Student Government of the University of Ljubljana, 1992
Description
This network consists of communication interactions among twelve members and advisors of the Student Government at the University in Ljubljana. The results of the measurement are not observed interactions among actors but cognitive reports about communication interactions.
Collection
In the experiment two alternative methods were used for collection of network data:
Recall: Members of the group were asked to identify the members of their egocentric networks by memory. The criteria for enumeration was frequency of the recalled communications.
Recognition: The list of all members of the group was given to each member. They were first asked to identify who they communicate with and then to select the person they communicate with most often.
The number of identified persons was not limited in either method.
The resulting network consists of communication interactions among twelve members and advisors of the Student Government at the University in Ljubljana. The results of the measurement are not real interactions among actors but cognition about communication interactions. Data were collected with face to face interviews which lasted from 20 to 30 minutes. Interviews were conducted in May 1992.
Communication flow among actors was identified by three questions: Who of the members and advisors of the Student government do you (most often) informally discuss with? Which members and advisors of the Student Government do you (most often) ask for an opinion? Which of the members and advisors of the Student Government (most often) ask you for an opinion? The content of the communication flow was limited to the matters of the Student Government. The time frame was also defined: questions were referred to the six months period (from the formation of the government to the day of the interview).
Only one respondent listed all others under the recognition method for two relations (discussion, asking for an opinion). For that respondent the first group was defined arbitrary. The cut point was determined by the average number of selected persons at the recognition method (3.5 for the first relation and 4.5 for the second).
One respondent refused to cooperate in the experiment. As he was dropped
from the network data, the network consists of eleven actors.
Licenses and Citation
Student Government of the University of Ljubljan (1992) http://www.networkdata.ics.uci.edu
If the source of the data set does not specified otherwise, this data set is protected by the Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/.
Source
Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar (2006): Pajek datasets
http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/data/.
References
Valentina Hlebec, Recall Versus Recognition: Comparison of the Two Alternative Procedures for Collecting Social Network Data. Developments in Statistics and Methodology. (A. Ferligoj, A. Kramberger, editors) Metodoloski zvezki 9, FDV, Ljubljana, 1993, p. 121-129.
When publishing results obtained using this data set the original authors should be cited. In addition this package should be cited as:
Christopher L. DuBois, Emma S. Spiro, Zack Almquist, Mark S. Handcock, David Hunter, Carter T. Butts, Steven M. Goodreau, and Martina Morris. 2003 netdata: A Collection of Network Data
http://www.csde.washington.edu/statnet