Network Analysis in Communication Research: Research Topics, Knowledge Organization, and Research Practices
Abstract
Communication network research explains access to information, patterns of participation, and the organization of public meaning through different relationships and observations. This integrative review connects research topics, knowledge organization, and research practices, using bibliographic analysis of a Web of Science candidate pool to guide selective reading. Three judgments emerge from the comparisons. First, the relevance of a connection depends on the task and the criterion of value: team members anticipate consulting colleagues whose expertise they recognize, while journalists distinguish monitoring sources, using their information, and citing them. Second, commonality at one level can coexist with differentiation at another: audiences share outlets while selecting different articles, and shared issue agendas accommodate different evaluations. Third, some differences remain unresolved: contrasting media-use influence findings cannot be explained simply by whether models include selection and content co-nomination. Reading the uses of homophily, transactive memory, sourcing, agenda-setting, and framing resources clarifies which expectations and observations support these judgments. Selected citation contexts also show how conceptual and measurement resources enter the same argument. The resulting agenda calls for comparisons of relationship types across group stages, source use across reporting tasks, and encountered content with recipients' interpretations. These purposive comparisons establish specific connections among literatures without estimating their prevalence or demonstrating a common causal mechanism.
Related
- Communication Advantages from Quantum Dense Network Coding
- Topology-Aware Integrated Sensing, Communication, Charging in Massive Low-Altitude Wireless Network
- Beyond an Ethos or Inflexible Checklist of Research Practices: Grounding Open Science in a Biomedical Research Ethics Framework
- Risk assessment method for power communication network based on LTA-EN
- Aligning entity of knowledge graph based on graph convolutional network with maximum translated similarity
BibTeX
@misc{cui2026network,
title = {{Network Analysis in Communication Research: Research Topics, Knowledge Organization, and Research Practices}},
author = {Pengjia Cui},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.30905},
eprint = {2609.30905},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30905},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Network Analysis in Communication Research: Research Topics, Knowledge Organization, and Research Practices
AU - Pengjia Cui
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/25
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.30905
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30905
AB - Communication network research explains access to information, patterns of participation, and the organization of public meaning through different relationships and observations. This integrative review connects research topics, knowledge organization, and research practices, using bibliographic analysis of a Web of Science candidate pool to guide selective reading. Three judgments emerge from the comparisons. First, the relevance of a connection depends on the task and the criterion of value: team members anticipate consulting colleagues whose expertise they recognize, while journalists distinguish monitoring sources, using their information, and citing them. Second, commonality at one level can coexist with differentiation at another: audiences share outlets while selecting different articles, and shared issue agendas accommodate different evaluations. Third, some differences remain unresolved: contrasting media-use influence findings cannot be explained simply by whether models include selection and content co-nomination. Reading the uses of homophily, transactive memory, sourcing, agenda-setting, and framing resources clarifies which expectations and observations support these judgments. Selected citation contexts also show how conceptual and measurement resources enter the same argument. The resulting agenda calls for comparisons of relationship types across group stages, source use across reporting tasks, and encountered content with recipients' interpretations. These purposive comparisons establish specific connections among literatures without estimating their prevalence or demonstrating a common causal mechanism.
ER -