CRIM3304 1

CRIM3304

by[Name]

Course

Professor’s Name

Institution

Location of Institution

Date
 CRIM3304 2

The network map

According to Dhand et al. (2019), network mapping and analysis play a critical role in the

visualisation and exploration of relationships within a group so that the group’s work and

effectiveness can be strengthened. With the help of NetDraw software, a network map shows

how each activity of the 17 November Greece Bombing relates to each other, their sequence, and

why some activities were performed before others. In the network, social entities are represented

using nodes while relationships are represented using ties. Cinar et al. (2017) state that in

network maps, every relationship is identified by its directionality and value whereby a

directional relationship which is represented as arcs constitute a transfer from one vertex to the

other; On the other hand, relationships that lack a direction(s) is being represented as an edge

which constitutes sharing of members of the same organisation as represented in figure 1.

Figure 1. The network map (Source, Author)

 CRIM3304 3

Description of the structure of the network as it appears on the map

           The network’s structure as it appears on the map represents 3 types of relationships which

processes, moderately close family ties (friends) which include interactions that go beyond

radical organisations to include categories such as roommates and close friend/family

relationships (Cinar et al., 2017). The presence of any of these relationships is coded with 1 as

indicated in figure 2.

Figure 2. Adjacency matrix (Source, Author).

Besides individual relationships in the network having positions of specific influence; as

a whole, the network structure provides specific benefits and limitations for all relationships. For

instance, some aspects of the network are highly connected than others and those parts are

perceived to be more influential than other members (Cohen and Fox, 2020).

           The most common measures of cohesion applicable in this study are questionnaires and

observation. Group members with similar interests are listed on a roster and then each member is

required to assess their relationships based on a given dimension. Such questionnaires are

administered via personal interviews or through a self-completed questionnaire which is often

web-based (Fonseca, Lukosch, and Brazier, 2019). Notably, unlike conventional probability-

based approaches to social research, Fonseca et al. (2019) argue that analysis of networks is
 CRIM3304 4

highly sensitive to the response rate and thus intrusive approaches of data collection are

preferred.

           One of the alternative methods to questionnaire-based approaches is the observation

method which includes ethnography where researchers join a group and observe the involved

activities, expert panel studies where highly sensitive respondents are required to systematically

reflect on hunches then investigate where some information is introduced to one part of a group

and the group is watched to identify where the information subsequently goes (Leo et al., 2020).

One of the contemporary developments in observational methodology is the increased use of

smart email scanning methods to determine areas of competence within an organisation’s

internal or external contacts members may have. It is imperative to note that high response rates

are important because the study revolves around specific relationships among a set of social

entities. 

The three measures of centrality in the network

Degree centrality 

            The number of direct connections a node has to the adjacent nodes forms one of the key

measures of centrality. The number of nodes is defined as the “degree” of a node. According to

Zhang and Luo (2017), central nodes in a network are the vertices with the largest degree; that is,

the degree with the highest relationships – this is an indicator of popularity. The authors argue

that degree centrality is essential in determining the number of connected members who are

likely to constitute in-depth information or people who can connect quickly with an extensive

network. In the network, family ties will connect quickly due to their high number of

connections.
 CRIM3304 5

Betweenness centrality 

           Unlike the other centrality measures within cohesive groups, betweenness centrality

identifies vertices that connect less related parts of the network (Bringmann et al. 2019). The

betweenness of a node can therefore be defined as the frequency at which a node can appear on

the shortest paths between each other pair of vertices. The family has the highest number of

betweenness   

Closeness centrality 

           One of the alternatives to centrality measures in cohesive groups is closeness which

considers the position of all other nodes in the network. Matas (2017) state that closeness

centrality helps in calculating the shortest paths between nodes before assigning each node a

score depending on its sum of shortest paths. In this regard, closeness is expressed as a

reciprocal, farness that comprises the sum of the shortest path distance which implies the number

of steps from one vertex to the other. From the figure, co-workers have the highest farness while

reciprocal relatives have the highest closeness.

 CRIM3304 6

References

Bringmann, L.F., Elmer, T., Epskamp, S., Krause, R.W., Schoch, D., Wichers, M., Wigman, J.T.

and Snippe, E., 2019. What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks?.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(8), p.892.

Cinar, M.S., Genc, B., Sever, H. and Raghavan, V.V., 2017, August. Analyzing structure of

terrorist networks by using graph metrics. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big

Knowledge (ICBK) (pp. 9-16). IEEE.

Cohen, A.L. and Fox, M.D., 2020. Reply: The influence of sample size and arbitrary statistical

thresholds in lesion-network mapping. Brain, 143(5), pp.e41-e41.

Dhand, A., Lang, C.E., Luke, D.A., Kim, A., Li, K., McCafferty, L., Mu, Y., Rosner, B., Feske,

S.K. and Lee, J.M., 2019. Social network mapping and functional recovery within 6

months of ischemic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 33(11), pp.922-932.

Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F., 2019. Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and

how to characterize it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,

32(2), pp.231-253.

Leo, F.M., López-Gajardo, M.A., González-Ponce, I., García-Calvo, T., Benson, A.J. and Eys,

M., 2020. How socialization tactics relate to role clarity, cohesion, and intentions to

return in soccer teams. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 50, p.101735.

Matas, N., 2017. Comparing Network Centrality Measures as Tools for Identifying Key

Concepts in Complex Networks: A Case of Wikipedia. Journal of Digital Information

Management, 15(4).
 CRIM3304 7

Zhang, J. and Luo, Y., 2017, March. Degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and closeness

centrality in social network. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on

Modelling, Simulation and Applied Mathematics (MSAM2017) (Vol. 132, pp. 300-303).