Residential mobility and the spatial dispersion of personal networks: Effects on social support

Using a representative national sample of personal networks, this article explores how the spatial dispersion of networks, residential mobility and social support are linked. Three issues will be addressed here. Firstly, how is the spatial dispersion of personal networks related to individuals’ social characteristics, network composition and residential mobility? Secondly, how do the spatial dispersion of networks, residential mobility and their combined effect influence the number and (thirdly) the structure of emotional support ties? Results showed that the extent of the support was affected neither by the geographical distribution of the networks nor by residential mobility. Living far from one's birthplace, however, exerted two distinct, and opposite effects on the support network structure. On the one hand, mobility led to high spatial dispersion of personal contacts, which in turn favored a sparsely knit network centered around the mobile individual. On the other hand, by controlling for the effect of distance between the contacts, we found that individuals that cited long-distance ties tended to be part of more transitive support networks than those that cited local ties. We interpreted the latter effect as evidence that transitive ties may survive greater spatial distances than intransitive ones. These findings are discussed in view of spatial mobility and social network research.     

Random errors in egocentric networks

The systematic errors that are induced by a combination of human memory limitations and common survey design and implementation have long been studied in the context of egocentric networks. Despite this, little if any work exists in the area of random error analysis on these same networks; this paper offers a perspective on the effects of random errors on egonet analysis, as well as the effects of using egonet measures as independent predictors in linear models. We explore the effects of false-positive and false-negative error in egocentric networks on both standard network measures and on linear models through simulation analysis on a ground truth egocentric network sample based on facebook-friendships. Results show that 5–20% error rates, which are consistent with error rates known to occur in ego network data, can cause serious misestimation of network properties and regression parameters.     

Producing public goods in networks: Some effects of social comparison and endogenous network change

As actors participate in the production of public goods, processes of social comparison may affect the decisions about the individual contributions as well as the endogenously changing structure of an underlying social network. This leads to the transformation of an ordinary n-player Prisoner's Dilemma of collective action into an n-player coordination game. The paper uses agent-based simulations to trace the formation of public goods while varying network characteristics, such as density, segregation, or the strength of relationships. Additionally, the usage of both a forward- and a backward-looking agent model shows possible implications of different assumptions about the actors’ decision making.     

On Youth＇s Value Structure Roots of the Rise of Social Network Sites

青年价值结构反映了青年在价值观念变迁中现代化维度和后现代化维度中的转变程度。目前社交网站覆盖人数众多,用户以高学历、年轻化、城市分布规律化和交际现实性为主要特点。社交网站发展与青年价值结构变迁具有内在的密切关联。社交网站技术引进国内却丧失了原有的“意义图景”,说明我国青年在价值理性方面的缺失和对工具理性的追逐：接受社交网站说明“熟人社会”结构在青年社交活动中仍然延续．社交网站也能为青年实现个人成就提供可能性：社交网站馈赠型社会化模式有效改进了青年“相对被剥夺感”严重、幸福感低迷的现状,这是社交网站进一步发展壮大的功能基础。     

社交网站兴起与青年价值结构分析

青年价值结构反映了青年在价值观念变迁中现代化维度和后现代化维度中的转变程度。目前社交网站覆盖人数众多,用户以高学历、年轻化、城市分布规律化和交际现实性为主要特点。社交网站发展与青年价值结构变迁具有内在的密切关联。社交网站技术引进国内却丧失了原有的“意义图景”,说明我国青年在价值理性方面的缺失和对工具理性的追逐：接受社交网站说明“熟人社会”结构在青年社交活动中仍然延续．社交网站也能为青年实现个人成就提供可能性：社交网站馈赠型社会化模式有效改进了青年“相对被剥夺感”严重、幸福感低迷的现状,这是社交网站进一步发展壮大的功能基础。     

立体赋权：农村留守儿童社会支持网络的建构

随着城市化进程的加快,农村剩余劳动力大量涌入城市,产生了留守儿童这一新的群体,其社会支持问题El益突出,引起社会各界广泛的关注。厦门“凤凰花助飞体验营”服务项目借助增权视角社会工作理论,在实践中探索出建构留守儿童社会支持网络的路径：增强个体自我效能感,提升建构支持的内在能力;集体中参与,多中心地构建近距离的社会支持;倡导创造建构社会支持网络的良好社会与制度环境。     

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.     

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Less than human: a qualitative study into the experience of parents involved in the child protection system

This paper reports on the findings from a qualitative study into the experiences of parents who were involved in the English child protection system in 2013. Seventeen in‐depth interviews were conducted involving 19 parents and/or partners, and a framework approach was used to analyse the data. There were positive experiences of individual social workers and some positive experiences of the child protection system. However, the overwhelming theme of the parents' experiences was that the system was uncaring, inflexible and for some harmful to both themselves and their children. Despite being included in the child protection process, parents felt they were not afforded the same rights as a participant, as a decision‐maker or as a partner in seeking to improve the situation. The threat of consequences silenced parents who felt unable to speak out or challenge the things they disagreed with or coerced others into signing agreements they did not agree to. Such experiences related to a sense that they were being treated as ‘less than human’. These findings are considered within the context of recent reforms within the English child protection system.     

Family court ordered “reunification therapy:” junk science in the guise of helping parent/child relationships?

This Commentary addresses the issue of the ethics of mental health professionals recommending or doing what family courts and some others are calling “Reunification Therapy.” This is often being recommended and used across the country, and ordered by family courts, as if it has a scientific basis for successful therapy between an estranged parent and a child who does not wish to re-engage with that parent, often where the child has alleged the parent has abused them physically, sexually, or psychologically. This Commentary challenges the ethics and validity of such approaches and programs.