Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socnet

The presentation of the networked self: Ethics and epistemology in social

network analysis
Alessio D’Angelo a, *, Louise Ryan b
a
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
b
University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

A B S T R A C T

Drawing on the seminal work of Goffman, Krackhardt and others, this paper argues that there is a crucial step in between participants’ perceptions and the collection
and visualisation of data – i.e. what we call the presentation of the networked self. We employ examples from our own empirical work in the UK to argue that the
presentation of the networked self requires researchers to adopt a highly reflexive approach. Framing our analysis within the context of contemporary society –
including the impact of social media on a ‘networking mindset’ – we explore the range of ethical dilemmas which can emerge during a research encounter.

Introduction long-standing debates in the literature about the relationship between

so-called ‘real’ and perceived network data (Krackhardt, 1987).
For decades, social network analysis (SNA) has experienced a growth In this paper, however, we go further by examining the step in be­
in volume and subject areas, accompanied by the development of tween participants’ perceptions and the collection and visualisation of
technological tools, increasing availability of data (Borgatti et al., 2014) data – i.e. the presentation of the self. In other words, we are interested
and the prominence of visualisation techniques (D’Angelo et al., 2016). in the ethical and epistemological challenges of how people present
Whilst opening new pathways for sociological investigation, this also themselves when disclosing information about their own personal or
raises specific ethical challenges, an aspect which often has been over­ professional social networks as part of a research encounter. We argue
looked in academic discussions. As argued by Borgatti and Molina over a that this is a crucial aspect, requiring researchers to adopt a highly re­
decade ago: ‘the newness and surprising power of network analyses flexive approach, no matter what specific SNA technique is employed.
cause both researchers and research subjects to seriously under-estimate To this effect, we draw upon the body of literature stemming from
the risks of participation’ (2005: 108). Thanks to the rise of the internet Goffman – and more recently the work of Papacharissi (2010); Hogan
and social media, recent years have seen increased attention towards the (2010) and Mehra et al. (2014) – as well as examples from our own
ethics of researching online networks (see e.g. Hoser and Nitschke, research in the UK. The studies used to inform this paper cover a range of
2010). If anything, however, this seems to have pushed the broader settings (including research with EU migrants, secondary school stu­
discussion of the inherent challenges of SNA, especially when focusing dents, and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) organisations) and methods
on ‘off-line’ networks, further into the background. (qualitative, visual and mixed-methods SNA). We claim neither repre­
Collecting network data directly from individuals can challenge sentativeness nor exceptionalism for these examples; rather, we use
some central, taken-for-granted assumptions about research ethics, such them to ensure our theoretical contributions are well grounded in
as informed consent and anonymity (Kadushin, 2005), even when empirical data. We contend, however, that our arguments have a much
institutional ethical procedures have been followed and approval wider relevance and applicability for researchers working on social
granted. Participants may not realise that data will be used in particular networks.
ways and, as we argue, may be unprepared for the practical and psy­ Before presenting our own research data, we begin with a discussion
chological impact this may have on themselves; or even on the re­ of the epistemological challenges underpinning social network research,
searchers. The researcher’s responsibility in making assertions about in particular drawing on the work of Krackhardt and considering pre­
connections, centrality and power of individual participants raises sentations of the networked self in both on-line and off-line encounters,
further ethical issues, particularly when the reliability and objectivity of building on the work of Goffman and others. Furthermore, we examine
data are questionable (Kadushin, 2005). To an extent, this relates to the ethical implications of these complex and dynamic processes, which

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. D’Angelo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2019.06.002
Received 23 January 2019;
Available online 24 July 2019
0378-8733/© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

