Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-rnj55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-10T05:52:04.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Using Correspondence Analysis for Joint Displays of Affiliation Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Katherine Faust
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Peter J. Carrington
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
John Scott
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Stanley Wasserman
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access

Summary

This chapter describes and illustrates methods for studying affiliation networks, with special attention to methods for spatial representations that jointly display the actors and events in the network. Although affiliation networks have been the focus of methodological research for decades (Levine 1972; Breiger 1974; Seidman 1981; McPherson 1982; Wilson 1982), more recent analyses of affiliation networks have raised a number of issues concerning appropriate methods for their study. At the same time, research has pointed to the empirical and theoretical generality of this perspective (Freeman and White 1993; Wasserman and Faust 1994; Borgatti and Everett 1997; Faust 1997; Skvoretz and Faust 1999; Breiger 2000; Mische and Pattison 2000; Roberts 2000; Brazill and Groffman 2002; Faust et al. 2002; Pattison and Breiger 2002).

Background

Representing the two modes in the affiliation network in a “joint space” in which both actors and events are depicted simultaneously is of particular interest in both earlier and more recent work on affiliation networks. Such graphic displays commonly use scaling (e.g., correspondence analysis) or algebraic approaches (e.g., lattices). An important, but often neglected, aspect of some applications is clear specification of the formal relationships embodied in the configuration and explicit description of how the result corresponds to the original data. These omissions produce rather casual depictions and consequent ambiguity in interpretation. They also contribute to misunderstanding and fuel debate about the usefulness of the approach. The following passages are typical of such descriptions for affiliation networks or similar two-mode data arrays.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×