Qualitative Methods and Visualizations in the Study of Friendship Networks

Abstract

One of the most powerful aspects of social network data is the fact that they can reproduce social relationships in a formal and comparable way. Relational matrices abstract from the hustle and bustle of everyday interaction, and systematise information in terms of presence or absence of ties expressing them in a directed or undirected, binary or valued form. While the formal approach represents an advantage of social network analysis, as it allows bracketing off the idiosyncratic and subjective content of social structures, the mathematization of the complex nature of social relationships has also been criticised for the lack of engagement with the subjective meaning and context of relationships. Such stream of critique has called for an increase of use of qualitative methods in social network research. The first goal of the paper is to address these critiques by rebalancing the argument and showing how social network analysis has always engaged with both formal and contextual aspects of social structures. The paper reviews some theoretical perspectives that discuss and systematise a mixed method approach, and explores the methodological advantages of using network visualizations together with qualitative interviews in the collection, analysis and interpretation of personal networks. The advantages of adopting a mixed method approach are illustrated over some examples of friendship networks of 23 single male and female people collected in Milan, Italy, in 2005. A classic name generator is used to reconstruct their egonets of friends, and the visualization is adopted as the input for in-depth interviews with specific attention devoted to the meaning of friendship relationships, the kind of resources they offer, the conflicts and constrains they entail, and how they have developed and evolved over time. By comparing information obtained respectively with name generators and in-depth interviews, the paper shows how the mix of data improves and specify the understanding of personal networks.

The emotional cost of distance: Geographic social network dispersion and post-traumatic stress among survivors of Hurricane Katrina

“…By capitalizing on the RISK project’s unique data, we build on growing attention to integrating qualitative and quantitative data in social network research (Bellotti, 2014; Domínguez & Hollstein, 2014). Contextualizing statistical models with qualitative data, we illustrate how individuals “perceive and define their friends, the nature and content of their relationships, and the opportunities and constraints offered by local networks” in the wake of a disaster (Bellotti, 2014, p. 77).…”

“…Contextualizing statistical models with qualitative data, we illustrate how individuals “perceive and define their friends, the nature and content of their relationships, and the opportunities and constraints offered by local networks” in the wake of a disaster (Bellotti, 2014, p. 77). An important contribution of this work is that respondents derive instrumental and emotional social support from individuals who go unmentioned on the GSS “important matters” network name generator.…”

The ambivalence of cultural homophily: Field positions, semantic similarities, and social network ties in creative collectives

“…In order to account not only for the field-imposed culture, but also for the local culture emerging from practice (see Bourdieu, 1990;Mohr and Neely, 2009: 220;Basov et al, 2018), this paper aligns with the rapidly expanding mixed method movement in network analysis (Fuhse and Mützel, 2011;Bellotti, 2014;Domínguez and Hollstein, 2014;Bellotti, 2016;Ibrahim and Crossley, 2016;Basov, 2018). It does so in at least two ways.…”

Cardiology patients' medicines management networks after hospital discharge: A mixed methods analysis of a complex adaptive system

“…This sequential mixed methods analysis combining interview data with quantitative network analysis allowed in-depth interpretation of the networks data and offered contextual information to the network strucutres. 29 Results 75 patients were recruited to the study; 15 were lost to follow-up because: the study team could not contact them (3), they did not wish to take part (3), they were ill (7), and two patients died. 60 patients were retained in the study, 39 of whom kept diary records and 60 took part in interviews.…”