extend well beyond what can be captured by mere tick-box ethical ideas around ‘the socially embedded nature of identity’. This has long
approval procedures. We argue that adopting a reflexive approach to our been recognised by social scientists, ‘from Cooley’s looking glass self and
own research experiences helps to make good ethical practice. We then Mead’s ‘generalised other’ to Goffman’s presentation of self’ (Davis,
conclude by considering the need for more research ethics training that 2011). The work of Goffman, in particular, continues to influence our
will enable researchers to be sensitised to potential ethical dilemmas in understanding of self-presentation, moral careers, and the management
the field beyond those covered by a simple, a priori ethics protocol. of stigma and stereotypes in every-day interactions (Ryan, 2011; Scott,
2010; May, 2008; Yang et al., 2007). Of special significance is Goffman’s
Researching social networks: perceptions and visualisations dramaturgic analysis of social life (1959). Goffman uses the metaphor of
the stage to consider the ‘performance’ of an individual in relation to an
Mehra et al. (2014, 2) argue that ‘social networks lead a famously audience of observers, and whereby the backstage represents a more
dual-existence. On the one hand, recurring and relatively stable patterns ‘authentic self’ (Goffman, 1959). Actors seek to make sense of social
of interaction and sentiment connecting individuals to each other; on the encounters so that the social world appears knowable, predictable,
other hand, social networks are also mental (re)constructions of social trustworthy and reliable, in other words, it appears as ‘normality’
relations, some real, some imagined’. In other words, social networks (Goffman, 1971). Furthermore, Goffman draws attention to how actors
can be understood as ‘imaginary worlds that people create and then seek to ‘reject an image of the self as abnormal’ (Goffman, 1961:50),
endeavour to live in’ (2014: 3). Yet, they also contend that the vast distancing themselves from particular roles and images.
majority of social network research has ‘focused on networks in their Drawing on this framework, we argue that participants are not
realist guise’, whilst far less attention has been paid to networks in their simply ‘giving’ information about their inter-personal relationships to
‘cognitive guise’ (2014:13). That is to say, researchers have largely the researcher. Rather, they seek to present a particular image of
tended to measure and study networks as accurate reflections of con­ themselves. However, because network visualisation may be unfamiliar
crete connections. to participants, they are not able to anticipate how their relationships
In this respect, it is important to go back to the work of Krackhardt will be depicted and analysed in visual images. Hence, the final output
(1987), who explained the gap between behavioural measures of may be surprising and indeed challenging to their efforts of self-
interaction and self-reports of participants in terms of ‘cognitive social presentation. These are processes that must be taken into account and
structures’. For Krackhardt, such perceptions should not be assessed in which raise specific ethical and epistemological challenges.
terms of their accuracy against objective data, but rather as ‘data in their
own right, apart from their ability to mimic specific behaviours’ The presentation of the self in the Digital Age
(1987:128). These are not just worth studying, but are also ‘real in their
consequences, even if they do not map one-to-one onto observed be­ In recent years, much research on social media and social networking
haviours’ (1987:128). For example, building on Burt’s (1982) argument, sites also has drawn upon Giddens to understand the self as increasingly
Krackhardt contends that actors’ perceptions of their position in a fluid and multifaceted, especially as people assume a variety of roles
network affect their interests and motivations, their assessment of the across diverse social contexts (see e.g. Hogan, 2010). Indeed, ‘scholars
role of others and their overall perception of the network. Going further, were quick to recognise the potential for self-multiplicity afforded by the
we argue that cognitive social structures not only affect behaviours, but internet’ (Davis, 2011). Drawing on the body of work of Goffman - and
also how participants present their social networks as part of a research more recent developments by Bauman, Giddens and Jessop - Papa­
encounter. In particular, we suggest, this becomes crucially important charissi argues that, in late modern societies, the self ‘is expressed as
when network data are visualised. fluid abstraction, reified through the individual’s association with a
As discussed elsewhere (D’Angelo al., 2016; Hogan et al., 2007; reality that may be equally flexible’ (2010: 304). Within this context,
Dominguez and Hollstein, 2014; Molina, 2014; Freeman, 1992; Schiffer Papacharissi suggests: ‘The process of self-presentation becomes an
and Hauck, 2010), visualisation has long been an important aspect of ever-evolving cycle through which individual identity is presented,
research on social networks. Since the original hand-drawn ’sociograms’ compared, adjusted, or defended against a constellation of social, cul­
of pioneers such as Moreno (1934) the role of sociograms is not simply to tural, economic or political realities’ (2010: 304).
collect and analyse data, but indeed to channel and ‘materialise people’s Networking sites facilitate self-presentation through text, photos and
perceptions of their relational lives. By asking participants to freely draw other media, but the performance is ‘centred around public displays of
a map of their networks, or to discuss a sociogram produced by the social connections or friends which are used to authenticate identity and
researcher, ‘network analysis makes visible that which cannot be seen by introduce the self through the reflexive process of fluid association with
the naked eye’ (Kadushin, 2005: 142). In fact, visualisation gives par­ social circles’ (Hogan, 2010: 305). Hence, technology both enables but
ticipants a unique, and perhaps unexpected, view of their inter-personal also shapes online presentation of self. However, while there are
relationships and the social contexts in which they are embedding (Ryan manifold opportunities to present versions of the self to different audi­
et al., 2014). Such a tangible representation of social ties would not ences, that is not to say that individuals simply proliferate a multiplicity
emerge spontaneously from just verbally describing relationships in of selves. As Hogan (2010) notes, people may sustain different online
interviews, or adding names of contacts to a list in a questionnaire. As profiles where they upload different kinds of images and express
suggested by Emmel and Clark (2009:6), through sociograms partici­ different views; but it is quite hard to sustain such varied representations
pants move ’from description of social practices, to their elaboration and of the self without experiencing ‘a sense of self-presentation paralysis’
theorisation’. This may be seen in a positive light as a way of empow­ (Hogan, 2010: 383). In fact, there is growing research to suggest that
ering participants (Manovich, 2002) and stimulating interesting re­ ‘self-coherence’ is essential for one’s psychological well-being and one’s
flections (McCarty et al., 2007). However, as we argued elsewhere (Ryan sense of moral integrity (see Davis, 2011). Hence, while ‘self-multiplicity
et al., 2014) and elaborate further below, visualisation can also produce is a core feature of our networked era, it appears to have its limits’
unexpected results and, as such, it should not be seen as risk-free. (Davis, 2011: 638). Research conducted by Davis on young people’s
This requires us to go one step further and argue that between per­ networked selves in the USA suggested that expressing very different
ceptions and visualisation there is a further layer of complexity, what we personalities in different contexts was viewed by participants as ‘inau­
call the ‘presentation of the networked self’. In other words, the data thentic’ (2011: 643). Her research findings tally with a wider body of
that we collect as researchers are not only based on how participants work which shows that people seek an ‘overarching sense of identity that
perceive their networks, but also on how they choose to present them in is experienced as coherent and stable’ (2011: 645). In fact, Bullingham
a particular (research) encounter. and Vasconcelos (2013), on the basis of an analysis of identity and
In this respect, it is important for SNA researchers to engage with presentation of the self in blogging and other online contexts (including

