Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important

rac acac act tt t t This article considers which people talk about important matters, what people talk about when they discuss "important matters," and the implications of conversation topic for the interpretation of results arising from the General Social Survey (GSS) network instrument based on the "important matters" name generator. We show that half the people who report not talking about anything have nothing to talk about, whereas the others have no one to talk to. Secondly, we show that people tend to talk about things that many would regard as unimportant, for example, cloning of headless frogs, eating less red meat, and so on. Given this, the connection between characteristics of discussion networks and achievement of instrumental ends — for example, getting a job or enhancing social support — is tenuous. Finally, we show that there is substantial topic- alter dependency. This dependency suggests that many substantive findings reported about, for example, gender differences in network composition might be an artifact of the data-collection instrument. Micro-level topic-alter dependencies reflect macro-level associations between attributes, topics, and roles. Consequently, cross-cultural comparison of GSS network questions is problematic. Solutions for escaping these methodological dilemmas are proposed.

[1]  M. Greenacre,et al.  Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. , 1995 .

[2]  A. Guest,et al.  Social Ties at the Neighborhood Level , 1999 .

[3]  N. Milburn To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. , 1983 .

[4]  E. Durkheim Suicide: A Study in Sociology , 1897 .

[5]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[6]  Bruce C. Straits,et al.  Ego's important discussants or significant people: an experiment in varying the wording of personal network name generators , 2000, Soc. Networks.

[7]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Bruce H. Rankin,et al.  Neighborhood Poverty and the Social Isolation of Inner-City African American Families , 2000 .

[9]  Peter M. Blau,et al.  Interpersonal Choice and Networks in China , 1991 .

[10]  G. Moore Structural Determinants of Men's and Women's Personal Networks , 1990 .

[11]  Peter V. Marsden,et al.  Interpretation and interview context: examining the General Social Survey name generator using cognitive methods , 1999, Soc. Networks.

[12]  Yvette M. Alex‐Assensoh Race, Concentrated Poverty, Social Isolation, and Political Behavior , 1997 .

[13]  Danching Ruan,et al.  The content of the General Social Survey discussion networks : an exploration of General Social Survey discussion name generator in a Chinese context , 1998 .

[14]  Mart G.M. van der Poel,et al.  Delineating personal support networks , 1993 .