Dave Griffiths and Paul Lambert University of Stirling 18 th March 2012 Sunbelt Conference Redondo Beach CA Work for this paper is supported by the ESRC as part of the project Social Networks and Occupational Structure see ID: 406033
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Strong and weak ties as predictors of oc..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Strong and weak ties as predictors of occupational position
Dave Griffiths and Paul LambertUniversity of Stirling18th March 2012Sunbelt Conference, Redondo Beach CA.
Work for this paper is supported by the ESRC as part of the project ‘Social Networks and Occupational Structure’, see http://www.camsis.stir.ac.uk/sonocs/Slide2
Theories
Social interaction: stratification effects can be demonstrated (Chan, 2010; Laumann & Guttman, 1966; Prandy, 1990; Stewart, Prandy
& Blackburn, 1973; Stewart, Prandy, & Blackburn, 1980)Strong and weak ties: Strong ties provide support, weak ties provide substance (Grannovetter 1973, 1983)
Social capital: access to beneficial resources is beneficial in itself (c.f. Lin & Erickson 2008)Occupational differentiation: more detail occupational distinctions provide more robust measures (Jonsson et al. 2009)Slide3
Aims
Do more advantaged occupations have increased access to more beneficial resources?Do Position Generators accurately measure accesses to resourcesDoes composition of strong and weak ties matter?Slide4
Methodology
BHPS 1991-2008Individuals linked to all they are related to, named as a friend or lived with.Individuals placed within networks of all the alters of their alters, snowballed to include all possible friends of friends of friends of friends30k individuals grouped into 9k networksSlide5
Wave 1: Ego (1) lives with parents (2 & 3) and sibling (4)
Wave 3: Ego lives with three friends (5, 6 & 7)Wave 5: Ego lives with partner (8)Wave 7: Ego and partner move in with partner’s parents (9 & 10)Wave 15: Ego shares house with three others (11, 12 & 13)
EgoLives with parents in 1991
Lives with friends in 1993
Lives with partner
in 1995 (away from hometown)
They
move into partner’s parents in 1997 (returning to hometown)
They split up and ego lives in shared house in 2005
This produces a network of 13 individuals in the survey who have lived with the same ego. There would be 18 opportunities for people to name a best friend, possibly creating a network of 31 individuals.
If the sibling has a similar pattern, we could have 22 individuals linkable to the Wave 1 household, and 32 friends. With parent’s (10) friends, this is a network of 64 people.Slide6Slide7Slide8
Strong ties
Parent - childGrandparent - grandchildSibling - siblingSpouse - spouseWeak
ties
include ego to:Best friends and housematesS
pouse’s friends and family
Former housemates
Spouse’s former housemates
Son’s spouses former housemates
Friends of son’s spouses former housematesSlide9
Jobs held
Most recent job
CAMSIS
Guveli
%
male
University teaching professionals
1,821
1,076
82.3
2
52.3%
Primary and middle school teachers
4,137
1,036
65.5
4
13.0%
Other managers and administrators n.e.c.
3,865
1,560
63.5
1
71.3%Other secretaries, personal assistants6,3001,88062.353.2%Managers and proprietors in service industries7,6152,63362.3356.3%Accounts and wages clerks, book-keepers8,8722,28359.5535.6%Farm owners and managers2,2661,09458.3877.6%Counter clerks and cashiers4,1831,19055.4530.7%Nurses6,8652,07753.9410.2%Clerks (n.e.c.)12,1973,93752.4530.4%Sales assistants19,2005,66351.9529.3%Other childcare and related occupations3,8821,12351.552.0%Care assistants and attendants of older people5,1861,59446.7512.2%Chefs, cooks, hotel supervisors3,7941,21543.5644.5%Carpenters and joiners3,1351,09842.3699.1%Metal working production and maintenance4,2271,69341.5697.5%Storekeepers, warehousemen/women4,54385837.5582.5%Cleaners, domestics12,4683,78436.4719.2%Bar staff3,6811,16136.0541.0%Drivers of road goods vehicles5,7051,99534.5795.8%
20 most common occupations
Source: BHPS 1991-2007Slide10
%
of all BHPS networks with at least one…
University teaching professionals
13.4%
Primary and middle school teachers
12.4%
Other managers and administrators n.e.c.
16.7%
Other secretaries, personal assistants
21.9%
Managers and proprietors in service industries
26.0%
Accounts and wages clerks, book-keepers
22.6%
Farm owners and managers
8.8%
Counter clerks and cashiers
13.3%
Nurses
21.3%
Clerks (n.e.c.)
