Bridging,brokerage and betweenness

Valente and Fujimoto (2010) proposed a measure of brokerage in networks based on Granovetter's classic work on the strength of weak ties. Their paper identified the need for finding node-based measures of brokerage that consider the entire network structure, not just a node's local environment. The measures they propose, aggregating the average change in cohesion for a node's links, has several limitations. In this paper we review their method and show how the idea can be modified by using betweenness centrality as an underpinning concept. We explore the properties of the new method and provide point, normalized, and network level variations. This new approach has two advantages, first it provides a more robust means to normalize the measure to control for network size, and second, the modified measure is computationally less demanding making it applicable to larger networks.     

Geodesic based centrality: Unifying the local and the global

A variety of node-level centrality measures, including purely structural measures (such as degree and closeness centrality) and measures incorporating characteristics of actors (such as the Blau's measure of heterogeneity) have been developed to measure a person's access to resources held by others. Each of these node-level measures can be placed on a continuum depending on whether they focus only on ego's direct contacts (e.g. degree centrality and Blau's measure of heterogeneity), or whether they also incorporate connections to others at longer distances in the network (e.g. closeness centrality or betweenness centrality). In this paper we propose generalized measures, where a tuning parameter δ regulates the relative impact of resources held by more close versus more distant others. We first show how, when a specific δ is chosen degree-centrality and reciprocal closeness centrality are two specific instances of this more general measure. We then demonstrate how a similar approach can be applied to node-level measures that incorporate attributes. When more or less weight is given to other nodes at longer distances with specific characteristics, a generalized measure of resource-richness and a generalized measure for diversity among one's connections can be obtained (following Blau's measure of heterogeneity). Finally, we show how this approach can also be applied to betweenness centrality to focus on more local (ego) betweenness or global (Freeman) betweenness. The importance of the choice of δ is illustrated on some classic network datasets.     

Measurement error in network data: A re-classification

Research on measurement error in network data has typically focused on missing data. We embed missing data, which we term false negative nodes and edges, in a broader classification of error scenarios. This includes false positive nodes and edges and falsely aggregated and disaggregated nodes. We simulate these six measurement errors using an online social network and a publication citation network, reporting their effects on four node-level measures – degree centrality, clustering coefficient, network constraint, and eigenvector centrality. Our results suggest that in networks with more positively-skewed degree distributions and higher average clustering, these measures tend to be less resistant to most forms of measurement error. In addition, we argue that the sensitivity of a given measure to an error scenario depends on the idiosyncracies of the measure's calculation, thus revising the general claim from past research that the more ‘global’ a measure, the less resistant it is to measurement error. Finally, we anchor our discussion to commonly-used networks in past research that suffer from these different forms of measurement error and make recommendations for correction strategies.     

Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality

Egocentric centrality measures (for data on a node’s first-order zone) parallel to Freeman’s [Social Networks 1 (1979) 215] centrality measures for complete (sociocentric) network data are considered. Degree-based centrality is in principle identical for egocentric and sociocentric network data. A closeness measure is uninformative for egocentric data, since all geodesic distances from ego to other nodes in the first-order zone are 1 by definition. The extent to which egocentric and sociocentric versions of Freeman’s betweenness centrality measure correspond is explored empirically. Across seventeen diverse networks, that correspondence is found to be relatively close—though variations in egocentric network composition do lead to some notable differences in egocentric and sociocentric betweennness. The findings suggest that research design has a relatively modest impact on assessing the relative betweenness of nodes, and that a betweenness measure based on egocentric network data could be a reliable substitute for Freeman’s betweenness measure when it is not practical to collect complete network data. However, differences in the research methods used in sociocentric and egocentric studies could lead to additional differences in the respective betweenness centrality measures.     

