Determining Point-Centrality in Uncontrived Social Networks

Moxley, Robert L.; Moxley, Nancy F.

doi:10.2307/2786472

Cited by 40 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Closeness-based measures of point centrality have been developed by Bavelas (1950), Beauchamp (1965), Sabidussi (1966), Moxley and Moxley (1974) and Rogers (1974). The simplest and most natural of these measures is Sabidussi's (1966).…”

Section: P5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification

1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intuitive background for measures of structural centrality in social networks is reviewed aPzd existing measures are evaluated in terms of their consistency with intuitions and their interpretability.Three distinct intuitive conceptions of centrality are uncovered and existing measures are refined to embody these conceptions. Three measures are developed for each concept, one absolute and one relative measure of the ~entra~~t~~ of ~os~tio~ls in a network, and one relenting the degree of centralization of the entire network. The implications of these measures for the experimental study of small groups is examined.

show abstract

Section: P5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification

1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its communication structure, as defined on any of the aforementioned relations, reveals the location of individuals, groups, or clusters vis-a-vis one another. The "relative centrality" (Moxley and Moxley, 1974) of a unit indicates the amount of control that can be exercised over the flow of communication: central units receive and filter information, while marginals only receive. Further, one can predict that the more central units will be more committed to the reigning paradigm since it legitimates their research and rewards them for producing it.…”

Section: A "Marginal" Perspective On the Flo W Of Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the Field The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties

Chubin

1976

The Sociological Quarterly

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes the phenomenon of research specialization in science. The format consists of two sections. The first features a state-of-the-art review of evidence from so-called specialty case studies on definitions, measurement strategies, and representations of the relations in which small groups of researchers cohere. In the second section, a theoretical perspective on the development of specialties is formulated. This perspective incorporates demographic factors into the study of specialty structures and processes, and suggests in particular that core researchers derive innovations from the margins of their specialty. It is further hypothesized that both maintenance and realignment of social structures, i.e., communication and status configurations, depend on intellectual events that occur in the course of normal scientific progress. Finally, the notions of intellectual migration as a career research style and the prevalence of transient specialties lacking institutionalized bases are explored and recommended, among others, for empirical study. SPECIALIZATION Is THE HALLMARK of modern science. With the institutionalizationReprints of this article may be obtained by writing Daryl E. Chubin,

show abstract

“…First there are those who view a person as central in a social network to the extent that he or she is somehow close to everyone else in the network (Bavelas 1950;Katz 1953;Shaw 1954;Harary 1959;Faucheux and Moscovici 1960;Garrison 1960;Beauchamp 1965;Pitts 1965;Hubbell 1965;Mackenzie 1966;Sabidussi 1966;Bonacich 1972Bonacich , 1987Coleman 1973;Nieminen 1973Nieminen , 1974Moxley and Moxley 1974;Rogers 1974;Czepiel 1974;Kajitani and Maruyama 1976;Burt 1982;Mizruchi, Mariolis, Schwartz and Mintz 1986;Stephenson and Zelen 1989;Friedkin 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%