Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:23:10.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Noting the ties after tying the knot: Photo-based elicitation of retrospective personal network data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2019

Alexandra Marin Open the ORCID record for Alexandra Marin [Opens in a new window]  and
Chang Lin
Alexandra Marin
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S2J4 (e-mails: alexandra.marin@utoronto.ca, chang.lin@mail.utoronto.ca)
Chang Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S2J4 (e-mails: alexandra.marin@utoronto.ca, chang.lin@mail.utoronto.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report on an interview method using photo-based network elicitation and a landmark anchoring event to collect data on relationship change in ego networks retrospectively. Using the wedding albums of married or formerly married respondents, we populate a network from many years ago with persons pictured in the album and then collect data about each respondent’s relationship with each person at the time of the wedding and at the time of the interview. This data collection method mitigates many of the problems associated with retrospective data collection and does not have the logistical difficulties associated with panel studies. Our findings show that this method is successful in collecting significant numbers of connections that have undergone change, and especially reductions in activity along various dimensions.

Keywords

Brea L. PerryBernice A. PescosolidoMario L. SmallAnn McCranieegocentric networksnetwork changelongitudinal network datainactive tiesdormant tiesinterview methodsdata collectionphoto-based elicitationretrospective data collectiondimensions of tie activity
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue Ego Networks , June 2020 , pp. 251 - 270
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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.)