21
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

Second Life) argue that, contrary to engaging with the process of whole constructed and socially mediated performance, suggesting social or
persona adoption, people interacting online are ‘keen to re-created their personality ‘flaws’ or lack of authenticity. Even worse, a sociogram
offline self online, but engaged in editing facets of self’ (2013:101). This drawn by the participants, may generate unease about the effectiveness
seems to tally with Goffman’s idea that ‘when in the ‘front stage’, people of their presentation of the self when the narrative is crystallised in one
deliberately chose to project a given identity’ (ibid.) Thus, most scholars (apparently) all-encompassing picture. This mismatch, we argue, be­
now recognise that ‘online and offline identities are more aligned than comes amplified in an age in which most people have begun to adopt a
early internet research suggested’ (Davis, 2011: 648; Dunbar et al., ‘networking mindset’ and may have developed a certain sense of con­
2015); practices of presentation of the self, it could be argue, may also be fidence on how these networks appear to others. The impact can be
more aligned than usually assumed. psychological, relational and, as we will exemplify later in this paper,
Notwithstanding, it is clear that, with the rise and omnipresence of even professional. The inability of participants to fully understand the
social media, most people have developed very strong ideas about what possible outcomes of a SNA exercise – as well as how a sociogram may be
social networks are and how to talk about their own to give a ‘good used or presented by an academic as a research output – also puts a new
impression’. In other words, the Internet revolution has brought con­ light on formal ethical procedures such as ‘informed consent’.
sciousness about presentation of the ‘networked self’ to the fore, and led
to the wider adoption of what may be called ‘a networking mindset’ and Encounters in the field: ethics and reflexivity of the networked
lexicon within society. This contrasts markedly with less than two de­ self
cades ago, when ‘social network’ was a concept that had to be explained
carefully to most research participants. For example, in Ryan’s research As well as the usual, standard ethical issues associated with all
with newly arrived migrants in the early 2000s, the actual word ‘net­ research involving human participants, social network research raises
works’ was rarely used in the interviews (Ryan et al., 2008). Although some specific ethical challenges. As Kadushin has noted, social networks
understanding patterns of sociality and sources of social support were have a troublesome and distinctive attribute: ‘the collection of names of
central to the research, Ryan and colleagues felt the need to explain in either individuals or social units is not incidental to the research but its
detail what was meant by the term ‘social networks’. They used expla­ very point’ (2005:141). Participants are usually asked to list and
nation such as ‘contacts’, ‘people who could help you’, ‘circles of friends’ describe, in some detail, the names, professions, social standing of
or ‘acquaintances’, ‘groups’, ‘relatives’, etc. The term ‘social network’ ‘second parties’ without their knowledge. The actual names are needed
was not in every day popular parlance and even those participants who at the point of data collection, though they can be anonymised later on.
spoke English fluently rarely referred to their social circles as ‘networks’. Thus, anonymity and data protection can be especially onerous in social
Nowadays, instead, ideas about social networks – of any kind – are often network research because of the large numbers of alters involved. The
conflated with or informed by specific behaviours and habitus typical of new General Data Protection Regulations, 2018, have very specific im­
online network. This social media effect can spill over into other aspects plications for how we conduct social network research. Detailed
of our lives as specific social (and professional) contexts are charac­ research protocols on secure data storage and anonymization are now
terised by particular understandings of networks and networking be­ mandatory.
haviours. D’Angelo’s work on migrant organisations (D’Angelo, 2015), Anonymity and confidentiality, however, are only the most obvious
as discussed later in this paper, shows how within all sorts of profes­ of the ethical issues to take into consideration. In the work of Goffman,
sional communities – including those which rely very little on digital ideas around ethics and morality are above all connected to social en­
technology – the jargon and way of thinking typical of the internet is counters and performance. As Goffman (1959:251) explained, social
now informing language, mindsets and behaviours. actors are not so much concerned with realising universal moral stan­
While there is growing research on presentation of the self on-line, dards but with ‘engineering a convincing impression that these stan­
there has been very little research on how the presentation of the self dards are being realised’. Thus, as explained by Bovone (1993), the key
may impact research which seeks to map social networks in the off-line issue becomes not so much ‘ethics’ in an abstract sense, but ‘etiquette’.
world. As Hogan (2010) notes, although the concept of presentation of As the formal code that govern encounters, allowing these ‘to take place
self is increasingly popular among scholars researching activity on social without any problem arising, irrespective of their aim and situation’
networking sites, Goffman was mainly referring to interpersonal en­ (Bovone, 1993:26). Communication norms and, more broadly, the
counters bounded in place and time – a specific performance before a practice of encounter, become the key ethical issue. Thus, breaking these
specific audience in a particular moment and location. This is very norms or disrupting someone’s presentation of the self may risk having a
different from much online activity where the audience may be largely negative impact on those affected. This risk is ever present in the
unknown. In our research studies, as discussed below, we consider in­ research encounter and, for the reasons presented below, even more so
teractions which are more similar to Goffman’s original examples. Social for network research.
Network Analysis, however, does bring some very new and distinctive This of course also has implications for informed consent. Obviously,
elements to the research encounter, something that disrupts both the it behoves all researchers to provide sufficient information and re­
familiar rules of engagement of a traditional interview as well as chal­ assurances to participants before they agree to take part in our studies
lenging contemporary ‘network mindsets’ simply based on numbers and this is usually a requirement of all ethics governance procedures.
(rather than patterns) and self-reinforcing narratives. However, as mentioned at the start of this paper, the complex and highly
Particularly, SNA studies which involve participants in the produc­ sophisticated techniques associated with social network analysis mean
tion of sociograms, may have the effect of placing people in front of what that visualisation may reveal hidden patterns in network data, thus
appears to be a mirror reflection of one’s social life. Depending on the presenting participants with mediated self-representations they did not
methods used, these visual snapshots of the networked self can be drawn anticipate at the outset (Borgatti and Molina, 2005; Kadushin, 2005).
by the researcher during or after data collection (D’Angelo et al., 2016) While some of these ethical issues have been discussed at length in the
or can be produced by the participants using instructions and tools literature (Hoser and Nitschke, 2010), in this paper we seek to go further
provided by the researcher (Tubaro et al., 2014). In any case, these and adopt a reflexive approach to examine other ethical challenges
processes involve a presentation – indeed a visualisation – of the which we encountered, especially when using network visualisations
networked-self using means and a ‘language’ that – even in the age of techniques.
online networks - may be unfamiliar for the participants. Thus, their Reflexivity in the research process has been discussed by social sci­
ability to produce an outcome (performance) which is desirable and entists for over three decades. As well as the important contributions
coherent with their sense of identity may be challenging. The resulting made by feminist theorists, social researchers from hermeneutics and
sociogram may question or shatter the participants’ carefully critical theory have also considered the importance of being reflexive

22
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

(Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). Reflexivity involves honesty and open­ qualitative data (e.g. stemming from interviews, observations and
ness about how, where and by whom the data were collected and locates ethnography).
the researcher as a participant in the dynamic interrelationship of the Despite working separately on these projects, the analysis below has
research process. This matters because, as De Souza has noted, reflex­ benefitted from our shared discussions and reflections. In fact, our use of
ivity can enhance ‘the credibility and rigour of the research process as different methodologies and focus on different case studies has
well as make transparent the positionality of the researcher’ (2004: enhanced our ability to use empirical evidence to generate broader re­
474). flections and contributions to social network theory. The next sections
Furthermore, reflexivity has been linked to good research ethics will present three significant case studies emerging from our work and
(Sultana, 2007). Beyond the formal procedures which need to be ratified conversations, with common points and overall reflections being drawn
by most universities before a researcher can enter the field, there are in the Discussion section of this article. As mentioned above, these ex­
ongoing ethical dilemmas encountered in the field (Guillemin and Gil­ amples are not meant to be representative of our work – and certainly
lam, 2004), which can only be appreciated by adopting a reflective not of the wide range of challenges which SNA researchers may
approach. As Kleinsasser has observed, ‘reflexivity enables the encounter in the field. However, they have been selected to substantiate
researcher to explore ethical entanglements before, during, and after the some of the specific issues underpinning our overarching argument
research’ (2000: 157). However, being reflexive about our research about the ethical implications of network (re)presentation which, we
encounters may not necessarily be a comfortable experience. It forces us believe, has a much wider relevance for social network scholars and, so
to confront challenges and difficulties in the research process. Rather far, has not received much attention.
than simply presenting our findings, we need to show the complex and
sometimes messy process behind the scenes; revealing ethical dilemmas The embarrassment of visualising networks (case study 1)
and our attempts to overcome them. As Pillow reminds us, reflexivity
demands an ‘ongoing critique of all of our research attempts, recognising The first example is drawn from a study of young people undertaking
that none of our attempts can claim the innocence of success’ (2003: apprenticeship training programmes in London, interviewed in 2016-17;
188). this was part of a larger project on school engagement and transitions to
In this paper we adopt a reflexive approach not only as a way of work (Ryan et al., 2019). For the qualitative element of the project, a
revealing the processes behind our network data, but also to expose and sample of young people were interviewed several times to discuss their
explore the ethical dilemmas encountered in the field. In so doing, we experiences of education and their professional plans and aspirations.
seek to reveal how the ‘presentation of self’ is a crucial aspect of social For example, Cynthia was met on four separate occasions and partici­
network research and needs to be given more attention by scholars, pated in two in-depth interviews, the second of which also involved
especially those who are interested in off line networks. completing a paper sociogram as part of the interview process. Cynthia
was aged 16 and 17 at the time of the two interviews, which occurred
Our studies: data and methods in conversations almost one year apart. Her mother died when Cynthia was a child and
she was estranged from her father. Cynthia was reared by her grand­
The two authors have been working together on a range of research mother and they still lived together. While the grandmother was initially
projects for over a decade. As colleagues in a busy research centre, even the carer, later the roles reversed as she developed dementia and
when working separately on different projects, we have often met to Cynthia became the main carer. While Cynthia made the decision to
discuss our experiences of data collection and to share our observations pursue an apprenticeship programme - which is still a minority route for
and reflections on the dynamic process of research encounters and the young people in the UK Ryan and Lorinc (2018) - most of her closest
ethical dilemmas we experienced in the field. In our previous writings friends had gone to university in other cities outside London. Cynthia
together (Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018; D’Angelo et al., 2016; D’Angelo remarked in the interview that she missed her friends and felt ‘very
and Ryan, 2016), we have drawn upon our experiences of conducting lonely’ without them. As an apprentice, she combined work and study.
social network research, especially with migrants, to explore methodo­ In addition, she also looked after her grandmother. While the other
logical opportunities and challenges of using mixed methods including apprentices on her programme had time to socialise at the weekends, she
network visualisation. This current paper draws upon research we felt that she was ‘stuck at home with gran’. However, she did not say this
conducted separately over recent years. with any sense of self-pity or resentment, but merely as a fact of life.
In exploring social relationships, Louise Ryan has developed the Throughout the interviews, Cynthia sought to present herself as a
technique of using paper sociograms embedded in in-depth qualitative capable, responsible and mature young woman. In fact, as noted else­
interviews (Ryan et al., 2014). These sociograms are based upon the where (Fuller and Unwin, 2009) claims to maturity and responsibility
original target sociograms of pioneering researchers such as Moreno and often mark out apprentices from their apparently fun-seeking uni­
Northway and use concentric circles, drawn around an ego focal point, versity-going peers.
to collect data on degrees of closeness across different domains of rela­ Nonetheless, Cynthia’s sociogram revealed and made plainly visible
tionality - including family, friends, neighbours, hobbies, work or school the extent of her isolation. After adding her few close contacts, she said:
(see Ryan et al., 2014 and Ryan, 2016 for a detailed discussion of this ‘that’s all I think of’. As with all participants, Ryan prompted her to see if
method). there were other relatives or friends to add. Cynthia replied: ‘I have
The work of Alessio D’Angelo has instead tended to focus on the cousins, but we are not close, I probably see them at Christmas’. Ryan
exploration of whole-networks, and particularly on organisational net­ then asked who was her main source of support and Cynthia replied: ‘my
works, where each organisation is a node and the ties are the connec­ grandmother definitely, all the way’. On hearing this Ryan felt quite
tions between these. Particularly, he looked at the networking practices concerned for Cynthia. Her main source of support was an elderly
of migrant and Minority Ethnic organisations, including community woman with dementia. This seemed to underline her isolation and lack
centres, advice centres and other voluntary and non-for-profit organi­ of support. Nonetheless, Cynthia appeared determined to make a posi­
sations working for and on behalf of minority groups in the UK. Meth­ tive presentation of self. While acknowledging relational problems, she
odologically, D’Angelo started approaching SNA from a quantitative still asserted: ‘I feel like this is quite a good network, except my dad
perspective, with the aid of specialised software, though he gradually doesn’t really give me a lot of encouragement’. As Borgatti and Molina
moved towards a mixed-methods approach, whereby the mapping of (2005) note, the researcher may feel it necessary to advise participants
networks was the product of an iterative process involving the trian­ on network support. Ryan felt worried for Cynthia, she seemed isolated
gulation of formal, ‘quantifiable’ data (e.g. official documents, shared and over-burdened for a teenage girl. Moreover, this raised ethical
funding, interlocking directorates, questionnaire) and informal, concerns about exposing and visualising her very limited and sparse

