Studying Networks in Complex Problem Domains: Advancing Methods in Boundary Specification

Abstract

The application of network perspectives and methods to study complex problem and policy domains has proliferated in the public management literature. Network metrics are highly sensitive to boundary decisions as findings are a direct reflection of who and what was considered to be part of the network. The more complex the problem domain, the messier the network and the more challenging it is for researchers to determine network boundaries. Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky's seminal (1989) article on network bounding highlighted the theoretical and methodological significance associated with determinations of network boundaries in social network research. However, despite an expansion of network scholarship, the advancement of frameworks aimed at assisting scholars in thinking through the relative advantages and disadvantages of different boundary determinations has received limited attention. This article addresses this gap. Drawing insights from three network studies, we argue that problem domain characteristics and concerns such as formal structures, isolates, disconnected subgroups and/or the duration of the ties will be differentially emphasized with different boundary approaches. We leverage these insights to advance a framework for aiding network scholars working in complex problem domains to consider the strengths and limitations of varied bounding approaches in relation to the question at hand.

Striving for State of the Art with Paradigm Interplay and Meta-Synthesis: Purpose-oriented Network Research Challenges and Good Research Practices as a Way Forward

“…In addition, these individuals and organizations are at the same time embedded in multiple other networks (Rethemeyer and Hatmaker, 2008), which may or may not overlap with the network being studied. In turn, even most PONs do not have clear boundaries (Nowell et al 2018b) The stratification of PONs hinders integration, because studies at different levels are often rooted in different epistemologies and use different research methods; e.g. single case or comparative case study at the network level, statistical analysis at the organizational level, and narrative inquiry at the individual level.…”

“…The heterogeneity represented in the research on PONs is a strength of the field; it means that the research is not dominated by one perspective to the detriment of other ways of understanding this complex and fuzzy way of organizing (Nowell et al, 2018b). At the same time, for the research on PONs to inform practice more comprehensively, we must also braid these threads together through research synthesis.…”

Evidence of effectiveness in the Cohesive Strategy: measuring and improving wildfire response

“…If co-management is a process, then that still raises the question 'Co-manage with whom?' Boundary definitions -the decisions about who is included and excluded from consideration -are a critical element of co-management (Nowell et al 2018b). The incident response network is one way to conceptualise the boundaries of co-management on a wildfire and what might constitute a basis for evaluating its efficacy.…”

Methodological considerations in pre- and post-emergency network identification and data collection for disaster risk reduction: Lessons from wildfire response networks in the American Northwest

“…There are countless books and articles on social network research methodology, often focused on conceptual features (e.g., whole or personal networks), analytical procedures (e.g., comparing measures of centrality), and an array of software packages to structure and compute relational data. However, collecting original relational data-whether relations between actors are self-determined or researcher-imposed-presents daunting challenges that are seldom discussed in detail in the research literature [16]. Authors assess and debate the relative merits of elicitation strategies (e.g., name generators vs. position generators, respondent burden, recall, bias) and diverse network measures, but scant attention is paid to actual processes of collecting network data.…”

“…There are several theoretical and data-driven decisions a researcher must make over the course of identifying a network and determining its boundaries [16]. This is rendered more complex when operationalizing inter-organizational networks and deciding how to determine relational ties among them.…”