I used to assume that everyone I was connected to would be willing to help me out. Unfortunately,
I learned the hard way that this isn't always the case. After experiencing several disappointments, I decided to cut ties with many of my connections.
Thank you for reminding me that building strong networks takes time and persistence. I'm now focused on cultivating relationships with people who genuinely care about my success.
I should read this. I do wonder, however, if we are in an era when everyone is angling for themselves and not looking to help promote the creative works of others, not realizing the promotion will help themselves. Everyone wants the big association and not the good one?
The weak ties concept has spawned so many things - it now sits at the heart of most career networking discussions (despite the fact that the paper they rely on - Granovetter's - dates back to 1973). More recent research shows that the real value now is "who knows what you can do" rather than "who knows the people you know" - https://hbr.org/2017/06/a-friend-of-a-friend-is-no-longer-the-best-way-to-find-a-job?
In artistic pursuits, this is a bit easier because you need to get your work 'out there' across a network as you describe. In fields where your work is less clearly defined (or worse, invisible outside the organisation where you work) it becomes ever more reliant on deep social capital, which tends to reward those who inherit it from their parents (if your mum or dad has an influential place on a network, it provides you with an early advantage).
I liked that book. But I don't think weak ties are disproved, as such. Though as I say, influence not connections are the real key to networking. I have not seen much compelling evidence that parental network ties make as much difference you are describing, but would be interested to see a study of you know of one.
It did show a correlation between parental (and other family member) help and career success but couldn't isolate the impact enough to properly show causation.
What is true (from Savage's book, above) is that, even when you isolate educational outcomes, the children of higher socio-economic groups do better than those of lower socio-economic groups in the UK. More so than in any other OECD comparator country. There is some causal factor or factors involved - social capital is one possible explanation, as is cultural capital. I suspect it is a combination of factors rather that one simple answer.
I thought Savage was pretty weak. Talked with the certainty of an economist without the data, as you say about the lack of causal proof. There are many competing explanations for these outcomes and sociologists prefer a set that align ideologically, without really knowing the relative effect sizes.
I haven't seen anyone offer an explanation that doesn't take into account social or cultural capital. That the outcomes exist means there must be something there that is unique to the UK (or if not unique then factors that are present elsewhere are especially strong here).
I used to assume that everyone I was connected to would be willing to help me out. Unfortunately,
I learned the hard way that this isn't always the case. After experiencing several disappointments, I decided to cut ties with many of my connections.
Thank you for reminding me that building strong networks takes time and persistence. I'm now focused on cultivating relationships with people who genuinely care about my success.
I should read this. I do wonder, however, if we are in an era when everyone is angling for themselves and not looking to help promote the creative works of others, not realizing the promotion will help themselves. Everyone wants the big association and not the good one?
The weak ties concept has spawned so many things - it now sits at the heart of most career networking discussions (despite the fact that the paper they rely on - Granovetter's - dates back to 1973). More recent research shows that the real value now is "who knows what you can do" rather than "who knows the people you know" - https://hbr.org/2017/06/a-friend-of-a-friend-is-no-longer-the-best-way-to-find-a-job?
In artistic pursuits, this is a bit easier because you need to get your work 'out there' across a network as you describe. In fields where your work is less clearly defined (or worse, invisible outside the organisation where you work) it becomes ever more reliant on deep social capital, which tends to reward those who inherit it from their parents (if your mum or dad has an influential place on a network, it provides you with an early advantage).
I liked that book. But I don't think weak ties are disproved, as such. Though as I say, influence not connections are the real key to networking. I have not seen much compelling evidence that parental network ties make as much difference you are describing, but would be interested to see a study of you know of one.
It was Mike Savage's "Social class in the 21st century" that introduced me to the idea but I have only read one longitudinal study looking at the phenomenon - https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CLS-WP-2014-10.pdf
It did show a correlation between parental (and other family member) help and career success but couldn't isolate the impact enough to properly show causation.
What is true (from Savage's book, above) is that, even when you isolate educational outcomes, the children of higher socio-economic groups do better than those of lower socio-economic groups in the UK. More so than in any other OECD comparator country. There is some causal factor or factors involved - social capital is one possible explanation, as is cultural capital. I suspect it is a combination of factors rather that one simple answer.
I thought Savage was pretty weak. Talked with the certainty of an economist without the data, as you say about the lack of causal proof. There are many competing explanations for these outcomes and sociologists prefer a set that align ideologically, without really knowing the relative effect sizes.
I haven't seen anyone offer an explanation that doesn't take into account social or cultural capital. That the outcomes exist means there must be something there that is unique to the UK (or if not unique then factors that are present elsewhere are especially strong here).