Network visualizations
This paper was edited by Eric Quintane.
Graphic representation of relational data is one of the central elements of social network analysis (Freeman, 2004). Jacob Levy Moreno produced the first sociograms in the 1930s and over the years, they have evolved from ad hoc drawings to sophisticated visualizations, largely due to the new possibilities offered by computer and software development (Freeman, 2000; Moreno, 1934). Since their inception, visualizations have been integrated in social network analysis in creative ways (Freeman, 2004; Hogan et al., 2007; Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018). However, the use of visualizations to depict already collected data has predominated. Such visualizations tend to be used to observe systematically the relations data and to detect emergent properties that may only be visible through the structure of the network. Visualizations are commonly used to discover two kinds of patterns: social groups – a group of nodes highly linked to each other – and social positions – a group of nodes who are linked in the social system in similar ways (Freeman, 2000).
Only recently has the application of visualization during data collection begun to be used (Carrasco et al., 2006; Hogan et al., 2007; Maya Jariego and Holgado, 2005; McCarty and Govindaramanujam, 2005; McCarty et al., 2007; Schiffer and Hauck, 2010). There are instances where a network visualization is developed during the data collection with the help of the respondents who collaborate and work together through a collective effort. Thus, through the use of participatory tools to elaborate sociograms, participants make “implicit knowledge about networks of influences explicit” (Schiffer and Hauck, 2010, p. 242), apart from allowing the detection of conflicting goals and areas with potential for cooperation.
In this paper, we explore the contributions of visualizations when collecting personal network data, as well as its use to elicit the qualitative interpretation of individuals about their personal networks. Accordingly, we show that the graphic representation of relationships can be used in an innovative way to collect data from personal networks, both to obtain concrete information about relationships (i.e. ties and alters) and in the qualitative interpretation of interaction contexts by the informants themselves.
In the context of personal networks, most data is based on respondents reporting on the own relation of their ties (McCarty and Govindaramanujam, 2005). Visualizations are unique in providing an interactive tool for data collection, which may vary from a paper and pencil network visualization to more sophisticated technological programs to gather this kind of data. Along the past two decades, a number of software packages with an incorporated visual interface were developed making the use of visualizations during data collection possible.
The added value of visualization has been frequently sought in elements that go beyond the analytical representation of information. For example, it has been found that the hand drawings of the personal network reveal the perception of the social world by individuals (McCarty et al., 2007); the technique called “Net-Map,” based on a participatory strategy, is used in the construction of a community sociogram, following a group consensus-evaluation process (Maya-Jariego, 2016, Schiffer and Hauck, 2010); and EgoWeb has been used to maximize the differentiation of groups, which allows the identification of the social circles in which the individual participates (McCarty and Govindaramanujam, 2005).
Visualizations often provide a narrative to the network. The structure and composition of the network are very hard to read through a matrix, especially during data collection. In contrast, graphic representations can be very efficient tools which enable both the researcher and the interviewee to see how the alters are connected visually, hence adding another layer of information during data collection, which would be ignored through a matrix. They may also be useful in depicting a wider variety of information that could be utilized to probe participants, bringing them into further discussion on their networks. For example, discussing why certain nodes are isolated from the rest of the network. Nevertheless, using this mode of data collection poses various challenges to the researchers, in terms of data reliability, validity and the added burden on both the researcher and the participants (Bastian et al., 2009).
Generating personal networks through visualizations
Personal networks may vary in size from as small as 10 to 100s or even 1000s of individuals (Killworth et al., 1990; McCarty et al., 2001; Pool and Kochen, 1978; Roberts et al., 2008). There is no clear boundary delineating personal networks except the objective of the study in question (Fu, 2005), although limiting the number to a reliable subset of alters has been a major concern in personal network analysis. The selection is based on a trade-off between an efficient data collection process and achieving the most accurate representation of respondents’ personal network based on the objective of the study (Bidart and Charbonneau, 2011).
Over the years, distinct methods on how to elicit personal networks and social support networks of people have been elaborated (Agneessens et al., 2002; Barrera, 1980; Bidart and Charbonneau, 2011; Fischer, 1982; Marin and Hampton, 2007; McCallister and Fischer, 1978), whereby the main tool used is a name generator. Comparatively, it has been less common to use network visualizations to gather data on personal and social support networks (Hogan et al., 2007; Kahn and Antonucci, 1984), although it was proposed as an efficient strategy to give meaning to the contexts of interaction of the individuals (Maya Jariego and Holgado, 2005).
Data on personal networks is typically collected in three stages: name generator, dyad relation between the alters (completing an adjacency matrix) and name interpreters. For each stage, different methods have been developed to elicit the data, varying from paper methods to computer-aided programs or a mix of both. Network visualizations can be used in all of the three stages, whether to collect data or illustrate results (Tubaro et al., 2014).
Generating names with the support of visualization techniques
Researchers have used different visual aids and techniques to enable respondents enumerate their contacts. Free-hand spontaneous drawings have been used since the origin of personal networks visualizations. Free-hand drawings are easy to use, cheap, provide additional information that could be essential in the interpretation of the network through discussion and are less prone to technical failure (Cheong et al., 2013). They are also easy to modify during the interview using pencil (Hogan et al., 2007). At times, they have been used as an alternative technique to gather information, as in a study with immigrant children, where due to the diverse ethnic backgrounds, many of the respondents did not speak, read or write the language of the host country (den Besten, 2010). Researchers opting for this approach either leave the interviewees to draw their networks with hardly any instructions or have opted for giving some basic instructions, so as to maintain some homogeneity between the maps.
