CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING NETWORKS
3.3. Defining different types of social network ties
The different types of network relations range from “acquaintance, kinship, evaluation of another person, the need of a commercial exchange, physical connections, the presence in a web-page of a link to another page and so on” (Martino and Spoto 2006: 53-54). Because networks take various shapes and characters, and function differently, their ties are usually diverse. The ties could be
directed (i.e., potentially one-directional, as in giving advice to someone) or undirected (as in being physically proximate) and can be dichotomous (present or absent, as in whether two friends are friends or not) or valued (measured on a scale, as in strength of friendship). A set of ties of a given type (such as friendship ties) constitutes a binary social relation, and each relation defines a different network… (Borgatti and Foster 2003: 992).
Borgatti and Halgin (2011) describe two basic categories of network ties, namely, state-type ties and event-type ties. They explain that,
states have continuity over time. This is not to say they are permanent, but rather that they have an open-ended persistence. Examples of state-type ties
48
include kinship ties (e.g., parent of), other role-based relations (e.g., friend of or boss of), cognitive/perceptual relations (e.g., recognizes or knows the skills of), and emotive relations (e.g., likes or hates). State-type ties can be dimensionalized in terms of strength, intensity, and duration. In contrast, an event-type tie has a discrete and transitory nature and can be counted over periods of time. Examples of event-type ties include e-mail exchanges, phone conversations, and transactions such as sales or treaties signed. Cumulated over time, event-type ties can be dimensionalized in terms of frequency of occurrence (e.g., the number of e-mails exchanged)” (Borgatti and Halgin 2011: 3).
Although there are different types of networks, the ties usually fall into one of the two categories noted above. These categories are differentiated based on the life-span or duration of the network and its affective nature. While state-type ties are long term, emotionally bonded and intense, event-type ties are usually formal and brief.
Katz et al (2004) offer a similar classification of ties as strong and weak. Weak ties are relationships between nodes that are acquaintances and have little or no interaction, while strong ties are relationships among friends with frequent contact and exchange of communication or support (Granovetter 1983: 201-203). Strong ties offer a high level of trust, intimacy, and emotional support and are built on affection while weak ties are usually established to enable nodes to access information (Katz et al 2004: 309). Katz et al (2004:
309) add that “strong ties are particularly valuable when an individual seeks socio-emotional support and often entail a high level of trust. Weak ties are more valuable when individuals are seeking diverse or unique information from someone outside their regular frequent contacts”. This classification does not downplay the importance of weak ties over stronger ones, but each serves a different purpose within the various networks. Acquaintances that form weak ties may sometimes provide more support to the central nodes than stronger ties which may arise as a result of their linkages with other people who do not form part of the central nodes’ network. This is because, within networks with strong ties, the information they are privy to “is likely to be much the same as that which one already has” (Granovetter 1983: 205). Therefore, the character and strength of a network does not necessarily imply that weaker ties are less important.
49
Furthermore, Katz et al (2004) break down the two types of networks ties based on the character and goals of the network relationship. They classify them as “communication ties (such as who talks to whom, or who gives information or advice to whom), formal ties (such as who reports to whom), affective ties (such as who likes whom, or who trusts whom), material or work flow ties (such as who gives money or other resources to whom), proximity ties (who is spatially or electronically close to whom)” (Katz et al 2004: 308). These examples show that ties in networks are different, ranging from acquaintance to affective ties. The nodes within a network can possess more than one of these ties and the intersection of different ties is called multiplexity. Multiplexity refers to multiple overlapping social relations between the same nodes in a social network (Rogan 2014: 567). For example, a worker may have a formal tie with his/her boss, a proximity tie because they reside in the same neighborhood and an affective tie as they are also friends.
In network analysis these ties are measured using various methods. Examples of such measurements are the network centrality, transitivity and reciprocity (see Katz et al 2004;
Kadushin 2004; Snijders 2011). This study focuses on reciprocity within networks.
Reciprocity shows the mutual ties that exist between or among nodes (Katz et al 2004: 310).
It examines the relationship from the perspective of both nodes, that is, how node A responds to node B’s relationship and vice versa. Kadushin (2004: 13) notes that “the concept of mutuality implies first, the extent to which relations are reciprocal, that is, involve a give and take between the two parties; and second, the degree of power or asymmetry in the relationship”. In measuring reciprocity, the level of mutual exchange within relationships is analyzed to explore whether reciprocity is high, low or non-existent in a network.
Relationships between nodes in a network can be symmetrical and asymmetrical. Symmetric ties are characterized by mutuality, that is, relationships in which node A and node B respond to each other in a similar way (Doreian et al 2000: 5). On the other hand, asymmetric ties lack mutuality. Reciprocity can only exist in symmetric ties as it has to do with the mutual response of the various interacting nodes. Furthermore, in some instances, reciprocity explains the hierarchical nature of the ties within a network; a relationship between nodes that is reciprocal is usually less unequal than those with low or no reciprocity. Izquierdo and Hanneman (2006: 19) argue that a symmetric tie that is predominantly characterized by
50
reciprocity is more “equal or stable” than an asymmetric tie. Therefore, assessing reciprocity is important in explaining the characteristics of a relationship within a network.