跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2609.30905 · v2

Network Analysis in Communication Research: A Review of Methods, Theories, and Research Practices

首次提交 2026-09-25 15:13
版本更新 2026-11-02 11:51
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Network analysis has become a standard way of representing consultation, sourcing, media use, attention, and influence in communication research. This review examines 31 applications across communication subfields and asks of each what communication problem it addresses, which explanatory resource it invokes, and what its research practice makes observable. The three dimensions form a comparison framework and yield three propositions with stated scope and refutation conditions: resource relevance is task- and criterion-dependent; commonality at one level of aggregation does not imply commonality at another; and influence estimates are conditional on relationship type, group stage, and time. A short bibliometric section describes how the literature's cited references are organised: method references are paired with one another more often than year-specific margins predict (ratio 1.36) and with theoretical references less often (0.82), a pattern consistent with a methodological toolkit that circulates apart from the commitments that license its use. The review closes with designs that would test each proposition.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-02 11:51 · 最新观测版本

Network Analysis in Communication Research: A Review of Methods, Theories, and Research Practices

Network analysis has become a standard way of representing consultation, sourcing, media use, attention, and influence in communication research. This review examines 31 applications across communication subfields and asks of each what communication problem it addresses, which explanatory resource it invokes, and what its research practice makes observable. The three dimensions form a comparison framework and yield three propositions with stated scope and refutation conditions: resource relevance is task- and criterion-dependent; commonality at one level of aggregation does not imply commonality at another; and influence estimates are conditional on relationship type, group stage, and time. A short bibliometric section describes how the literature's cited references are organised: method references are paired with one another more often than year-specific margins predict (ratio 1.36) and with theoretical references less often (0.82), a pattern consistent with a methodological toolkit that circulates apart from the commitments that license its use. The review closes with designs that would test each proposition.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