Description

Guidelines for the preparation of the research project

Students are expected to carry out the research project either individually or in groups of four, three, or two members. Groups of more than four members are not allowed. The project must be comprehensive and original in analysis, accurately grounded in theory and literature, and must convey a clear message. It may include theoretical syntheses, the proposal of new and exploratory conceptual models, theoretically grounded discussions of methodology, the analysis of historical developments with clear implications for current and future theory, theoretically relevant discussions of timely and important network issues, and comprehensive literature reviews with strong theoretical implications.

Students must choose one of the following titles: 

1. Critically assess, compare and contrast the random Poisson network model and the “scale-free” network model proposed by Barabási and Albert. With the aid of examples, discuss whether and the extent to which these models offer an accurate representation of real-world networks. 

2. In the social sciences, scholars seem to agree on the importance of network structure, but disagree on the relative benefits of opposite types of structures. Some regard closed network structures (cohesion) as the source of social capital and innovation. Others have argued in favour of the benefits of open network structures (brokerage). With the aid of examples, critically assess, compare and contrast the network mechanisms underpinning these (apparently) opposing views of social capital. 

3. Critically outline and assess the following network measures: a) the clustering coefficient; b) the average geodesic distance; and c) the average degree. By drawing on relevant network theories, conduct a critical and comparative evaluation of the role played by each of the above measures in the following network models: a) the fully connected network; b) the Poisson random network; c) the Barabási-Albert “scale-free” network; and d) the WattsStrogatz “small-world” network. 

4. The experiment that Stanley Milgram conducted in the 1960s provided empirical evidence in favour of what is now referred to as the “small-world effect”, namely the fact that the average geodesic distance is small even for very large networks. Critically discuss Milgram’s experiment, and assess the extent to which the “small-world effect” can be found in the random Poisson network, in the Barabási-Albert “scale-free” network, and in the WattsStrogatz “small-world” network. 

5. By drawing on the Barabási-Albert “scale-free” network and the WattsStrogatz “small-world” network, critically assess the implications of different network structures and properties (e.g., clustering, average distances) for realworld processes such as, for example, information and innovation diffusion, opinion dynamics, and viral marketing