European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 5–19 | Cite as

What sort of community is the European Conference on Information Systems? A social network analysis 1993–2005

Special Section Article


This paper presents a social network analysis (SNA) of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) community based on patterns of co-authorship. ECIS contributions are separated into research papers and panels to create social networks that are then analyzed using a range of global network level and individual ego (co-author, panellist) measures. The research community is found to have few properties of the ‘small world’ and to represent an agglomeration of co-authorships. The panels network has the properties of a ‘small world’ and displays a stronger sense of social cohesion. An analysis of individual actors (egos) provides insight into who is central to the ECIS community. Based on the SNA, a range of possible interventions are proposed that could aid the future development of the ECIS community. The paper concludes by considering the usefulness of SNA as a method to support IS research.


social network analysis information systems co-authorship 



We thank Professor Martin Everett of the University of Greenwich for his advice and guidance and for commenting on earlier drafts of this article.


  1. Barabási A, Jeong H, Néda Z, Ravasz E, Schubert A and Vicsek T (2002) Evolution of the social networks of scientific collaborations. Physica A311, 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barley S.R (1990) The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 61–103.Google Scholar
  3. Berry F, Brower R, Choi S, Goa W, Jang H, Kwon M and Word J (2004) Three traditions of network research: what the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review 64 (5), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bonacich P (1972) Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti SP and Everett MG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks 21, 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti SP, Everett MG and Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for Windows. Analytic Technologies, Harvard.Google Scholar
  8. Borgatti S and Foster P (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29 (6), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdieu P (1990) Homo Academicus. Polity, London.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu P (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu P (2004) Science of Science and Reflexivity. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Brass D (1995) A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 13, 39–79.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt ME and Brass D (1990) Changing patterns or patterns of change: the effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 104–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: an Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Castells M (2000) The Rise of the Network Society (2nd edn). Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Coleman J (1988) Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cote J, Leong S and Cote J (1991) Assessing the influence of the assessing the influence of journal of consumer research: a citation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 402–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross R, Parker A, Prusak L and Borgatti S (2001) Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organisational Dynamics 30 (2), 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cross R, Borgatti S and Parker A (2002) Making the invisible visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review 44, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Degenne A and Forse M (1994) Introducing Social Networks. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  24. Elster J (1979) Ulysses and the Sirens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Elster J (1983) Sour Grapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: I. conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman LC, Roeder DR and Mulholland RR (1980) Centrality in social networks. II. Experimental results. Social Networks 2, 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman LC, Borgatti SP and White DR (1991) Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ford D, Berthon P, Brown S, Gadde L-E, Hakansson H, Naudé P, Ritter T and Snehota I (2002) The Business Marketing Course: Managing in Complex Networks. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  30. Ford D, Hakansson H and Gadde L-E (2003) Managing Business Relationships. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  31. Galliers RD and Whitley EA (2002) An anatomy of European information systems research ECIS 1993–CIS 2002: some initial findings. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems. Gdansk, Poland.Google Scholar
  32. Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Granovetter M (1974) Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Granovetter M (1982) The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In Social Structure and Network Analysis (MARSDEN P and LIN N, Eds), Sage, Berverly Hills.Google Scholar
  36. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: a theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hansen MT (2002) Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13 (3), 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holmen E and Pedersen A-C (2003) Strategizing through analyzing and influencing the network horizon. Industrial Marketing Management 32, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Homans GC (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt Brace, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Kilduff M and Tsai W (2003) Social Networks and Organisations. Sage Publications, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuhn TS (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd edn). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In Networks and Organizations: Structures, Form and Action (NOHRIA N and ECCLES R, Eds), Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp 216–239.Google Scholar
  43. Latour B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination (LAW J, Ed), Routledge, London, pp 103–131.Google Scholar
  44. Latour B and Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  45. Morlacchi P, Wilkinson I and Young L (2005) Social networks of researchers in B2B marketing: a case study of the imp group 1984–1999. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 21 (2), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Möller K and Svahn S (2003) Managing strategic nets: a capability perspective. Marketing Theory 3 (2), 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moody J. (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review 69, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maturana HR and Varela FJ (1980) Autopoesis and Cognition. Reidel, Dodrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newman M (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98 (2), 404–409 Scholar
  50. Nielsen PA and Tjørnehøj G (2005) Mapping social networks in software development process improvement: an action research study. Proceedings of the IFIP 8.6 Conference: Business Agility and IT Diffusion. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  51. Owen-Smith J and Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effect of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15 (1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Powell WW, White WR, Koput W and Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110 (4), 1132–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raab J and Milward H (2003) Dark networks as problems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (4), 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reagans R and Zuckerman E (2001) Network, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organisation Science 12 (4), 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson L and Adier R (1981) Measuring the impact of marketing scholars and institutions: an analysis of citation frequency. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 9, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  57. Scott J (2000) Social Network Analysis (2nd edn). Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
  58. Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G and Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  59. Walsham G (1997) Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research (LEE A, LIEBENAU J, DEGROSS J. Eds), 31 May–3 June, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  60. Wasserman S and Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Watts D (1999) Small Worlds: the Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  62. Watts D (2003) Six Degrees: the science of a connected age. Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  63. Watts D (2004) The ‘new’ science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology 30, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zack M (2000) Researching organizational systems using social network analysis. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
  65. Zemljić B and Hlebec V (2005) Reliability of measures of centrality and prominence. Social Networks 27, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Vidgen
    • 1
  • Stephan Henneberg
    • 2
  • Peter Naudé
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Management, University of BathBathU.K.
  2. 2.Manchester Business School, University of ManchesterManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations