Jump to content

Talk:Social network analysis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Types of Ties; Harvard SocRel

Just to clarify. A social network always contains specified types of ties, such as friendship or money exchange. (Wasserman & Faust call these relational ties.) So I put "specified" in.

An editor said: "reference for "usually networks don't look at all types of ties, but at selected ties which don't have to be "valuable"" is missing!". The standard reference for this sort of thing is W&F, but I didn't cite it, as the concept to the field and it comes up in other places.

While [{Charles Tilly]] and Stanley Milgram were part of the Harvard Department of Social Relations, they weren't associated with Harrison White's group but were going their own ways. Tilly was also an urban/community sociologist at the time, indeed based at the Joint Center for Urban Studies. I know it is WP:OR, but I was there, and all who were there would agree with these noncontroversial assertions. I'll add a few citations.Bellagio99 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Social network analysis should be split

I think that SNA should be split into its own separate article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Social network and social network analysis are two separate things. This article should be about the social network theory. not about one of the methods for its analysis.--76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree Article is comprehensive as is. It is as much about research findings as it is about theory. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A theory is comprised of research findings. You are talking about research findings and theory as if they were two separet things??? There is no distinction between research findings and theory. What they (first two comments) are telling is that "the research method" and "the theory" should be split into two articles. "The research method" is called "Social network analysis", and the theory is called "Social network theory". A researcher uses "Social Network Analysis" to produce information about a phenomenon called "Social Network" and the sum of findings constitute "Social network theory".

Therefore there is no distinction between "theory" and "research findings". But there should be a distinction between "a sepecific research method" and "a theory".

Thus, the article whould be split into two articles as "Social network" and "Social network analysis". --76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article could and should be split. -- Mdd (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. As it is now, the sections on social network analysis comprise most of the content of this article. That suggests creating a new article. Since "social network analysis" is a subset of "social network," a subarticle would be in order. The guideline on Summary style suggests a short summary in in the parent article with a link, such as: "Main article: Social Network Analysis." This approach would require adding to the "Social network" article. Sunray (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Agree That "social network analysis" is a subset of "social network," and this could be split into two articles. I would be interested in helping work on enlarging a separate "social network" article.Meclee (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If no one else takes this on, I can do this after I finish the merger of the social complexity articles, which will be finished around the end of November. Meclee (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Social Network theory vs. analysis

Is there agreement that this article should be split between 'social network theory' and 'social network analysis? Meclee (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Although there seems to be some agreement on a split between 'social network theory' and 'social network analysis, and I've started work in a sandbox on an introduction to 'social network theory', as I'm working, it occurs to me that there is little "theory" in and of itself. There is a theoretical background, but the most relevant information is really about 'method': the analysis. At this point, I'm thinking that a short introduction and section on "theoretical background" added to the current article would be sufficient, with the remainder under a "social network analysis" section. There is also an article Social_network_analysis_software that should probably be merged into this article. Until I see the split marked as "consensus", I am going to proceed under the assumption that there should be one article entitled 'social network'. (Currently, there is a complicated arrangement that directs both to the same article).Meclee (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Social_network_analysis_software is an uncurated mess. I suggest it stay by itself as a honeypot for the many peeps who are coming up with new software.
Social network analysis is more than a method: it is a theoretical perspective (if not quite a theory). It has its own journals and several international conferences annually. I suggest that part of the article be called "Social Network Analysis".
Bellagio99 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Further thought: I agree on the split. One might be called "Social Networks" and concentrate on findings. The other would be called "Social Network Analysis" and concentrate on methods, measures. With x-linking of both as well as the Software article (which may have some use as a grab-bag of links as well as a a diversionary honeypot.) Bellagio99 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned about splitting the article because network analysis is fundamentally an ensemble of methods (like statistics) rather than a field (like sociology), technology (like Facebook), or theory (like complexity). Theoretical claims can be made using network analysis methods--Granovetter's weak ties, Burt's brokerage, Milgram's six degrees of separation--but these are theoretical claims about the structure of society or organizations, for example. Network methods are used to substantiate theoretical claims from sociology, but these are not assuredly not theories of networks.
I feel as though any discussion of merging or spinning out should also be attempted in the context of reconciling this article with network theory and network science which also need to be addressed by merging or spinning out. It would be lunacy to have four separate articles on each of social network, network theory, social network analysis, and network science. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dynamic network analysis and Complex network are other articles that should also fall into the purview of any attempt to merge and spin out network-related content. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mad: Strongly Disagree that Social network analysis is only a bunch of methods. There's a strong world view behind it, treating phenomena as relational and not as either bounded groups or aggregated individuals. A good deal of writing makes that case, especially SD Berkowitz & Barry Wellman, Social Structures; Linton Freeman's book from Empirical Press; David Knoke's little green Sage book; John Scott's several books; the recent Handbook of Social Network Analysis; and even Stanley Wasserman & Kathryn Faust, Social Networks book (even though it is purportedly about methods). I have 40+ years of experience in the field as the basis for my assertion. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement that what exists is a mess! Bellagio99, since you have extensive experience in the topic, perhaps you would add some suggestions to my sandbox on an intro section. I've only just begun, so there is little there at the moment. Thanks for comments! Meclee (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mad: Thanks for the suggestion. Next 3 weeks am (over)loaded with grading, recc letters to write, dissertation exam. So I will yield to others for the time being. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Madcoverboy, for putting the proper tag at the top! I am not familiar with the tag templates, so I appreciate that! Meclee (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let sleeping networks lie??

