Identifying sets of key players in a social network

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Borgatti SP (2002) Stopping terrorist networks: Can social network analysis really contribute? Sunbelt International Social Networks Conference 13–17. New Orleans

  2. Borgatti SP, Everett MG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks 21:375–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgatti MG, Jones C, Everett MG (1998) Network measures of social capital. Connections 21(2):27–36

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  5. Coleman J (1990) Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

  6. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (1999a) Peripheries of cohesive subsets. Social Networks 21:397–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Everett MG, Borgatti SP (1999b). The centrality of groups and classes. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 23(3):181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1:215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedkin NE (1991) Theoretical foundations for centrality measures. American Journal of Sociology 96:1478–504

    Google Scholar 

  10. Glover F (1986) Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Computers and Operations Research 5:533–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press

  12. Kernighan BW, Lin S (1970) Efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell Systems Technical Journal 49(2):291–297

    Google 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):1087–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morris M, Kretzschmar M (1997) Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS 11:641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Seidman S (1983) Network structure and minimum degree. Social Networks 5:269–287

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen P. Borgatti.

Additional information

Stephen P. Borgatti is Professor of Organization Studies at the Carroll School of Management, Boston College. His research is focused on social networks, social cognition and knowledge management. He is also interested in the application of social network analysis to the solution of managerial problems.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borgatti, S.P. Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organiz Theor 12, 21–34 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-7084-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social networks
  • Centrality
  • Cohesion