Social Network Analysis Views
Social Network Analysis Views
Social Network Analysis Views
A social network is a social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) called "nodes",
which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship,
kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of
beliefs, knowledge or prestige.
Social network analysis views social relationships in terms of network theory consisting of
nodes and ties (also called edges, links, or connections). Nodes are the individual actors within
the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. The resulting graph-based
structures are often very complex. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. Research
in a number of academic fields has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from
families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are
solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their
goals.
In its simplest form, a social network is a map of specified ties, such as friendship, between the
nodes being studied. The nodes to which an individual is thus connected are the social contacts
of that individual. The network can also be used to measure social capital – the value that an
individual gets from the social network. These concepts are often displayed in a social network
diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
Contents
[hide]
An example of a social network diagram. The node with the highest betweenness centrality is
marked in yellow.
Social network analysis (related to network theory) has emerged as a key technique in modern
sociology. It has also gained a significant following in anthropology, biology, communication
studies, economics, geography, information science, organizational studies, social psychology,
and sociolinguistics, and has become a popular topic of speculation and study.
People have used the idea of "social network" loosely for over a century to connote complex
sets of relationships between members of social systems at all scales, from interpersonal to
international. In 1954, J. A. Barnes started using the term systematically to denote patterns of
ties, encompassing concepts traditionally used by the public and those used by social scientists:
bounded groups (e.g., tribes, families) and social categories (e.g., gender, ethnicity). Scholars
such as S.D. Berkowitz, Stephen Borgatti, Ronald Burt, Kathleen Carley, Martin Everett,
Katherine Faust, Linton Freeman, Mark Granovetter, David Knoke, David Krackhardt, Peter
Marsden, Nicholas Mullins, Anatol Rapoport, Stanley Wasserman, Barry Wellman, Douglas R.
White, and Harrison White expanded the use of systematic social network analysis.[1]
Social network analysis has now moved from being a suggestive metaphor to an analytic
approach to a paradigm, with its own theoretical statements, methods, social network analysis
software, and researchers. Analysts reason from whole to part; from structure to relation to
individual; from behavior to attitude. They typically either study whole networks (also known as
complete networks), all of the ties containing specified relations in a defined population, or
personal networks (also known as egocentric networks), the ties that specified people have, such
as their "personal communities".[2] The distinction between whole/complete networks and
personal/egocentric networks has depended largely on how analysts were able to gather data.
That is, for groups such as companies, schools, or membership societies, the analyst was
expected to have complete information about who was in the network, all participants being both
potential egos and alters. Personal/egocentric studies were typically conducted when identities of
egos were known, but not their alters. These studies rely on the egos to provide information
about the identities of alters and there is no expectation that the various egos or sets of alters will
be tied to each other. A snowball network refers to the idea that the alters identified in an
egocentric survey then become egos themselves and are able in turn to nominate additional
alters. While there are severe logistic limits to conducting snowball network studies, a method
for examining hybrid networks has recently been developed in which egos in complete networks
can nominate alters otherwise not listed who are then available for all subsequent egos to see.[3]
The hybrid network may be valuable for examining whole/complete networks that are expected
to include important players beyond those who are formally identified. For example, employees
of a company often work with non-company consultants who may be part of a network that
cannot fully be defined prior to data collection.
The shape of a social network helps determine a network's usefulness to its individuals. Smaller,
tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections
(weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More open networks, with many weak ties
and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their
members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who
only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. A group of
individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of
information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather
than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or
act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked
(called filling structural holes).[5]
The power of social network analysis stems from its difference from traditional social scientific
studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors—whether they are friendly or
unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc.—that matter. Social network analysis produces an alternate view,
where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other
actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-
world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for individuals to
influence their success, because so much of it rests within the structure of their network.
Social networks have also been used to examine how organizations interact with each other,
characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as
associations and connections between individual employees at different organizations. For
example, power within organizations often comes more from the degree to which an individual
within a network is at the center of many relationships than actual job title. Social networks also
play a key role in hiring, in business success, and in job performance. Networks provide ways for
companies to gather information, deter competition, and collude in setting prices or policies.[6]
Precursors of social networks in the late 1800s include Émile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tönnies.
