How to Generate Personal Networks: Issues and Tools for a Sociological Perspective

Abstract

The debate on the limits and relevance of the different name generators comes with the development of social network studies. The core questions are: What are they supposed to construct? For what research question? Some procedures tend to choose a precise target with a unique name generator; others prefer to use a series of name generators. The authors discuss here some specificities and advantages of these methods for ego-centered networks. The authors then present the ''contextual'' name generator, which was developed in longitudinal qualitative panel studies in France and Québec. This tool gives access to a great variety of information focused on sociological questions. Its original design differentiates two complementary stages to distinguish the global contexts-based network from specific resource-based networks. This tool remains flexible and may be adapted to different topics

Check the phone book: Testing information and communication technology (ICT) recall aids for personal network surveys

“…To address the strong-tie bias of egocentric network data obtained by the name generator, researchers may either employ a battery of context-specific name generators (Bidart and Charbonneau, 2011;Hlebec et al, 2006;Marin and Hampton, 2007;McCallister and Fischer, 1978), a contact diary (Fu, 2007;Fu et al, 2013), or different approaches (Lin et al, 2001;McCarty et al, 1997;van der Gaag and Snijders, 2005) to gather data about weak ties in one's personal networks. However, these techniques also come with other constraints.…”

“…In addition, some recent studies (Matzat and Snijders, 2010;Vehovar et al, 2008) have discovered that, not only were respondents likely engaged in satisficing behaviors Krosnick, 1991) when answering to the name generator procedure, but they were much more likely to provide inferior quality data or drop out in a self-administered Web survey than other survey modes in the presence of interviewers. Thus far, although a few techniques for delimiting comprehensive personal networks (e.g., Bidart and Charbonneau, 2011;Brewer and Garrett, 2001;Hlebec et al, 2006;Marin, 2004) and reducing the respondent burden (Marin and Hampton, 2007;McCarty et al, 2007) have been proposed, there is little work addressing the use of memory aids (e.g., Glasner and van der Vaart, 2009) that improve the recall accuracy for personal network data collection.…”

“You See Yourself Like in a Mirror”: The Effects of Internet-Mediated Personal Networks on Body Image and Eating Disorders

“…Second, it can be the existence of social circles, or contexts of interpersonal interaction (such as school, workplace, or sports club), known to ego and shared by two or more alters. Social circles are important as they link forms of sociability and forms of socialization, relating relationships to ego's life experiences (Bidart and Charbonneau 2011). Sharing a context creates opportunities for, and is the first step towards, the creation of a relationship -a tie is such when it becomes autonomous from the context in which it has first appeared and can survive its disappearance, for example in the case of classmates who remain friends after leaving school (Bidart, Degenne and Grossetti 2011).…”

Determining social capital by social accounting

“…The most serious problem is that there are various and different attempts of measurement of social capital. Sociologists try to measure the networkbased social capital with a name generator (Fisher, 1977;Bidart & Charbonneau, 2011). This instrument tries to measure the contacts to other persons.…”