How does the network change over time as you add more years? Who are the major connectors who bring small sub-networks into connection?
As more years are added, the number of connections increases as more individuals are brought into the network. This results in an increase in not only the number of connections that exist but also in an increased visual complexity of the relationships between individuals. Initially, there are smaller, independent networks that exist in proximity to one another. As years are added, these separate networks are brought within the larger network as new relationship connections are added. As this occurs, certain individuals emerge as major connectors. By as early as 1736, Anna Clement, Thomas Sewatsese, Aron Oseragighte, and Esras Sr. can be identified as significant points of interconnection within this social network. As more years are added to the network, additional individuals emerge as major connectors, such as Mary Quackenbus or William Prentop Jr. Of these initial people, some remain central to the network throughout the years while others, such as Thomas Sewatsese are overtaken as major connectors by other individuals.
How does the network compared by betweenness centrality compare to the network sized by degree? How do the large nodes sized by betweenness compare to the people who connected subnetworks when we filtered by year? Are they the same people?
Switching between degree centrality and betweenness centrality results in changes to the nodes within the network graph. While many of the major connectors previously identified remain prominent, new individuals appear more prominently when examining their betweenness connectivity. In addition, there appear to be more large nodes when looking at betweenness centrality. This prominence reflects that some, such as Mary Butler, have a high level of connectivity within their own subnetworks, which enhances their prominence when looking at betweenness, while diminishing the prominence of others who serve as major points of connection between the smaller facets of the overall network.
How do the patterns formed by clustering compare with the individuals who have high betweenness centrality? How do they compare with the small networks that formed and connected when we filtered by year?
When clustering, many of the individuals who emerged as major connectors (such as Aron Oseragighte and Anna Clement) when filtering by years appear as the central figures within the clusters. William Prentop Jr., however, seemingly loses prominence and does not appear central to created clusters. Clustering appears to draw focus to individuals on the periphery of the networks who do not gain as much prominence when looking at either degree or betweenness centrality, such as John Craig. Clustering also increases awareness of modules that do not appear to have relationships that connect them to the larger network, such as Rebecca Van der Pool or Thomas Nixon. The lack of connections between these independent modules would prevent meaningful prominence within degree centrality. While some of these individuals may be more prominent when looking at betweenness, the lack of connections to the larger network would still keep them marginalized in terms of prominence, which is compounded by their visual location on the peripheries of the network graph.