PMAP – Policy brief 8

The
main strength of Social Network Analysis is the information it provides
on the existing institutional actors and relationships, the existing
decision framing, and thus the influence and exchange of information
for progressing adaptation.

Quantitative SNA
provides additional information and can explore correlations between
network variables and attribute variables or other social indicators.
However, it requires a large sample size, or ego-centric partial
networks. It tends to focus on methodology and technical issues rather
than on hypotheses and theories, and can be subject to the
over-interpretation of results. Further, data are often difficult and
resource intensive to obtain, and empirical studies are often quite
small, which can make it hard to use for exploration of alternative
measurement strategies.

Qualitative SNA is quick
and relatively easy to do and encourages participation across diverse
viewpoints and actors. It also avoids some of the more complex
classifications or jargon involved in more formal quantitative
applications. The engagement also reveals insights that would be
difficult to get any other way. The disadvantages are that results are
highly dependent on which actors are involved in the exercise, and
their participation which can bias results (high subjectivity). It can
also be difficult to integrate different perspectives to produce
cohesive maps of whole networks, especially where multiple scales are
involved or to bring together actors that have very different
perspectives.

A key issue (and potential
weakness) in SNA is how the question is framed, because this influences
the responses. This structured subjectivity contrasts with other
potential methods.   
   

Key strengths

Can generate an understanding
of socioinstitutional structures, actors and linkages, and
ways to improve information and knowledge transfer

Can
provide information on decision framing and key actors.

Can
provide quantitative information and correlations to
understand network variables (quantitative SNA).

Qualitative
SNA is quick and relatively easy to do and encourages
participation across diverse viewpoints and actors.

Potential weaknesses

Subjective bias and can be
difficult to generalise.

Time-consuming,
intensive process (quantitative SNA).

Does
not have a temporal or spatial dimension.

Networks
have artificial boundaries (often necessarily).

Design
of process is critical to get as many differing viewpoints
as possible.

The MEDIATION project identified the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to SNA. A summary is outlined below.The main strength of Social Network Analysis is the information it provides on the existing institutional actors and relationships, the existing decision framing, and thus the influence and exchange of information for progressing adaptation.Quantitative SNA provides additional information and can explore correlations between network variables and attribute variables or other social indicators. However, it requires a large sample size, or ego-centric partial networks. It tends to focus on methodology and technical issues rather than on hypotheses and theories, and can be subject to the over-interpretation of results. Further, data are often difficult and resource intensive to obtain, and empirical studies are often quite small, which can make it hard to use for exploration of alternative measurement strategies.Qualitative SNA is quick and relatively easy to do and encourages participation across diverse viewpoints and actors. It also avoids some of the more complex classifications or jargon involved in more formal quantitative applications. The engagement also reveals insights that would be difficult to get any other way. The disadvantages are that results are highly dependent on which actors are involved in the exercise, and their participation which can bias results (high subjectivity). It can also be difficult to integrate different perspectives to produce cohesive maps of whole networks, especially where multiple scales are involved or to bring together actors that have very different perspectives.A key issue (and potential weakness) in SNA is how the question is framed, because this influences the responses. This structured subjectivity contrasts with other potential methods.