Identifying sets of key players in a social network

Article

Abstract

A procedure is described for finding sets of key players in a social network. A key assumption is that the optimal selection of key players depends on what they are needed for. Accordingly, two generic goals are articulated, called KPP-POS and KPP-NEG. KPP-POS is defined as the identification of key players for the purpose of optimally diffusing something through the network by using the key players as seeds. KPP-NEG is defined as the identification of key players for the purpose of disrupting or fragmenting the network by removing the key nodes. It is found that off-the-shelf centrality measures are not optimal for solving either generic problem, and therefore new measures are presented.

Keywords

Social networks Centrality Cohesion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borgatti SP (2002) Stopping terrorist networks: Can social network analysis really contribute? Sunbelt International Social Networks Conference 13–17. New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgatti SP, Everett MG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks 21:375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgatti MG, Jones C, Everett MG (1998) Network measures of social capital. Connections 21(2):27–36Google Scholar
  4. Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman J (1990) Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (1999a) Peripheries of cohesive subsets. Social Networks 21:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (1999b). The centrality of groups and classes. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 23(3):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedkin NE (1991) Theoretical foundations for centrality measures. American Journal of Sociology 96:1478–504Google Scholar
  10. Glover F (1986) Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Computers and Operations Research 5:533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Kernighan BW, Lin S (1970) Efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell Systems Technical Journal 49(2):291–297Google Scholar
  13. Krebs V (2002) Uncloaking terrorist networks. First Monday 7(4) http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/ issue7_/krebs/index.html
  14. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A, Rosenbluth M, Teller A, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21(6):1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morris M, Kretzschmar M (1997) Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS 11:641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seidman S (1983) Network structure and minimum degree. Social Networks 5:269–287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organization StudiesBoston CollegeBoston

Personalised recommendations