Social Networks: Making Sense Out Of Terminology

Any examination of how social networks can be leveraged by organizations should include agreement on terminology. Terms such as social networks, social networking and social networking analysis (SNA), are referenced in a variety of manners without widespread agreement (at least to me), as to precisely what such labels mean. To ensure clarity for myself, as well as for people involved in projects related to social networks, I'm using the following definitions. Please feel free to comment - especially if you are experienced in this field (I'm hoping these definitions are concise enough without being too conceptual). These terms reflect the work of David Knoke and Song Yang (Social Network Analysis) and John Scott (Social Network Analysis) in addition to the work of Linton Freeman (Development Of Social Network Analysis) along with some influence from Robert Cross (Hidden Power of Social Networks), Martin Kildruff and Wenpin Tsai (Social Networks and Organizations) - yes, I've been busy reading and learning:

Social Network: A social network is composed of a collection of actors where some actors are connected to each other by one of more relations. The emphasis on a network that reflects a social structure forms an underlying assumption. Understanding social networks requires analysis of the structural relations between actors and the patterns of interaction among actors. Once comprehended, the influence of social networks on the perceptions, beliefs and actions of its participants can be better comprehended.

Actors: Entities within a social network are referred to as “actors” (also referred to as “nodes” or “agents”). Actors can be individuals, collections of individuals treated as an entity (e.g., a group), organizations (e.g., a company), or nation states. Actors have two types of data associated with them: attribute data and relational data.

Relations: A relation (synonymous with the terms “ties” or “links”), is a type of contact or association that connects actors. A relation between two actors is called a dyad. A triad occurs when there relations among three actors. It is important to note that a relation is not an attribute of an actor but a joint property of the actors in a dyad. Ties between actors can vary. Some ties may exist for purposes of friendship, advice or mentoring. Other ties may exist because of an authority context (e.g., team member related to a project manager) while other linkages may be driven by boundaries of some type (e.g., a council of managers from different lines of business where each actor (i.e., manager) represents a different organizational sub-group within the enterprise).

Attribute data: Attribute data is that information which characterizes that entity (i.e., the data that is independent of the actor’s interaction in a social network). In essence, attribute data is owned by that actor. Some examples of attribute data include: attitudes and opinions, occupation, and gender.

Relational data: Relational data consist of data that a result of a connection. Relational data is a jointly owned property among the actors as a result of their association. Some examples of relational data include: kinship, friendship, boss/subordinate, project team membership, group association, etc.

Note: A relation is depicted as a line on a sociogram (or social graph). A relation is not a node - only actors are graphically depicted in that manner.

Centrality: The concept of centrality, in simple terms, attempts to identify those actors in a network that appear to be highly connected. This is often referred to as “directed” centrality which looks at the number of direct incoming and out-going links. There are other ways of determining centrality. “Betweeness” centrality looks at actors that may not have a large number of direct links but they are in a position that lies between many other actors. “Closeness” centrality is somewhat self-defining - it applies to actors who are a short distance from other actors in the network. Centrality often leads to a discussion on the type of nodes (and roles they may play) within a social network:

• Connectors: are actors that have a large number of links directed towards them such that they function as a central hub.
• Brokers: are often actors that have a high degree of betweeness such that they are in a role of influence where they can acts as gatekeepers and filters for various relation flows.
• Boundary spanners: are actors that provide links between otherwise independent collections actors
• Peripheral actors: are nodes that are somewhat isolated and not linked to one another, there are often considered not active participants but may still play a key role (e.g., subject matter expert)

Comments

[John Canosa]

Mike - I like terminology you are using and see it as a useful starting point for common understanding. One thing I would like to do however is extend your definition of an actor to include non-human entities. My company, Palantiri Systems (http://www.palantirisystems.com), is developing a social networking environment for manufacturers of intelligent equipment. The actors in this community are not only the manufacturer's employees and their customers, but the equipment itself.

Think of it this way - a sohpisticated medical diagnostic system or a complex piece of mahinery may have many things to "blog" about to describe the conditions, and events it has experienced during a certain time period. It may want to share its status and contribute documents such as configuration files to the community. Other actors in the community may want to "chat" with the device to gain up to date status information or run diagnotic tests.

In every sense, these devices are equal and active participants in the community. I realize this may be a bit of a niche right now, but I believe it will become commonplace in the future for not only manufacturers but consumers to have their "things" participate in the network. Since these actors are contributing so much to the network I wouldn't want to discriminate against them by definition.

[Dinesh Tantri]

Mike - I agree with John. While it may be premature as of now, it will make sense in the near future to include "networked objects" in the scope of social networks. I would think of these networked objects to be first class "social objects" akin to shared photos/videos. Eventually, we will social networks getting contextually richer with inputs from location based services, intelligent networked objects/devices etc.,