23
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

network. Ryan continually urged her to seek more professional help for London but they did not appear to be particularly close and only one
her grandmother. (‘G’) was given an identifier.
The case of Cynthia exemplifies the potential embarrassment that A few months later Ryan interviewed another Polish woman, Karina,
can be caused when we ask a participant not just to talk about their who had been recommended by Sylwia. Being aware of how lonely and
support networks, but to put them on paper, creating a tangible diagram isolated Sylwia was feeling, Ryan was curious to see if Karina would
which conveys a sense of exhaustiveness. The efforts to present one’s mention her at all in the interview, especially when discussing friend­
network – as visualised in a sociogram – as ‘normal’ and unproblematic, ship ties in London. Interestingly, as Karina completed her sociogram
can hide a deep sense of unease about having fully revealed one’s per­ she remarked spontaneously:
sonal sphere. As noted earlier, the visualisation of a network may come
Actually someone who was very helpful who didn’t make it here (i.e.
as a surprise to participants (Kadushin, 2005). The sparse network,
on to the sociogram), Sylwia, who put me in touch with you, because
visualised on paper in the interview context, challenged Cynthia’s pre­
we lost contact when I was writing my PhD. I really like her and
sentation of herself as someone who was mature, responsible and coping
we’ve met recently and we both thought ‘how is it exactly that I
well with ‘quite a good network’ of support. This raises ethical chal­
haven’t seen you for 4 years, what’s happened’? Like, she’s busy in
lenges for network research, especially involving visualisation, as it risks
her life, having children and things. She was very helpful. She has
having a psychological impact on participants (Fig. 1).
gone through the same of finding out how it all works, knew where I
was coming from, so that was very useful.
When actors know each other (case study 2)
Ryan asked Karina how she and Sylwia had met, and was interested
The second example comes from a different study undertaken with to know if they had known each other in Poland or had met in London. It
Polish migrants in London (Ryan, 2016; 2018). Although the partici­ turns out they had briefly worked together in London when Karina was
pants were recruited using a range of diverse methods, some just beginning her career. Karina noted that Sylwia had been very
snow-balling was used towards the end of the recruitment process. ‘helpful’ and indeed ‘useful’ to her. Upon seeing her network visualised
Hence, as a result, Ryan interviewed two women who knew each other. on paper, Karina became very reflexive about how her sociogram and
The first, Sylwia was interviewed in the summer of 2014 and spoke very interview story made her seem. It is apparent that the emerging picture
movingly about her sense of social isolation following the recent break made her feel uncomfortable: ‘It’s very Machiavellian’, she suddenly
up of her marriage. Although she had a well-paid, permanent job in her proclaimed. She reflected on how people had come into her life at key
chosen profession, after years of study and hard work, her divorce had moments, such as work colleagues like Sylwia, and for a time they had
left Sylwia in a state of uncertainty about the future. As a single, working been ‘useful’ and ‘helpful’. But over time she had not maintained the
mother, with two children, she felt bereft of wider family support net­ links.
works in London: ‘I miss my family, I feel quite lonely here’. She elab­ As noted earlier, participants seek to maintain a coherent sense of
orated on this sense of loneliness: ‘I just feel very kind of very themselves and to manage any negative impressions (Goffman, 1959;
disconnected, you know I don’t have any connection with neighbours, Hogan, 2010). Karina then began to offer a justification for her approach
no connections with schools and communities. So in that way I just feel to relationships and in so doing sought to re-establish a more comfort­
very disconnected’. Her sociogram (Fig. 2 below) reflected this sense of able presentation of her networked self that was more in line with her
disconnection and was very sparse. Apart from her children in London ‘cognitive guise’ (Mehra et al., 2014).
and parents in Poland, she appeared to have very few strong social ties.
Her best friend (‘SU’) was in Poland and she had only a few friends in

Fig. 1. Cynthia’s sociogram.

24
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

Fig. 2. Sylwia’s sociogram.

My theory is maybe I have capacity for close friends, a certain ca­ the changing and shifting nature of this organisational network was
pacity for non-workplace friendships and I do feel very linked with affected not just by the formalisation of community links, but also by a
people who are back in Poland, they are the closest, emotionally. range of contextual factors and, most notably, was the product of eco­
Certainly if it was just talking about how I feel then that would be the nomic and policy changes concerning the UK voluntary sector as a
first choice I would be making. The people in Poland. But, yeah, I whole.
don’t know. I’m not, just one thing about me, I never keep in touch However, the fieldwork conducted with Kurdish ‘community
with anyone and I’m always getting told off by my family that I ring leaders’ clearly showed how establishing the presence or absence of ties
them once or two years time. It’s just the way it is. in a clear-cut and ‘objective’ way was extremely challenging. In an
initial pilot study (D’Angelo, 2008) organisational ties were measured
As a researcher interested in social network formations and main­
through established SNA techniques, in particular with a matrix-based
tenance over time, Ryan was fascinated by how Karina presented and
questionnaire. Community officers tended to report ties with as many
justified her networked self. Her interview and sociogram provided rich
other organisations as possible and were often keen to declare to work
and valuable data. However, as a human being Ryan was struck by
with ‘most’ if not ‘all’ other Kurdish groups. In several cases, though,
Karina’s somewhat casual attitude to friendships especially remem­
they were unable to give any details about such links if probed. Even­
bering how isolated and lonely Sylwia was feeling. On a personal level,
tually, for this reason, D’Angelo decided to explore the nature of
Ryan wanted to encourage Karina to phone Sylwia and take her for a
organisational links resorting to increasingly less formal methods,
coffee. But ethically Ryan knew this would breach the confidentiality
accompanying unstructured interviews with non-participatory obser­
owed to both women and was completely inappropriate.
vations and data triangulation. In this sense, sociograms like the one
The example of Sylwia and Karina illustrate two noteworthy points.
presented in Fig. 3, below, are not the result of a formal quantitative
Firstly, this shows quite clearly the ways in which collecting such rich
mapping. Rather, they represent a descriptive tool, informed by the
data about people’s intimate lives and inter-personal relationships raises
researcher’s understanding and interpretation of networking processes
very specific ethical challenges for both the participant and the
and structures, they are, in effect, a representation of the researcher’s
researcher, as well as issues of anonymity and confidentiality when
cognition of a given social network.
participants know each other and when the researcher ends up
What D’Angelo learned through this process was that participants
becoming an additional ‘tie’ between them. Secondly, as shown by
made very conscious effort to present themselves as highly connected;
Karina in particular, the visualised network may challenge a partici­
this was deeply engrained in their professional practice. In an increas­
pant’s desired presentation of self; disrupting their cognitive guise. In
ingly marketized and professionalised voluntary sector (Craig, 2011),
such cases, participants may seek to justify, or even amend, the visual
individual organisations are constantly expected to provide evidence of
image so that it sits more comfortably with their sense of self.
their ability to pull together and lead on a network of organisations; for
example, when applying for funding, by providing a long list of potential
The presentation of the networked self as a personal asset (case
partners. Such ability to demonstrate membership - or ownership - of a
study 3)
network becomes a sort of symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986) which is
extremely important to exercise influence and receive financial or po­
The third and last example presented in this paper is drawn from a
litical support. Whilst most participants seemed to make very little use of
series of research projects undertaken by D’Angelo looking at Kurdish
online networking sites to maintain (or express) their professional net­
community organisations in London. These interconnected studies
works, their jargon and networking mindset appeared highly influenced
(D’Angelo, 2008, 2015) aimed to explore networking practices at the
by them. Terms such as ‘networks’, ‘links’, ‘connections’ – and a very
organisational level and raised a number of methodological issues, in
quantitative approach to assessing these – emerged from the conversa­
particular on the limitations of traditional approaches to whole-network
tions in spontaneous, unsolicited ways. Moreover, the image of Kurdish
SNA (D’Angelo, 2015). One of the key findings that emerged was how
organisations operating as a whole network - and as such being stronger