M & M, What you're doing is laudable -- in principle -- but I almost guarantee, if you start doing wholesale moves and collapsing, you will rile up lots of people, as these topics differ and I daresay, some folks feel they WP:Own specific topics.

You might consider another approach. Be carefully conservative in your moves and collapses, BUT ALSO add in where necessary cross-links to the other germane articles.

Just my .02 YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. The only thing being done at this point is discussion. Anything that might be done will proceed cautiously, and then, a split only after there is consensus.Meclee (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

General network domain cleanup

As an opening bid to address the balkanization of topics related to networks, may I suggest the following: Merge Network science into network theory and use this "network theory" as a parent article containing topics like social network, complex network, computer network, and network analysis.

  • Network theory should emphasize the nature of relations as unit of analysis, history and development across fields, and introduce/summarize the other topics below
  • Social network should emphasize the subset of networks consisting of social relations and interactions.
  • Network analysis should emphasize the methods and metrics used across social, information, biological, and other networks. Centrality, density, diameter, degree distribution, etc.
  • Complex network is currently just an intro to scale free network and small world network and might just be merged back into network theory.

Responses? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, good opening bid. My thought at the moment is that Complex network might better be merged with Social network, since, at this point, it does represent one 'perspective' in looking at social networks. (My own thought is that any structure that is worthy of being called a 'network' will be complex, but not everyone agrees with that). Looking for topic organization ideas, I found this rather nice set at U of Twente that takes two different approaches to organizing the topic: 1) Levels of theories (micro-meso-macro); and 2) Theory clusters (organized somewhat topically). If I am reading your suggestion correctly, Social network would be more or less equivalent to the former. My situation at the moment is much the same as Bellagio99, but my next step is to look and see if WP contains articles that more or less correspond to the the two lists at the Twente site.Meclee (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC) I should add that the Twente list is in the area of communications so their lists are not comprehensive.Meclee (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree about merging complex network with social network. Social networks are constitutive of relationships between human agents and organizations are thus are a "sub-genre" of networks. Biological and information networks can also be characterized as having complex, small world, and scale free properties. If anything complex network should be merged into network analysis or network theory. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not passionate about one choice over the other. It can be worked into either theory or analysis, perhaps both.Meclee (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Social network and Social network analysis

There are two seperate things: Social network and Social network analysis.

Social network is a social phenomenon. Social network analysis is a method for investigating Social network.

It is similar to:

As you see, there are two entities: A social phenomenon and A research method. Both deserves an article. I don't understand why there is an objection? Will those who object, suggest merging Algorithm and algorithm analysis? I hope they don't!

Meclee is ready to split the article. She or he is working on other related articles. She or he can make a better split then most others since she or he already is in touch with other related articles. Many others agreed to split. Noone says some part of the article will be deleted. It is a "split" we are talking about. Therefore two articles will develop on their own way.

If there is an option for merging another article to Social network article, it is another issue. And I'm sure it will be better dealed once analysis is out of the way. Even though the article is titled as "Social network", the article is %80 about a research method. So I'm waiting for the split to further develop "Social network" article. I'm sure there are many others, who are waiting for a good start.

