Baseline Models for Two‐Mode Social Network Data

Baseline models have been used in the analysis of social networks as a way to understand how empirical networks differ from “random” ones. For the purposes of social network analysis, a “random” network is one chosen—at random—from a population of possible graphs derived from a given generating function. Although these principled hypothesis tests have a long history, many of their properties and extensions to multiple data structures—here, specifically two-mode data—have been overlooked. This article focused on applications of different baseline models to two data sets: donations and voting of the 111th U.S. Congress, and organizations involved in forums on watershed policy in San Francisco, USA. Tests using each data set, but with different baseline reference distributions, will illustrate the range of possible questions baseline models can address and the differences between them. The ability to apply different models and generate a constellation of results provides a deeper understanding of the structure of the system.

[1]  David Krackhardt,et al.  Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions , 2007, Psychometrika.

[2]  E. Laumann,et al.  An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation: A Comparative Study of Energy and Health Domains , 1985 .

[3]  David R. Hunter,et al.  Curved exponential family models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[4]  Lars Carlsson,et al.  Policy Networks as Collective Action , 2000 .

[5]  Tore Opsahl Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[6]  John T. Scholz,et al.  Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions , 2002 .

[7]  A. Hayes Permutation test is not distribution-free: Testing H₀: ρ = 0. , 1996 .

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

[9]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Random directed graph distributions and the triad census in social networks , 1977 .

[10]  Garry Robins,et al.  Small Worlds Among Interlocking Directors: Network Structure and Distance in Bipartite Graphs , 2004, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[11]  K. Provan,et al.  A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems , 1995 .

[12]  E. Laumann,et al.  Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[13]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  Network analysis of 2-mode data , 1997 .

[14]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[15]  Scott E. Robinson,et al.  A Decade of Treating Networks Seriously , 2006 .

[16]  Garry Robins,et al.  An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[17]  Martina Morris,et al.  A statnet Tutorial. , 2008, Journal of statistical software.

[18]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Generalized blockmodeling of two-mode network data , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[19]  G. Davis Agents without Principles? The Spread of the Poison Pill through the Intercorporate Network , 1991 .

[20]  L. Carlsson,et al.  The Performance of Policy Networks: The Relation between Network Structure and Network Performance , 2008 .

[21]  C. Butts Social network analysis: A methodological introduction , 2008 .

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

[23]  Bruce H. Mayhew,et al.  Baseline models of sociological phenomena , 1984 .

[24]  T. Snijders Enumeration and simulation methods for 0–1 matrices with given marginals , 1991 .

[25]  Carter T. Butts,et al.  8. Permutation Models for Relational Data , 2007 .

[26]  Peng Wang,et al.  Exponential random graph models for affiliation networks , 2009, Soc. Networks.

[27]  F. Agneessens,et al.  Choices of Theatre Events: p* Models for Affiliation Networks with Attributes , 2002 .

[28]  Mark S Handcock,et al.  networksis: A Package to Simulate Bipartite Graphs with Fixed Marginals Through Sequential Importance Sampling. , 2008, Journal of statistical software.

[29]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990-2000 , 2002, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[30]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[31]  D. Varda,et al.  Toward a Theory of Collaborative Policy Networks: Identifying Structural Tendencies , 2009 .

[32]  David Lazer,et al.  The Strength of Weak Ties in Lobbying Networks , 1998 .

[33]  S. Boorman,et al.  Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  P. Pattison,et al.  New Specifications for Exponential Random Graph Models , 2006 .

[35]  John Skvoretz,et al.  8. Logit Models for Affiliation Networks , 1999 .

[36]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  The interaction of size and density with graph-level indices , 1999, Soc. Networks.

[37]  Katherine Faust Centrality in affiliation networks , 1997 .

[38]  Mark S. Mizruchi,et al.  Determinants of Political Opposition Among Large American Corporations , 1990 .