Ranking terrorists in networks: A sensitivity analysis of Al Qaeda's 9/11 attack

All over the world, intelligence services are collecting data concerning possible terrorist threats. This information is usually transformed into network structures in which the nodes represent the individuals in the data set and the links possible connections between these individuals. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to keep track of all individuals in the resulting complex network. Therefore, Lindelauf et al. (2013) introduced a methodology that ranks terrorists in a network. The rankings that result from this methodology can be used as a decision support system to efficiently allocate the scarce surveillance means of intelligence agencies. Moreover, usage of these rankings can improve the quality of surveillance which can in turn lead to prevention of attacks or destabilization of the networks under surveillance.The methodology introduced by Lindelauf et al. (2013) is based on a game theoretic centrality measure, which is innovative in the sense that it takes into account not only the structure of the network but also individual and coalitional characteristics of the members of the network. In this paper we elaborate on this methodology by introducing a new game theoretic centrality measure that better takes into account the operational strength of connected subnetworks.Moreover, we perform a sensitivity analysis on the rankings derived from this new centrality measure for the case of Al Qaeda's 9/11 attack. In this sensitivity analysis we consider firstly the possible additional information available about members of the network, secondly, variations in relational strength and, finally, the absence or presence of a small percentage of links in the network. We also introduce a case specific method to compare the different rankings that result from the sensitivity analysis and show that the new centrality measure is robust to small changes in the data.     

A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality

The concept of centrality is often invoked in social network analysis, and diverse indices have been proposed to measure it. This paper develops a unified framework for the measurement of centrality. All measures of centrality assess a node's involvement in the walk structure of a network. Measures vary along four key dimensions: type of nodal involvement assessed, type of walk considered, property of walk assessed, and choice of summary measure. If we cross-classify measures by type of nodal involvement (radial versus medial) and property of walk assessed (volume versus length), we obtain a four-fold polychotomization with one cell empty which mirrors Freeman's 1979 categorization. At a more substantive level, measures of centrality summarize a node's involvement in or contribution to the cohesiveness of the network. Radial measures in particular are reductions of pair-wise proximities/cohesion to attributes of nodes or actors. The usefulness and interpretability of radial measures depend on the fit of the cohesion matrix to the one-dimensional model. In network terms, a network that is fit by a one-dimensional model has a core-periphery structure in which all nodes revolve more or less closely around a single core. This in turn implies that the network does not contain distinct cohesive subgroups. Thus, centrality is shown to be intimately connected with the cohesive subgroup structure of a network.     

Categorical attribute based centrality: E–I and G–F centrality

In a paper examining informal networks and organizational crisis, Krackhardt and Stern (1988) proposed a measure assessing the extent to which relations in a network were internal to a group as opposed to external. They called their measure the E–I index. The measure is now in wide use and is implemented in standard network packages such as UCINET ( Borgatti et al., 2002). The measure is based on a partition-based degree centrality measure and as such can be extended to other centrality measures and group level data. We explore extensions to closeness, betweenness and eigenvector centrality, and show how to apply the technique to sets of subgroups that do not form a partition. In addition, the extension to betweenness suggests a linkage to the Gould and Fernandez brokerage measures, which we explore.     

A hegemon fighting for equal rights: the dominant role of COC Nederland in the LGBT transnational advocacy network

Networks are alternatives to hierarchical organizational forms. However, actors in networks have different resources at their disposal, and more powerful participants will try to influence the network as a whole. We identify a dominant node in the European LGBT advocacy network, and explore whether a hegemonic actor in the transnational advocacy network will affect less powerful groups' issue framing. Our project uses software that locates the issue network on the internet, highlighting how transnational advocacy work and digital communication have become inextricably connected. We confirm that Cultuur – en Ontspannings Centrum, known as COC Netherland has higher‐than average centrality measures in the LGBT network. Noting the limitations of hyperlink analysis, we conduct a content analysis of select nodes illustrating the impact of a hegemon. We focus on marriage equality and find tentative support for our hypothesis: organizations with links to COC advocate for stronger forms of legalized same‐sex union than do organizations without ties.     

