Figure 1:
Focus of the conflict for diasporic organizations in another country, a model.
Table 1.
Data frequencies.
| Conflict side | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnicity | Neutral | Pro-Russian | Pro-Ukrainian | Total |
| Mixed (Russian-speaking) | 8 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| Not national | 12 | 6 | 1 | 19 |
| Other national organizations | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Russian | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Ukrainian | 4 | 0 | 10 | 14 |
| Total | 40 | 8 | 11 | 59 |
Table 2.
Descriptive network statistics.
| Network size | Density | Edges (total) | Reciprocity | Transitivity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 15 | 0.06 | 12 | 0.88 | 0 |
| 2014 | 15 | 0.10 | 22 | 0.88 | 0 |
| 2015 | 27 | 0.12 | 88 | 0.90 | 0.43 |
| 2016 | 40 | 0.08 | 139 | 0.94 | 0.19 |
Figure 2:
Network plots for the years of 2013 to 2016 (from left to right, row-wise).
Figure 3:
Cross-tabulation correspondence map between categories “ethnicity” and “side of the conflict” in the data set.
Table 3.
Exponential random graph model for 2014 network.
| Baseline model | Step 2 | Step 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | |
| Edges/intercept | −4.92 | 3.38 | −2.34 | 3.23 | −2.48 | 3.15 | |
| Reciprocity | 0.58 | 1.26 | 0.88 | 1.21 | 0.91 | 1.20 | |
| Intransitive | −0.41 | 0.41 | −0.26 | 0.37 | −0.25 | 0.37 | |
| gw out-degree | −0.93 | 2.52 | −1.72 | 2.92 | −1.68 | 2.81 | |
| gw in-degree (fixed 0.5) | 2.66. | 1.57 | 2.22 | 1.47 | 2.21 | 1.47 | |
| org. type | umbrella organization | −0.06 | 0.57 | −0.12 | 0.46 | −0.10 | 0.46 |
| global | |||||||
| independent organization – reference category | . | . | . | . | . | ||
| ethnic ident. | Ukrainian | 1.37 | 1.00 | ||||
| Russian | 0.01 | 1.21 | |||||
| mixed (Ukrainian and Russian) – reference category | . | ||||||
| other | – | – | |||||
| no ethnic ident | 0.87 | 0.99 | |||||
| conflict side | pro-Russian | ||||||
| pro-Ukrainian | |||||||
| neutral – reference category | |||||||
| homophily | on conflict side | –0.51 | 0.64 | ||||
| on ethnic identification | –0.25 | 0.66 | |||||
| AIC | 113 | 112.2 | 112.9 | ||||
Figure A1:
Goodness-of-fit plot for the best fit model for 2014 network.
Table 4.
Exponential random graph model for 2015 network.
| Baseline Model | Step 2 | Step 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE | ||
| Edges/intercept | −1.68*** | 0.44 | −1.77*** | 0.45 | −1.74*** | 0.44 | ||
| reciprocity | 2.14** | 0.81 | 2.07* | 0.82 | 2.08** | 0.82 | ||
| intransitive | −0.22. | 0.12 | −0.24. | 0.13 | −0.23. | 0.13 | ||
| gw in-degree (fixed 0.5) | 0.97 | 0.75 | 1.04 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 0.77 | ||
| gw out-degree (fixed 0.7) | −3.22*** | 0.51 | −3.17*** | 0.53 | −3.18*** | 0.53 | ||
| org. type | umbrella organization | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.19 | |
| global | ||||||||
| independent organization – reference category | . | . | . | . | . | . | ||
| ethnic ident. | Ukrainian | |||||||
| Russian | ||||||||
| mixed (Ukrainian and Russian) – reference category | . | . | . | . | ||||
| other | ||||||||
| no ethnic ident. | ||||||||
| conflict side | pro-Russian | −0.001 | 0.18 | |||||
| pro-Ukrainian | −0.009 | 0.19 | ||||||
| neutral – reference category | ||||||||
| homophily | conflict side | pro-Russian | 0.08 | 0.51 | ||||
| pro-Ukrainian | 0.90. | 0.53 | ||||||
| ethnic ident. | mixed | 1.03 | 0.57 | |||||
| Ukrainian | 0.28 | 0.42 | ||||||
| AIC | 269.7 | 267.2 | 268.1 | |||||
Figure A2:
Goodness-of-fit plot for the best fit model for 2015 network.
Table 5.
Exponential random graph model for 2016 network (Steps 2 and 3 not converged).
| Baseline model | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | Estimate | SE | |
| Edges/intercept | −1.14* | 0.50 | |
| reciprocity | 1.99** | 0.65 | |
| intransitive | −0.01 | 0.05 | |
| gw in-degree | 0.81. | 0.46 | |
| gw out-degree | −3.72*** | 0.40 | |
| org. type | umbrella organization | −0.16 | 0.19 |
| independent organization – reference category | . | . | |
| global | 0.17 | 0.19 | |
| ethnic ident. | Ukrainian | ||
| Russian | |||
| mixed (Ukrainian and Russian) – reference category | |||
| other | |||
| no ethnic id. | |||
| conflict side | pro-Russian | 0.29* | 0.13 |
| pro-Ukrainian | −0.20 | 0.26 | |
| neutral – reference category | . | . | |
| homophily | on conflict side | ||
| on ethnic ident. | |||
| AIC | 416.7 | ||
Figure A3:
Goodness-of-fit plot for the best fit model for 2016 network.