25
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

Fig. 3. Kurdish community organisation in London (circa 2013).

and more representative than the sum of its parts - was a powerful one to force the researcher’s framework and views onto the participants, pro­
evoke when trying to influence the public sector and other major ducing results that they cannot relate to. The former, as discussed for
mainstream stakeholders (D’Angelo, 2015). As Oh et al. (2006:578) example by Heath et al. (2009) requires a complex process of boundary
argued, ‘groups create boundaries that are both cognitive and real, that mapping which is driven, at every step, by decisions made by partici­
are meaningful to the members, and that affect subsequent identification pants about the representation of the network within the research
and behaviours’. context. On this basis, they explore the question of whether the partiality
The production of D’Angelo’s sociograms included an iterative pro­ of data thus collected ‘actually matters’ and conclude that ‘it reflects the
cess - with structural patterns informing questions about ‘meaning’ and permeable, partial and dynamic nature of social networks, characteris­
with the results of qualitative research being used to interpret, but also tics which are central to a more qualitatively informed understanding of
to enhance and amend visualisations. At various points, selected par­ SNA’ (Heath et al., 2009: 646). In discussing their own data, Heath et al.
ticipants were shown draft sociograms and encouraged to comment on also suggest that ‘in some cases certain potential network members were
them. This often led participants not so much to criticise or ‘correct’ excluded from nomination in order to avoid the possibility of unflat­
D’Angelo’s interpretation of the overall Kurdish network, but above all tering or conflicting accounts, and that those who were included were
to ‘justify’ their individual position and role within it. often nominated because they were unlikely to present a contrary po­
Many, whilst respecting D’Angelo’s independent role as a researcher, sition’ (2009:655).
asked questions about how he was going to use the sociograms and Thus, firstly, researchers need to be reflective about how their chosen
whether they would have been identifiable or not. Clearly, this was not framework of analysis – and particularly the boundaries imposed on the
just a matter of self-esteem and pride, rather, it was a realisation that a network – impact on the participants’ presentation of the networked
representation challenging the official narrative of an organisation could self, and thus the research data. Secondly, they need to be aware of how
– for the reasons discussed above – have a major impact on their ability the process of network mapping can be affected by conscious decisions
to operate successfully. made by participants when identifying alters.
Some referred to the transient nature of their professional links
(Gilchrist, 2004), highlighting, in a very reflexive way, how the set of Discussion: rethinking data reliability and ethics
connections which were active at the very specific time of research, were
very different from what they used to be just a few months before – this The examples presented here are not meant to be exhaustive of the
draws attention to the role of time, something we have discussed else­ range of issues concerning the representation of the networked self and
where (Ryan and D’Angelo, 2018). Others noticed that an apparently its impact on the research process. With this article, however, we aim to
peripheral position was due to the centrality of their organisation within raise the attention of SNA researchers to a number of important aspects
a completely different group. So, for example, some Kurdish Women which, we argue, are relevant to most network research, whether online,
organisations (such as ‘IKWRO’ in Fig. 3) claimed to have very few links ‘off-line’, qualitative or quantitative. First of all, it is important to
with other Kurdish groups because they were in fact keener to collab­ recognise that network mapping is often about collecting information on
orate with migrant women organisations from different ethnic network perceptions and, even more so, on the representations provided
backgrounds. by participants at a given time. The role of the researcher then becomes
This raises the issue of how different perspectives, and particularly one of summarising and, often, ‘visualising’ these representations (e.g.
different perceptions of network boundaries, impact on perceptions through sociograms). Thus, echoing the observations of Krackhardt
(Krackhardt, 1987), presentation and assessment of a given network. (1989) over three decades ago, SNA data can be quite remote from any
With regard to this challenge, Knoke and Young (2008) refer to two ‘objective’ information about social networks as concrete social facts.
different approaches to determining network boundaries: realist stra­ However, whilst Krackhardt pointed to the key role of perception in
tegies, based on boundaries imposed by the individuals (and whereby network research, we have gone further by highlighting that between
actors are included or excluded depending on whether other actors perception and visualisation there is the additional step of self-
judge them to be relevant) and ‘nominalist’ strategists, based on presentation. In other words, drawing on Goffman, we have argued
boundaries imposed by the researcher on the basis of a conceptual that the network data elicited in an interview encounter is shaped by
framework. The latter approach, as made clear by this example, can what we call ‘the presentation of the networked self’.

