Informing on a rugged landscape: Homophily versus expertise

Informing Science

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 49-91

  Gill, Grandon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Complexity; Expertise; Homophily; Informing; Multiple regression; NK landscape; Simulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857839398     PISSN: 15479684     EISSN: 15214672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/1560     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ahuja, G., Polidoro, F., Jr., & Mitchell, W. (2009). Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The forma-tion of alliances by poorly embedded firms, Strategic Management Journal, 30, 941-958.
2. Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2009). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy and why it matters for global capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Altenberg, L. (1995). Genome growth and the evolution of the genotype-phenotype map. In W. Banzhaf & F. H. Eckman (Eds.), Evolution and biocomputation (pp. 205-259). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4. Altenberg, L. (1997). NK fitness landscapes. In T. Back, D. Fogel, &Z. Michalewicz (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary computation (pp. B2.7:5-B2.7:10). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, S. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homo-phily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. PNAS, 106(51), 21544-21549. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908800106
6. Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Vashdi, D. (2005). Diversity and homophily at work: Supportive relations among white and African-American peers. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 619-644.
7. Barabasi, A. L. (2002). Linked. New York, NY: Plume.
8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2011). Social science research: Principles, methods and practices. Global Text Project. Retrieved from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31779972/Social_Science_Research.pdf
9. Centola, D., Gonzalez-Avella, J., Eguiluz, V., & San Miguel, M. (2007). Homophily, cultural drift and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6), 905-929. doi: 10.1177/0022002707307632
10. Choudhury, M., Sundaram, H., John, A., Seligmann, D., & Kelliher, A. (2010). "Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media? arXiv:1006.1702v1. Retrieved from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1702
11. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of social networks and how they shape our lives. New York, NY: Little Brown.
12. Fiore, A., & Donath, J. (2005). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself? CHI 2005, April 2-7, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA, 1371-1374. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056919
13. Frenken, K. (2006). A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17, 288-305.
14. Gandolfi, A. E., Gandolfi, A. S., & Barash, D. (2002). Economics as an evolutionary science: From utility to fitness. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
15. Gill, T. G. (2008). A psychologically plausible goal-based utility function. Informing Science: The Interna-tional Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 227-252. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p227-252Gill220.pdf
16. Gill, T. G. (2010). Informing business: Research and education on a rugged landscape. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.
17. Gill, T. G. (2011). When what is useful is not necessarily true: The underappreciated conceptual scheme. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 14, 1-32. Retrieved from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol14/ISJv14p001-032Gill589.pdf
18. Gill, T. G., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2009). Whom are we informing? Issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective. MIS Quarterly, 3(2), 217-235.
19. Gill, T. G., & Jones, J. (2009). A tale of three classes: Case studies in course complexity, Journal of IT Ed-ucation, 9, 1-29. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p001-029Gill717.pdf
20. nd.
21. Gill, T. G., & Sincich, A. (2008). Illusions of significance in a rugged landscape. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 197-226. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p197-226GillIllusions.pdf
22. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.
23. Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2008). How homophily affects diffusion and learning in networks, arXiv:0811.4013v2. Retrieved from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.4013
24. Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2011). Network structure and the speed of learning: Measuring homophily based on its consequences. SSRN. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1784542
25. Hanish, L. Martin, C., Fabes, R., Leonard, S., & Herzog, M. (2005). Exposure to externalizing peers in early childhood: Homophily and peer contagion processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 267-281.
26. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick. New York, NY: Random House.
27. Implementation Science. (2011). Retrieved 11/4/2011 from http://www.implementationscience.com/
28. Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2007). Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the " life of the party." Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 558-585.
29. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31. Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405-450.
33. La Fond, T., & Neville, J. (2010). Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects. WWW 2010, April 26-30, 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 601-610.
34. Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934-950.
35. Levinthal, D. A., & Warglien, M. (1999). Landscape design: Designing for local action in complex worlds, Organization Science, 10(3), 342-357.
36. Locke, E. (2004). Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 18(4), 124-125.
37. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
39. Pfeffer, J. (2007). A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial re-search. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1334-1345.
40. Porter, M., & Siggelkow, N. (2008). Contextuality within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 34-56.
41. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mah-wah, NJ: Earlbaum.
42. Ridley, M. (2010). The rational optimist: How prosperity evolves. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
43. Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824-844.
44. Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Or-ganization Science, 12(3), 274-293.
45. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
46. Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resources management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987-1008.
47. Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 252-266.
48. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 129-138.
49. Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
50. Solving social sciences' hard problems. (2010, April 27). Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 11/4/2011from http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/04/social-sciences-hard-problems
51. Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow, Research Policy, 35, 994-1017.
52. Starbuck, W. H. (2006). The production of knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53. Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynam-ics Review, 18(4), 501-531.
54. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan. New York, NY: Random House.
55. Watts, D. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York, NY: Norton.
56. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don't students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
57. Yuan, Y., & Gay, G. (2006). Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging social capital in com-puter-mediated distributed teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 9. Re-trieved from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/yuan.html
58. Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.