is an especially time-expensive endeavor. However, to be included in multi-thematic surveys, parsimony is needed instead of following a maximizing strategy. Therefore, one pressing questions is, whether and which type of parsimonious data collection produces what losses of information. We address these questions by comparing three different, but closely related operationalizations of ego-centered networks in three different surveys: the German Socio-Economic Panel Study as a multi-thematic large-scale survey, IDUN as a small study designed as a single-purpose instrument to measure egocentered networks in great detail, and the "Minipanel" as something in between these two. Different setup parameters are the number and type of name generators and descriptors of alteri and a numerical limitation of naming ties. We look specifically whether there are effects on the size of the networks, the composition of networks, and the sociostructural differences with regard to availability of positive aspects of social networks, especially different types of social support. Additionally, we examine the differences between effects of network variables on perceived satisfaction in the surveys. Among others, and above the highly expectable differences in network size, we find an effect of different operationalizations on the network composition. Compared to IDUN, GSOEP produces a considerable overestimation of family ties and a considerable underestimation of relations stemming from school, vocational training and leisure time. We show that specific strategies of parsimony not only lead to losses of information and distortions of network characteristics but can lead in addition to different conclusions about the availability of social capital.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信