I’ve been engaged in a blog-post discussion with Euan Semple on “The map is not the territory ”. I won’t bore you with all the details as you can read it for yourself, but I will take the opportunity to address two of his and his readers’ points in a bit more detail. The first is to do with network analysis focusing myopically on one group – this will be the subject of a later blog-post. The second, and to my mind the most important, is network analysis ethics. This is a subject that was hinted at on Euan’s blog-post, but not directly discussed. At this point it is necessary to snip from Euan’s blog-post, and some of the comments, to give some context.

Euan said – “If I felt that someone else was mapping my conversions and the relationships they represented - and wasn't prepared to have the same done to them, I would soon stop talking”.

Jon Husband commented on the quote by saying - “... or were not completely transparent about the purpose of the mapping (including attempts to enhance productivity and top-down control). People will, I think, automatically assume these are key purposes, why wouldn't they ?”

Steve Dale said – “Euan, absolutely agree with your sentiments. I detect a form of management paranoia; they don't really understand what social networking is all about, they don't want to dip their toes into what they consider to be muddy water, yet at the same they want to understand it in the only way that makes sense to them - numbers and statistics. What worries me are the conclusions they may draw from this imprecise and flawed method of evaluation!”

Now all three quotes have some legitimacy, and can be boiled down to a question of ethics, and perhaps this is where all three gentlemen have had a bad experience?! Ethics in network analysis is a vexed question for a few reasons. First, in a social network analysis even if someone declines to participate it is likely that others will use their name and say they have a relationship. This means that non-response does not immediately guarantee omission from the study. Second it is possible for data, and the report, to be used in unintended ways or to be misinterpreted – see my Senior Officer Interest Lights (SOILs) blog-post for an example of misinterpretation.

Professor Steve Borgatti , the inventor of UCINET , has addressed these issues in detail in his paper “Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations ”. As far as I am concerned this is a seminal and must-read paper for anyone practicing, or intending to practice network analysis! While the paper is aimed at researchers the issues and advice hold true for practitioners, and could indeed be extended to many other methods used in organisations. I won’t provide a detailed summary here because I think it an easy read.

One of the interesting and practical solutions Borgatti comes up with is a contract between management and the network analyst. He provides an example in the paper, but in essence it specifies data will not form the basis for evaluation of individual employees, but will only be used in a developmental way to improve the organisation. The contract is seen by every participant as part of the consent and explanation of purpose procedure. I have used a modified (read “Australianised”) version of this in my own work and find it works. Try it for yourself.

My view is ethical issues in network analysis are problematic, important, but not insurmountable. I begin with these couple of assumptions on ethics:

• Ethics are reflective of societal norms and vary within society and groups.
• Ethics are as much an attitude as they are a set of values, skills and knowledge.
• Ethics are not constant – they will vary from society to society, and group to group. 
• Do not expect your colleagues to apply your own ethics to their decisions.  

Borgatti’s contract more than adequately addresses all these assumptions. For me ethics matter, but so do networks. Network analysis can be done within an ethical framework!

Regards, Graham