1 / 7

Assignment 2: remarks

Assignment 2: remarks. FIRST PART Please don’t make a division of labor so blatantly obvious ! 1.1 recode - don't just delete everything that looks suspicious ! - what about reconstructing data for the ones that did not answer questions ? 1.2 drawing

zarola
Download Presentation

Assignment 2: remarks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Assignment 2: remarks FIRST PART Pleasedon’tmake a division of laborsoblatantlyobvious! 1.1 recode - don'tjustdeleteeverythingthatlookssuspicious! - whataboutreconstructing data for the onesthatdid not answerquestions? 1.2 drawing - a density of 0.25 does not meanthat one fourth of allpossibleconnectionsexist in a valuedgraph! 1.3 predict the classes, usecliques (orclans, orsomethingelse) - do predictsomething, don'tjust talk aboutit - "youcanseethreecliques" : definethem - densityaround 25%: be precise in whatthismeans! - choosing the kind of cliqueyouuse: be specific, explainwhyyouchoosewhatyouchoose, and (to makeitreallygood) consider to whatextentyourfindingsdepend on your choice. It is a goodthing to show severaloptions, not just "thisis the one". - You ARE allowed to saysomething of the kind "based on the graph, the threecliques we expect to findare ..." - Or, try a "sneakpeek" by using the attribute COURSETYPE in yourgraph. Thiswilltellyousomethingabouthowlikelyitisthatyouaregoing to find the cliques/coursesconnectionback. - comeup with a conclusion: doesitwork? why (not)? - Notethat one of the implicationsisthatincluding COURSETYPE as a controlvariablemightmakesomesense

  2. (continued) 2.1 check data // 2.2 aboutyou / position / resource data - refer to the literature about the scales that I suggested - don't present everything as if it is all clear-cut: it (usually) isn't, certainly not here - cliques, clans, factions, k-scores, something else?? - the aboutyou works reasonably well (either 3 or 4 dimensions / if you stretch it then you could argue 6 even). - the position and resource data don't work so well, especially the resource data. However, your results can be dependent on which items you include. Also, it helps to have a look at the literature (you could have found some pointers as to which professions typically go together, for instance). Consider: emotional, instrumental, informational and appraisal support for the resource generator. And: highest position accessed, range of positions accessed, and number of positions accessed. - Also: note that the position data and resource data are binary items which is actually not allowed or at least often not a good idea in factor analysis - Don't just say "doesn't work". Give it a fair try. - in the resource items, several had little or no variance and needed to be excluded - what to do (later) when you find that the scale that should measure opinion leadership is a different one from the one that you find (as is the case here) - Even if the scale values do not work, you might argue that for instance simply adding the number of contacts is a measurement of something. And that did work reasonably well for both the position generator and the resource generator - When rotating, start by using oblique rotation

  3. “We obviously see 1/3/4 cliques here”

  4. Screeplot of the [aboutyou] variables … How many dimensions are there? 3? 4? 6? Consider the theoretical answer Check which interprets easiest

  5. A2 - SECOND PART - introduction: start with a problem or interesting finding, not with data - don't make your main question too broad ("How can social network characteristics be connected to personal characteristics?") - if you symmetrize: explain how and why! Mention at least something about the symmetry issue. Does it occur often that A rates B differently than vice versa? - Don't use data to derive your hypotheses. You are going to test your hypotheses on your data. You cannot use it as a source for hypotheses and then test these hypotheses on the same data. - Use parallels, but wisely. You cannot make the argument stick that weak ties are better for access to money based solely on a reference to Granovetter. - If you consider structural holes having an effect on something, you have to explain why you use which kind of measurement (effective size, efficiency, constraint, hierarchy) - When people are considered to be an opinion leader the network size is expected to be larger than an average person. Huh? Please be as precise as possible. - the theory parts should not be just copies of the slides - Do not make Hypotheses that are each other’s mirror image. In this case, you just do not have a hypothesis. - it is hard to find significant results: the group is a bit small for that. Still: some effort in trying to do the data justice is in order. Try subgroups, try to leave out those who did not pay much attention, etc. Also: even though the data might show you no significant effects, everything leading up to your analyses should not suffer from that. - assumptions of the analyses: check them (BTW don't just say you did) - how about outliers? Especially in small data sets, the chances of an outlier are serious. Or analyses on parts of the data? - in a real paper, you don't show SPSS output, but prepare a separate regression table (now not considered in grading) - Note: you can be unlucky, if you for instance choose the completely wrong setup for a hypothesis, or if you use a wrong kind of analysis

  6. Please make an appointment (with me) if you want detailed feedbackGrading: comparison of originality of arguments, correctness of used methods and answer, relevant references to the literature, level of detail and care-intensity.

  7. EXAM (0zm05 and 0em15) • All the material that is online for your course (slides, papers, etc), except for everything labeled “extra” (note: this includes the Bekkers-papers also for 0zm05) • Paper and pencil, 90 minutes • First multiple choice (ask around) • Several open questions, possibly also an essay question

More Related