These three phases exemplify how, as time has progressed, previous unconnected networks become one and the number of nodes and edges increase as this process occurs.
When studying these networks it is also possible to trace some of the major individuals that brought many of the church members together. The size and importance of a node can also change over time and on how the data is being presented. For example, when sizing by degree, Mary Butler is represented by a larger node than Esras Sr. When nodes are sized by betweenness, though, Esras Sr becomes the larger of the two.
There are also differences in the prominence of nodes if the network is clustered. For example, within a cluster, Esras Sr. becomes less prominent, and Aron Oseragighte is viewed as the more important. Moreover, clustering highlights smaller groups on the periphery. For example, Thomas Nixon is assigned his own cluster, even though there is not an edge connecting him to the largest group.
These changes in presentation allow for a researcher to study differences in the network. It also permits them to focus in on one specific aspect. For example Esras Sr was more instrumental while bridging the gap between the two larger clusters seen between 1736-1739, but Mary Butler had more importance within her own cluster.
Lastly, different ways of analyzing the data allow a researcher to view similarities across the board. When switching between degree, betweenness and cluster many of the same names continue to show up. Furthermore, regardless of how one presents the data, from 1735 onward Anna Clement becomes the most prominent figure in the network.
Pages: 1 2