Tönnies argued that social groups can exist as personal and direct social ties that either link
individuals who share values and belief (gemeinschaft) or impersonal, formal, and instrumental
social links (gesellschaft). Durkheim gave a non-individualistic explanation of social facts
arguing that social phenomena arise when interacting individuals constitute a reality that can no
longer be accounted for in terms of the properties of individual actors. He distinguished between
a traditional society – "mechanical solidarity" – which prevails if individual differences are
minimized, and the modern society – "organic solidarity" – that develops out of cooperation
between differentiated individuals with independent roles.
Georg Simmel, writing at the turn of the twentieth century, was the first scholar to think directly
in social network terms. His essays pointed to the nature of network size on interaction and to the
likelihood of interaction in ramified, loosely-knit networks rather than groups (Simmel,
1908/1971).
After a hiatus in the first decades of the twentieth century, three main traditions in social
networks appeared. In the 1930s, J.L. Moreno pioneered the systematic recording and analysis of
social interaction in small groups, especially classrooms and work groups (sociometry), while a
Harvard group led by W. Lloyd Warner and Elton Mayo explored interpersonal relations at
work. In 1940, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown's presidential address to British anthropologists urged the
systematic study of networks.[8] However, it took about 15 years before this call was followed-up
systematically.
Social network analysis developed with the kinship studies of Elizabeth Bott in England in the
1950s and the 1950s–1960s urbanization studies of the University of Manchester group of
anthropologists (centered around Max Gluckman and later J. Clyde Mitchell) investigating
community networks in southern Africa, India and the United Kingdom. Concomitantly, British
anthropologist S.F. Nadel codified a theory of social structure that was influential in later
network analysis.[9]
In the 1960s-1970s, a growing number of scholars worked to combine the different tracks and
traditions. One group was centered around Harrison White and his students at the Harvard
University Department of Social Relations: Ivan Chase, Bonnie Erickson, Harriet Friedmann,
Mark Granovetter, Nancy Howell, Joel Levine, Nicholas Mullins, John Padgett, Michael
Schwartz and Barry Wellman. Also independently active in the Harvard Social Relations
department at the time were Charles Tilly, who focused on networks in political and community
sociology and social movements, and Stanley Milgram, who developed the "six degrees of
separation" thesis.[10] Mark Granovetter and Barry Wellman are among the former students of
White who have elaborated and popularized social network analysis.[11]
Significant independent work was also done by scholars elsewhere: University of California
Irvine social scientists interested in mathematical applications, centered around Linton Freeman,
including John Boyd, Susan Freeman, Kathryn Faust, A. Kimball Romney and Douglas White;
quantitative analysts at the University of Chicago, including Joseph Galaskiewicz, Wendy
Griswold, Edward Laumann, Peter Marsden, Martina Morris, and John Padgett; and
communication scholars at Michigan State University, including Nan Lin and Everett Rogers. A
substantively-oriented University of Toronto sociology group developed in the 1970s, centered
on former students of Harrison White: S.D. Berkowitz, Harriet Friedmann, Nancy Leslie
Howard, Nancy Howell, Lorne Tepperman and Barry Wellman, and also including noted
modeler and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.In terms of theory, it critiqued methodological
individualism and group-based analyses, arguing that seeing the world as social networks offered
more analytic leverage.[12]
[edit] Research
Social network analysis has been used in epidemiology to help understand how patterns of
human contact aid or inhibit the spread of diseases such as HIV in a population. The evolution of
social networks can sometimes be modeled by the use of agent based models, providing insight
into the interplay between communication rules, rumor spreading and social structure.
SNA may also be an effective tool for mass surveillance – for example the Total Information
Awareness program was doing in-depth research on strategies to analyze social networks to
determine whether or not U.S. citizens were political threats.
Diffusion of innovations theory explores social networks and their role in influencing the spread
of new ideas and practices. Change agents and opinion leaders often play major roles in spurring
the adoption of innovations, although factors inherent to the innovations also play a role.
Robin Dunbar has suggested that the typical size of an egocentric network is constrained to about
150 members due to possible limits in the capacity of the human communication channel. The
rule arises from cross-cultural studies in sociology and especially anthropology of the maximum
size of a village (in modern parlance most reasonably understood as an ecovillage). It is
theorized in evolutionary psychology that the number may be some kind of limit of average
human ability to recognize members and track emotional facts about all members of a group.
