1. Comparing Social Networks. Comparing Multiple Social Networks using Multiple Dimensional Scaling.

2. The Problem Find a Graphical way of Comparing Multiple Social Networks

3. Others Work in the Area. “structural signatures” Skovoretz. S. & Faust. K. (2002) Relations. Species and Network Structure “Triad census “ Faust, Katherine (2006) “Comparing social Networks: Size, density and local structure.” Metodološki Zvezki Advances in Methodology and Statistics 3(2):185-216.

4. Data Set.

5. Variables that effect comparing social Networks. No of nodes Density of the social network Average shortest path length Network centralization (%) Betweeness

6. Method. Metadata table. Prefmap Hierarchical clustering. Interpreting results.

7. Metadata table.

8. Prefmap

9. Hierarchical clustering. * * * * H I E R A R C H I C A L C L U S T E R A N A L Y S I S * * Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescalde Distancie Cluster Combine C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Urban 2 ─┐ wave1 3 ─┤ rural 1 ─┼───┐ wave2 4 ─┤ ├───────────────────────────────────────────┐ wave3 5 ─┘ │ │ Student 6 ─────┘ │ staff 7 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

10. Interpreting results.

11. Summary. The technique I developed, was far more successful for comparing several Social Networks. This was achieved by creating a Metadata table of many social network variables and using multidimensional scaling techniques such as Prefscal and Hiclus. When the output of these procedures was combined and analysed, a graphical representation of the differences between several social Networks is shown.