Three network objects containing the "liking" nominations of
Sampson's (1969) monks at the three time points.
data(samplk)In ergm versions
3.6.0 and earlier, The adjacency matrices of the samplike,
samplk1, samplk2, and samplk3
networks reflected the original Sampson (1969) ordering of the names even
though the vertex labels used the name order of de Nooy, Mrvar, and Batagelj
(2005). That is, in ergm version 3.6.0 and earlier, the vertices were
mislabeled. The correct order is the same one given in Tables D5, D9, and
D13 of Sampson (1969): John Bosco, Gregory, Basil, Peter, Bonaventure,
Berthold, Mark, Victor, Ambrose, Romauld (Sampson uses both spellings
"Romauld" and "Ramauld" in the dissertation), Louis, Winfrid, Amand, Hugh,
Boniface, Albert, Elias, Simplicius. By contrast, the order given in
ergm version 3.6.0 and earlier is: Ramuald, Bonaventure, Ambrose,
Berthold, Peter, Louis, Victor, Winfrid, John Bosco, Gregory, Hugh,
Boniface, Mark, Albert, Amand, Basil, Elias, Simplicius.
Sampson (1969) recorded the social interactions among a group of monks while he was a resident as an experimenter at the cloister. During his stay, a political "crisis in the cloister" resulted in the expulsion of four monks-- namely, the three "outcasts," Brothers Elias, Simplicius, Basil, and the leader of the "young Turks," Brother Gregory. Not long after Brother Gregory departed, all but one of the "young Turks" left voluntarily: Brothers John Bosco, Albert, Boniface, Hugh, and Mark. Then, all three of the "waverers" also left: First, Brothers Amand and Victor, then later Brother Romuald. Eventually, Brother Peter and Brother Winfrid also left, leaving only four of the original group.
Of particular interest are the data on positive affect relations ("liking," using the terminology later adopted by White et al. (1976)), in which each monk was asked if he had positive relations to each of the other monks. Each monk ranked only his top three choices (or four, in the case of ties) on "liking". Here, we consider a directed edge from monk A to monk B to exist if A nominated B among these top choices.
The data were gathered at three times to capture changes in group sentiment
over time. They represent three time points in the period during which a new
cohort had entered the monastery near the end of the study but before the
major conflict began. These three time points are labeled T2, T3, and T4 in
Tables D5 through D16 in the appendices of Sampson's 1969 dissertation. and
the corresponding network data sets are named samplk1,
samplk2, and samplk3, respectively.
See also the data set sampson containing the time-aggregated
graph samplike.
samplk3 is a data set of Hoff, Raftery and Handcock (2002).
The data sets are stored as network objects with
three vertex attributes:
Groups of novices as classified by Sampson, that is,
"Loyal", "Outcasts", and "Turks", but with a fourth group called the
"Waverers" by White et al. (1975) that comprises two of the original Loyal
opposition and one of the original Outcasts. See the samplike
data set for the original classifications of these three waverers.
An indicator of attendance in the minor seminary of "Cloisterville" before coming to the monastery.
The
given names of the novices. NB: These names have been corrected as of
ergm version 3.6.1.
This data set is standard in the social network analysis literature, having been modeled by Holland and Leinhardt (1981), Reitz (1982), Holland, Laskey and Leinhardt (1983), Fienberg, Meyer, and Wasserman (1981), and Hoff, Raftery, and Handcock (2002), among others. This is only a small piece of the data collected by Sampson.
This data set was updated for version 2.5 (March 2012) to add the
cloisterville variable and refine the names. This information is from
de Nooy, Mrvar, and Batagelj (2005). The original vertex names were:
Romul_10, Bonaven_5, Ambrose_9, Berth_6, Peter_4, Louis_11, Victor_8,
Winf_12, John_1, Greg_2, Hugh_14, Boni_15, Mark_7, Albert_16, Amand_13,
Basil_3, Elias_17, Simp_18. The numbers indicate the ordering used in the
original dissertation of Sampson (1969).
White, H.C., Boorman, S.A. and Breiger, R.L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 730-780.
Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
sampson, florentine, network, plot.network, ergm