Understanding Community Ecology

through Network Theory/Analysis

J. Alison Bryant Department of Telecommunications

Indiana University, Bloomington

8 November 2004

Four Needs in Organizational Theory

1. to understand organizational evolution from the level of the community (e.g., Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985; Baum, 1996; G. R. Carroll & Hannan, 1999; DiMaggio, 1994; Ruef, 2000);

2. to more systematically understand the complex relationships within the community (Baum, 1996);

3. to incorporate network analysis in the study of community ecology (DiMaggio, 1994); and

4. advance our understanding of organization by constructing network theories of organization (Salancik, 1995)

The coevolution of an organizational community is

the evolution of the community’s network

structure of interactions/relationships

ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY

Gadget A

Gadget B

Gadget C

Thingy 1

Thingy 2

Thingy 3

POPULATION

Widget Y

Widget Z

ORGANIZATION Widget X

Community Ecology Basics•Subsumes population ecology and bridges to

environment – coevolution of populations of organizations

•Incorporates punctuated equilibrium model of change (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985)

•Open Environmental Space •Symbiosis and Commensalism

–symbiotic relationship (+,+);–commensalistic relationships:

• full mutualism (+,+)• partial mutualism (+,0)• neutrality (0,0)• predatory competition (+,-)• partial competition (-,0) • full competition (-,-)

• The purpose of the community is to buffer populations from the environment. (Hawley, 1950;1982; Barnett, 1994)

Community Ecology through Network Theory/Analysis

• The whole, not just the part• The structure of the network can

elucidate the current “fitness” [or “effectiveness”] of the community?

• Can look @ how structures of relationships overtime enable collective, as well as individual, interests

• Better able to deal with multiple types of relationships

Networks Perspective on Community Ecology

• The creation, maintenance, and dissolution of relationships within the community (network) is the key mechanism by which communities emerge, evolve, and collapse –∆ in network structure explains ∆ in community fitness

• Articulation of community ecology concepts in network terms:–Variation, Selection, & Retention –Density Dependence–Open Environmental Space–Punctuated Equilibrium–Symbiotic and Commensalistic Relationships

Symbiosis and Commensalism–symbiotic relationship (+,+);–commensalistic relationships:

• full mutualism (+,+)

• partial mutualism (+,0)

• neutrality (0,0)

• predatory competition (+,-)

• partial competition (-,0)

• full competition (-,-) • An “effective” network will buffer populations from the environment.

Phases of Community Coevolution

Emergence

Maintenance

Self-Sufficiency

Transformation

Dissolution

An example…

The Children’s Television Community

Who? Educational Content CreatorsEntertainment Content Creators Content Programmers  Toy Companies Advertisers Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Organizations  

When? 1953-2002Where? United States

How? & Why?

ENVIRONMENT

Content ProgrammersGovernmental Bodies

COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION

POPULATIONEducational Content

Creators

A Very Brief History of Children’s TV

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

MethodologyData Collection:

1. In-depth Interviews2. Network Data Questionnaire3. Historical Records

Participants:20 key players in each population over the past 50 years, e.g., Creators of Sesame Street and Children’s Television Workshop Dir. of Research,Viacom Media/former Dir. of Research, Nick Jr./Nickelodeon President, Mediascope/former VP for Programming, ABC Family & Fox Family Founder, Action for Children’s Television Former Director of Research, Children’s Television Workshop Director, Center for Media Education President, DIC Entertainment

Data Coding:

560 Network Ties (10 Time Periods, 8x8 Network Matrices)

Key Environmental Events

 Educational

Content Creators

Entertainment Content Creators

Content Programmers

Toy Tie-In Companies

AdvertisersGovernmental

BodiesAdvocacy Groups

Philanthropic Organizations

Educational Content Creators

relationship to

               

Entertainment Content Creators

relationship to

               

Content Programmersrelationship to

               

Toy Tie-In Companies

relationship to

               

Advertisersrelationship to

               

Governmental Bodies

relationship to

               

Advocacy Groups

relationship to

               

Philanthropic Organizationsrelationship to

               

 

Environmental Events in the History of the Children’s TV

CommunityPublic Broadcasting Act of 1967 1963-1967

Penetration of Cable 1983-1987

Children’s Television Act of 1990 1988-1992

Three-Hour Rule (Addendum to CTA in 1996)

1993-1997

Network Evolution

OR...

Limitations/Future Directions

Future Directions:• Further data collection (children’s media community and other communities)• More multilevel, emergent analysis

Limitations:Data Collection

• One case study• Network Data Questionnaire• Macro-level Events

Data Analysis• Small networks• Need to use dynamic network analysis