References

Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., & Birditt, K. S. (2014). The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. The Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, S., & Marsden, P. V. (1999). Interpretation and interview context: examining the general social survey name generator using cognitive methods. Social Networks, 21(3), 287–309.Google Scholar
Bearman, P., & Parigi, P. (2004). Cloning headless frogs and other important matters: Conversation topics and network structure. Social Forces, 83(2), 535–557.Google Scholar
Belli, R. F. (1998). The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar: Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory, 6(4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, J. (1992). Keeping a rendezvous. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidart, C., & Cacciuttolo, P. (2013). Combining qualitative, quantitative and structural dimensions in a longitudinal perspective. The case of network influence. Quality & Quantity, 47(5), 2495–2515.Google Scholar
Bidart, C., & Charbonneau, J. (2011). How to generate personal networks: Issues and tools for a sociological perspective. Field Methods, 23(3), 266–286.Google Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2011). Small networks and high isolation? A reexamination of American discussion networks. Social Networks, 33(4), 331–341.Google Scholar
Brashears, M. E. (2014). “ Trivial” topics and rich ties: The relationship between discussion topic, alter role, and resource availability using the “Important Matters” name generator. Sociological Science, 1, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashears, M. E., & Quintane, E. (2018). The weakness of tie strength. Social Networks, 55, 104–115.Google Scholar
Berkman, L. F., & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. Social Epidemiology, 1, 137–173.Google Scholar
Brewer, D. D. (1995). The social structural basis of the organization of persons in memory. Human Nature, 6(4), 379–403.Google ScholarPubMed
Brewer, D. D. (2000). Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks. Social Networks, 22(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, D. D., & Webster, C. M. (1997). Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks. In Sunbelt Social Networks Conference, San Diego.Google Scholar
Brewer, D. D., & Yang, L. B. (1994). Patterns in the recall of persons in a religious community. Social Networks, 16, 347–379.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 6, 293–339.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (2000). Decay functions. Social Networks, 22(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Byungkyu, L., & Bearman, P. (2017). Important matters in political context. Sociological Science, 4, 1–30.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1991). Name generators in surveys of personal networks. Social Networks, 13(4), 203–221.Google Scholar
Cornwell, B., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., & Graber, J. (2009). Social networks in the NSHAP study: Rationale, measurement, and preliminary findings. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(Suppl_1), i47–i55.Google ScholarPubMed
Cornwell, B., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., Kim, J., & Kim, Y.-J. (2014). Assessment of social network change in a National Longitudinal Survey. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(Suppl 2), S75–S82.Google Scholar
Cross, P., & Mitchell, P. J. (2014). The marriage gap between rich and poor Canadians: How Canadians. Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, February.Google Scholar
Eagle, D. E., & Proeschold-Bell, R. J. (2015). Methodological considerations in the use of name generators and interpreters. Social Networks, 40, 75–83.Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1997). Structural embeddedness and stability of interpersonal relations. Social Networks, 19(1), 91–95.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S. J. (2016). Women and education: Qualifications, skills and technology (S. Canada Ed.). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Ferligoj, A., & Hlebec, V. (1995). Reliability of network measurements. Contributions to Methodology and Statistics. Ljubljana: FDV, pp. 219–232.Google Scholar
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, C. S. (2012, September 2, 2012). Results of 2010 GSS network experiment. [Listserv posting]. SOCNET@Lists.UFL.EDUGoogle Scholar
Fischer, C. S. (2018). Understanding how personal networks change: Wave 1.Google Scholar
Gallant, M. P. (2003). The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: a review and directions for research. Health Education & Behavior, 30(2), 170–195.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, G. D., Wright, D. B., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. A. (2000). Telescoping of landmark events: Implications for survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(1), 77–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Giordano, P. (1995). The wider circle of friends in adolescence. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 661–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, S. (2008). Measuring social networks with digital photograph collections. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia.Google Scholar
Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L. F., & Her, E. J. (2011). Core networks, social isolation, and new media: How Internet and mobile phone use is related to network size and diversity. Information, Communication & Society, 14(1), 130–155.Google Scholar
Hogan, B., Carrasco, J. A., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks: Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlburt, J. S., Beggs, J. J., & Haines, V. A. (2001). Social Networks and Social Capital in Extreme Environments. In Lin, N. (Ed.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 209–232). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ikkink, K. K., & Van Tilburg, T. (1999). Broken ties: Reciprocity and other factors affecting the termination of older adults’ relationships. Social Networks, 21(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (2012). Longitudinal analyses of the effects of age, marriage, and parenthood on social contacts and support. Advances in Life Course Research, 17(4), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1976). Informant accuracy in social network data. Human Organization, 35(3), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567–584.Google Scholar
Laumann, E. O., & Pappi, F. U. (1973). New directions in the study of community elites. American Sociological Review, 38, 212–230.Google Scholar
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook. com. Social Networks, 30(4), 330–342.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Marburger, W. (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark events. Memory & Cognition, 11(2), 114–120.Google ScholarPubMed
Marin, A. (2004). Are respondents more likely to list alters with certain characteristics? Implications for name generator data. Social Networks, 26(4), 289–307.Google Scholar
Marin, A., & Hampton, K. N. (2007). Simplifying the personal network name generator alternatives to traditional multiple and single name generators. Field Methods, 19(2), 163–193.Google Scholar
Marin, A., & Hampton, K. N. (Forthcoming). Network instability in times of personal stability. Sociological Forum.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (2002). Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator. Social Networks, 25, 1–16.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (2003). Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator. Social Networks, 25, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (2011). Survey methods for network data. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. (Eds.), Sage handbook of social network analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V., & Wright, J. D. (2010). Handbook of survey research. Bingley England: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
McCallister, L., & Fischer, C. S. (1978). A procedure for surveying personal networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 7(2), 131–148.Google Scholar
McCarty, C. (2002). Structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3.Google Scholar
McCarty, C., Killworth, P. D., & Rennell, J. (2007). Impact methods for reducing respondent burden on personal network structural measures. Social Networks, 29, 300–315.Google Scholar
Milan, A. (2013). Marital Status: Overview 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L., Neal, M. B., & Carder, P. (1997). The stability of core and peripheral networks over time. Social Networks, 19(1), 9–25.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Wellman, B., & Marin, A. (1999). How to use SPSS to study ego-centred networks. Bulletin de méthodologies sociologiques, 64, 63–76.Google Scholar
Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1964). A study of response errors in expenditures data from household interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59(305), 18–55.Google Scholar
Nieuwbeerta, P., & Flap, H. (2000). Crosscutting social circles and political choice: Effects of personal network composition on voting behavior in The Netherlands. Social Networks, 22(4), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B. L. (2012). Coming untied? Narrative accounts of social network dynamics from first-time mental health clients. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(8), 1125–1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, B. L., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2012). Social network dynamics and biographical disruption: The case of “first-timers” with mental illness. American Journal of Sociology, 118(1), 134–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2009). Question-order effects in social network name generators. Social Networks, 31(4), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzulli, L. A., & Aldrich, H. (2005). Who can you turn to? Tie activation within core business discussion networks. Social Forces, 84(1), 323–341.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Eva, G., Allum, N., & Lynn, P. (2010). Data quality in telephone surveys and the effect of questionnaire length: A cross-national experiment. Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
Small, M. L. (2013). Weak ties and the core discussion network: Why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters. Social Networks, 35(3), 470–483.Google Scholar
Small, M. L. (2017). Someone to talk to: New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, M. L., Deeds Pamphile, V., & McMahan, P. (2015). How stable is the core discussion network? Social Networks, 40, 90–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.09.001Google Scholar
Song, L., Son, J., & Lin, N. (2011). Social support. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, 116–128.Google Scholar
Stack, C. (1974). All our kin. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2010). General Social Survey (GSS), 2010: Cycle 24.Google Scholar
Straits, B. C. (2000). Ego’s important discussants or significant people: An experiment in varying the wording of personal network name generators. Social Networks, 22(2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudman, S. (1985). Experiments in the measurement of the size of social networks. Social Networks, 7(2), 127–151.Google Scholar
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., Schwarz, N., & Gullickson, T. (1997). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. PsycCRITIQUES, 42(7), 652.Google Scholar
Suitor, J., & Keeton, S. (1997). Once a friend, always a friend? Effects of homophily on women’s support networks across a decade. Social Networks, 19(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubaro, P., Casilli, A. A., & Mounier, L. (2014). Eliciting personal network data in web surveys through participant-generated sociograms. Field Methods, 26(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valente, T. W., Dougherty, L., & Stammer, E. (2017). Response bias over time: interviewer learning and missing data in egocentric network surveys. Field Methods, 29(4), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Poel, M. G. M. (1993). Delineating personal support networks. Social Networks, 15(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Vaart, W., & Glasner, T. (2011). Personal landmarks as recall aids in survey interviews. Field Methods, 23(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellman, B., Wong, R. Y.-l., Tindall, D., & Nazer, N. (1997). A decade of network change: Turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities. Social Networks, 19(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousefi-Nooraie, R., Marin, A., Hanneman, R., Pullenayegum, E., Lohfeld, L., & Dobbins, M. (Forthcoming). The relationship between the position of name generator questions and responsiveness in multiple name generator surveys. Sociological Methods & Research.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A. S. (2005). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior: Temple University Press.Google Scholar