Predictors of accuracy in perceiving informal social networks

One's ability to accurately perceive the existence of informal social networks, referred to as cognitive accuracy, has recently been shown to play an important role in explaining various social phenomena. This paper addresses the research question of what predicts cognitive accuracy by developing a simple theory which links one's accuracy to the amount of information one exchanges with co-workers. To test the predictions of my theory, I analyze friendship and advice network data from a small entrepreneurial firm. The results of the analysis show that predictors of accuracy tend to be workers' degree centrality in the friendship or advice network and demographic and social distances between workers.     

The Economic Returns of Immigrants’ Bonding and Bridging Social Capital: The Case of the Netherlands1

This paper aims at explaining to what extent social capital can help immigrants in the Netherlands make headway on the labor market. Two forms of social capital are identified. Bonding refers to a dense network with thick trust and is measured as the strength of family ties and trust in the family. Bridging implies a crosscutting network with thin trust and is measured as inter-ethnic contacts and outward orientation. It is examined to what extent bonding and bridging for immigrants in the Netherlands can be associated with a higher likelihood of employment and higher income. Results show that (1) bridging networks are positively associated with both employment and income; (2) bonding networks do not affect economic outcomes; and (3) levels of trust (neither thick nor thin) cannot explain economic outcomes.     

Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification

The intuitive background for measures of structural centrality in social networks is reviewed and existing measures are evaluated in terms of their consistency with intuitions and their interpretability.Three distinct intuitive conceptions of centrality are uncovered and existing measures are refined to embody these conceptions. Three measures are developed for each concept, one absolute and one relative measure of the centrality of positions in a network, and one reflecting the degree of centralization of the entire network. The implications of these measures for the experimental study of small groups is examined.     

Centrality in affiliation networks

This paper discusses the conceptualization, measurement, and interpretation of centrality in affiliation networks. Although centrality is a well-studied topic in social network analysis, and is one of the most widely used properties for studying affiliation networks, virtually all discussions of centrality and centralization have concerned themselves with one-mode networks. Bonacich's work on simultaneous group and individual centralities is a notable exception (Social Networks, 1991, 13, 155–168). I begin by outlining the distinctive features of affiliation networks and describe four motivations for centrality indices in affiliation networks. I then consider properties of some existing centrality indices for affiliation networks, including the relationship between centralities for actors and events in these networks, and present a new conceptualization of centrality that builds on the formal properties of affiliation networks and captures important theoretical insights about the positions of actors and events in these networks. These centralities are then illustrated on Galaskiewicz's data on club and board memberships of a sample of corporate executive officers (Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy. New York: Academic Press, 1985). The conclusion to this paper discusses strengths and weaknesses of centrality indices when applied to affiliation networks.     

Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group decision making

For many years, network analysts viewed positional centrality as a source of social power. More recently, laboratory studies of exchange networks have called the centrality–power link into question: under zero-sum exchange conditions, the ability of certain actors to directly exploit others has been found to account for power independent of actors' centrality. But most observers believe that in non-zero-sum communication networks, centrality should positively affect power. In this study we examine the effect of centrality on power in a communication network involving group voting on political issues. Using a model in which actors' votes are determined by the strength of their initial positions and the social pressures to which they are subjected, we conduct computer simulations to examine the extent to which actors in various network positions achieve favorable political outcomes. Our findings indicate that the link between centrality and power is highly contingent on the structure of the network. In networks with a central actor and an odd number of subgroups, central actors fail to dominate. In fact, in these networks, when peripheral actors are able to directly influence one another, the central actor becomes the least powerful in the network. In networks with a central actor and an even number of subgroups, however, the central actor dominates even in situations with connected peripherals. The highly contingent effect of centrality on power accords with the findings of exchange theorists who have studied power under zero-sum conditions. This raises questions about the nature of the distinction between communication and exchange networks.     

