Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important Matters: Conversation Topics and Network Structure

By P. Bearman, P. Parigi. 2004

273 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/24a0b6bbf7439f85ca40f648c62bd42178fb1795

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. Alexandra Marin
2. Claude S. Fischer
3. Keith N. Hampton
4. Benjamin Cornwell
5. B. Needham
6. Rachel S. Yeung
7. Bonnie J. Leadbeater

In Health

1. Benjamin Cornwell
2. Alexandra Marin
3. David E. Eagle
4. Claude S. Fischer
5. Keith N. Hampton
6. C. Hybels
7. Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell
8. B. Needham

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Benjamin Cornwell
2. Alexandra Marin
3. David E. Eagle
4. Claude S. Fischer
5. Keith N. Hampton
6. C. Hybels
7. Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell
8. Matthew A. Andersson

Citations in the corpus

• Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator (2007, methodology): “Ordering the affective generator as the final name-electing question was done to take advantage of the context effect of the exchange-based generators and reduce the problem of respondents interpreting closeness differently (Bailey and Marsden 1999; Bearman and Parigi 2004).”
• Perceived social support, received social support, and depression among clergy (2019, background): “Presumably, if asked the more specific question from the CHI Panel Survey, people would report smaller numbers of confidants because, in general, people have a very expansive view of what constitutes “important matters” (Bearman & Parigi, 2004).”
• The Social Connectedness of Older Adults: A National Profile (2008, background): “Looking back over the last 12 months, who are the people with whom you most often discussed things that were important to you? Respondents’ interpretations of what is “important” varies, as does the content of discussion with different alters (Bearman and Parigi 2004; Straits 2000).”
• The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact? (2009, background): “One point on network research in particular: there are potential problems with using a single probe—discussing “important matters”—for eliciting the people in respondents’networks.18 This item is vulnerable to significant “noise” and contextual effects (Bailey and Marsden 1999; Bearman and Parigi 20”
• Social networks (2009, unknown): “Both sociological and psychological studies have examined the factors affecting whether actors decide to seek help at all (Pescosolido, 1992; Bearman and Parigi, 2004; Addis and Mahalik, 2003).”