Survey‐Based Measurement of Public Management and Policy Networks

Networks have become a central concept in the policy and public management literature; however, theoretical development is hindered by a lack of attention to the empirical properties of network measurement methods. This paper compares three survey-based methods for measuring organizational networks: the roster, the free-recall name generator, and a hybrid name generator that combines these two classic approaches. Results indicate that the roster and free-recall name generator methods both suffer from important limitations. The roster method tends to measure many linkages among a limited set of network actors, whereas the name generator tends to measure fewer linkages among a larger set of network actors. Using survey data on policy networks within California regional planning processes (N = 752), we find that the hybrid method strikes an effective balance between these techniques. The hybrid approach performs well in terms of identifying a large number of network actors and interconnections between them. Although no survey-based measurement technique is perfect, this study suggests that the hybrid name generator is an excellent alternative for the measurement of complex networks with large or shifting boundaries that encompass a diverse set of actors.

[1]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[2]  Adam Douglas Henry,et al.  The challenge of learning for sustainability: A prolegomenon to theory , 2009 .

[3]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks , 1999 .

[4]  A. Pentland,et al.  Computational Social Science , 2009, Science.

[5]  Marcel Fafchamps,et al.  Risk Sharing Networks in Rural Philippines , 1997 .

[6]  J. Fowler Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks , 2006, Political Analysis.

[7]  O. Frank Sampling and estimation in large social networks , 1978 .

[8]  John T. Scholz,et al.  Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries , 2010 .

[9]  Alexandra Marin,et al.  Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics?: Implications for name generator data , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[10]  E.K.F. Lee,et al.  Network sampling in practice: Some second steps , 1981 .

[11]  Michael McGuire,et al.  Big Questions in Public Network Management Research , 2001 .

[12]  P. Killworth,et al.  Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data☆ , 1982 .

[13]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Abstract Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Social Networks 30 (2008) 16–30 The authority of Supreme Court precedent , 2022 .

[14]  Carter T. Butts,et al.  Network inference, error, and informant (in)accuracy: a Bayesian approach , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[15]  L. O'toole Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration , 1997 .

[16]  Alexandra Marin,et al.  Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator , 2007 .

[17]  Tanja A. Börzel,et al.  Organizing Babylon ‐ On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks , 1998 .

[18]  P. Killworth,et al.  Informant accuracy in social network data IV: a comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data , 1979 .

[19]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California , 2005 .

[20]  Peng Wang,et al.  Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[21]  Thomas W. Valente,et al.  The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[22]  Menno D. T. de Jong,et al.  Auditing Information Structures in Organizations: A Review of Data Collection Techniques for Network Analysis , 2005 .

[23]  Mark S. Granovetter Network Sampling: Some First Steps , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  Karen Page,et al.  Network Forms of Organization , 1998 .

[25]  Mark Schneider,et al.  Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program , 2003 .

[26]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Conflict: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks , 2005 .

[27]  Mark Lubell,et al.  Belief Systems and Social Capital as Drivers of Policy Network Structure: The Case of California Regional Planning , 2011 .

[28]  John T. Scholz,et al.  Do Networks Solve Collective Action Problems? Credibility, Search, and Collaboration , 2008, The Journal of Politics.

[29]  Laurence J. O'Toole,et al.  Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks , 2004 .

[30]  T. A. Nosanchuk,et al.  Applied network sampling , 1983 .

[31]  R. Rhodes,et al.  The New Governance: Governing without Government , 1996 .

[32]  M. Thatcher,et al.  The Development of Policy Network Analyses , 1998 .

[33]  F. Scharpf,et al.  Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity , 1991 .

[34]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  K. Provan,et al.  Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness , 2007 .

[36]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Legislative cosponsorship networks in the US House and Senate , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[37]  P. Killworth,et al.  Informant accuracy in social network data III: A comparison of triadic structure in behavioral and cognitive data , 1979 .