Longitudinal Network Datasets
Rafael Wittek
Department of Sociology
University of Groningen


data collection
  when
  who
  
terms of use

citing

references to papers

Organizations

HD  Dialysis department of the hospital (A6)
HS  Special department of the hospital (A9)
IC  computer company Inco
WS  housing company Wst
PF  Paper factory
BA  Bank
F   salesmen 

  1: TR trust
  2: FR friendship
  3: CW communication at work
  4: AR receiving advice
  5: SF reason for bad cooperation
  6: CE cooperation
  7: HR hierarchy
  8: RV rivalry
  9: SC salience of cooperation
 10: EX expertise
 11: AG giving advice
 12: CP (private) communication outside work
 13: IF influence
 14: RP replacement
 15: TP ???
 16: SA ???= SC


     Network            |   WS    |   IC    |   PF    |   HS    |   HD    |
     no. of vertices    |   78    |   31    |   22    |   30    |   49    |
     time point         | 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1: TR trust           | x x x x | x x x x | x x   x | x x x x | x x x x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2: FR friendship      | x x x   | x x x x | x x x x |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3: CW communication   | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  4: AR receiving advice| x x x x | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x | x x x x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5: SF reason for bad  |   x   x |       x |   x   x |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  6: CE cooperation     |   x   x |       x |   x x x |       x |       x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  7: HR hierarchy       |     x   | x x     | x x x   | x x x x | x x x x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8: RV rivalry         |     x   | x x   x |   x     |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  9: SC salience of coop|       x |         |       x |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10: EX expertise       |       x |   x     |     x   |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11: AG giving advice   |         | x       | x       |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12: CP private communic|         | x x     |         |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13: IF influence       |         | x x x x | x x x x | x x   x | x x   x |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 14: RP replacement     |         |         |   x     |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 16: ???                |         |         |     x   |         |         |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            


  1: TR trust
Trust
Perception of relational closeness, e.g. whom would you
confide personal information. 
1 – person not known to respondent
2 – distant/distrustful relationship
3 – neutral relation
4 – strong trust relation
5 – very strong trust relation

  2: FR friendship
Friendship

  3: CW communication at work
Communication at work
Frequency of communication  during the past three months.
1 – never
2 – less than once a month
3 – 1-3 times a month
4 – 1-3 times a week
5 – at least once daily
(6 – more than once daily) only in paper factory

  4: AR receiving advice
Receiving advice
Frequency, during the past three months, of asking a 
colleague for advice or help if you could not solve a 
problem on your own or had to take a decision.
1 – never
2 – less than once a month
3 – 1-3 times a month
4 – 1-3 times a week
5 – at least once daily


  5: SF reason for bad cooperation
Reason for bad cooperation
1 – problems due to situation (e.g. unclear allocation
    of tasks)
2 – problems due to yourself having made a mistake or
    having to behave differently
3 - problems due to differences in knowledge of subject
    matters between you and this colleague
4 – problems due to differences in character between 
    you and the colleauge


  6: CE cooperation
Cooperation
Evaluation of cooperation with each colleague.
1 – no cooperation necessary
2– very difficult
3 – difficult
4 – neither difficult nor good
5 – good
6 – very good

  7: HR hierarchy
Hierarchy
1 – row is subordinate to column
2 – no hierarchical relation

  8: RV rivalry
??? ********

  9: SC salience of cooperation
Salience of Cooperation
Importance of Cooperation from each colleague.
0 - didn´t play a role

100 - very important

 10: EX expertise
Expertise
1 – not able to contribute to the discussion about 
    new developments
2 – able to a limited extend contribute to the 
    discussion about new developments
3 – has sound knowledge about some issues
4 – has sound knowledge about all developmentsb

 11: AG giving advice
 12: CP (private) communication outside work
 13: IF influence
 14: RP replacement
 15: TP ???
 16: SA ???= SC



CR
RL