A second version of this type of spontaneous representation may be acquired through the use of cards and other props to represent the actors and their power. Next, the relationships between actors are drawn. This process is usually carried out in a group, in a participatory manner, and is a way to show a shared vision about relationships in the community (Schiffer and Hauck, 2010). Despite the differences in format, it is also a creative and spontaneous description, without restrictions, of the social network.
Another common technique is concentric circles hierarchical mapping, whereby concentric circles of different sizes are used to provide a visual guide to interviewees in organizing their alters according to their closeness to ego, who tends to be placed at the center (Antonucci, 1986; Carrasco et al., 2006; Hogan et al., 2007). The number of concentric circles depends on the researcher. In previous research, we have observed the number varying from as little as 3 to up to 7 (Cheong et al., 2013; Hersberger, 2003). This approach is sometimes combined with other visual aids, such as dividing the concentric circles into 4 quadrants to gather other type of information (Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018); or the use of post-it notes which allows movability and reassessment of certain metrics on the same network (Hogan et al., 2007). An online version has also been tried by Tubaro et al. (2014), whereby respondents drew their sociogram online, an approach that according to the authors could be useful to study hidden or sensitive populations. The use of concentric circles is easy to prepare, applicable to a variety of respondents (Samuelsson et al., 1996) and depending on how you design it, may add network structural data (McCarty et al., 2007). Nonetheless, some respondents may find it challenging and confusing given it restricts them to a structure that they may not be comfortable when depicting their personal network (Ryan et al., 2014).
Location maps have also been used as visual aides to understand movement of people. In a study using geo-referencing cell phone activity, maps were used to show population flows estimated every hour within an urban environment (Ratti et al., 2006). In another study, maps were used to illustrate where community residents interacted in the city and the people they met in daily interactions (Pearce and Milne, 2010).
Finally, another very simple way to generate names is to provide different boxes in which respondents can group alters according to different categories. Name boxed may be limited by a number, or provided as an open list; and the names obtained are sometimes transferred to another type of visualization. The number of names mentioned may be influenced by the number of boxes listed in the questionnaire, with exposure to a larger amount of boxes leading to more alternatives (Vehovar et al., 2008). The characteristics and advantages of these four strategies for obtaining names and relationships are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Four visualization displays to gathering data of personal networks.
| Display | Description | Advantages | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free hand spontaneous drawing | Respondents draw their network on a blank paper or a screen, with little instruction Sometimes, other aides, such as post-it notes, figures or colored markers are used Also applied in groups | Easy to prepare and set up. Allows participants to be creative Prompts qualitative discourse Less prone to technical failure Useful when language may be a problem | |
| Concentric circles | Several concentric circles differing in size are used to guide the respondent in placing alters in different circles, around ego | Easy to set up and easy to use Good summary of complex relations Capture the psychological value of relationships Adds structural data | |
| Location maps | Respondents use real maps to depict movement within a given location or to identify significant places within a location | Maps are easy to use and respondents do not need much instruction on how to use them Particularly useful for studies on mobility, migration, community behavior settings, etc | |
| Name boxes | Consists of providing specific name boxes for respondents to list their alters | Enables respondents to list alters in a specific order Grouping names into group categories is natural and intuitive for respondents |
| Strategies | Description | Implications | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concentric circles | Comments are organized in segments of relative importance, from the inside out | Center-periphery logic | |
| Relative importance of individuals | The role of alters with greater centrality and intermediation stands out | Strong ties Brokers | |
| Groups | Subsets of alternatively densely connected are identified | Social circles Contexts of interaction Communities of belonging | |
| Isolates | An explanation is often given to explain why certain nodes are isolated | Accessibility to alternative social circles |
| Strategy | n | % | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | 56 | 62.9 | The respondent draws a line or a circle in which he/she groups a subset of people belonging to the same category (e.g. “housemates,” “family,” “friends from work,” “flamenco colleagues,” etc.) |
| List of names | 27 | 30.3 | The interpersonal environment is summarized through a list of contacts. Names tend to be elicited through association and it is common that contacts with a similar relationship (e.g. siblings) have a close position to each other in the drawing |
| Ego’s star or ego’s tree | 20 | 22.5 | It consists of representing ego in the center of the graph and drawing around his direct contacts. Links between alters are rare, if there are any. We have called “relationships tree” those cases in which, from the direct relationship with ego, other branches of indirect relationships emerge |
| Nodes and relationships | 10 | 11.2 | A graph is drawn, composed of a set of individual nodes and the relationships they maintain between them |
| Concentric circles | 6 | 6.7 | The most important relationships are drawn in the center of the graph and around them concentric circles of decreasing relative importance are shown successively |
| Artistic representation | 6 | 6.7 | In some cases, respondents opted for creative drawings to represent metaphorically the characteristics of the personal network |
| Geographical position | 4 | 4.5 | Some respondents draw the distribution of their contacts according to the geographical location of alters. For instance, in our study, given it is based on a sample of people who have changed their place of residence, alters were placed between the home country and the host country |
| Diagram or organization chart | 4 | 4.5 | A schema is represented that organizes the personal contacts following some system of hierarchical classification, or imitating the structure of an organizational chart |





