Social Network Analysis (SNA)

Abstract

Social Network Analysis (SNA) has received growing attention in methodological debates in the social sciences. Recent mathematical developments and user-friendly computer programmes for visualising and measuring networks have led to significant advances in quantitative SNA. Amidst these developments, however, there have been calls for the revival of qualitative approaches to social networks, not necessarily to supplant quantitative methods, but to complement them. Quantitative approaches map and measure networks by simplifying social relations into numerical data, where ties are either absent or present. They therefore bracket out questions of crucial importance to understanding the kinds of human interaction networks studied by social scientists. Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, enable analysts to consider issues relating to the construction, reproduction, variability and dynamics of complex social ties. This paper considers the arguments for adopting a mixed-method approach to network analysis, firstly as they arise out of the existing research literature, and secondly, as they have been highlighted in explicit theoretical debates about combining quantitative and qualitative data and analysis. By unpacking the different ways in which researchers have combined quantitative and qualitative methods in network projects it also seeks to provide some guidance for others on 'how to' mix methods in SNA. In particular, it reviews literature in which quantitative SNA has been combined with interviews, ethnography and historical archival research and considers the benefits of these strategies. On a theoretical note, the paper considers suggestions that mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches can enable researchers to explore the structure (or form) of networks from an 'outsider's' view, and the content and processes of networks from an 'insider's' view. It also refers to recent discussions which suggest that SNA offers a particular opportunity for mixing methods because networks are both structure and process at the same time, and therefore evade simple categorisation as either quantitative or qualitative phenomena.Gemma Edwards is a Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Manchester, UK. Her research interests lie in social theory, social movements, and social network analysis. Her recent work involves contemporary applications of Habermas's social theory to trade union decline and renewal in the UK public sector. She is currently exploring the role played by social networks in social movements using a mixed-method approach. She is involved in a project (2009/10) exploring militant social networks through case studies of the British Suffragettes and the IRA using historical archival research and SNA.

On Digital Ethnography: Nonviolent Campaign Movement of the Instagram Community @TOLERANSI.ID in Realizing Religious Moderation

“…The development of digital technology has brought new forms to social movements (Sitorus, 2022). New forms of media provide access to social movement actors to increase resources and expand communication networks so that they have greater power (Carty, 2014).…”

Changing the habits of a lifetime? Mindfulness meditation and habitual geographies

“…28 However, it is important to note that the transformation Crossley envisions in relation to habit, and therefore the potential for liberation, is inevitably limited, because, while agents are 'not wholly pre-empted by the notion of the habitus' 29 the possibility of transformation is always located within the existing habitus, and the (habitual) contexts in which we are located. Habits provide 'the necessary background of meaning and preference which makes choice possible' 30 -for instance: our habits of thought cannot but shape the conversations we have with ourselves (so our horizons for self-reflection are largely configured by our existing linguistic schemas), and the questions we might ask ourselves are rooted in our social contexts (inasmuch as we can only perceive deficiencies and attributions relative to others and collective representations). As such, a radically new perspective on the self is neither guaranteed, nor perhaps even possible.…”