Network analysis of 2-mode data

Network analysis is distinguished from traditional social science by the dyadic nature of the standard data set. Whereas in traditional social science we study monadic attributes of individuals, in network analysis we study dyadic attributes of pairs of individuals. These dyadic attributes (e.g. social relations) may be represented in matrix form by a square 1-mode matrix. In contrast, the data in traditional social science are represented as 2-mode matrices. However, network analysis is not completely divorced from traditional social science, and often has occasion to collect and analyze 2-mode matrices. Furthermore, some of the methods developed in network analysis have uses in analysing non-network data. This paper presents and discusses ways of applying and interpreting traditional network analytic techniques to 2-mode data, as well as developing new techniques. Three areas are covered in detail: displaying 2-mode data as networks, detecting clusters and measuring centrality.

[1]  Thomas P. Wilson,et al.  Relational networks: An extension of sociometric concepts , 1982 .

[2]  Burleigh B. Gardner,et al.  Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class , 1942 .

[3]  David Harel,et al.  Drawing graphs nicely using simulated annealing , 1996, TOGS.

[4]  L. Freeman.  Q-analysis and the structure of friendship networks , 1980 .

[5]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[6]  Phillip Bonacich,et al.  Simultaneous group and individual centralities , 1991 .

[7]  R. J. Mokken,et al.  Cliques, clubs and clans , 1979 .

[8]  R. Breiger.  The Duality of Persons and Groups , 1974 .

[9]  R. Alba.  A graph‐theoretic definition of a sociometric clique† , 1973 .

[10]  S. D. Berkowitz,et al.  Social Structures: A Network Approach , 1989 .

[11]  S. Seidman.  Internal cohesion of ls sets in graphs , 1983 .

[12]  Jean-Pierre Van Noppen,et al.  Crystal . The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language , 1989 .

[13]  Fred Glover,et al.  Tabu Search - Part II , 1989, INFORMS J. Comput..

[14]  R. Luce,et al.  Connectivity and generalized cliques in sociometric group structure , 1950, Psychometrika.

[15]  S. Borgatti,et al.  Regular blockmodels of multiway, multimode matrices☆ , 1992 .

[16]  S. Borgatti,et al.  LS sets, lambda sets and other cohesive subsets , 1990 .

[17]  R. Luce,et al.  A method of matrix analysis of group structure , 1949, Psychometrika.

[18]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Tabu Search - Part I , 1989, INFORMS J. Comput..

[19]  Dan Boneh,et al.  On genetic algorithms , 1995, COLT '95.

[20]  D. Krackhardt.  Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. , 1990 .

[21]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[22]  David Crystal,et al.  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language , 2012, Modern Language Review.

[23]  P. Doreian.  On the evolution of group and network structure , 1979 .

[24]  Stephen B. Seidman,et al.  A graph‐theoretic generalization of the clique concept* , 1978 .

[25]  J. M. McPherson,et al.  Hypernetwork sampling: Duality and differentiation among voluntary organizations , 1982 .

[26]  Lc Freeman,et al.  USING GALOIS LATTICES TO REPRESENT NETWORK DATA , 1993 .

[27]  Stephen B. Seidman,et al.  Structures induced by collections of subsets: a hypergraph approach , 1981, Math. Soc. Sci..

[28]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Centrality in Social Networks , 1993 .