Part II - Seeing Structure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2023
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Network AnalysisIntegrating Social Network Theory, Method, and Application with R, pp. 115 - 298Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Suggested Further Reading
Bidart, Clair, Degenne, Alain, and Grossetti, Michel. 2020. Living in Networks: The Dynamics of Social Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. (A recent English translation of a French classic that provides insight into the origins of personal networks.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald. 2010. Neighbor Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal. New York: Oxford University Press. (An engaging follow-up to the earlier line of work; makes the case that network advantage follows personal advantage.)Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude S. 1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (An exemplar of what one can learn using ego-network methods; arguably the best work available on general patterns in personal networks across the rural–urban gradient.)Google Scholar
Kilduff, Martin, and Tsai, Wenpin. 2003. Social Networks and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (An excellent treatment of networks, including personal networks, within an organizational context.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Nan. 2002. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. (A capstone theoretical treatment of structural approaches to social capital.)Google Scholar
Perry, Brea L., Pescosolido, Bernice A., and Borgatti, Stephen P.. 2018. Egocentric Network Analysis: Foundations, Methods, and Models. New York: Cambridge University Press. (A comprehensive reference for how and why to do ego-network analysis, with extensive integration of prior work.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, Barry, Wong, Renita Yuk-lin, Tindall, David, and Nazer, Nancy. 1997. “A Decade of Network Change: Turnover, Persistence and Stability in Personal Communities.” Social Networks 19(1): 27–50. (A rare example of dynamic ego-network data taken over thirty-three years.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Adams, Rebecca G., and Allan, Graham (eds.). 1999. Placing Friendship in Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. (An edited collection that combines social psychological and social-structural research on friendship.)Google Scholar
Bearman, Peter S., and Moody, James. 2004. “Suicide and Friendships among American Adolescents.” American Journal of Public Health 94: 89–95. (An early Add Health study finding that female students who are embedded in intransitive peer groups have high rates of suicidal ideation.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, Ivan. 1980. “Social Process and Hierarchy Formation in Small Groups: A Comparative Perspective.” American Sociological Review 45: 905–24. (Develops an elegant model for how interactive sequences must cumulate to transitive hierarchical dominance relations among chickens.)Google Scholar
Faust, Katherine. 2008. “Triadic Configurations in Limited Choice Sociometric Networks: Empirical and Theoretical Results.” Social Networks 30: 273–82. (Examines triadic patterns across a large body of empirical cases suggesting that much of the variation in triadic patterns is due to lower-order features.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1974. “A Structural Model of Sentiment Relations.” American Journal of Sociology 80(2): 364–78. (Hallinan provides one of the richest sequences of papers examining how social balance and intransitivity play out in youth network dynamics. A critical sequence of papers for understanding interdependence in interpersonal network change. See also Hallinan 1978; Hallinan and Kubitschek 1990.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallinan, Maureen T. 1978. “The Process of Friendship Formation.” Social Networks 1: 193–210. (See note for Hallinan 1974.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallinan, Maureen T., and Kubitschek, Warren N.. 1990. “The Formation of Intransitive Friendships.” Social Forces 69(2): 505–19. (See note for Hallinan 1974.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Howard Francis. 1970. Balance in Small Groups. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. (An overview of early forms of balance theory from the 1940s to 1970 exploring which aspects of triadic arrangements are altered before others and which hold more stability: lowest edge weight, negative sign, or the type of node in question [e.g., an actor or an object]. Considers balance mostly in cognitive terms.)Google Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Anthropological Perspectives on Cohesion
Abbe, Emmanuel. 2018. “Community Detection and Stochastic Block Models: Recent Developments.” Journal of Machine Learning and Research 18: 1–86. (A nice review of the stochastic blockmodel approach to community detection.)Google Scholar
Christakis, Nicholas. 2019. Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society. New York: Little, Brown Spark. (A sweeping evolutionary perspective that synthesizes a great deal of research on networks and cohesion.)Google Scholar
Coleman, James. 1961. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (An early study of fully connected cliques within ten high schools, relating them to notions of the leading crowd and other groups.)Google Scholar
Everton, Sean F. 2018. Networks and Religion: Ties That Bind, Loose, Build-Up, and Tear Down. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Works through a series of models in fruitfully combining the social scientific study of religion with network modeling.)Google Scholar
