This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar

Facenuke or: A failed social network visualisation by Greenpeace

The image above (click on the image for full size or go here to explore the network) is a network visualisation of the energy sector in France. Or so at least claims Greenpeace France. It looks nice, it looks plausible but methodological it is poorly done and therefore creates the impression of a network where there may be non.

If you look into the underlying data (Excel file), you realise that this is what we call an affiliation network, two-mode network or bipartite network in academia (I’m analysing this type of network for my PhD). This affiliation network was transformed into a person-to-person network by assuming that joint affiliation to the same organisation creates a tie.

The problem is that (1) the underlying data is poor, (2) the affiliation is non-consistent as well as temporally undefined only vaguely defined, and (3) the interpretation of one joint affiliation  as a social network more than problematic. This triple flaw in the construction of the network you see above makes the result unusable for any socially relevant interpretation – and the main reason to analyse or visualise network data is to draw conclusions for the social reality, for instance to identify positions of power or cooperating cliques.

I have to go more into detail to show why it is impossible to do so with this data:

1) Data quality

Let’s say that this is the least important flaw. Basically, the affiliation information seems to be mainly based on Wikipedia and company website data. However, the quality of these sources is far from perfect and there are no sources given for all the affiliations of all people in the list.

2) Affiliation consistency & temporal definition

When you look into the data, you will see that affiliation for Greenpeace is anything from having been to the same school, being in the leadership of big international companies or being employed by certain research facilities to political party membership or membership (?) in such obscure groups as Bilderberg. It is unclear from the data whether joint affiliation to these organisations actually means that the people have ever met (in that context) or whether they just happen to be in the same organisation.

Being in the same organisation also does not necessarily imply being in a positive relationship – two members of the same political party may be fierce opponents and a relation generated from co-affiliation would not mean much. What is also problematic is that the affiliations have no time stamps. Having been in ENA may be relevant in French politics, but two people who have passed through ENA with 10 years difference may not draw any social tie from having done so (unless there is clear evidence for that). Two people may have participated in the famous Bilderberg meetings, but if they did not attend the same year it’s very likely that this would not at all connect them. And even if one was on the board of the same organisation within the period of the last five years, this still does not mean one actually is related.

I was on the Board of Trustees of a university but I hardly knew my fellow board members because the board only met 3-4 times during the one year of my membership. Without knowledge on the frequency and depth of interaction, board co-affiliation is only a weak indicator (if at all) for a social tie, especially if the board membership has not been at the same time.

3) One co-affiliation equals a tie

If I’m reading the data correctly, Greenpeace has constructed the network in such a way that any single co-affiliation constitutes a tie in the network image they portray. Given the weakness of affiliation ties, it would have been a minimum to assume that at least two or three joint affiliations are an indication for an actual tie (unless there is strong evidence supporting the strength of the single affiliation tie).

Because of this loose criterion, the network image is probably way too dense with way too many realised relations to reflect real-world network structures. If half of the relations turn out to be indicators for weak connections (i.e. people being hardly acquainted to each other) this would probably be a lot already.


Giving that the network visualisation is based on not perfect data sources, non-consistent and temporally unconfirmed affiliations and assumptions about the existence of social ties based on over-interpretation of co-affiliations found, the resulting network is non-conclusive at best and completely misleading at worst.

And even worse: As far as I can see, there is no interpretation on what this network is actually supposed to mean. Does it mean influence on energy policy in France? Does it show who is well-connected with whom? Does it tell who is better informed about the latest developments in French energy policy making? Can you predict who will become the next president, the next leader of an energy company or the next host of an amazing dinner night?

Is a person who connects a political party and a research institution in any way more powerful than somebody who connects McKinsey and Dexia? Is it helpful to be connected to Sarkozy through a board where he may actually never show up?

Without any pre-formulated expectation on how the network actually should function – what social results are expected from the structure – this is just playing around with data without any use. Network analysis and network visualisation should not be used just because it is possible. It should be used to answer questions that cannot be answered differently.

If network analysis and visualisation is used, the data sources, transformation and interpretation should be made in such a way that the resulting network structure actually represent a social reality and not just some indication of similarity without any significance for social reality. This has clearly not been done by Greenpeace France.

Update: Eric has pointed me to this less critical yet also not fully convinced French blog post.

Image: Greenpeace | BY-NC-SA

4 Responses to Facenuke or: A failed social network visualisation by Greenpeace

  1. avatar Michael Wolfcarius says:

    All very well but you realise you’ve just described a network that just about everybody creates. Gone are the days when a social network was the people you deal with. In this era you build a social network for a purpose, to get in touch with new contacts or to be able to get in touch with them, to have them know you are only so far away in case someone wanted to get in touch. These people on Facenuke may not be friends or in contact but you can bet whatever you feel like that one call or middle person is all it takes for two parties to be sitting together. It’s not a network to be social it’s a network showing what your social bonds you have or can count on. And in case you didn’t know, things like having been at the same school, even at different périods, make for very strong social bonds, the “common” experience, something to break the ice or to make for comparisons that makes it easier, safer and faster to get in contact than with COMPLETE strangers, please think a little more deeply about this. Even if any educated person knows what you say isn’t wrong, it is also pointless, those that care, know already and the whole thing was symbolic just a warning that actually no-one knows who’s in control and no-one can assume he is able to change policy as the others might gang up (by using the power of the network!).

  2. avatar Ronny Patz says:

    @ Michael Thanks for your comment. I actually don’t argue against the fact that things like having been on the same school or the same board can be crucial for two people to have a strong connection. I also do not disagree that some of these people in the network may know each other well enough to call each other or to influence decisions in French energy policy.

    I doubt however that the network we see here actually tells in which of these pairs and groups of people this is actually likely to happen. And if the network does not tell us that, all it actually gives us is a list of ~200 people who are involved in some way or another in energy policy. It’s not big news that some of them may be in closer contact – it’s just that I doubt that we learn anything new in this regard through the network visualisation.

    And if we do, that is if the network is really telling an important story, I think Greenpeace should tell it, help the user to read the network and to understand why it is consequential for French politics or why certain relations actually matter or are actually problematic.

  3. avatar Michael Wolfcarius says:

    Yes, you are right but I think their concept was just to attract attention to the fact that it matters little who is voted in, once they are in power they will be swarmed around like wasps around syrup by those who belong to that lobby, and the fact that these wasps are closer to them “socially” than they would like (for making independent decisions) will put them under extreme pressure to keep electoral promises to those not so close to them.

    But you are right, Greenpeace should now use this to further their arguments and find strategies to weaken those lobbies because they are too strong for any democratic process to counter without changing certain mechanisms. Thanks for your answer.

  4. Pingback: affiliation network - Online Business Advices – Online Business Advices

UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.