What kind of epistemology for network analyses?

Network models are pervading ecology, genomics, epidemiology, as well as social science and neurosciences. In this paper, I survey the uses of network analysis in biological and social sciences, distinguishing between various jobs they can fulfill. I explore the various methods based on network analysis. I argue that in many cases they are indeed explanations, such explanations being “topological explanations”, which in turn is a subkind of structural explanations. I defend this view against the idea that network analysis is rather a description than an explanation, and against the claim that it is a kind of mechanistic explanation based on a focus on organization and hence very abstract. In the reasoning, I emphasize the difference between interaction and correlation networks, argue that both of them play roles in explanations, highlight their equivalence as graphs, and acknowledge that many of the debates raised by network analysis stem from the use of both families of networks, notwithstanding their differences. While ‘network analysis’ is not a natural kind, the explanatory potential it holds should be recognized, together with its potential for discovery in the study of complex systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05105-4
Primary Topic
Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What kind of epistemology for network analyses?

Philippe Huneman
Synthese
Complex Network Analysis Techniques
article

What kind of epistemology for network analyses?

Philippe Huneman
article en

Abstract

Network models are pervading ecology, genomics, epidemiology, as well as social science and neurosciences. In this paper, I survey the uses of network analysis in biological and social sciences, distinguishing between various jobs they can fulfill. I explore the various methods based on network analysis. I argue that in many cases they are indeed explanations, such explanations being “topological explanations”, which in turn is a subkind of structural explanations. I defend this view against the idea that network analysis is rather a description than an explanation, and against the claim that it is a kind of mechanistic explanation based on a focus on organization and hence very abstract. In the reasoning, I emphasize the difference between interaction and correlation networks, argue that both of them play roles in explanations, highlight their equivalence as graphs, and acknowledge that many of the debates raised by network analysis stem from the use of both families of networks, notwithstanding their differences. While ‘network analysis’ is not a natural kind, the explanatory potential it holds should be recognized, together with its potential for discovery in the study of complex systems.

SyntheseVol. 206(3)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Délégation Paris 7 (FR), Université Paris Cité (FR), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Complex Network Analysis Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

What kind of epistemology for network analyses? — Philippe Huneman · Synthese (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS