Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of structure and composition of wider networks

From: Reproductive health decision making among nomadic pastoralists in North Eastern Kenya: a qualitative social network analysis

 

EGO1 (nomadic)

EGO2 (nomadic)

EGO3 (semi-nomadic)

EGO4 (semi-nomadic)

Structure of wider networka

 Size (not including ego)

37

70

43

42

 Social ties

42

77

46

53

 Density

0.068

0.031

0.054

0.058

 Ego degreeb

14

15

13

11

  Out degree

10

12

12

10

  In degree

4

3

1

1

 Number of triads

5

5

6

4

Composition of wider network

 Females (%)

19 (51%)

19 (27%)

16 (37%)

21 (50%)

 Males (%)

18 (49%)

51 (73%)

27 (67%)

21 (50%)

Relationship typec

 Family

23 (55%)

46 (60%)

31 (67%)

40 (75%)

  Mother

3

4

1

4

  Father

1

4

1

0

  Husband

5

2

3

5

  Wife

0

5

1

1

  Brother

2

12

5

4

  Sister

4

4

1

4

  Son

1

0

0

2

  Daughter

2

1

0

4

  Female cousin

0

1

8

6

  Male cousin

1

6

3

4

  Aunt

0

1

2

4

  Uncle

3

0

3

  Other

4

3

6

5

 In-laws

None

6 (8%)

5 (11%)

6 (11%)

  Mother

1

1

  Father

1

  Brother

4

2

1

  Sister

2

1

1

  Son

  Daughter

2

  Other

1

 Community member

12 (29%)

12 (16%)

7 (15%)

7 (13%)

  Female neighbor

12

1

2

3

  Male neighbor

2

2

  Female friend

1

1

  Male friend

5

3

2

  Other

3

1

 Community official

7 (16%)

13 (17%)

3 (7%)

None

  Village chief, elder, chair

6

7

3

  Religious leader

6

  1. aNumber of unique individuals in the network (2.0 degree), including individuals named by ego and her alters
  2. bDegree refers to the number of ties an actor has in the network, degree can be separated into: in degree (number nominations an actor receives) and outdegree (number of nominations an actor makes)
  3. cFrequency that certain types of relationships came up in the wider network. Relationships were defined by the women and men interviewed (ego or her influencers)