Advertisement

Opinion Dynamics in Gendered Social Networks: An Examination of Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan

  • Thomas W. Moore
  • Patrick D. Finley
  • Ryan J. Hammer
  • Robert J. Glass
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7227)

Abstract

International forces in Afghanistan have experienced difficulties in developing constructive engagements with the Afghan population, an experience familiar to a wide range of international agencies working in underdeveloped and developing nations around the world. Recently, forces have begun deploying Female Engagement Teams, female military units who engage directly with women in occupied communities, resulting inmore positive relationships with those communities as a whole. In this paper, we explore the hypothesis that the structure of community-based social networks strongly contributes to the effectiveness of the Female Engagement Team strategy, specifically considering gender-based differences in network community structure. We find that the ability to address both female and male network components provides a superior ability to affect opinions in the network, and can provide an effective means of counteracting influences from opposition forces.

Keywords

Social Network Opinion Dynamics Female Community Exponential Random Graph Model Opposition Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Biddle, S., Christia, F., Their, A.: Defining success in Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs 89, 48–51 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peck, S.R.: PRTs: Improving or undermining the security for NGOs and PVOs in Afghanistan. DTIC Document (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pottinger, M., Jilani, H., Russo, C.: Half-Hearted: Trying to Win Afghanistan without Afghan Women. Small Wars Journal (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehra, S.: Equal Opportunity Counterinsurgency: The Importance of Afghan Women in U.S. Counterinsurgency Operations (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krackhardt, D., Kilduff, M.: Friendship Patterns and Culture: The Control of Organizational Diversity. American Anthropologist 92, 142–154 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Valente, T.W.: Social network influences on adolescent substance use: An introduction. Connections 25, 11–16 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lampe, C., Ellison, N., Steinfield, C.: A Face (book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 167–170 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moody, J.: Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology 107, 679–716 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodreau, S.M., Kitts, J.A., Morris, M.: Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography 46, 103–125 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 415–444 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cartwright, D., Harary, F.: Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider’s Theory. Psychological Review 63 (1956)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belle, D.: Gender Differences in Childern’s Social Networks and Supports. Children’s social networks and social supports. John Wiley and Sons (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lincoln, J.R., Miller, J.: Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 181–199 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas W. Moore
    • 1
  • Patrick D. Finley
    • 1
  • Ryan J. Hammer
    • 1
  • Robert J. Glass
    • 1
  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations