Introduction

What my

study is all about

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Peter Blau (1975) identifies three

major approaches to social structure:

as a configuration of social

relations and positions,

as the substratum that underlines

all of the social life and history,

and

“ multidimensional space of the

differentiated social positions of

the people in a society or other

collectivity.”

Introduction

SOCIAL NETWORK THEORY Social Structure

focus is on the social structure as a

system of social relations

deals rather with the very structure

of their relations—how are they

organized in a pattern of

relationships.

And this is why the social network

theory which is essentially the study

of how the social structure of

relationships around a person,

group, or organization affects

beliefs, behaviors and outcomes

becomes important and relevant in

understanding social structure.

Effect of the network and not the

strength or weakness of the network

Situated in a risky, harsh, vulnerable

environment

Gender and technology focus

Whole networks

Q2

Mapping the social network architecture of

rural communities

Kanzara

Aurepalle

Implementing a survey

in village Aurepalle

Village censuses using

semi structured interviews

mapping social networks –

detailed registries of

women and men -

individual and household

level

Focus group meeting with women

in Kanzara

Complementing

gender analysis

with social

analysis understand

social networks

Multi-generational panel data

Tapping the

multigenerational long-

term data on agricultural

and economic change

(ICRISAT VLS/VDSA)

Innovative quantitative and qualitative analysis

of social networks

Sample size : Aurepalle – 410 (1868); Kanzara – 319 (1190)

Studying whole networks

Trace information flows in all directions, affect

behaviors and attitudes, relationships in different

settings

Social network theory as a structural approach

The focus on gender

Kanzara Crowding in the core

Less reciprocal ties

Degree centrality : 2-85

Aurepalle No crowding in the centre

More hubs or focal points

More reciprocal ties

Degree centrality more

than in Kanzara

Kanzara - Closeness measure

Crowding in the core

More reciprocal ties

Hubs – not on caste or class lines

Aurepalle - Closeness

measure

More scattered

Changing cultural norms

- education, access to urban

centre

SHGs

Network map of a household, Kanzara

Legend:

circle – Men; Triangle – Women;

Square - organization

Red color – inside the village

Black color – outside the village; blue color-ego

Legend: circle – Men; Triangle – Women; Red color – alter Blue color – Ego/actor

Network map of sample men for all transactions, Kanzara

Network map of sample women for all transactions, Kanzara

Network map of sample men for all transactions

Network map of sample women for all transactions

Evolution of networks through mentoring

Dependence relations and dependency

networks

Source of actors, power; exploitative, oppressive,

tactics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

19

54

19

60

-6

5

19

66

-7

0

19

71

-7

5

19

76

-8

0

19

81

-8

5

19

86

-9

0

19

91

-9

5

19

96

-2

00

0

20

01

-2

00

5

No

of r

esp

on

de

nts

Years

Figure 1a. Memberships into groups, 1954-2005, Kanzara

Cooperative and credit societySelf Help GroupsOthers (youth, homeo)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19

60

-65

19

71

-75

19

76

-80

19

81

-85

19

86

-90

19

91

-95

19

96

-2

00

0

20

01

-2

00

5

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Years

Figure 1b. Memberships into groups, 1960-2005, Aurepalle

Raithu mitra group - all male Self-Help groups- all women

Caste group/association Credit society/coop

Chit fund Toddy tapper's Association

The money lender as an important node in other’s network, Aurepalle

Legend:

circle – Men; Triangle – Women; Square - organization Red color – inside the village Black/blue color – outside the village

How government policies affect the formation

of networks

Examples of SHGs and the kinship network;

sustainability??

Uniqueness of semi-arid tropics influencing

formation of social networks

Risky envi, policy bias, infrastructure,

agriculture, marginalized, excluded

Social networks and technology adoption

Integrated study, identify constraints and

opportunities, weak links, gaps etc

Concerns

Kanzara Few focal nodes – innovators,

Early adopters

Information spread is through

kinship

Unidirectional ties

Aurepalle Few focal nodes –

innovators, Early adopters

Social learning

Reciprocal ties

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

% of

crop

pro

port

ion

Figure 6.1 Area under different crops, Kanzara, 1975-2010

Sum of BENGAL GRAM Sum of BLACKGRAM Sum of CHICKPEA

Sum of Cotton Sum of GREENGRAM Sum of GROUNDNUT

Sum of PIGEONPEA Sum of SORGHUM Sum of SOYBEAN

Sum of WHEAT

Network architecture of the households

adopting Maruti variety of pigeonpea

Legend: Square – in the village; Triangle – outside the village; Color: blue – UC; red – NT; Pink – Muslim; Black – OBC; Grey – SC; Green - ST

Conclusions 1. The degree of the social connectedness varies across villages,

across different interactions and transactions and across groups

and individuals.

2. The density of the networks also vary depending on the

characteristics of the region as a result of which people develop

interactions and relationships with other individuals, groups and

organizations differently.

3. The analysis of social network architectures confirm the

assumption that whom one knows is more important than what

one knows for benefiting from the networks.

4. The case study on the spread of new agricultural technology

through kinship networks leads to the conclusion that in the

absence of good governance, favourable policies, and extension

services informal social networks come to the forefront and help

in the spread of the technology through kin, friends and

acquaintances.

Conclusions

4. Women in agriculture are more likely to use these informal

networks as they are the custodians of the seed (seed saving

and sorting is an activity performed exclusively by them in the

SAT regions) as they can communicate, share, and interact

with members of their kin by blood or marriage.

5. The study also clearly brings out that networks affect

individuals and households differently depending on gender,

class, kinship, political power etc

6. Men and women build and form networks differently and use

them also differently

7. Expanding the social networks of women by connecting

women to weak ties – far-reaching connections can help

increase their social capital.

Conclusions

8. Social networks can substitute for formal channel of

information and knowledge spread at the village level

9. The sociological analysis based on the network maps

documenting key nodes and ties facilitates the identification of

strategies to help vulnerable groups to adopt, adapt and

increase their levels of resilience.

viable entry points for interventions, media for collective

action, pathways of information flows, and access to

resources and services.

Broader context of development

Target where linkages are weak and or missing

In and out migration of ideas and innovations

Interactional infrastructure – shared values and

visions

Way forward The role of institutions in network building

Use statistical tools of analysis and econometrics to

complement the descriptive analysis and make the

conclusions more robust.

Study from a network perspective:

migration

nutrition and food security

poverty, and non-farm employment

opportunities

Class, caste, gender perspectives

Others - Global Vs local links

In my next seminar I will be presenting some

interesting results on gender and nutrition

ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium