Thanks for the recent addition on ‘Relationship of SNA to systems thinking’, which I find very helpful for outlining the systemic value of SNA. If Bob Williams has not mentioned SNA in the paper that you´ve quoted, it was probably an accidental omission. As you know, in our new book “Systems Concepts in Action” (Williams, Hummelbrunner; SUP, forthcoming Nov. 2010) we have featured SNA as one of nineteen systems methods and have also extensively reflected on its utility from a systems perspective.
I very much share your ideas on the implications of the three core systems concepts for SNA and would like to add a few from my own experience with SNA:

• Concerning perspectives, reading a network not only depends on the “theory of change” of the various actors, but even more so on how they view particular inter-relationships. And in addition to help people articulate their expectations on networks, it is equally important that they bring forth their own experience and values. By adding these stories during a reflective process, a network diagram can be transformed into a ‘rich picture’ of inter-relationships. And seeing the bigger picture through the kind of visualizations made possible by SNA also may change the self-perception of actors and lead to a new understanding of relational patterns.

• The wealth of analytical possibilities that SNA software nowadays offers is indeed a challenge, but I see this more as an issue of boundaries than perspectives. Important boundary questions must be resolved when carrying out an SNA: Those related with the selection of actors and relationships should be guided by their relevance for the concrete issue and the possibility to gather data with proportionate efforts. As with any simplification, what is left out of a network map can be as important as what is included, and often only a look at the overall picture will reveal the relevance of those not (yet) included. And choices must be made to keep SNA simple and obtain useful visualizations or meaningful network measures.

• With respect to boundaries, I find looking at the various sub-groups or sub-networks often more revealing than the boundaries of the entire network. Furthermore, who is (not) included and connected is in many cases not a matter of deliberate choice or decision, but happens – and changes over time. Therefore it is equally important to analyse the emergence of network boundaries and the underlying factors, which are often connected with issues of self-organization that are inherent when networks are viewed as complex adaptive systems.

In my opinion the relationship of SNA to the systems field should be explored even more in the future, since SNA lends itself well to capturing inter-relationships in complicated or complex situations. I find two approaches that you are working on particularly promising in this respect: The use of SNA as an alternative to prevailing linear (stage) models for representing theories of change, i.e. to move from Logical to Social Frameworks. And the use of two-mode networks, which allows to analyse how actors are related to other entities (e.g. concepts, objectives, projects).

I would certainly welcome more exchanges in this direction, and it would be nice to learn whether others are interested in these issues as well…
Richard Hummelbrunner

But identifying those which “are the most fundamental characteristics” is a real challenge, because judgements here will always depend on the context, and the observer’s purpose. For example, are you trying to facilitate or disrupt a communication network, and is this network seen as a public good, like the internet, or a public threat e.g. a criminal network.

In analyzing a one-mode social network with valued directional ties, what in your opinion are the most fundamental characteristics of the network as-a-whole and it’s individal nodes should be reported so that broader comparative meta analysis is possible?

Larry Dershem