Structural holes and bridging in two-mode networks

Social networks are often structured in such a way that there are gaps, or “structural holes,” between regions. Some actors are in the position to bridge or span these gaps, giving rise to individual advantages relating to brokerage, gatekeeping, access to non-redundant contacts, and control over network flows. The most widely used measures of a given actor’s bridging potential gauge the extent to which that actor is directly connected to others who are otherwise not well connected to each other. Unfortunately, the measures that have been developed to identify structural holes cannot be adapted directly to two-mode networks, like individual-to-organization networks. In two-mode networks, direct contacts cannot be directly connected to each other by definition, making the calculation of redundancy, effective size, and constraint impossible with conventional one-mode methods. We therefore describe a new framework for the measurement of bridging in two-mode networks that hinges on the mathematical concept of the intersection of sets. An actor in a given node class (“ego”) has bridging potential to the extent that s/he is connected to actors in the opposite node class that have unique profiles of connections to actors in ego’s own node class. We review the relevant literature pertaining to structural holes in two-mode networks, and we compare our primary bridging measure (effective size) to measures of bridging that result when using one-mode projections of two-mode data. We demonstrate the results of applying our approach to empirical data on the organizational affiliations of elites in a large U.S. city.     

Network centralization with the Gil Schmidt power centrality index

Network centralization is a network index that measures the degree of dispersion of all node centrality scores in a network from the maximum centrality score obtained in the network. The Gil Schmidt power centrality index was developed for use in describing the political networks of Mexico, Gil and Schmidt [Gil, J., Schmidt, S., 1996a. The origin of the Mexican network of power. In: International Social Network Conference, Charleston, SC, USA, pp. 22–25; Gil, J., Schmidt, S., 1996b. The political network in Mexico. Social Networks 18, 355–381]. Upper bounds for network centralization, using the Gil Schmidt power centrality index, are derived for networks of fixed order and for when the network is bipartite, such as can arise from two mode data. In each case the networks that have maximum network centralization are described.     

Assessing the performance of the bootstrap in simulated assemblage networks

Archaeologists are increasingly interested in networks constructed from site assemblage data, in which weighted network ties reflect sites’ assemblage similarity. Equivalent networks would arise in other scientific fields where actors’ similarity is assessed by comparing distributions of observed counts, so the assemblages studied here can represent other kinds of distributions in other domains. One concern with such work is that sampling variability in the assemblage network and, in turn, sampling variability in measures calculated from the network must be recognized in any comprehensive analysis. In this study, we investigated the use of the bootstrap as a means of estimating sampling variability in measures of assemblage networks. We evaluated the performance of the bootstrap in simulated assemblage networks, using a probability structure based on the actual distribution of sherds of ceramic wares in a region with 25 archaeological sites. Results indicated that the bootstrap was successful in estimating the true sampling variability of eigenvector centrality for the 25 sites. This held both for centrality scores and for centrality ranks, as well as the ratio of first to second eigenvalues of the network (similarity) matrix. Findings encourage the use of the bootstrap as a tool in analyses of network data derived from counts.     

Social networkers: Measuring and examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others

The research examined individual differences in people's propensity to connect with others (PCO). A measure of PCO, with components for making friends (strong ties), making acquaintances (weak ties), and joining others (bridging ties), was developed and tested in two studies involving 144 undergraduates and 197 health-care employees. PCO and its components were significantly positively associated with social network characteristics (including size, betweenness centrality, and brokerage) and indicators of personal adjustment including support received, attainment, well-being, influence, and suggestion-making. PCO had effects beyond those of major personality traits, and PCO components displayed distinctive relationships with work network characteristics.     

Induced, endogenous and exogenous centrality

Centrality measures are based upon the structural position an actor has within the network. Induced centrality, sometimes called vitality measures, take graph invariants as an overall measure and derive vertex level measures by deleting individual nodes or edges and examining the overall change. By taking the sum of standard centrality measures as the graph invariant we can obtain measures which examine how much centrality an individual node contributes to the centrality of the other nodes in the network, we call this exogenous centrality. We look at exogenous measures of degree, closeness and betweenness.     

Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations

Eigenvectors of adjacency matrices are useful as measures of centrality or of status. However, they are misapplied to asymmetric networks in which some positions are unchosen. For these networks, an alternative measure of centrality is suggested that equals an eigenvector when eigenvectors can be used and provides meaningfully comparable results when they cannot.