If the sample frame from which social network models for artists are constructed is generated from a simple random sample, then the networks described, if they emerged at all, would tell us little other than the fact that some artists talk to other artists. And yet the very act of trying to
measure social networks among artists carries the assumption that artists talk to one another. To be sure, we could establish reasons why these particular artists talk and interact with the people in their network, but there would be little systematic basis for the findings.
For the purposes of mapping the social networks then, a random sample of artists in the East End would have to be the basis for a “snowball” sample, as described by Goodman (1961). Here, each of a random sample of actors s is asked to name k other actors. The actors in the first random sample—stage one—would each be asked to name, for example, the five actors with whom they “have the closest professional relationships” (stage two). Each of the five actors named who do not themselves appear in the stage one sample would then be asked to name fur- ther actors to generate a stage three sample (Goodman, 1961). This process is then repeated for as many stages as necessary to generate the required social network models.
There are two major problems with this approach of taking a random sample of individual artists. First, we would merely build up a small picture of the social networks of a small per- centage of individual artists, without knowing for sure whether they are truly representative of the situation in the East End. Second, a stage one sample of ten percent of artists would encom- pass 150 people. Clearly, to develop a model of a social network, we would need at least two stages, and probably three to generate anything like a representative picture. If each stage one actor named five other actors for the stage two sample, even if some of those stage two actors could be discounted by dint of their being in stage one already, we still need to carry out over four hundred interviews. If we carried the process through to a third stage, then it is not unreal- istic to estimate a total approaching something like 2000 actors.
A graphic representation of a 2000-actor network would undoubtedly be impressive. It would also be all but incomprehensible to any but the most patient and determined reader. And such a large sample size would also overstretch the resources—and patience—of a solitary re- searcher. Clearly, for all that snowball sampling is a useful technique, particularly for establish- ing further contacts, we need to find a more focused way of choosing our sample.
Each of the forty “independent” studio blocks is administered by a working artist. If each of the “independent” studio blocks is interviewed, it follows that not only has each of the blocks been interviewed in its capacity as an “arts organisation”, but the forty artists who serve as ad- ministrators for the studio block have also been interviewed. A similar approach was adopted by Galaskiewicz (1979) who, in his study of the exchange networks of a medium-sized town in the United States, chose to interview the highest ranking executive officers of his selected or- ganisations (Galaskiewicz, 1979:45). However, although the highest ranking officer may be best placed to give an overview of an organisations function and strategy, Galaskiewicz notes the criticism of Laumann et al. (1978), who point out that a corporate actor is composed of indi- viduals who have, in effect, their own loyalties and agendas (ibid:46). The difficulty then is in separating the “corporate agenda” from the “individual agenda”.
It quickly became apparent during this study—and this is a question addressed in further detail in the pilot study in chapter eight—that the division between corporate and individual net- works would need to be addressed. The view of those being interviewed was that the significant
artistic networks, the ones that they could relate to, were those which function at an individual level rather than a corporate level. In other words, the studio as such may not be part of a net- work even if the individuals are a part of a network and it is generally known that they come from a particular studio.
Even so, for the purposes of this study, the sample frame described above is reasonable: the “independent” studio blocks are in general sufficiently small for the administrator to know everyone in them; the administrators are themselves working artists who carry out their admin- istrative responsibilities in their spare time. What this means is that the interviewee can give in- formation from the point of view of the organisation, which might for instance be interested in building up links with say the local authority’s education department, and from the several points of view of the individual artists within a block. Some individual artists may wish to be involved in highly collaborative educational projects, while other individuals may prefer to work in relative isolation, producing work for exhibition and sale. The studio administrator is in a position to represent both these positions, since in representing a studio block, they are also representing the artists within it. The problem of separating the “corporate” and “individual” agendas was thus solved by making specific reference to both in the interview.
The picture which emerged from the interviews suggested that the social networks are “nested”; networks within networks within networks. As we noted above, formal mapping of the social networks at an individual level would be problematic, so the formal analysis has been of the social networks at a corporate, or organisational level. However, before we move to the analysis itself, we must introduce the methodology which makes such an analysis possible.