RAND_MR1382

In two other prominent usages, the term refers either to social networks or to
organizational networks (or to a conflation of both). But social and organizational
networks are somewhat different organisms. This is what needs discussion here, because
the difference is a significant issue for theory and practice, affecting how best to think
about the dynamics of netwar. The field of network analysis, writ large, has been
dominated by social network analysis, but organizational network analysis can be even
more helpful for understanding the nature of netwar.
Our main point is that netwar (and also counternetwar) is principally an organizational
dynamic, even though it requires appropriate social and technological dynamics to work
well. But our deeper point is that there is still much work to be done to clarify the
meaning of “network” and come up with better, easier methods of analysis for
policymakers and strategists. Both the social and organizational schools can contribute
to this—but in different ways, because they have different tendencies.
Social Network Analysis 8
Social network analysis is an important academic specialty pursued by a relatively small
number of anthropologists, sociologists, and organization theorists. It has grown in
influence for several decades. Generally speaking, their view—see a book like Networks
and Organizations, or Social Structures: A Network Approach, or Social Network Analysis, or
the web site of the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA)—holds
that all social relationships, including all social organizations, can and should be
analyzed as networks: that is, as sets of actors (nodes) and ties (links) whose
relationships have a patterned structure. 9
Social network analysis traces many of its modern roots back to efforts, decades ago, to
develop sociograms and directed graphs to chart the ties among different actors in
particular contexts—what gradually became known as a network. Later, some social
network analysts, along with social psychologists and organizational sociologists who
studied what were then called organization-sets, observed that networks often come in
several basic shapes (or topologies): notably, chain or line networks, where the members
are linked in a row and communications must flow through an adjacent actor before
getting to the next; hub, star, or wheel networks, where members are tied to a central
node and must go through it to communicate with each other; and all-channel or fully
connected or full-matrix networks, where everyone is connected to and can
communicate directly with everyone else (from Evan, 1972). 10 Other shapes have also
been identified (e.g., grids and lattices, as well as center/periphery networks and clique
networks 11 ); so have combinations and hybrids, as in sprawling networks with myriad
nodes linked in various ways that are sometimes called “spider’s web” networks.
Moreover, any particular network may itself be embedded within surrounding networks.
Yet, few social network analysts say much about such typologies; their concern is
usually to let the data sets speak for themselves.