26
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

Still, that is not to suggest that research participants simply present and produce a further, major effect on the ‘collaborative manufacture’
us with ready-made images of themselves and their social relationships. (Goffman, 1959) that is a sociogram.
As researchers, we impose a structure (sociogram) and network At the same time, it is important also to recognise that – in today’s
boundaries (Heath et al., 2009) on the data we collect. In addition, as digital age – anything to do with ‘networks’, whether offline or online,
noted previously (Borgatti and Molina, 2005), the complexity and un­ comes with a particularly heavy baggage and many participants – whilst
familiarity of network visualisation may disrupt efforts of they may be oblivious to the specificities of SNA and network visual­
self-presentation and confront participants with surprising and uncom­ isation - tend to have strong ideas about their own networks, how to
fortable images. Thus, from an epistemological perspective, we need to communicate them and how to assess their value for themselves and for
be mindful of the dramaturgical context of the research interview as a others (Davis, 2011). As we have shown through our case studies, some
stage on which performer and audience interact in ways that shape and participants may feel bad about a social network that could come across
co-produce the resultant data. as ‘poor’, whilst others may be worried about appearing overly instru­
Hence, we argue that the need not to take network data ‘at face mental in their approach to personal relations. Of course, such value
value’ is connected to at least two, opposing types of risk. On the one judgments may different significantly from the particular perspective of
hand, as exemplified by the first two case studies presented here, asking individual researchers. Thus, it is to be hoped that future scholarly de­
participants to visualise their personal social network in the context of bates will further explore issues concerning the researchers’ reflexivity
an interview encounter with the researcher can lead to the disclosure of with specific regard to network research, as well as investigating the
an overall picture that can reveal itself as disappointing or embarrassing, ways in which the digital world impacts on mindsets, behaviours and
and emerging as such only when it is too late, i.e. once the network has presentations of the networked self also ‘off-line’.
been visualised as an image on paper (or a computer screen). Of course, Finally, using a reflexive approach, our case studies clearly exemplify
participants can always exercise the right to withdraw from a study, but the ethical challenges of conducting research with participants who
once this powerful reflection of the networked self has revealed itself, it know each other and who are aware that other members of the network
cannot be unseen, and any possible impact of it, psychological or will also take part in the research process. To an extent, through the
otherwise, cannot be undone very easily. ‘research encounter’, researchers become embedded in the social
On the other hand, when conducting SNA research with participants network. Hence, we are made part of the perspectives and relative po­
who ‘perform networks’, using a ‘networking mindset’, as part and sitions of its members and may be tempted to make moral judgements on
parcel of their personal or professional toolkit, researchers may be at the the conditions or behaviour of individuals. In sociological research, the
receiving end of a highly rehearsed narrative. This may be of sociolog­ moral dilemma of whether and how to give advice or otherwise influ­
ical interest in its own right, but it is important to recognise it as such. ence social relations is always present, but in Social Network research
Moreover, the disclosure of network visualisations, and more generally this is amplified by the very nature of the method.
of any analysis of the network data, has the potential to challenge
particular narratives which, as discussed with regard to the case of Conclusion
Kurdish community organisations, can represent an important asset for
participants. Ethical considerations thus emerge not only in relation to To conclude, our paper demonstrates that an a priori tick box insti­
the psychological sphere, but also with regard to the professional, eco­ tutional procedure of ethical approval does not necessarily anticipate all
nomic and ‘political’ ones. In the case of whole networks (particularly the ethical dilemmas that can emerge in the field (Guillemin and Gillam,
small to medium), the right to withdraw can seriously compromise the 2004). In a bid to conduct research ethically, it is necessary to be
reliability of the data, so the relationship between the interest of the mindful about the potential impact of network visualisation on partici­
participants and that of the researcher can be particularly hard to bal­ pants, the extent to which this affects properly informed consent, the
ance. In any case, even when the research outputs are fully anonymised, limits of ‘anonymity’ after (and indeed even during) the research pro­
for anyone who is embedded in that social or professional structure it cess, and the particular ethical responsibilities all this creates for us as
can still be easy to work out who is who and, hence, the role they have researchers. Sharing and being honest about the challenges involved in
been revealed to play within a network. research encounters can help all researchers to reflect on what works
Although, as always, social researchers are bound by ethical gover­ and what does not work and encourage us all to become better and more
nance to explain to participants how their data may be used in research ethical researchers. Being aware of the potential risks arising from
reports, academic articles and so on, it is unlikely that participants will research encounters does not mean claiming that most SNA research is
fully appreciate how personal network data may be analysed and or is likely to be ‘dangerous’. In fact, those working in the field are well
interpreted, unless they are also academics. It is possible they are pri­ aware of the fact that a conversation around social networks often can be
marily concerned with how they present themselves to the researcher in quite engaging, interesting and sometimes even uplifting for those
that particular encounter, rather than how their data may be perceived involved. Being reflexive of potential ethical issues, however, helps to
by a wider academic audience in later curated presentations. As Hogan prevent negative outcomes (however unlikely) but also, and in any case,
argues: ‘Once a performance has been recorded, the nature of the per­ leads to a more nuanced and aware approach to data collection, analysis
formance has altered. It may still be a presentation of self, and un­ and presentation. Adopting a reflexive approach not only makes for
doubtedly it continues to signify an individual. However, it no longer good research ethics (Kleinsasser, 2000), it makes for good research.
necessarily bounds the specific audience who were present when the The objective of this paper is not to suggest that new, additional or
performance took place. Instead it can be taken out of a situation and more detailed ‘research ethics protocols’ are passively added to the
replayed in a completely different context’ (2010: 380). briefcase of professional researcher. Rather, we argue for a high level of
One needs to reflect on whether consent, however given voluntarily, reflexivity and for the development of ethical sensitivities and sensi­
can be actually considered ‘informed’ if participants do not have a full bilities which can better equip researchers for the messy reality of col­
understanding of the type of outputs and outcomes which may result lecting network data from human participants. This can and should be
from the research process. An inability to interpret the very data dis­ supported by targeted training opportunities, exchanges of research
closed and generated through interviews or other network mapping practices and, most importantly, ongoing conversation between
exercises makes the right to withdraw (or, more specifically, the ca­ scholars, both through academic publications and ‘off line’, in the real
pacity to assess the consequences of not withdrawing) much less world of everyday scholarship.
meaningful. Again, balancing interests and power relations becomes
difficult, since for a researcher revealing too much about the rationale
and potential impact of the methodology used may be highly impractical

27
A. D’Angelo and L. Ryan Social Networks 67 (2021) 20–28

References Kadushin, C., 2005. Who benefits from network analysis: ethics of social network
research. Soc. Networks 27 (2), 139–153.
Knoke, D., Young, S., 2008. Social Network Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Borgatti, S.P., Molina, J.L., 2005. Toward ethical guidelines for network research in
Kleinsasser, Audrey M., 2000. Researchers, reflexivity, and good data: writing to unlearn.
organizations. Soc. Networks 27 (2), 107–117.
Theory Pract. 39 (3), 155–162.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Brass, Daniel J., Halgin, Daniel S., 2014. Social Network Research:
Krackhardt, David, 1987. Cognitive social structures. Soc. Networks 9 (2), 109–134.
Confusions, Criticisms, and Controversies. Contemporary perspectives on
Mauthner, N., Doucet, A., 2003. Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in
organizational social networks. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–29.
qualitative data analysis. Sociology 37 (3), 413–431.
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of Capital. In: Richardson, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory
May, V., 2008. On being a good mother: the moral presentation of self. Sociology 42 (3),
and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York, pp. 241–258.
470–486.
Bovone, L., 1993. Ethics and etiquette: the emblematic contribution of Ervin Goffman. In:
Mehra, A., et al., 2014. Imaginary worlds: using visual network scales to capture
Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 10. SAGE, pp. 25–39.
perceptions of social networks. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social
Bullingham, L., Vasconcelos, A.C., 2013. The presentation of self in the online world:
Networks. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 315–336.
Goffman and the study of online identities. J. Inf. Sci. 39 (1), 101–112.
Molina, J.L., 2014. Giving meaning to social networks. In: Dominguez, S., Hollstein, B.
Craig, G., 2011. Forward to the past? Does the BME third sector have a future? Volunt.
(Eds.), Mixed Methods Social Network Research. Design and Applications,
Sect. Rev. 2 (3), 367–389.
Cambridge.
D’Angelo, A., 2008. Kurdish Community Organisations in London: A Social Network
Oh, H., Labianca, G., Chung, M., 2006. A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital in The
Analysis. Social Policy Research Centre, Working Paper. Middlesex University,
Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 569–582. July 3 (2006).
London.
Papacharissi, Zizi (Ed.), 2010. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on
D’Angelo, A., 2015. Migrant Organisations: Embedded Community Capital? In: Ryan, L.,
Social Network Sites. Routledge.
Erel, U., D’Angelo, A. (Eds.), Migrant Capital. Networks, Identities and Strategies.
Pillow, W., 2003. Confession, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as
Palgrave Macmillan.
methodological power in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 16 (2),
D’Angelo, A., Ryan, L., Tubaro, P., 2016. Visualization in Mixed[HYPHEN]Methods
175–196.
Research on Social Networks. Sociol. Res. Online 21 (2), 15.
Ryan, L., 2011. Muslim women negotiating collective stigmatization:‘We’re just normal
D’Angelo, A., Ryan, L., 2016. Social Network Analysis: A mixed method approach. In:
people’. Sociology 45 (6), 1045–1060.
McKie, L., Ryan, L. (Eds.), An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Routledge,
Ryan, L., 2016. Looking for weak ties: using a mixed methods approach to capture
London.
elusive connections. Sociol. Rev. 64 (4), 951–969.
Davis, K., 2011. Tensions of Identity in a networked era. New Media Soc. 14 (4),
Ryan, L., 2018. Differentiated embedding: Polish migrants in London negotiating
634–651.
belonging over time. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 44 (2), 233–251.
Dominguez, S., Hollstein, B. (Eds.), 2014. Mixed Methods Social Network Research.
Ryan, L., D’Angelo, A., 2018. Changing times: Migrants’ social network analysis and the
Design and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
challenges of longitudinal research. Social Networks 53, 148–158.
Dunbar, R.I.M., Arnaboldi, V., Conti, M., Passarella, A., 2015. The structure of online
Ryan, L., Lőrinc, M., 2018. Perceptions, prejudices and possibilities: young people
social networks mirrors those in the offline world. Soc. Networks 43, 39–47 (2015).
narrating apprenticeship experiences. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 39 (6), 762–777.
Freeman, L., 1992. Filling in the blanks: a theory of cognitive categories and the structure
Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., Siara, B., 2008. Social networks, social support and social
of social affiliation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 55 (2), 118–127.
capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology 42 (4),
Fuller, Alison, Unwin, Lorna, 2009. Change and continuity in apprenticeship: the
672–690.
resilience of a model of learning. J. Educ. Work. 22 (5), 405–416.
Ryan, L., Mulholland, J., Agoston, A., 2014. Talking ties: Reflecting on network
Gilchrist, A., 2004. The Well-Connected Community: a Networking Approach to
visualisation and qualitative interviewing. Sociol. Res. Online 19 (2), 16.
Community Development. Illustrated Edition. Policy Press, Bristol.
Ryan, L., D’Angelo, A., Kaye, N., Lorinc, M., 2019. Young people, school engagement and
Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Penguin.
perceptions of support: a mixed methods analysis. J. Youth Stud. 1–17.
Goffman, E., 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Bobbs-
Scott, S., 2010. Revisiting the total institution: performative regulation in the reinventive
Merrill Company, Indianapolis.
institution. Sociology 44 (2), 213–231.
Goffman, E., 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order […].
Schiffer, E., Hauck, J., 2010. Net-map: collecting social network data and facilitating
Guillemin, Marilys, Gillam, Lynn, 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important
network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods
moments” in research. Qual. Inq. 10 (2), 261–280.
22 (3), 231–249.
Heath, S., Fuller, A., Johnston, B., 2009. Chasing shadows: defining network boundaries
Sultana, Farhana, 2007. Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating
in qualitative social network analysis. Qual. Res. 9 (5), 645–661.
fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME 6 (3), 374–385.
Hogan, B., 2010. The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing
Tubaro, P., Casilli, A.A., Mounier, L., 2014. Eliciting personal network data in web
performances and exhibitions online. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30 (6), 377–386.
surveys through participant-generated sociograms. Field Methods 26 (2), 107–125.
Hoser, B., Nitschke, T., 2010. Questions on ethics for research in the virtually connected
Yang, L.H., Kleinman, A., Link, B.G., Phelan, J.C., Lee, S., Good, B., 2007. Culture and
world. Soc. Networks 32 (3), 180–186.
Stigma: adding moral experience to stigma theory. Soc. Sci. Med. 64, 1524–1535.
Hogan, Bernie, Carrasco, Juan Antonio, Wellman, Barry, 2007. Visualizing personal
networks: working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods 19 (2),
116–144.

28