Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (
1979-).
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
971
GLOSSARY
A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network
analysis
Penelope Hawe, CynthiaWebster, Alan Shiell
/ / L I etwork" is an increasingly popular that a person draws upon from that network.
word in health research and health These might be questions about the amount or
I^lI
I ^ services delivery. The word is often quality of informational support, material sup
used for "partnership", "colla port, or emotional support provided.16 Such
synonymously
boration", "alliance", or even "group". But other specific information has proved remarkably
times, it is used with more intention to powerful in explaining some variation in
specific
describe the that exist between health.1719 But it provides only a partial view of
relationships
of individuals or and the a person's social networks. Missing is any
groups agencies,
resources to which of such groups information on the position of the person within
membership
facilitates access. These can be the network, of the relationships between other
relationships
The role of one's network members, of the characteristics of the
investigated empirically. perso
nal social networks in the of network structure (whether it is dense or loose),
development
morbidity and mortality is a well established of the ties that connect actors (whether they be
field of in social strong or weak), and of the relationships
inquiry epidemiology.1"3
Networks and network resources are also an between network structure and position, and
www.jech.com
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
972 Hawe, Webster, Shiell
Relational ties link actors within a network. These ties can be Without information on the among the
interrelationships
informal (for example, whether people in one organisation alters, no structural can be performed.32
analyses
know people in another organisation) or formal (for example, Position are used to identify who fill
generators people
whether one organisation funds another). Actors can have valued roles or positions such as lawyers,
particular physi
multiple ties with other actors, a feature known as multi or politicians and who therefore have access to a range
cians,
plexity. of resources (for example, information, skills, links to other
34
networks).33 The roles are specified by the analyst and the
TYPESOF NETWORKS focal actors are asked if they know anybody in each of these
One mode networks involve relations a set of roles. As with name generators, name interpreter questions
among single
similar actors, such as information among should follow.
exchange physi
cians within a hospital. Data about networks are obtained in much the same
Two mode networks involve among relations two different way as it is for data about individuals in traditional health
sets of actors. An would be the analysis of a network research. That is, it relies principally on interviews, self com
example
consisting of private, for profit organisations and their links pleted questionnaires, document analysis, diary methods,
to non-profit agencies in a community. Two mode networks and observation. Issues to do with the reliability and validity
are also used to investigate the relationship between a set of of these data sources are often similar to those in attribute
actors and a series of events. For example, data and a useful review is provided
although people collection, by Marsden.35
may not have direct ties to each other, they may attend On the whole, are better at
people generally recalling typical
similar events or activities in a community and in doing so or routine and interactions than they are on
relationships
this sets up opportunities for the formation of "weak ties."24 transactions that occur with time frames.35
highly specific
Socio-centric or complete networks consist of the relational Informant in studies of social structure is an
"accuracy"
ties among members of a single, bounded community. An issue and one that
interesting conceptual encourages
example would be relational ties among all of the teachers in researchers to reflect on the theory their
carefully underlying
a high school. of structure. For example, if an actor
analysis social says that
or personal networks are defined from a focal he/she has a tie with a particular but the researcher
Ego-centric alter,
actor's perspective only. This refers to the ties directly finds that the alter does not it, does that mean that the
verify
the focal actor to others in tie does not "exist"? Oris the subjective
connecting (ego) (ego's alters) cognition of the tie by
the network, plus ego's views on the ties among his or her alters. the actor the most in this context?35
important interpretation
An example would be if we asked a teacher to nominate the Another area of research in social
important methodological
people he/she socialises with outside of school, and then networks is the issue of how to select and set
samples
asked that teacher to indicate who in that network socialises boundaries for networks?that who is "in" and
is, deciding
with the others nominated. "out" of the study.36
www.jech.com
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social network analysis 973
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 10 12 13 14 15 16 1719 18
10110011011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21010000010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
31100101011 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
40000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50010000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61000001010 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
71010010000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
80000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
91110010000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10 1010000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0010011000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0000000000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
13 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14 0000000000 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
15 0000000000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
16 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
18 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0110011110 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cohesion describes the interconnectedness of actors in a networks are particularly good for coordination of activity
network. There are three common measures of cohesion: among the actors (because everyone knows everyone's
Distance between two actors in a network (or nodes in a business). The downside is that such networks entrench
graph) is calculated by summing the number of distinct ties particular value systems and norms. In a classic study of
(lines) that exist along the shortest route between them. So family networks, Bott39 showed that loose knit networks are
in figure 1 actor 15 is a distance of 5 from actor 11. This is the particularly useful if an actor wants to deviate from the
notion of "degrees of separation" made familiar to many by a norms of his or her immediate social circle.
Reachability measures whether actors within a network are A component is a portion of the network in which all actors
or to are connected, or indirectly,
related, either directly indirectly, all other actors.38 directly by at least one tie. By
Actors who are not connected to any other actors are called definition, each isolate is a separate component. There are four
isolates. With the exception of the three isolates (actors 4, 16, components in figure 1, one large component and three
and 18), all of the remaining actors in figure 1 can reach one isolates.
another. A clique is a subgroup of actors who are all directly
Density of a network is the total number of relational ties connected to one another and no additional network member
divided by the total possible number of relational ties. There exists who is also connected to all members of the subgroup.40
are 56 ties out of a possible 342 for the interorganisational A total of 11 cliques are found in figure 1: {1,6,7}; {6,7,11};
network in figure 1, giving a density of 0.164. {6,7,19}; {3,7,19}; {3,7,11}; {1,3,7}; {1,3,10}; {1,2,3, 9};
Density is one of the most basic measures in network {2,3,9,19}; {6,9,19}; {1,6,9}. Note the substantial amount of
analysis and one of the most commonly used notions in overlap among the actors identified in each of
cliques.theAn
social epidemiology. Some network structures are particularly analysis of the overlapping allows the core members of the
advantageous for certain functions. For example, dense network to be identified. The core members of the network
are actors 3 and 7 both of whom are in six cliques, four of
which overlap.
