Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 98

United States and Abroad: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations,” report from the School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley, and the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco (1993), http://caps.ucsf.edu/uploads/pubs/reports/pdf/
NEPReportSummary1993.pdf.

18. Watts, 166-181.
19. Thomas W. Valente, Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
20. Watts, 207-12 and 223-24.
21. Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO,
2012), V1.d., http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm.pdf; Army Regulation (AR) 27-10, Military Justice (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 3 October
2011), para. 3-2a.; AR 600-20., Army Command Policy (Washington, DC:
U.S. GPO, RAR 20 September 2012), para. 4-7c. This reactionary and
narrow approach need not be the only method. Indeed, some military
regulations hint at a more proactive and preventive strategy. See AR
600-20, para. 1-5c.(4)(b) and para. 4-1 through 4-7; and, FM 1-04, Legal
Support to the Operational Army, (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO: March
2013), para. 4-6 and 4-21.
22. MCM, see RCM 306.
23. Phillip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, (New York: Random House,
2007) 7-8, 195.
24. Donald W. Hansen, Judicial Functions for the Commander?, 41
Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1968), http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/milrv41&div=4&id=&page=. Like many investigators
or prosecutors, commanders display a “commitment to particularized
judgments—to judging the individual’s likely guilt or innocence based
primarily upon his own actions, beliefs, and character.” See Andrew E.
Taslitz, Police Are People Too: Cognitive Obstacles to, and Opportunities
for, Police Getting the Individualized Suspicion Judgment Right, 8 Ohio St. J.
Crim. Law 7 (2010) at 17 (discussing the cognitive flaws in police investigators’ application of “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”).
25. Peter Sheridan Dodds, Duncan J. Watts, and Charles F. Sabel.,
“Information Exchange and the Robustness of Organizational Networks,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(21)(14 October
2003): 12,516.
26. Granovetter, 1360-80.
27. Reed, 21.
28. MCM, V-Ic; RCM 306, RCM 307, and RCM 401.
29. An individual or discrete entity that may be connected along
relational ties to other individuals or entities based on a shared characteristic, relationship, or action.
30. I use the term hub subjectively, based on the particular features
and characteristics of the network being studied.
31. Watts, 52.
32. Hanneman and Riddle, chapter 8.
33. Knoke, 60-61.
34. Ibid., 49.
35. Ibid. These bridging relationships serve as essential conduits of
information, resources, or access between various nodes, and thus affect
the ability of such commodities or actions to diffuse across the network;
Granovetter, 1364.
36. Sparrow, 260.
37. Reed, 20.
38. In any given social network, one could characterize actors as
senders or receivers of directed ties. Such labeling signals an actor’s
access to, or control over, information, resources, and influence (authority
or deference to authority). Prestige measures the extent to which a social
actor receives or serves as the object of relations sent by other actors.
Actors with higher values can be thought of as more prestigious within
that particular network study, in that they receive many ties and need
96

only initiate a few. This value, however, has limitations: by mathematically
equating all senders, one could oversimplify the nature of the prestigious
relationship because it does not account for variation in the prestige
value of the senders themselves. In other words, an actor’s prestige in
a group may be qualitatively enhanced if he or she receives ties from
another prestigious actor. Knoke, 69; The total number of relations a
particular node or actor has is that node’s nodal degree in a nondirected graph (that is, where studying whether the tie exists or it does not
without regard to who is initiating or receiving some relation). Conversely, in a directed graph (where we can distinguish who initiates or sends
a relation to another node), we can further distinguish between that
node’s in-degree (the number of relations received by one actor from
other actors) and out-degree (the number of relations sent by one actor
to all others). Like the limitations of the prestige value noted above, the
in-degree and out-degree value for any focal, actor is limited because
it does not distinguish the intrinsic quality of those other actors sending
relations to, or receiving relations from, the focal actor.
39. Sparrow, 264.
40. Degree centrality measures the extent to which