statnet.data: Network Datasets for the Statnet Suite

#' Southern Women Data Set (Davis) as a bipartite network object
#'
#' This is a data set of 18 women observed over a nine-month period. During
#' that period, various subsets of these women had met in a series of 14
#' informal social events. The data recored which women met for which events.
#' The data is originally from Davis, Gardner and Gardner (1941) via
#' UCINET
#'
#' @format A bipartite [`network`][network::network] object with 32 nodes (18
#'   women and 14 social events) and 89 edges.
#'
#' @details
#' This documentation is taken from Freeman (2003) in his usual lucid
#' description. See the reference to the paper below:
#'
#' In the 1930s, five ethnographers, Allison Davis, Elizabeth Stubbs Davis,
#' Burleigh B. Gardner, Mary R. Gardner and J. G. St. Clair Drake, collected
#' data on stratification in Natchez, Mississippi (Warner, 1988, p. 93). They
#' produced the book cited below (DGG) that reported a comparative study of
#' social class in black and in white society. One element of this work
#' involved examining the correspondence between people's social class levels
#' and their patterns of informal interaction. DGG was concerned with the issue
#' of how much the informal contacts made by individuals were established
#' solely (or primarily) with others at approximately their own class levels.
#' To address this question the authors collected data on social events and
#' examined people's patterns of informal contacts.
#'
#' In particular, they collected systematic data on the social activities of 18
#' women whom they observed over a nine-month period. During that period,
#' various subsets of these women had met in a series of 14 informal social
#' events. The participation of women in events was uncovered using
#' ``interviews, the records of participant observers, guest lists, and the
#' newspapers'' (DGG, p. 149). Homans (1950, p. 82), who presumably had been in
#' touch with the research team, reported that the data reflect joint
#' activities like, ``a day's work behind the counter of a store, a meeting of
#' a women's club, a church supper, a card party, a supper party, a meeting of
#' the Parent-Teacher Association, etc.''
#'
#' This data set has several interesting properties. It is small and
#' manageable. It embodies a relatively simple structural pattern, one in
#' which, according to DGG, the women seemed to organize themselves into two
#' more or less distinct groups. Moreover, they reported that the positions -
#' core and peripheral - of the members of these groups could also be
#' determined in terms of the ways in which different women had been involved
#' in group activities. At the same time, the DGG data set is complicated
#' enough that some of the details of its patterning are less than obvious. As
#' Homans (1950, p. 84) put it, ``The pattern is frayed at the edges.'' And,
#' finally, this data set comes to us in a two-mode ``woman by event'' form.
#' Thus, it provides an opportunity to explore methods designed for direct
#' application to two-mode data. But at the same time, it can easily be
#' transformed into two one-mode matrices (woman by woman or event by event)
#' that can be examined using tools for one-mode analysis.
#'
#' Because of these properties, this DGG data set has become something of a
#' touchstone for comparing analytic methods in social network analysis. Davis,
#' Gardner and Gardner presented an intuitive interpretation of the data, based
#' in part on their ethnographic experience in the community. Then the DGG data
#' set was picked up by Homans (1950) who provided an alternative intuitive
#' interpretation. In 1972, Phillips and Conviser used an analytic tool, based
#' on information theory, that provided a systematic way to reexamine the DGG
#' data. Since then, this data set has been analyzed again and again. It
#' reappears whenever any network analyst wants to explore the utility of some
#' new tool for analyzing data.
#'
#' @template data
#'
#' @source
#' Linton C. Freeman (2003). *Finding Social Groups: A Meta-Analysis of the
#' Southern Women Data*, In Ronald Breiger, Kathleen Carley and Philippa
#' Pattison, eds. *Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis*. Washington: The
#' National Academies Press.
#'
#' @references
#' Davis, A., Gardner, B. B. and M. R. Gardner (1941) *Deep South*, Chicago: The
#' University of Chicago Press.
#'
#' Linton C. Freeman (2003). *Finding Social Groups: A Meta-Analysis of the
#' Southern Women Data*, In Ronald Breiger, Kathleen Carley and Philippa
#' Pattison, eds. *Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis*. Washington: The
#' National Academies Press.
#'
#'
#' @keywords data
#' @docType data
#' @family bipartite networks
#' @family undirected networks
#' @examples
#' \dontrun{
#' # This dataset is used to demonstrate latent space model:
#' library(latetnet)
#' # Fit a 2D 2-cluster fit and plot.
#' davis.fit <- ergmm(davis ~ euclidean(d=2, G=2) + rsociality)
#' plot(davis.fit, pie=TRUE, rand.eff="sociality")
#' }
#'
"davis"