8. Comparing Networks across Space and Time, Size and Species

Abstract

We describe and illustrate methodology for comparing networks from diverse settings. Our empirical base consists of 42 networks from four kinds of species (humans, nonhuman primates, nonprimate mammals, and birds) and covering distinct types of relations such as influence, grooming, and agonistic encounters. The general problem is to determine whether networks are similarly structured despite their surface differences. The methodology we propose is generally applicable to the characterization and comparison of network-level social structures across multiple settings, such as different organizations, communities, or social groups, and to the examination of sources of variability in network structure. We first fit a p * model (Wasserman and Pattison 1996) to each network to obtain estimates for effects of six structural properties on the probability of the graph. We then calculate predicted tie probabilities for each network, using both its own parameter estimates and the estimates from every other network in the collection. Comparison is based on the similarity between sets of predicted tie probabilities. We then use correspondence analysis to represent the similarities among all 42 networks and interpret the resulting configuration using information about the species and relations involved. Results *University of California, Irvine †University of South CarolinaWe acknowledge the helpful comments of the editor and anonymous reviewers. For their encouragement and suggestions on the research, we thank H. Russell Bernard, Linton Freeman, and A. Kimball Romney. We thank Tracy Burkett and Douglas Nigh for making their data available to us. 267show that similarities among the networks are due more to the kind of relation than to the kind of animal.

Keystone species and food webs

“…Studying central nodes in networks appears to be a way to better understand complex systems in a relatively easy way. The comparative view on several kinds of systems (Faust & Skvoretz 2002) may promote mutual understanding and application even to societal problems (McMahon et al 2001;Jordán 2008b). Cross-fertilizing methods (betweenness centrality pervades every discipline), especially if well adapted, make scientific progress very fast and efficient.…”

A Conceptual and Operational Definition of 'Social Role' in Online Community

“…Network approaches show that a collection of behaviors can be understood as the performance of a role that leaves an identifiable structural signature [13]. Interpretive approaches provide the contexts and behaviors associated with these structural signatures.…”

Networks in the Social Sciences

“…While publications are typically considered non-human actors in SNA, they are closely related to human activities as both citation and co-authorship ties are initiated and executed by humans. A third area of application of SNA for non-human actors is the field of animal behavior (Brent and Ramos-Fernandez 2011;Maryanski 1987;Watts and Strogats 1998;Faust and Skvoretz 2002).…”