Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Sociology and Education StudiesComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chasing shadows: defining network boundaries in qualitative social network analysis

Open access
Heath, Sue, Fuller, Alison, Johnston, Brenda·2009·Qualitative Research
DOI 10.1177/1468794109343631
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Defining network boundaries is a key challenge in social network analysis. In our recent qualitative study of network influences on educational decision-making — based on interviews with 107 individuals from 16 case study networks — the set of members with whom interviews were secured in each case represented only a sub-set of the broader networks from which they were drawn. Following an introduction to our study and an outline of our approach, we consider some of the processes of filtering and selection that affected the specific composition of our network sample, and reflect upon what this tells us about the processes by which participants in network-based research make decisions about the representation of their networks within research contexts. We then explore the question of whether the partiality of our data actually matters, and conclude that it reflects the permeable, partial and dynamic nature of social networks, characteristics which are central to qualitatively-informed understandings of SNA.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1468794109343631

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Antonucci, T., 1985, ‘Personal Characteristics, Social Support, and Social Behaviour’
  2. Edwards, G., 2009, Methodological Innovations On-Line, 3
  3. Emmel, N., 2008, Real Life Methods Toolkit
  4. Foskett, R., Paper presented at Commonwealth Council for Education, Administration and Management conference
  5. Heath, S., Paper presented at British Sociological Association Youth Study Group seminar on ‘Young People and Education’
  6. Johnston, B., Paper presented at NCRM Methodological Workshop, ‘Researching Family and Friendship-based Intergenerational Networks: Qualitative Perspectives’
  7. Johnston, B., Non-participation in HE Working Paper Series
  8. Pahl, R., 2000, On Friendship
  9. Scott, J., 2002, ‘General Introduction’
  10. Thomson, R., Paper presented at NCRM Methodological Workshop, ‘Researching Family and Friendship-based Intergenerational Networks: Qualitative Perspectives’
  11. Trotter, R., 1999, ‘Friends, Relatives and Relevant Others: Conducting Ethnographic Network Studies’

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Heath, Sue
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2009-11
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
645-661
ISSN
  • 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3109
DOI
10.1177/1468794109343631
OpenAlex
W1991552697
Cited by
137
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Research (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (RES-139-25-0232)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
network boundaries, network sampling, network composition, educational decision-making, network dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.