For Geographical Network Analysis

A missing link? Network analysis as an empirical approach for critical physical geography

“…Most recently, there are calls for a revival of network analysis from within geography, with scholars laying out a framework for a distinctive geographical network analysis (Gibadullina et al 2021; Uitermark and van Meeteren 2021). Distinguishing itself from complexity science and spatial network analysis (which tends to assume a Cartesian definition of space), geographical network analysis “presumes that networks are situated, construed through meaning, and reflect power relations” and emphasizes relational space, mixed methods, ontological plurality, and a constant back and forth between context and abstraction (Uitermark and van Meeteren 2021, 337; Gibadullina et al 2021). These ideas have much in common with the theoretical commitments of CPG, as well as qualitative and visual network approaches, which I will discuss in a later section.…”

“…For example, the conceptualization of structural holes led to a change in the way businesses manage their personnel (Glückler et al 2020), and scientometric techniques are regularly misused by neoliberal university administrations and publishers in the political economy of academic rankings and impact evaluation (Gingras 2016; Stengers and Muecke 2018). As Hogan (2021, 9) notes, “we do not merely expose the powerful with networks so much as articulate the structures that can reproduce a system of power in ways both abstract and concrete.” In acknowledging this reality, CPG scholars should pay particularly close attention to the “small‐p” politics (King and Tadaki 2018) involved in the conceptualization of our own and others' networks, as what is defined as a node and a tie can have major implications for the resulting network patterns (Gibadullina et al 2021). We should also remember that thinking of the world in terms of networks is just one of many possible paradigms, consider how each technique aligns with our own theoretical foundations (Wyatt et al 2015), and stay aware to the assumptions in the underlying mathematics and computer software (Nost et al 2019; D'Ignazio and Klein 2020; Braun 2021).…”

Quantitative methods II: Big theory

“…Similar conceptual theorizing is evident in recent reflections on spatial scale (Oshan et al, 2022; Poon, 2004; Poorthuis and Zook, 2020) and in time geography (Miller, 2005). On the subject of geographic network analysis, there has also been discussion about the meaning of edges and nodes and what is captured or missed with various definitions (Gibadullina, Bergmann, and O’Sullivan, 2021; Uitermark and Van Meeteren, 2021). In the same special issue, Derudder (2021), still on the subject of networks, reflects on the implications of conceptualizing cities as discrete units.…”

When is a matrix a geographical network?

“…Second, space and location are not concepts that speak for themselves. The specification and interpretation of geographical networks therefore requires engaging with geographical theory (Uitermark and Van Meeteren 2021), including debates about the nature of space and location (Bergmann and Lally 2021;Gibadullina, Bergmann, and O'Sullivan 2021;Poorthuis and Zook 2020). Geographical networks thus differ from the broader category of spatial networks (e.g., Barthélemy 2011), which encode spatial information but may not consider the socially-constructed nature of space and location.…”

“…For example, in research on assemblage networks or actor-networks (e.g., Farías and Bender 2012), the term 'network' is used metaphorically to tease out the socio-material ordering of entities that is ever-provisional, and therefore does not lend itself easily to formalization as a matrix or graph. Although studying those socio-material orderings using graph-theoretical approaches is a key research frontier in geographical network analysis (Gibadullina, Bergmann, and O'Sullivan 2021), we restrict our focus to a graph-theoretical conception of geographical networks.…”