|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 94, Zeilen: 1-25 |
Quelle: Katz et al 2004 Seite(n): 308-309, Zeilen: p.308,31-33 - p.309,1-11.13-20 |
|---|---|
| For example, two terrorists might have a formal tie (one is a footsoldier or a newly recruited person in a terrorist cell and reports to another, who is a cell leader) and an affective tie (they are friends); and may also have a proximity tie (i.e., they reside in the same building and their apartments are two doors away on the same floor).
Network researchers have distinguished between strong ties (such as family and friends) and weak ties such as acquaintances (Granovetter, M., 1973, 1982). This distinction will involve a multitude of facets, including affect, mutual obligations, reciprocity, and intensity. Strong ties are particularly valuable when an individual seeks socio-emotional support and often entail a high level of trust. Weak ties are more valuable when individuals are seeking diverse or unique information from someone outside their regular frequent contacts. Ties may be non-directional (for example, Atta attends meeting with Nawaf Alhazmi) or vary in direction (for instance, Bin Laden gives advice to Atta vs. Atta gets advice from Bin Laden). They may vary in content (Atta talks with Khalid about the trust of his friends in using them as human bombs) and Khalid about his recent meeting with Bin Laden), frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.), and medium (face-to-face conversation, written memos, email, fax, instant messages, etc.). Finally ties may vary in sign, ranging from positive (Iraqis like Zarqawi) to negative (Jordanians dislike Zarqawi). |
[p. 308]
For example, two academic colleagues might have a formal tie (one is an assistant professor and reports to the other. who is the department chairperson) [p.309] and an affective tie (they are friends) and a proximity tie (their offices are two doors away). Network researchers have distinguished between strong ties (such as family and friends) and weak ties (such as acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1973. 1982). This distinction can involve a multitude of facets, including affect, mutual obligations, reciprocity, and intensity. Strong ties are particularly valuable when an individual seeks socioemotional support and often entail a high level of trust. Weak ties are more valuable when individuals are seeking diverse or unique information from someone outside their regular frequent contacts. [...] Ties may be nondirectional (Joe attends a meeting with Jane) or vary in direction (Joe gives advice to Jane vs. Joe gets advice from Jane). They may also vary in content (Joe talks to Jack about the weather and to Jane about sports), frequency (daily. weekly, monthly, etc.), and medium (face-to-face conversation, written memos, e-mail, instant messaging, etc.). Finally, ties may vary in sign, ranging from positive (Joe likes Jane) to negative (Joe dislikes Jane). |
The same text, only the examples have been adapted to the subject at hand, terrorism. No reference given. |
|