I don't know who Meclee is. But I suggest letting her/him split the article so that a clean slate article we will have to develop further. --76.31.238.174 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be working on this after this weekend. Spitting simply between "social network" and "social network analysis" would be the most simple way to begin. Thanks for the suggestion.Meclee (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
In my proposal above, I suggested splitting between network analysis and social network since methods in SNA (centrality, density, etc.) are not different from analytic methods for biological, information, or transportation networks. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank for the clarification, Madcoverboy. Although the methods may not differ, certainly the application of methods and, therefore, some of the terminology might differ, not to mention the areas of research and the outcomes. Might there be room for an article dedicated to social network analysis?Meclee (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above that Social network is a social phenomenon. and Social network analysis is a method for investigating Social network. Also agree that there is overlap between network analysis and social network analysis since both would measure for example Density and various types of Centrality. BUT how this is interpreted is different between say an electricity supply network and a social network (this is where the social theory comes in) - particularly as in social networks the context is very important. Additionally the research methods needed to collect the data deserve some mention (or at least a reference to different data collection methods which would span from surveys / interviews to lifting data from websites etc) which again could be different to the analysis of physical networks. [Hope this helps, I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first contribution! I've worked in this area over a period of years so I have some expertise.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.3.60 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move complete

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Social network → Social_network_analysis – O.K., folks, there does appear to be a "split" consensus, and I am just about ready to get this page split done. I am creating a new article (in a sandbox) to be named "social_network" and propose to MOVE the current article page (with some minor edits) to the title: "Social_network_analysis" , which will require some changes in re-directs as well. Please discuss the MOVE on this current talk page. More discussion of content, etc., can then ensue on the differing talk-pages of the two "new" articles. Thanks for any input. Meclee (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been 7 days and I see no objections, so I am today undertaking the move, posting the new article, and re-working the redirects. Meclee (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Social Network Analysis conference

The big one in the field is at Redondo Beach (LA) March 14-18. Please post if you are going. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Metrics

Should not each element under Metrics have a link to either another WP page or to an external reference?

My ideal preference would be another WP page, as that would allow some discussion of formulas and variations, plus easy reference links to each variation and its specific applications. It seems to me that a general measurement of social networks would have enough info to warrant its own WP page, although an external reference might be necessary for a relatively new analytical approach.

(Please forgive in advance my potential ignorance ... I'm new to WP and not a sociologist. Thanks) BobDohse (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported qualitative claims about open vs. closed networks

The following statement within Social Network Analysis is presumptious and unsupported: "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. "

This topic is not about the generation of new ideas, which is a highly complex topic in and of itself. If included at all should be presented as a hypothesis or discussion point with counterpoints such as "on more open networks, participants may restrict the information or sharing behavior, reducing the value and/or quality of the content transmitted and thus reducing the value of the network." Fenigstein (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Marc Fenigstein

I didn't write the paras, but I disagree that it's unsupported -- altho the refs do need to be added, going back to Robert Merton and Marc Granovetter. And I don't know how it is presumptious: there's a sizeable research base in this area. What's your own knowledge base in this area? Bellagio99 (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for delay; I missed the above response to my proposal. If there is academic support for the original assertion, it needs to be footnoted. Even if academic/theoretical work has not yet disputed the idea that open networks with more weak ties "are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members," there are numerous practical counterpoints to the assertion that make it incorrect to make as a statement of fact, rather than possibility. From the backlash against Facebook and Google Buzz, to the creation of enterprise networks for idea sharing/creation, there is clear evidence that opening some networks too much or adding the wrong nodes can reduce the quantity and quality of information shared on that network. My experience in the space is purely practical and professional, as a Social Networking subject matter expert (SME) under my role as Senior Strategist at frog design inc. Some of my thoughts on the subject are published within frog's Design Mind magazine. Fenigstein (talk) 04:01, 06 October 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence might be correct from a Bridging perspective, but it could be quite incorrect from a Bonding perspective. If the desired effect was to build a tight-knit team, especially as a mechanism for opposing a more dominant force, then a large percentage of weak ties would be counterproductive for the network's members. At the extreme edge of this spectrum, a terrorist network with a large percentage of weak ties would have a huge security disadvantage. In the context of a general statement on social networks, this sentence should be reworked to better align network purposes with network structures.BobDohse (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if editors supplied research evidence for their assertions. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was self-evident when Granovetter's 'Strength of Weak Ties' (1973) was the source of the weak ties concept. In the section, "The Strength of Ties", Granovetter states that ties are "strong, weak, or absent" and that strong ties, by definition, "involve larger time constraints". In later sections Granovetter develops his concept of weak ties as "bridges" to resources external to the cluster defined solely by strong ties (i.e., the group of close friends). So "bridges" have both costs and a benefits, as do all network ties.
Thus, if the desired purpose of a particular network cluster was to create stronger ties within that cluster, constrain resources within that cluster, or protect that cluster from external forces, then creating or maintaining bridges thru "weak ties" could be counterproductive to the cluster's goals and not beneficial to the members. The cost for maintenance of the weak ties could exceed any potential benefit and/or the bridge could introduce negative externalities into the cluster.
The same rational can be applied to happiness within a cluster, using arguments of the referenced "Happiness" paper from Fowler and Christakis (or, actually, from any of their joint projects). According to their body of research, happiness and sadness (or obesity, divorce, addictive behaviors ... almost any human behavior) has an element of contagion that follows a power law and is statistically unavoidable. If a happy (or thin, married, unaddicted) network cluster of people wanted to remain unaffected by the problems of their "weak ties" friends, the logic of the Fowler-Christakis studies suggests that eliminating the weak ties would be statistically beneficial. Christakis actually states that in his TED talk on "The hidden influence of social networks" (www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html), in reference to an epidemic sweeping thru an extended network.
Logically, then, "smaller, tighter networks" can be both "less useful" and "more useful" to their members, depending on the purposes and goals of that particular cluster of people within the larger global domain.
BobDohse (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The current vision of the SNA article is missing some internal links. For example, "social systems" in second paragraph in Overview section shall have an internal link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_systems), which directs readers to the wikipedia page of "social system" to help with better clarification. 1314Megan (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I figured out more internal links that need to be add, such as Reciprocity and Mutualism in the "Metrics" section. 1314Megan (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Practical Applications

