Prompted by developments in dynamic network analysis, historical network research, and decision theory, Marissa King, Balázs Kovács, and I organized a one-day workshop in the fall of 2016 around the theme of “Networks and Events” at the Yale Institute for Network Science (YINS), cosponsored by YINS and the Initiative on Leadership and Organization at the Yale School of Management. We were able to host only a fraction of the exciting scholars whose work bears on the interrelation of these two topics; nevertheless, the workshop was a generative event. One product was the collection of papers that forms the substance of the following symposium. The following four papers are similar in that they address the relationship between events and networks by conceptualizing and analyzing how events can be linked into patterned configurations that can predict and explain social outcomes and behavior. All depict episodes that are eventful in the colloquial sense of being remarkable and deviating from the mundane and routine. The set of empirical phenomena this captures is quite broad, and the papers describe a wide range of phenomena, including interactions between many people at once, killings, insurgencies, and moments of historical importance. Conceptual differences are also evident. Events are treated variously as social actors (represented by nodes), the ties that link social actors into networks, and networks themselves. The papers, however, are consistent in challenging—but also extending—existing theoretical approaches to events and eventfulness. William Sewell defined events as brief but significant moments that produce large-scale and lasting structural transformations. If structural transformation is defined as changes in the patterns of relationships that hold together the social body, each of the papers suggests that events cannot be moments that produce structural change because the structures of relations that matter are both cross-sectional and longitudinal. These structures are the complex, dynamic patterns of relational transformation and change that occur over time. Thus, for example, the simultaneity or sequential nature of interactions can have an independent effect on information or market exchange, and the order in which counterinsurgency forces secure areas and cultivate widespread public support can determine the outcomes of conflicts. The problems of dynamic network analysis have increasingly forced network researchers to confront the problem that structure is not static and that the way it interacts with time is not limited to persistence or transformation. This issue has taken on even greater

中文翻译：

---

活动和网络研讨会简介

受动态网络分析，历史网络研究和决策理论发展的推动，Marissa King，BalázsKovács和我于2016年秋季在耶鲁大学网络学院组织了为期一天的主题为“网络与事件”的研讨会科学（YINS），由YINS和耶鲁大学管理学院领导力和组织倡议共同发起。我们只接待了一部分激动人心的学者，他们的作品涉及这两个主题的相互关系。但是，研讨会是一次创举。一种产品是形成以下研讨会实质内容的论文集。以下四篇论文的相似之处在于，它们通过概念化和分析如何将事件链接到可以预测和解释社会成果和行为的模式化配置中，从而解决了事件与网络之间的关系。所有这些都描述了在俗语上引人注目的事件，这些事件与众不同且与平凡和常规背道而驰。所捕获的一系列经验现象非常广泛，并且论文描述了各种各样的现象，包括许多人一次之间的互动，杀戮，叛乱和具有历史意义的时刻。概念上的差异也很明显。事件被不同地视为社会参与者（由节点表示），将社会参与者链接到网络以及网络本身的联系。但是，这些论文 在挑战和扩展现有的事件和多事件理论方法方面始终如一。威廉·瑟威尔（William Sewell）将事件定义为短暂但重要的时刻，这些时刻产生了大规模而持久的结构性转变。如果将结构转变定义为将社会主体联系在一起的关系模式的变化，则每篇论文都认为事件不可能是产生结构变化的时刻，因为重要的关系结构既是横断面的又是纵向的。这些结构是随着时间推移发生的关系转换和变化的复杂动态模式。因此，例如，互动的同时性或顺序性可以对信息或市场交易产生独立影响，反叛乱部队确保地区安全并获得广泛公众支持的顺序可以确定冲突的结果。动态网络分析的问题越来越多地迫使网络研究人员面对这样的问题，即结构不是静态的，并且结构与时间的交互方式不仅限于持久性或转换。这个问题更加严重