Touchscreen-gesteuerte Instrumente zur Erhebung egozentrierter Netzwerke

Hollstein, Betina; Behrmann, Laura

doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839422571.121

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that systematically compare the handling of tools and perceptions of networks among different milieus or between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, and perhaps also with regard to personality traits, might be enlightening. Furthermore, in an era of digitalization, different modes for implementing visual tools, such as digital instruments or online applications, are continually being developed (e.g., Hollstein et al, 2013;Fagan & Eddens, 2015;Hogan et al, 2016). Looking ahead, different means and applications for collecting visual-based ego network data should be compared systematically with regard to manageability for different target groups (e.g., Gamper et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, it might be relatively easy to talk about a problematic relationship one has with a relative, but having to put it on a map and visually document, it could be burdensome. Furthermore, in such comparative studies, visual tools should be included for which, on the one hand, names are elicited as part of the visual task and, on the other hand, alters are arranged on a visual map but are elicited by other means (Hogan et al, 2007;Hollstein et al, 2013;Kuhns et al, 2015). Those comparisons should pay special attention to differences regarding fatigue and should include measures of efficiency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To learn more about the possible impact of different visual layouts on network data and data collection process, we included three different shaped tools that represent various positions and perspectives of ego: One is the concentric-circle diagram in the adaptation of Antonucci (1986), which we described above. Another, a funnel tool (Hollstein et al, 2013), has a trapezoidal shape that represents ego's view toward the world and was motivated by the use of touchscreen computers that sit flat on the table in front of the interviewee. In contrast to Antonucci's (1986) egocentric form of visualization, in which the interviewee is asked to depict him-/herself in the center of the network map, the interviewee uses the funnel tool as the projection of his/her social surroundings from his/her physical position relative to the screen.…”

Section: The Four Visual Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondly, we will present the results of an experimental study where we compare four different visual tools with regard to networks elicited, manageability of tools (regarding shape and structuring elements), and how they are implemented (impact of follow-up questions). These tools are the diagram of concentric circles or so-called hierarchical mapping technique (Antonucci, 1986), two modifications of the funnel tool (Hollstein et al, 2013), and free network drawings. In order to assess the four tools, we used the thinking aloud method (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) that encourages interviewees to verbalize their thought processes during the interview.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Hollstein

Töpfer

2020

Net Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When collecting egocentric network data, visual representations of networks can function as a cognitive aid for depicting relationships, helping to maintain an overview of the relationships, and keeping the attention of the interviewees. Additionally, network maps can serve as a narration generator in qualitative and in mixed-methods studies. While varying visual instruments are used for collecting egocentric network data, little is known about differences among visual tools concerning the influence on the resulting network data, the usability for interviewees, and data validity. The article provides an overview of existing visually oriented tools that are used to collect egocentric networks and discusses their functions, advantages, and limitations. Then, we present results of an experimental study where we compare four different visual tools with regard to networks elicited, manageability, and the impact of follow-up questions. In order to assess the manageability of the four tools, we used the thinking aloud method. The results provide evidence that the decision in favor of a specific visual tool (structured vs. unstructured) can affect the size and composition of the elicited networks. Follow-up questions greatly affect the elicited networks and follow-up cues can level out differences among tools. Respondents tend to prefer the concentric circles tool, with some differences in preferences and manageability of tools between participants with low and those with high socioeconomic status. Finally, assets and drawbacks of the four instruments are discussed with regard to data quality and crucial aspects of the data collection process when using visual tools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Four Visual Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Hollstein

Töpfer

2020

Net Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unstructured maps are "free-style" drawings where interviewees simply receive a piece of paper to develop their perspective on a certain question, for instance, for illustrating private and occupational interactions of individuals. The primary function is to generate narratives on personal systems of relevance and meaning (Hollstein and Pfeffer, 2010). The second category of network maps is structured ones, either standardized or non-standardized.…”

Section: Investigating Policy Network Using Qnamentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative network analysis: A useful tool for investigating policy networks in transnational settings?

Ahrens

2018

Methodological Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission designs and promotes policy networks in almost all policy fields. Knowledge about networks is necessary for a better understanding of the overall policymaking process in multilevel governance systems like the European Union (EU). Studying EU networks helps to explain how policies emerge, how they are framed and processed, why they take the character they do, and how they might contribute to understanding the course of European integration. The political system of the EU is characterized by the coexistence and interdependence of formal and informal networks that are part of its multilevel governance. While the interplay of formal and informal actor's networks has been researched to some extent (Klüver, 2014; Mahoney, 2008), informal policy networks have been paid less attention in EU integration theory (Christiansen and Piattoni, 2004)-one reason being that rules for processes, membership, and responsibilities are often not clearly defined and are not readily detectable from the outside. Informal policy networks may include expert groups, civil society organizations (CSOs) such as lobby groups, social partners, or companies that argue about policy content also discussed in the formal policy-making process. Researchers used social network analysis (SNA) as an essential technique to investigate such complex networks among actors, be they individuals, small groups, or international organizations (Carrington et al., 2005; Jansen, 2006; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). SNA allows investigating a broad range of professional and personal networks and their quantitative aspects such as group size, the number, and status of contacts. A common challenge in network analysis is the lack of information on other elements of social life like inter-agency and process-related aspects (Crossley, 2010). Qualitative network analysis (QNA) aims addressing the shortcomings of SNA by applying a micro-perspective instead of a macroperspective and qualitative instead of quantitative methods, and taking an insider instead of an outsider view. A qualitative approach to networks prompts a focus on personal and social networks, for instance, friendships, family relations, or migration ties. Until now, only a few attempts have been made to apply QNA to policy networks (Baumgarten and

show abstract

Netzwerkkarten – Netzwerke sichtbar machen

Straus

2024

Netzwerkforschung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Touchscreen-gesteuerte Instrumente zur Erhebung egozentrierter Netzwerke

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Collecting egocentric network data with visual tools: A comparative study

Qualitative network analysis: A useful tool for investigating policy networks in transnational settings?

Netzwerkkarten – Netzwerke sichtbar machen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About