?4 is the most common used to
Clique analysis technique
identify the dense subgroups within a network. Subgroup
#16 #15 detection has been a particularly element in
important
diffusion and The main network
#18 adoption studies.41 theory
jg^4 used in these studies is Granovetter's ("the strength of weak
www.jech.com
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
974 Hawe, Webster, Shiell
www.jech.com
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social network 975
analysis
10 Dill AEP, Rochefort DA. Coordination, continuity, and centralized control: a 31 Hurlbert JS, Beggs JJ, Haines VA. Social networks and social capital in
policy perspective on service strategies for the chronic mentally ill. Journal of extreme environments. In: LinN, Cook K, Burt RS, eds. Social capital: theory
Social Issues 1989;45:145-59. and research. New York: Aldine de Gruvter, 2001.
11 Provan K, Milward B. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network 32 McCarty C. Structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure
effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. 2002;3:1 (http://zeeb.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/McCarty/McCarty.htm).
Administrative Science Quarterly 1995;40:1-33. 33 Lin N, Dumin M. Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks
12 Shea MP, Lewko JJ, Flynn RJ, ef al. Design and measurement considerations in 1986;8:365-85.
evaluating integrated human service delivery systems. Eval Pract 34 Erickson BH. Good networks and good jobs. The value of social capital to
1995;16:247-53. employers and employees. In: LinN, Cook K, Burt RS, eds. Social capital:
13 Hawe P, Riley T, Shiel E, ef al. Evaluating
community
interventions using theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2001.
interorganisational network analysis. American Psychology Association 35 Marsden PV. Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol
Division 27 Community Psychology. Eighth biennial conference of the Society 1990;16:435-63.
for Community Research and Action, Atlanta, June 2001. 36 Laumann EO,Marsden PV, Prensky D. The boundary specification problem in
14 Wellman B, Berkowitz SD. Social structures: a network approach. Greenwich: network analysis. In: Freeman LC,White DR, Romney AK, eds. Research
JAI Press, 1997. methods in social network analysis. Fairfax VA: George Mason University
15 Wellman B. Network analysis: some basic principles. In:Marsden PV, LinN, Press, 1989.
eds. Social structure and network analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982. 37 Guare J. Six degrees of separation: a play. New York: Vintage Books, 1990.
16 House JS. Work, stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 38 Doreian P. On the connectivity of social networks. Journal of Mathematical
1981. Sociology 1974;3:245-58.
17 Rook K. The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well 39 Bott E. Family and social networks. London: Tavistock, 1957.
being. J Pers Soc Psychol 1984;46:1097-108. 40 Luce RD, Perry AD. A method of matrix analysis of group structure.
18 Thoits PA. Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What Psychometrika 1949;14:95-116.
next? J Health Soc Behav 1995,35:53-79. 41 Hunter SD, Vizelberg IA, Berenson BS. Identifying mechanisms of adoption of
19 Wellman B,Wortley S. Different strokes from different folks: community ties tobacco and alcoholuse among youth: the Bogalusa heart study. Social
and social support. American Journal of Sociology 1990;96:558-88. Networks 1991;13:91-104.
20 Haines VA, Hurlbert JS. Network range and health. J Health Soc Behav 42 Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In:
1992;33:254-66. Marsden P, LinN, eds. Social structure and network analysis. Beverley Hills:
21 Webster C, Freeman LC,Aufdenberg CG. The impact of social context on Sage, 1982.
interaction patterns. Journal of Social Structure 2001 ;2 (http:// 43 Milgram S. The small world problem. Psychol Today 1967;2:60-7.
zeeb.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/webster/Webster.html). 44 Pool I, Kochen M. Contacts and influence. Social Networks 1978;1:1-48.
22 Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. 45 Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of small world networks. Nature
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 1998;393:440-2.
23 Scott J. Social network analysis: a handbook. Newbury Park: Sage, 1991. 46 Watts DJ. Networks, dynamics and the small world phenomenon. American
24 Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology Journal of Sociology 1999;105:493-527.
1973;78:1360-80. 47 Freeman LC.Centrality in social networks: I. conceptual clarification. Social
25 Burt RS. Network items and the general social science survey. Social Networks Networks 1979;1:215-39.
1984;6:293-339. 48 Lorrain F,White HC. Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks.
26 Fischer CS.What do we mean by friend? An inductive study. Social Networks Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1971,1:49-80.
1982;3:287-306. 49 Borgatti S, EverettM. Graph colourings and power in experimental exchange
27 Frank O. Estimation of population totals by use of snowball samples. In: networks. Social Networks 1992;14:287-308.
Holland PW, Leinhardt S, eds. Perspectives on social network research. New 50 Sailer LD. Structural equivalence: meaning and definition, computation and
York: Academic Press, 1979. application. Social Networks 1978;4:117-45.
28 Klovdahl AS. Urban social networks: some methodological problems and 51 Israel BA. Social networks and social support: implications for natural helper
possibilities. In:Kochen M, ed. The small world. Norwood, Ablex, 1989. and community level interventions. Health Educ Q 1985,12:65-80.
29 Newman MEJ. Ego-centered networks and the ripple effect. Social Networks 52 Newman NEJ. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review
2003;25:83-95. 2003;45:167-256.
30 LinN. Building a network theory of social capital. In: LinN, Cook K, Burt RS, 53 Pattison P. Social networks. CSIRO/ASSA workshop, Canberra, Australia,
eds. Social capital: theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2001. 19 June 2003.
www.jech.com
This content downloaded from 94.0.78.206 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:24:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions