Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Centre Update and New Blog Address

The Centre for the Study of Behaviour Change and Influence has recently merged with the Bristol Leadership Centre, forming the new Bristol Leadership and Change Centre. This blog is therefore now closed, but you can follow us on the new blog here.

Friday, 8 April 2016

Fun, easy and popular the social practice way - Blog Post by Dr Fiona Spotswood

Fun, easy and popular the social practice way

Amongst its critics, social marketing has been most often castigated for relying too heavily on individualistic, downstream approaches to social change. I would add to the list of criticisms – which include a lack of rigorous evaluation, evidence, theoretical transparency, cost-effectiveness and impact, that it is unwilling to embrace innovative theory from disciplines other than psychology. However, I also argue that often social marketers have understood the nub of a social problem without necessarily being able to explain it in authoritative, theoretical terms. Like their commercial marketing cousins, they have a good sense of what makes the world tick.

One example is the decade old social marketing mantra, ‘fun easy and popular’. Not claimed to be grounded in any great theoretical tradition, social marketers just had a sense that behaviour change interventions needed to be fun, easy for people to do, and move people in the general direction of travel within their cultural context, and not against it. “Start where people are now”, I would be told by managers when I worked as a social marketing consultant. “Find out what moves and motivates people”.

Rather than simply join the throngs willing to criticise social marketing, this article aims to bolster social marketing’s kudos by exploring ‘fun, easy, popular’ from a social practice perspective, thereby adding theoretical scaffolding to an otherwise flimsy concept. Practice theories have been gaining momentum in ‘behaviour change’, since a seminal article by Reckwitz in 2002 reinvigorated our interest. The article revisited the work of early practice theorists like Bourdieu and Giddens, which suffered from obfuscate explanation, and pricked the ears of those seeking innovative ways to understand and tackle the wicked problems of the day. In the sustainability field, a practice theoretical perspective has now widely been acknowledged as providing a potential framework for a conceptually advanced understanding of the reason people act in environmentally unsound ways, for a way of intervening in a full, holistic, naturally interdisciplinary way and, perhaps most importantly, for a way of conceptualising societal problems which does not automatically place individual behaviours at the heart of the problem, when a complex context is at work in the background guiding decision makers down pre-determined paths.

Practice theory comes from a sociological heritage and is considered to be in its third wave now (Warde, 2014). Like all theory, it can be used to draw certain phenomena into the foreground and de-emphasise others. To understand its key tenets, the foreground in question must include a focus on the practice itself and not the individuals who perform it. Life, so goes the theory, is made up of practices, which are routinized, often unnoticed and unconsidered, and which individuals perform every day. Examples are eating breakfast, getting dressed, checking emails, making tea, having a shower. These practices are made up of certain elements – competences (skills required to perform them), meanings and materials. By understanding the elements which interact which make up a practice, we can begin to see how a practice has evolved. Being clean used to mean having a bath once a week, but now we shower often twice a day. The materials have changed – we have electricity, hot showers, bathrooms. The meanings have changed – being clean and fresh is a cultural norm. The competences have changed – we no longer need to fill a tin bath with kettles, but have to remember to turn on the extractor fan.

Practice theory also affords a great number of other insights into the way action is organised. For example, practices compete with each other to recruit participants; elements of practices are intertwined with neighbouring practices so often individual practices cannot be singled out for analysis; practices are unavoidable (there is nothing outside practices); meanings and competences can be embedded in material things. The list goes on. Perhaps the most important, however, is the way practice theory sidesteps the thorny issue of structure vs agency which necessarily plagues behaviour change thinking. If people are considered to have agency above all else, then interventions which presume the power of their rational, goal-directed decision making will result. If structure is considered a more important influence on behaviour then activities to change the ‘wider determinants’ will result. In truth, neither solution is complete and both quickly reach their natural capacity.

In contrast, practice theory side-steps this conundrum. Practices are structures which guide activity. We cannot shower without engaging with the practice of showering and its constituent elements. However, the practice only exists because it is being performed, and through performance it can be reconstituted and recalibrated. This is how practices evolve.
Back to ‘fun’, ‘easy’ and ‘popular’, using ‘children eating healthy snacks’ as an example.

Easy: The key relevant practices here are parental shopping practices and family eating routines, although there are others such as food preparation, storage, parents’ rewarding of children, TV watching (snack food advertising practices) and so on. (And already the potential for interdisciplinary, holistic perspectives afforded by practice theory rise to the top).

A starting point is that practices must recruit practitioners to survive and regenerate. Practitioners must have the relevant competences to succeed, and if they do not (and a practice is therefore ‘hard’) they will fail to re-perform the practice. If the competences are in place and the practice is ‘easy’ to perform, then meanings will reflect this and a practice will acquire the meaning of ‘easy’. Opening a packet of crisps is ‘easy’ (requires fewer competences) than peeling an apple.

Insights for intervention: Social marketing can have a role in expanding the meanings around family food practices, for example working with supermarkets to label fruit as ‘easy snacking’ and crisps/confectionary as ‘party food’. Competences can be hybridized into the material by providing pre-prepared healthy foods for children’s snack times. There are problems, however, with the mis-marketing of so-called ‘healthy’ snacks for children which are high in sugar and other interventions will be required to tackle these upstream problems. A sugar tax on snacks like the one slapped on fizzy drinks today might have an impact, for example.

Popular: Practices are performed by communities of people, who share a similar worldview (Bourdieu’s ‘habitus’). Within the same context, people tend to perform the same practices in similar ways, although performance will always vary a bit. People embody a sense of practical knowledge about how to perform a practice (like eating meals three times a day) and what is the ‘right’ way of doing something (such as not eating curry for breakfast). This practical knowledge is largely invisible to practitioners but highly visible when someone is not conforming. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect practitioners to leap from one way of doing things (e.g. crisps in a lunch box) to an alternative (fruit) without a more gentle evolution of the practice; so it gets chance to become embodied. This interpretation of ‘popular’ is less about social comparison and more about social order. There is a perceived ‘right’ way of doing things.

Related to this is that the more practitioners who perform a practice, the more ‘normal’ it becomes and the harder it is to avoid. Again, a gentle evolution is more likely to achieve this sense of ‘normal’ than sudden or enforced changes. 

Intervention implications: Social marketing has a potential role here in preparing the way for practice evolution. Much like with the smoking ban, which simply took the final step in an already strong march towards practice change (Blue et al, 2016), social marketing activities can change meanings and competences around snacking which contribute to an ‘natural’ evolution in snacking practice. The role of materials is also important, and social marketers can work with manufacturers, for example, to produce lunchboxes which are attractive to children and parents and which afford (lend themselves to/make it possible to) storing fruit and vegetable snacks more easily. Again, such activities will compete with the thrust of much snack food industry marketing, which presents snacking on refined and processed foods as a natural phenomenon loaded with meanings around good parenting and motherly devotion. To tackle the ferocity of these messages, it is likely that stronger regulation would be required (Hastings and de Andrade, 2016).

Fun: In practice theoretical terms, ‘fun’ is considered either as a meaning of the practice itself (a ‘teleoaffective structure’ (Schatzki, 2002), or as a mechanism which is ‘of the practice’ but embodied by the practitioner. This depends on whether strong practice theory (aka Shove) or a weaker version is in play. As a meaning, it is possible to see how social marketing has a role in branding healthy snacks, whether manufactured (low sugar cereal bars) or otherwise (satsumas) to provide a set of associations in parents and children’s minds between the healthy snack and it being ‘fun’. This is the heartland of marketing. If ‘fun’ is considered a mechanism embodied by the practitioner, then further theoretical analysis is required (and there is considerable room in practice theory for theoretical development (Warde, 2014)). However, the role of marketing in supporting the ‘fun’ meaning is fairly straightforward.

Conclusion
‘Fun, easy and popular’ is an example of a mantra of early social marketing that has led to its dismissal by ‘serious’ behaviour change scholars who lambast its lack of theoretical rigor and downstream focus (see Truong, 2014). Clearly the focus of ‘fun easy popular’ is the individual, but examined from a practice perspective, it is possible to shift perspectives, and even paradigms, and begin to see how a practice theoretical approach reframes the problem (of, in this example, children’s unhealthy snacking) and considers the contribution of materials, competences and meanings in the framing of individuals’ (collective) performances. Social marketing can have a role in intervening to change the links between elements and contribute to the reformulation of practices which are problematic to society.

What is also clear from this brief analysis, however, is that social marketing – within the commonly understood boundaries of the discipline – cannot contribute straightforwardly to intervening to change the materials of snacking practices (the production of unhealthy snackfoods targeting children), nor have much effect on adjoining and clearly strongly bundled practices, such as those of snackfood manufacturers and marketers. Here we are entering the debate around ‘upstream social marketing’, which is much discussed in the literature but of which there is little evidence (Truong, 2014). Lobbying, regulation and policy change are the interventions required at this level, and a critical marketing understanding may be useful, but the change agents are more likely to be policy makers, politicians and the corporate sector itself.

A practice theoretical perspective offers huge potential for social marketers to grapple in a more robust way with behaviour change by removing the ‘behavioural’ aspect (the individual) and instead focusing on how their particular skillset might contribute to interventions targeting practice change. Social marketers have a natural sense of the ways the world works but are not necessarily as adept at theoretical innovation as they need to be to establish themselves as a valid and respected discipline within the behaviour change community. Practice theory might therefore be a foothold for change; both for social marketing as a discipline but also for many of the wicked problems it seeks to address.

For further discussion please contact the author direct - Fiona2.spotswood@uwe.ac.uk

References:
Bourdieu, P. (1985a) The genesis of the concepts of Habitus and of Field. Sociocriticism, 2 (2), 11-24.
Reckwitz, A. (2002), “Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing”, European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263.
Schatzki, T. (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change, Pennsylvania State University Press.
Truong, V. D. (2014) Social Marketing: A Systematic Review of Research 1998–2012. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 15-34.
Warde, A. (2014) After-taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, November.




Thursday, 17 March 2016

The case for (good) harm reduction advice for recreational drug users - Blog post by Amy Beardmore

On 16th November 1995, school girl Leah Betts died at her 18th birthday party. She and a friend – like many 90’s teenagers - had decided to take ecstasy, a drug which they had both taken before with no ill effects. Popular advice for ecstasy users at the time was to drink plenty of water and to stay well hydrated to avoid overheating, so when Leah started to feel unwell she followed that advice. Leah continued to feel unwell, so, thinking she was dehydrated, she continued to drink water. Unfortunately for Leah and her family this harm reduction advice was misguided and her consumption of too much fluid led to the water intoxication that ultimately killed her[i].

Leah’s death caused a moral panic and a media storm about ecstasy, with many overlooking the actual cause of death and blaming the drug itself. Bad advice and confusing messages were partly to blame for the actions she took after ingesting the drug, and whilst Leah would undoubtedly have lived had she not taken ecstasy that night, the popular harm reduction advice that was in the public domain at the time was undoubtedly a contributing factor.

Since Leah’s death, what little official harm reduction advice there is has been amended to reflect the dangers of both overheating and overhydrating:

‘Users should take regular breaks from the dance floor to cool down and watch out for any mates who are on it – they mightn’t realise they're in danger of overheating or getting dehydrated…’
‘…However drinking too much can also be dangerous…Users should sip no more than a pint of water or non-alcoholic drink every hour.’
‘Ecstasy’, FRANK[ii]

With the rest of the ‘Ecstasy’ section of the FRANK website emphasising either the associated illegalities or potential risks, it is clear that there has actually been a shift away from harm reduction to prevention when it comes to substance use education.[iii] Furthermore, the evidence seems to suggest that despite many young people citing them as a source of information, drug education initiatives such as the FRANK campaign fail to change behaviour.[iv]

A news report on the death of Leah Betts
It should also be noted that although recent years have seen a decline in substance use among young people,[v] there are still a significant number of adults who continue to use drugs recreationally into their 30s and 40s. These people are extremely unlikely to engage with a campaign aimed at young people such as FRANK, and as there are no drug education resources aimed at this cohort they tend to rely on the advice of friends and information found on the internet,[iii] creating yet another vacuum in potential harm reduction messaging.

So what has happened to a ‘forewarned is forearmed’ approach in the substance use agenda? Martin Barnes from Drugscope is concerned about the lack of harm reduction knowledge among the current ecstasy-taking cohort:

“Much of that knowledge [about reducing harm], for example, not increasing dosage and not allowing the body to get over-heated is less known to many of the current generation of club and festival goers. We need to find ways of reminding young people about this type of information, not only in relation to ecstasy, but also to the many other new drugs now available.”

Martin Barnes, quoted in the Independent, August 2013[vi]

Both Harry Shapiro (also from Drugscope) and Professor David Nutt (Imperial College) agree that there is a worrying political shift away from harm reduction because the media have helped create such a moral panic that the issue of substance use is now rooted in a culture of fear rather than in providing effective and useful information to users.[vii] Whilst harm reduction interventions such as needle exchanges and methadone clinics are still used in the treatment of harder drugs, the ‘softer’ educational harm reduction approach and the associated safety benefits continue to be overlooked due to the controversial, emotive and political nature of substance use legislation.
'Just say no' - FRANK campaign advert

Current UK drugs policy has indeed seen a general shift towards focusing on recovery and abstinence in recent years rather than on damage limitation for substance users,[viii] and the very mention of harm reduction as a tactic for tackling substance use tends to send the more politically conservative into a moral spin as such advice is seen to condone illegal and harmful activities. The “if you are going to do it, at least be informed about it”[ix] approach to the so-called ‘war on drugs’ is frequently misinterpreted as condoning substance use, but if we accept that prohibition has not eradicated these behaviours, the next logical step surely has to be effective harm reduction advice. Moral panics and illegalities haven’t stopped people taking ecstasy and other substances, so perhaps it is time to educate people on how to stay safe, how to keep their friends safe, and on how to reduce the potential harm involved in such activities. Settings in which substance use tends to occur (such as festivals and nightclubs) should be free to offer advice on safety without the fear of being seen to condone usage, giving people the right information on how to manage dosage and dealing with any associated concerns. Whilst we obviously don’t want to actively encourage drug use, we do need to accept that certain behaviours exist in society, regardless of whether they are either illegal or socially unacceptable.[ix] The challenge then shouldn’t be how we can eradicate drug use,  but how we can ensure that harm reduction advice is freely available, easy for users to understand and above all evidence-based; because the consequences of bad harm reduction advice can be as devastating as having none at all.




[i] Henry, J.A. (2000) Metabolic consequences of drug misuse. British Journal of Anaesthesia [online]. 85 (1), pp.136-142.
[iii] Measham, F., Williams, L. and Aldridge, J. (2011) Marriage, mortgage, motherhood: What longitudinal studies can tell us about gender, drug ‘careers’ and the normalisation of adult ‘recreational’ drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy [online]. 22 (6), pp.420-427.
[iv] Aldridge, J. (2008) A hard habit to break? A role for substance use education in the new millennium. Health Education [online]. 108 (3), pp.185-188.
[vi] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fresh-fears-over-ecstasy-substitute-pma-after-rise-in-deaths-8787783.html
[vii] http://www.mixmag.net/feature/ecstasy-in-2015
[ix] Truss and White. (2010). Ethical Issues in Social Marketing. In: French, J. (2010) Social Marketing and Public Health: Theory and Practice [online]. Oxford University Press.

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

How behaviour change can help with our ‘wicked problems’ - Dr Fiona Spotswood

Marketing academic, Fiona Spotswood’s interdisciplinary view on behaviour change is explored in her book Beyond Behaviour Change which publishes this month. Spotswood argues that understanding the complexity of behaviour change, including the diversity of approach and its history, will be key to tackling issues such as climate change and obesity.

Sadly, wicked problems like obesity and climate change aren’t going anywhere fast. As such,‘behaviour change’ has become a buzzword in academia and amongst policy makers. Research councils fund it, academics research it and policy makers do it.

But like all topics of social scrutiny, behaviour change is evolving. A mind map of key issues would include things like ‘interdisicplinarity’, ‘nudge’, ‘systems thinking’, ‘individual responsibility’ and ‘rigorous evaluation’.

Topics like these are the subject of discourse within centres which study behaviour change across the UK. There is no cohesive ‘field’ of behaviour change, but a disparate range of experts who continue to build a portfolio of evidence from their particular set of ideological, methodological and ontological perspectives.

No silver bullet


What fascinates me is bringing together the range of these perspectives from established experts across the spectrum of behaviour change approaches and considering the historical roots of political, legal and persuasive intervention, along with the ‘nudge’ craze and softer marketing based measures.

This inspired me to write Beyond behaviour change, as did the House of Lord’s Science and Technology Committee’s findings from their review of behaviour change; there is no silver bullet and approaches to behaviour change will be most effective if they are combined.

Unravelling problems


This has become the mantra of good practice now and is not news, but what is interesting for me is the way theory can help reconceptualise a wicked problem and unravel it to a point where interdisciplinary interventions can be implemented.

Untitled The Foresight Obesity Map Systems thinking is a good example; providing a way of illustrating the complexity and interrelationships between factors at varying ecological levels.

The Foresight Obesity map (shown right) is the most famous example: a simple glance demonstrates the sheer overwhelming magnitude of the problem of obesity. Surely interdiscipinarity has to be the answer.

Theoretically, however, I find social practice theory makes an even stronger contribution to reframing behaviour change and I am certain it will be (or at least I hope it will be) a backbone of work in the future.

Going back to the Foresight Obesity map, a clear fallout is that focusing behaviour change approaches on the individual will fail to make the impact that is required.

“practice theory does not seek to analyse the individual but rather the practice itself”


That is not to denigrate the fantastically rigorous evidence base unpicking the most effective combinations of individually-focused interventions, it is simply to argue that the need for a more systemic, holistic approach to complex wicked problems is a given. I think theories of practice have a lot to offer here.

In a nutshell, practice theory does not seek to analyse the individual but rather the practice itself, made up of elements in the form of competences, materials and meanings. Practices are treated as an ‘entity’ which are carried and performed by individuals.

Constituent practices


To understand a wicked problem, researchers disaggregate it into constituent practices – like that of snackfood eating, driving or watching television. We study the way the elements within the practice are linked, break, performed and reformed and how the practice has evolved and might be encouraged to evolve in a socially beneficial way.

The implications of practice theory are far reaching. For example, the approach stops the prevailing emphasis that the individual is always the ‘thing that has to change first’ to solve society’s problems.

It opens up a need for new ways of doing research and for policy makers to accept methodological and ontological variety. It implies interdisciplinarity because a multitude of solutions will naturally be required to tackle the links between elements.

“Regulation does not fit within the current neoliberal political climate, whereas interventions which require individual responsibility and self-management do”


With these implications come challenges, such as the emphasis in policy circles on positivist, traditional forms of research evidence – those that tend to consider the impact of various effects on an individual’s decision making. Also there is the problem of regulating business – surely a necessity if a practice theoretical analysis of practices involved in obesity, for example, is to be followed to its natural conclusion.

Regulation does not fit within the current neoliberal political climate, whereas interventions which require individual responsibility and self-management do. The abstract nature of SPT can be a challenge, too, and the lack of associated ‘toolkit’ for policy use. Undoubtedly academics and policy makers – in their two culturally alien worlds – need to work on how to improve communication of evidence and the applied usefulness of theory.

It is clear to me that the future cannot contain a continued focus on downstream interventions based solely on individualism, and that we must embrace a new paradigm which incorporates interdisciplinary, holistic thinking and methodological flexibility.

However, this call for paradigm shift and holistic thinking by no means represents a conclusion reached by all Beyond behaviour change’s contributors, and in fact the tensions between some of the chapters are an intriguing part of the story. The intention is not to force cohesion but to facilitate progress by providing a space for the consideration of diverse ideas, and most of all to encourage movement within the discourse. I invite readers to become part of this discourse around ‘behaviour change’ at this pivotal point in its history.

Beyond behaviour change: Key issues, interdisciplinary approaches and future directions is available to order here from the Policy Press website for £26.99.  
 

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

We are the rats - blog post by Dr Fiona Spotswood


“As we set off for our run, a swarm of hi-viz sweeping down the pavement, most of the group were attempting to avoid tripping over the feet in front whilst peering and tapping at their wrists to start a heart rate watch or Garmin tracker. All you can hear is ‘beep beep beep’ and the panting of runners whose minds are not focused on avoiding the puddles but rather on their cosy post-run analysis of each kilometre; armchair, recovery drink and commentary on which bit was hard, where they improved and who they beat up which hill. It’s a new kind of running” (research field notes by the author).

Google Image
Self-tracking devices are popular for amateur ‘leisure time’ runners, and underpin a set of activities which include data analysis, social media sharing, comparison and goal-setting for improvement. ‘Wearable technology’ is a growing area of technological development, offers market potential and is ripe for research interest.

Working with Lukasz Piwek from Bath University, I am conducting a piece of research which examines wearable technology from an innovative perspective. Most research in this area – from a ‘behaviour change’ perspective - is about whether or not self-tracking devices ‘work’ as a mechanism for improving the self-regulation of physical activity or calorie intake. This fits the bio-medical paradigm and also the ‘New Public Health’ emphasis on individuals’ capacity to mitigate risk and take responsibility for their own health. Within a neo-liberal political environment which fiercely protects the market and supports individual responsibility above all else, this ‘healthist’ paradigm has supported a related burgeoning of consumerism, wherein the market is continuously producing new ‘solutions’ to consumers’ ‘problems’ in the form of wearable devices, technological platforms, social media, fitness apparel and so on.

There is considerable literature critiquing the current focus on self-responsibility in the public health and behaviour change arenas. One theoretical platform for criticism is Foucault’s notion of governmentality. Governmentality emphasises that striving for ‘perfect’ health involves intensive ‘work on the self’ or self-governance, and despite the language of empowerment and freedom, this striving actually entails compulsion, added responsibilities to others, and often punishment and social exclusion in the case of those who fail to conform. The ‘panopticon’, wherein prisoners are controlled both by the prison guards and the other prisoners, is a useful metaphor.
The Panopticon

Within the healthist paradigm, individuals are both self-governing but also controlled by greater forces; health has taken on a moral element, where those who fall short are in society’s spotlight. Individuals are ‘governed’ through the emphasis on self-responsibility, although not through coercion but through subtler measures. Through the repeated emphasis from political and corporate agendas, individual ‘desires’ are aligned with those of the powerful. The market and government collude to provide the structures to ‘help’ people maintain their health through self-discipline and responsible citizenship.

What I’m getting at is that we are the rats and the policymakers and corporations are the pied piper.

Taking responsibility for your own health is not a bad thing, per se. But an emphasis on responsibility means we assume a lack of criticality about the broader, bigger, bolder forces which shape society in which our apparent ‘decision making’ takes place.

Researching ‘behaviour’ in a different way is a starting point for sharing in a fairer way the focus of responsibility for ‘wicked problems’ between individuals and the corporate giants. Theories of Social Practice can help us do this. Social theory has been introduced as a potential way of avoiding the focus on individuals which is a characteristic of the predominant paradigm of behaviour change policy and research. Individualistic focus is unrealistic (how can an individual possibly seek to make decisions that are not influenced by Coca Cola’s multi-billion dollar marketing budget), can lead to victim blaming and leads to an avoidance of meaningful change (including regulation) on largescale societal forces.
Rather than focusing on the individual, the unit of analysis in theories of practice is the practice itself, often usefully conceptualised as comprising three elements – materials, meanings and competences. Practices are treated and research as ‘entities’ in which individuals act as carriers and crossing points of bundles of practices. Through their regular, routinized performance, practices are sustained and evolve.
By using social practice theory to explore empirical findings about how and why runners self-track using wearable technology, it is our intention to unpick the whole entity of self-tracking practice and its bundle of interrelating practices. Rather than thinking about self-tracking as a ‘health behaviour’, which is a limiting concept because it presumes all ‘health outcome’ variables lead to and come from individual responsibility and action, our research will consider the meanings, materials and competences involved in self-tracking, plus those of neighbouring practices such as club running, sharing, comparing and analysing run data, setting goals for future training and so on. We will attempt to conceptualise the practice as a whole, and use our findings to critique existing portrayals of self-tracking as a way of ‘taking responsibility for health’, a conceptualisation we suspect is too simplistic to do justice to the complexity of practitioners’ performances, which might not fit quite so neatly into traditional thinking about ‘health behaviours’ as the pied pipers would have us believe.


Friday, 8 January 2016

Social Network Analysis- what does it mean? Blog post by our placement student, Francis Paynter

Since I started my placement at the Centre for the Study of Behavioural Change and Influence I’ve been educating myself on social network analysis (SNA) for a project I’m helping to assist with. Up until recently it may have been hard to map, mathematically, how individuals within a network may relate to each other. Who’s the most important person? Who’s essential for connecting two clusters of people together? Who’s at the periphery of a network? And so on. Well now, with a little help from a free plug in to Microsoft Excel called NodeXL, (http://nodexl.codeplex.com/) you are only a few simple steps away from establishing this. Not only this, but it can also be used for online social networks including Twitter and Facebook.

From a technical point of view, social network analysis (SNA) is the process of investigating social structures through network and graph theories [1]. Essentially, it involves creating a colourful, if a little confusing at first, graph that is structured by nodes and edges. Nodes are individuals within a network and the edges are the relationships between the nodes that connect them. “Great and what does that mean?” I hear you say. Well with this information it is then possible to determine who within a network is important, in terms of information transfer, and who may be a little more peripheral, literally, within the network. It is used in several disciplines from the hard and soft sciences and most things in between. So it is evident that its practical applications could be far reaching from anything to mapping social media networks, friendship and acquaintance networks (great if you want to see how important or unimportant you are to your friendship group) and disease transmission.

To help visualise this there is a simple example of a kite graph below which is commonly used to explain social network analysis [2]:


So what does this mean… this is essentially a graph of who invited who to a party. We can see that Diane is the most central person for invites and has a degree of six as she is directly connected to six other people. If we were looking at this in terms of popularity it would be reasonable to say that Diane is the most popular because she has the most connections whilst Jane has only one direct connection and therefore, sadly for Jane, would be technically the least popular. However, Diane is not the be-all and end-all because if you take a look at Heather we can see she has a degree factor of three (connected directly to three other people). Whilst this is lower than Diane her position is still important. Therefore, if information needed to be conveyed to Ike, and by extension to Jane, this would not occur and Ike and Jane wouldn’t get an invite to the party… things aren’t looking good for Jane. But fortunately, Heather is there with her high betweeness centrality which in lay-person’s terms means she is important for connecting two groups of people together.

Having said this, demonstrating how popular someone is within a group is not that profound. However, when you think of the more complex graphs that can be produced with networks consisting of thousands of people its results can be a lot more useful for indicating influence and presence of smaller sub networks. Although social network analysis with a user-friendly programme such as NodeXL is in its relative infancy it is intriguing to see the range of ways in which it can be used to explore different kinds of networks.  

For example, with NodeXL this can even be applied to social media platforms such as Twitter in order to explore how information is dispersed amongst follower-networks etc. This is especially relevant as social media use for businesses and individuals becomes all the more ubiquitous. The future of social network analysis with programmes such as NodeXL is an exciting and developing field for sure. 

[1] Otte, E. and Rousseau, R., 2002. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science,28(6), pp.441-453.

[2] Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B. and Smith, M.A., 2010. Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.