Fortunato, Santo. 2010. “Community Detection in Graphs.” Physics Reports 486: 75–174. (A comprehensive 100-page review on the problem of community detection in physics.)Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton C. 1972. “Segregation in Social Networks.” Sociological Methods and Research 6: 411–30.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton C. 1992. “The Sociological Concept of ‘Group’: An Empirical Test of Two Models.” American Journal of Sociology 98(1):152–66. (Freeman devoted much energy to the theoretical problem of cohesive groups, and these papers exemplify his approach, which should help guide sociological approaches to identification of communities.)Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510. (Embeddedness is the individual dual to collective cohesion. Here Granovetter powerfully demonstrates how action models must include localized resources and constraints captured by networks to avoid being either atomistic or overdetermined. The paper has become the classic statement of networks and economic action. See also Uzzi 1997.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Knoke has set the agenda for network analysis of politics. This work provides a summary of network models for political action across a broad set of empirical cases.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Cheol-Sung. 2018. When Solidarity Works: Labor Civic Networks and the Welfare States in the Market Reform Era. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Provides a detailed analysis of worker solidarity and cohesion across four countries; an excellent application of structural thinking and network analysis to substantive questions of cohesion.)Google Scholar
Lin, Nan. 2002. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. (See previous note in Chapter 1.)Google Scholar
Markovsky, Barry, and Lawler, Edward J.. 1994. “A New Theory of Social Solidarity.” Pp. 113–37 in Advances in Group Processes, vol. 11, edited by Markovsky, B., O’Brien, J., and Heimer, K.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (Provides a clear social psychological foundation for social cohesion, which can then inform network methods.)Google Scholar
Mucha, Peter J., Richardson, Thomas, Macon, Kevin, Porter, Mason A., and Onnela, Jukka-Pekka. 2010. “Community Structure in Time-Dependent, Multiscale, and Multiplex Networks.” Science 328: 876–78. (Shows how one can leverage multilayer networks to find communities that bridge waves in dynamic data.)Google Scholar
Shai, Saray, Stanley, Natalie, Granell, Clara, Taylor, Dane, and Mucha, Peter J.. 2020. “Case Studies in Network Community Detection.” Pp. 309–33 in The Oxford Handbook of Social Networks, edited by Light, Ryan and Moody, James. New York: Oxford University Press. (Provides a brief overview and then a set of clear examples of how network communities are used in practice across disciplines.)Google Scholar
Uzzi, Brian. 1997. “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35–67. (Uzzi develops a theory of embedded relations and their implications for economic action based on deep ethnographic work. See also Granovetter 1985.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network. New York: Taylor & Francis. (A lovely examination of the effects of gender and network segregation on role performance. Foundational work for the study of family and normative pressures in networks.)Google Scholar
Hage, Per, and Harary, Frank. 1996. Island Networks: Communication, Kinship & Classification Structures in Oceania. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Links structural kinship models, linguistic similarity models, and migration/travel networks to show how seemingly isolated islands in Oceania actually form a cohesive social system.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, Thomas, and White, Douglas R.. 1998. Kinship, Networks and Exchange. New York: Cambridge University Press. (A collection of works on kinship system properties across numerous empirical settings.)Google Scholar
White, Douglas R., and Johansen, Ulla. 2006. Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. (Applies insights from structural cohesion and kinship structures to identify how changes in network cohesion reflect broader social change.)Google Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Borgatti, Stephen P. 2006. “Identifying Sets of Key Players in a Social Network.” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12: 21–34. (The “key player” problem has become a paradigm for intervention and comprehensive centrality, focused on identifying nodes that are critical to the functioning of a given system.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, Stephen P., and Everett, Martin G. 2020. “Three Perspectives on Centrality.” Pp. 334–51 in Oxford Handbook of Social Network Analysis, edited by Light, Ryan and Moody, James. New York: Oxford University Press. (Borgatti and Everett are arguably the leading voices on linking centrality metrics to social processes; this piece updates and reviews that line of work.)Google Scholar
Everton, Sean F. 2013. Disrupting Dark Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Key work in applied network analysis that highlight difficulties and strategies for working in contexts with highly uncertain data but high stakes. See also Gerdes 2012.)Google Scholar
Faris, Robert, and Felmlee, Diane. 2011. “Status Struggles: Network Centrality and Gender Segregation in Same-and Cross-Gender Aggression.” American Sociological Review 76: 48–73. (A model paper for using centrality to understand behavior; it finds that central students use aggression to gain and maintain status over time.)Google Scholar
Gerdes, Luke M. 2012. Illuminating Dark Networks: The Study of Clandestine Groups and Organizations. New York: Cambridge University Press. (See the note for Everton 2013.)Google Scholar
Gould, Rodger V. 2002. “The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test.” American Journal of Sociology 107: 1143–78. (See the note for Gould 2003.)Google Scholar
Gould, Rodger V. 2003. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity about Social Rank Breeds Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Lays out an argument about the origins of violence stemming from status ambiguity – hierarchies are generally stable, and if all know where they stand, disputes are rare. See also Gould 2002.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 2010. Networks of Nations: The Evolution, Structure and Impact of International Networks, 1816–2001. New York: Cambridge University Press. (While broader than hierarchy per se, the exploration of world-spanning networks invokes clear notions of core and periphery and the associated dynamics of power and prestige.)Google Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Bearman, Peter. 1997. “Generalized Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 1383–415. (An exemplar use of blockmodeling to identify positions in a kinship exchange structure, demonstrating that systemic social action occurs even when actors are unaware of the reasons for their actions.)Google Scholar