However, it may be due to economics and the need to track "free riders", as it may be easier in
larger groups to take advantage of the benefits of living in a community without contributing to
those benefits.
Mark Granovetter found in one study that more numerous weak ties can be important in seeking
information and innovation. Cliques have a tendency to have more homogeneous opinions as
well as share many common traits. This homophilic tendency was the reason for the members of
the cliques to be attracted together in the first place. However, being similar, each member of the
clique would also know more or less what the other members knew. To find new information or
insights, members of the clique will have to look beyond the clique to its other friends and
acquaintances. This is what Granovetter called "the strength of weak ties".
Guanxi (关系)is a central concept in Chinese society (and other East Asian cultures) that can be
summarized as the use of personal influence. It is loosely analogous to "clout" or "pull" in the
West. Guanxi can be studied from a social network approach.[13]
The small world phenomenon is the hypothesis that the chain of social acquaintances required to
connect one arbitrary person to another arbitrary person anywhere in the world is generally short.
The concept gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after a 1967 small world
experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram. In Milgram's experiment, a sample of US
individuals were asked to reach a particular target person by passing a message along a chain of
acquaintances. The average length of successful chains turned out to be about five intermediaries
or six separation steps (the majority of chains in that study actually failed to complete). The
methods (and ethics as well) of Milgram's experiment was later questioned by an American
scholar, and some further research to replicate Milgram's findings had found that the degrees of
connection needed could be higher.[14] Academic researchers continue to explore this
phenomenon as Internet-based communication technology has supplemented the phone and
postal systems available during the times of Milgram. A recent electronic small world
experiment at Columbia University found that about five to seven degrees of separation are
sufficient for connecting any two people through e-mail.[15]
Collaboration graphs can be used to illustrate good and bad relationships between humans. A
positive edge between two nodes denotes a positive relationship (friendship, alliance, dating) and
a negative edge between two nodes denotes a negative relationship (hatred, anger). Signed social
network graphs can be used to predict the future evolution of the graph. In signed social
networks, there is the concept of "balanced" and "unbalanced" cycles. A balanced cycle is
defined as a cycle where the product of all the signs are positive. Balanced graphs represent a
group of people who are unlikely to change their opinions of the other people in the group.
Unbalanced graphs represent a group of people who are very likely to change their opinions of
the people in their group. For example, a group of 3 people (A, B, and C) where A and B have a
positive relationship, B and C have a positive relationship, but C and A have a negative
relationship is an unbalanced cycle. This group is very likely to morph into a balanced cycle,
such as one where B only has a good relationship with A, and both A and B have a negative
relationship with C. By using the concept of balances and unbalanced cycles, the evolution of
signed social network graphs can be predicted.
One study has found that happiness tends to be correlated in social networks. When a person is
happy, nearby friends have a 25 percent higher chance of being happy themselves. Furthermore,
people at the center of a social network tend to become happier in the future than those at the
periphery. Clusters of happy and unhappy people were discerned within the studied networks,
with a reach of three degrees of separation: a person's happiness was associated with the level of
happiness of their friends' friends' friends.[16] (See also Emotional contagion.)
Some researchers have suggested that human social networks may have a genetic basis.[17] Using
a sample of twins from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, they found that
in-degree (the number of times a person is named as a friend), transitivity (the probability that
two friends are friends with one another), and betweenness centrality (the number of paths in the
network that pass through a given person) are all significantly heritable. Existing models of
network formation cannot account for this intrinsic node variation, so the researchers propose an
alternative "Attract and Introduce" model that can explain heritability and many other features of
human social networks.[18]
Network analytic tools are used to represent the nodes (agents) and edges (relationships) in a
network, and to analyze the network data. Like other software tools, the data can be saved in
external files. Additional information comparing the various data input formats used by network
analysis software packages is available at NetWiki. Network analysis tools allow researchers to
investigate large networks like the Internet, disease transmission, etc. These tools provide
mathematical functions that can be applied to the network model.
Especially when using social network analysis as a tool for facilitating change, different
approaches of participatory network mapping have proven useful. Here participants /
interviewers provide network data by actually mapping out the network (with pen and paper or
digitally) during the data collection session. One benefit of this approach is that it allows
researchers to collect qualitative data and ask clarifying questions while the network data is
collected.[23] Examples of network mapping techniques are Net-Map (pen-and-paper based) and
VennMaker (digital).