The Practical Applications section currently is very sparse, containing only applications of intelligence/counter-intelligence, and of that primarily on the NSA. I will be looking on expanding this section with other examples outside of intelligence in the next few weeks once I find appropriate sources. In particular I'll be looking to expand on Facebook's applications and disease tracking. MikeWilcox417 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

According to verifiability, it's better to have at least one source.

Except what you mentioned, Social Network Analysis applied to business problems, too. Social Network Analysis is an important tool for organizational consultants seeking to understand the connection between patterns of interactions and business outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, adoption of new ideas or technologies, likelihood of information getting shared, and creation of new ideas. An example is described in the paper "Inside Social Network Analysis" written by Kate et al. Without an Social Network Analysis, A’s lack of active participation in the group and B’s importance may have gone unnoticed. After conducting the SNA, upper management was able to consider a range of options, including formalizing B's role. 1314Megan (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 1314Megan (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Social Network Analysis (SNA) and Social Network Optimization (SNO)

The new trend of practical application for Social Network Analysis (SNA) is Social Network Optimization (SNO), which is known as business optimization. For example, IBM's social network optimization tool can assist business in optimizing knowledge sharing among employees leveraging informal networks. It has been described in a research web page named "Social network analytics and business optimization (SNO)". 1314Megan (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Mergers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:MERGECLOSE: No consensus for the merger of Reed's law into this article, considering more recent comments opposed to merger. The proposed merger of Social network analysis software is not done because of a stale discussion and quite a number of changes since Jan 2012, and comments suggesting conversion into a list instead of or in addition to merging. I'm going to semi-sketchily call Social network change detection no consensus as there was no discussion on it, and more importantly, there have been a number of recent edits to that article that might improve it or, more likely, be absolutely completely copyvio, either way pushing back discussion on merger. I am going to at least try to merge Social networking potential (though I'm not exactly sure where to) because I find that notability is sketchy at best and the two are logically connected, and per WP:MERGECLOSE, no objections after 30 days. In any event, feel free to reopen discussion if warranted. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 06:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose to merge article Social network analysis software to this article as per earlier discussion above (see comment: "the Software article (which may have some use as a grab-bag of links as well as a a diversionary honeypot.) Bellagio99 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)). Also propose to merge Reed's_law and Social_network_change_detection as they relate directly to social network analysis. Meclee (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Also added merge from Social_networking_potential. Meclee (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the prose would be a good merge, but that the software might be better renamed for a WP:LIST, such as List of social network analysis software. Morphh (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea! Thanks for the comment! Meclee (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Reed's_law should go to into Social network and not here, since it deals with the networks themselves as opposed to with their study? Also, I am not convinced the Social networking potential article has much of value on it. It seems like a short discussion of Burt's work on quantifying the value of ego networks might provide better coverage for the topic. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Reed's Law article needs a lot of work to make it accurate and clear. Merging into another document whilst it's this bad would reduce the chances of getting it fixed. --Ade oshineye (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social network analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This page really needs a comprehensive revision

As the standard bearer for what is now a very active and interdisciplinary field of analysis, this page does not provide the kind of comprehensive overview and links to subfields that would benefit the typical Wikipedia user. If's a major effort, so if anyone would like to volunteer to help, please respond and lmk, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxbox (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjguo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_network_analysis/Archive_2&oldid=1137192061"