Doreian, Patrick, Batagelj, Vladimir, and Ferligoj, Anuska. 2004. Generalized Blockmodeling. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Provides a thorough overview of blockmodeling and role analysis starting with the conventional notions of equivalence outlined in this chapter, but then extends to new equivalency frameworks based on different types of flows across positions.)Google Scholar
Leifer, Eric M. 1988. “Interaction Preludes to Role Setting: Exploratory Local Action.” American Sociological Review 53: 865–78. (Presents an elegant theory of ambiguity that provides insights into how indeterminant action creates the conditions necessary for role exchange in settings where roles are not prescribed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattison, Philippa. 1993. Algebraic Models for Social Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press. (An exceptional text on using formal models for role relations for both complete and incomplete networks; an approach that holds true promise for identifying relational implications and systems-level regularities across settings.)Google Scholar
White, Harrison C., Boorman, Scott A., and Breiger, Ronald L.. 1976. “Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions.” American Journal of Sociology 81(4): 730–80. (Foundational work on using network methods to identify informal role systems.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Borgatti, Stephen P., and Everett, Martin G.. 1997. “Network Analysis of 2-Mode Data.” Social Networks, 19(3): 243–70. (Provides an overview of when and how analyses must differ when respecting two-mode networks.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiger, Ronald L. 1974. “The Duality of Persons and Groups.” Social Forces 53(2): 181–90. (The foundational work on linking bipartite networks to sociological theories of duality.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feld, Scott L. 1981. “The Focused Organization of Social Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 86(5): 1015–35. (A classic paper on how foci of activity establish opportunities for social network formation.)Google Scholar
Knoke, David, Diani, Mario, Hollway, James, and Christopoulos, Dimitris. 2021. Multimodal Political Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (A focused exploration of using multimode networks – bipartite, tripartite, and so on – to help understand political action across contexts.)Google Scholar
Mizruchi, Mark S. 1992. The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Corporate interlocks represent a key application of the duality principle and allow one to see aspects of the economy and political structure that are usually hidden from view.)Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 2010 [1908]. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Describes how overlapping social circles can be theorized and studied and how they organize in society.)Google Scholar
Suggested Further Reading
Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. (A classic work that describes artistic enterprises as involving a network of interrelated participants to bring them about.)Google Scholar
Bottero, Wendy, and Crossley, Nick. 2011. “Worlds, Fields and Networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the Structures of Social Relations.” Cultural Sociology 5(1): 99–119. (Compares Becker, Bourdieu, and social network conceptualizations as applied to British punk subculture in late 1970s.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, Kathleen. 1994. “Extracting Culture through Textual Analysis.” Poetics 22(4): 291–312. (Seminal work on semantic networks in texts and the methodology needed to bring them about.)Google Scholar
De Nooy, Wouter. 2003. “Fields and Networks: Correspondence Analysis and Social Network Analysis in the Framework of Field Theory.” Poetics 31(5–6): 305–27. (A nice comparison of Bourdieu’s correspondence analysis approach to finding deep structure with social network analysis’ approach to finding surface structures.)Google Scholar
Franzosi, Roberto. 2004. From Words to Numbers: Narrative, Data, and Social Science. Vol. 22. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Provides a systematic approach to representing narratives quantitatively.)Google Scholar
Fuhse, Jan A. 2009. “The Meaning Structure of Social Networks.” Sociological Theory 27: 51–73. (Describes how social opportunities of affiliations and connectivity collide with identities and expectations from roles and relations in interaction and interpretation to forge agreed-upon ties and have a feedback loop to those settings and types of tie/roles as scripts.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Roberts, Margaret E., and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2022. Text as Data: A New Framework for Machine Learning and the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (A recent overview textbook on quantitative analysis of text and natural language processing from a social science perspective.)Google Scholar
Kilduff, Martin, and Krackhardt, David. 2008. Interpersonal Networks in Organizations: Cognition, Personality, Dynamics and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Provides insights into within-organization network effects on leadership, performance, and organizational culture.)Google Scholar
Martin, John Levi. 2003. “What Is Field Theory?” American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1–49. (A relatively short overview and discussion of different conceptions of fields as latent forces.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Paul. 2016. Culture in Networks. New York: John Wiley & Sons. (Summary text that affords an overview of how networks and culture have been discussed in previous works. Builds from separate approaches to an increasingly melded and integrative perspective.)Google Scholar
Mohr, John W., Bail, Christopher A., Frye, Margaret et al. 2020. Measuring Culture. New York. Columbia University Press. (A useful theoretical overview of approaches to measuring meaning with formal methods.)Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. 2007. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. New York: Verso. (Offers a network perspective on literary texts and their internal plot structures.)Google Scholar