[edit] Patents
Number of US social network patent applications published per year and patents issued per
year[24]
There has been rapid growth in the number of US patent applications that cover new
technologies related to social networking. The number of published applications has been
growing at about 250% per year over the past five years. There are now over 2000 published
applications.[25] Only about 100 of these applications have issued as patents, however, largely due
to the multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents.
[edit] References
1. ^ Linton Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis. Vancouver: Empirical
Press, 2006.
2. ^ Wellman, Barry and S.D. Berkowitz, eds., 1988. Social Structures: A Network
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. ^ Hansen, William B. and Reese, Eric L. 2009. Network Genie User Manual.
Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research.
4. ^ Freeman, Linton. 2006. The Development of Social Network Analysis. Vancouver:
Empirical Pres, 2006; Wellman, Barry and S.D. Berkowitz, eds., 1988. Social Structures:
A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. ^ Scott, John. 1991. Social Network Analysis. London: Sage.
6. ^ Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods
and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. ^ The Development of Social Network Analysis Vancouver: Empirical Press.
8. ^ A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, "On Social Structure," Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute: 70 (1940): 1–12.
9. ^ Nadel, SF. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen and West.
10. ^ The Networked Individual: A Profile of Barry Wellman
11. ^ Mullins, Nicholas. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology.
New York: Harper and Row, 1973; Tilly, Charles, ed. An Urban World. Boston: Little
Brown, 1974; Mark Granovetter, "Introduction for the French Reader," Sociologica 2
(2007): 1–8; Wellman, Barry. 1988. "Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to
Theory and Substance." Pp. 19-61 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, edited by
Barry Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. ^ Mark Granovetter, "Introduction for the French Reader," Sociologica 2 (2007): 1–8;
Wellman, Barry. 1988. "Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and
Substance." Pp. 19-61 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, edited by Barry
Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (see also Scott,
2000 and Freeman, 2004).
13. ^ Barry Wellman, Wenhong Chen and Dong Weizhen. “Networking Guanxi." Pp. 221–
41 in Social Connections in China: Institutions, Culture and the Changing Nature of
Guanxi, edited by Thomas Gold, Douglas Guthrie and David Wank. Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
14. ^ Could It Be A Big World After All?: Judith Kleinfeld article.
15. ^ Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, Duncan Watts.
16. ^ James H. Fowler and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2008. "Dynamic spread of happiness in a
large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart
Study." British Medical Journal. December 4, 2008: doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338. Media
account for those who cannot retrieve the original: Happiness: It Really is Contagious
Retrieved December 5, 2008.
17. ^ Shishkin, Philip (January 27, 2009). "Genes and the Friends You Make". Wall Street
Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123302040874118079.html.
18. ^ Fowler, J. H.; Dawes, CT; Christakis, NA (10 February 2009). "Model of Genetic
Variation in Human Social Networks" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 106 (6): 1720–1724. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806746106. PMID 19171900.
PMC 2644104. http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/genes_and_social_networks.pdf.
19. ^ The most comprehensive reference is: Wasserman, Stanley, & Faust, Katherine.
(1994). Social Networks Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. A short, clear basic summary is in Krebs, Valdis. (2000). "The Social
Life of Routers." Internet Protocol Journal, 3 (December): 14–25.
20. ^ Cohesive.blocking is the R program for computing structural cohesion according to the
Moody-White (2003) algorithm. This wiki site provides numerous examples and a
tutorial for use with R.
21. ^ Second order centrality: Distributed assessment of nodes criticity in complex networks,
Computer Communications, Volume 34, Issue 5, 15 April 2011, Pages 619-628
22. ^ Moody, James, and Douglas R. White (2003). "Structural Cohesion and
Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups." American Sociological
Review 68(1):103–127. Online: (PDF file).
23. ^ Bernie Hogan, Juan-Antonio Carrasco and Barry Wellman, "Visualizing Personal
Networks: Working with Participant-Aided Sociograms," Field Methods 19 (2), May
2007: 116-144.
24. ^ Mark Nowotarski, "Don't Steal My Avatar! Challenges of Social Network Patents, IP
Watchdog, January 23, 2011.
25. ^ USPTO search on published patent applications mentioning “social network”