32.3%
Sales
assistants44.8%Other childcare and related occupations13.7%Care assistants and attendants of older people17.3%Chefs, cooks, hotel supervisors13.7%Carpenters and joiners12.2%Metal working production and maintenance16.7%Storekeepers, warehousemen/women11.9%Cleaners, domestics32.4%Bar staff13.7%Drivers of road goods vehicles19.4%Slide11
% of networks linking to
% of those with a link to occ. from all who have CAMSIS…
..over 65
..below 35
Diff.
University teaching professionals
13.4%
22.3%
7.1%
15.2%
Primary and middle school teachers
12.4%
20.3%
6.4%
13.9%
Other managers and administrators n.e.c.
16.7%
17.6%
9.8%
7.8%
Other secretaries, personal assistants
21.9%
21.5%
14.2%7.3%Managers and proprietors in service industries26.0%23.7%18.4%5.3%Accounts and wages clerks, book-keepers22.6%21.5%14.7%6.8%Farm owners and managers8.8%9.0%7.0%2.0%Counter clerks and cashiers13.3%11.9%9.0%2.9%Nurses21.3%20.0%14.9%5.1%Clerks (n.e.c.)32.3%28.2%22.9%5.3%Sales assistants44.8%36.5%36.8%-0.3%Other childcare and related occupations13.7%10.5%11.0%-0.5%Care assistants and attendants of older people17.3%11.4%16.2%-4.8%Chefs, cooks, hotel supervisors13.7%9.9%11.6%-1.7%Carpenters and joiners12.2%8.6%10.0%-1.4%Metal working production and maintenance16.7%12.5%13.5%-1.0%Storekeepers, warehousemen/women11.9%8.3%10.5%-2.2%Cleaners, domestics32.4%22.8%33.4%-10.6%Bar staff13.7%11.7%10.3%1.4%Drivers of road goods vehicles19.4%12.2%23.5%-11.3%Slide12Slide13
Public private divide
Secretaries
IT/software/ computer experts
educationalistsLaboratory workerHealthcare workers
Managers
PR/ advertising
artists
Farm workers
No strong patterns – plenty of dyads with an obvious working relationship, but linking together unrelated areas (i.e., clothes makers and coal miners linking together)
All ties
Social workersSlide14
Weak ties
(mostly friendship or distant hhld connections)Slide15
Strong ties
(mostly close family/ household sharers)Slide16
mean CAMSIS
most recent job
Ever held
job
%
of people with any link
to category
Education
71.6
4.2%
4.7%
31.0%
Healthcare
56.3
4.7%
5.6%
42.6%
Law
77.4
0.6%
0.7%
8.1%
Financial services
71.31.3%1.9%20.3%Builders42.25.7%7.2%52.9%Car mechanics43.30.9%1.4%17.0%Slide17Slide18Slide19
Weak tie
Strong tieSame occupation86.7%13.3%
Different occupation84.0%16.0%
CAMSIS
Weak ties
Strong ties
.
38
.
58
Weak ties
.
46
Correlation between most recent CAMSIS score and the mean of strong and weak ties
Source: BHPS 1991-2008
Percentage of within occupation connections attributable to strong and weak ties.
Source: BHPS 1991-2008Slide20
Conclusions
Position Generators tend to lead to grouping together of occupations with similar stratification positions, but:Can elide nuanced differences between some occupationsPossibly due to the need to focus on selected common occupationsOther forms of network summary may better reflect social distances than PG approachDifferences between strong and weak ties can be observed in patterns of common connections between occupations, with weaker ties dispersed more widely and structurally less shaped by stratification position
Little difference between strong and weak ties in strength of relation between own and alter occupation: both reflect the same overall trend for homophilySlide21
Bibliography
Chan, T. W. (2010). The social status scale: Its construction and properties. In T. W. Chan (Ed.), Social Status and Cultural Consumption (pp. 28-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.Granovetter, M. (1983) The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
Jonsson, J.O., Grusky, D.B., Di Carlo, M., Pollak, R., & Brinton, M.C. (2009) Microclass Mobility: Social Reproduction in Four Countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 977-1036.Laumann, E. O., & Guttman, L. (1966). The relative associational contiguity of occupations in an urban setting. American Sociological Review, 31
, 169-178.Lin, N., & Erickson, B. (2008) Social Capital: An International Research Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Prandy, K. (1990). The Revised Cambridge Scale of Occupations. Sociology-the Journal of the British Sociological Association, 24(4), 629-655.Stewart, A., Prandy, K., & Blackburn, R. M. (1973). Measuring the Class Structure. Nature.
Stewart, A.,
Prandy
, K., & Blackburn, R. M. (1980).
Social Stratification and Occupations
. London: MacMillan.