NETWORK ANALYSIS IN THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF STATE AND LAW: NEW METHODOLOGICAL HORIZONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/cuj-2025-4-8Keywords:
history of state and law, network analysis, digital humanities, Historical Network Research, social networks, legal texts, intellectual networksAbstract
The article substantiates the methodological foundations of applying network analysis to the study of the history of state and law. It argues that contemporary historical and legal scholarship is undergoing a methodological renewal that requires the integration of interdisciplinary digital tools. Network analysis (Social Network Analysis, Historical Network Research) is presented as one of the most promising approaches, capable of combining qualitative hermeneutics with quantitative examination of interrelations among actors of political power, institutions, legal texts, and scholarly schools. The paper traces the origins and development of network analysis – from the sociological concepts of M. Granovetter, S. Wasserman, and K. Faust to modern digital projects within Historical Network Research. It demonstrates that this method makes it possible to reconstruct political and administrative networks, analyze the dynamics of legal texts through systems of citation and normative borrowing, and trace transnational intellectual connections among legal scholars of different epochs. Special attention is paid to methodological challenges: issues of source representativeness, technical difficulties of formalizing qualitative historical data, risks of reductionism, and the necessity of combining quantitative analysis with traditional hermeneutic approaches. The authors argue that the network approach does not replace classical methods of historical and legal research but serves as their structural complement, providing tools for visualizing complex processes of the evolution of legal systems and interactions among political actors. In conclusion, the article outlines prospects for further research: creation of digital databases of historical and legal data, development of source coding methodologies, modeling of legal and administrative networks, and the establishment of ethical standards for data reconstruction. The introduction of network analysis into the field of legal history is defined as a strategic step toward building a digital historical-legal analytics capable of uniting the depth of traditional scholarship with the precision of contemporary technologies.
References
Пасічник Н., Ріжняк Р. Сучасні методологічні інновації в історико-правових дослідженнях: цифрова гуманітаристика та правова антропологія. Наше право. 2025. № 3. С. 290–301. https://doi.org/10.71404/NP.2025.3.41.
Wasserman S., Faust K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994. 825 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478.
Akbash K., Pasichnyk N., Rizhniak R. Numismatic journals from the Scopus scientometric database: statistics, trends, collaboration. Scientometrics. 2025. № 130(3). Р. 1967–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05273-7.
Mapping the Republic of Letters. Stanford Univ. & partner sites. URL: https://republicofletters.stanford. edu/.
Prosopography of the Byzantine World (PBW). King’s College London. URL: https://pbw2016.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/.
Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic (DPRR). King’s College London. URL: https://romanrepublic.ac.uk/.
Journal of Historical Network Research. URL: https://jhnr.net/.
Fowler J.H., Johnson T.R., Spriggs J.F. II, Jeon S., Wahlbeck P.J. Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Analysis. 2007. Vol. 15, No. 3. P. 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm011.
Kerschbaumer F., von Keyserlingk L., Stark M., Düring M. (eds.). The Power of Networks: Prospects of Historical Network Research. London; New York : Routledge, 2020. 280 p. URL: https://philpapers.org/rec/KERTPO-23.
Buchnea E., Elsahn Z. Historical social network analysis: Advancing new directions for international business research. International Business Review. 2022. Vol. 31. Article 101990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.101990.
Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство – електронне наукове фахове видання юридичного факультету ДВНЗ «Ужгородський національний університет». URL: https://app-journal.in.ua/.
Косаревська Р., Левченко О. Цифровізація історичних пам’яток України в контексті архітектури та містобудування: створення віртуальних музеїв та майданчиків. Сучасні проблеми архітектури та містобудування. 2023. Вип. 67. С. 60–71. https://doi.org/10.32347/2077-3455.2023.67.60-71.
Granovetter M. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. 1973. Vol. 78, No. 6. P. 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.
Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology. 1994. Vol. 99, No. 6. P. 1411–1454. https://doi.org/10.1086/230450.
Düring M., Kamp M., Burri-Barabas M. (eds.) Historical Network Research: Theories, Methods and Applications. Leipzig : HNR Press, 2015. 310 p.
Edelstein D., Findlen P., Ceserani G., Winterer C., Coleman N. Historical Research in a Digital Age: Reflections from the Mapping the Republic of Letters Project. The American Historical Review. 2017. № 122. Р. 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/122.2.400.
Buchnea E., Elsahn Z. Historical social network analysis: Advancing new directions for international business research. International Business Review. 2022. Volume 31. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.101990.
Girvan M., Newman M.E.J. Community Structure in Social and Biological Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 2002. Vol. 99, No. 12. P. 7821–7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799.
Padgett J.F., Ansell C.K. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology. 1993. Vol. 98, No. 6. P. 1259–1319. https://doi.org/10.1086/230190.
Siems M.M., Sithigh D.M. Mapping Legal Research. The Cambridge Law Journal. Volume 71, Issue 3, November 2012, P. 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197312000852.
Scott J. Social Network Analysis. 4th ed. London : Sage, 2017. 256 p. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716597.
Borgatti S.P., Mehra A., Brass D.J., Labianca G. Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science. 2009. Vol. 323, No. 5916. P. 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821.
Bell J. Path Dependence and French Administrative Law. In book: Essays in Law and History for David Ibbetson. 2024. P. 239–258. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509970681.ch-017.
Carlson K., Livermore M.A., Rockmore D. A Quantitative Analysis of Writing Style on the U.S. Supreme Court. 93. Washington University Law Review. 2016. 1461. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol93/iss6/6.
Fowler J.H., Jeon S. The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent. Social Networks. 2008. Vol. 30, No. 1. P. 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001.
Mueller L.A., Kugler K.G., Graber A., Emmert-Streib F., Dehmer M. Structural measures for network biology using QuACN. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011. № 12. Р. 492. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-492.
Ruhl J.B., Katz D.M., Bommarito M.J. Harnessing Legal Complexity. Science. 2017. Vol. 355, No. 6332. P. 1377–1378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag3013.
Archambeault J., Bidian C., Evans M. Mapping Knowledge Domains to Better Forecast the Future: Challenges at the National Research Council Canada. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS ActesDu congrès Annuel De l’ACSI. 2016. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais889.
Saunier P.-Y. Transnational History. Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History. London : Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. P. 1047–1055. URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00922207v1/document.
Snijders, Tom A.B. Models for Longitudinal Network Data. Chapter 11 in P. Carrington, J. Scott, and S. Wasserman (Eds.). Models and methods in social network analysis. New York : Cambridge University Press. 2005. P. 215–247. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/siena/cup_ch11.pdf.
Czernek-Marszałek K. Applying mixed methods in social network research – The case of cooperation in a Polish tourist destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2019. Vol. 11. P. 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.10.004.
Jänicke S., Franzini G., Cheema M.F., Scheuermann G. On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities: A Survey and Future Challenges. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 2018. Vol. 33, No. 1. P. 23–46. URL: https://imada.sdu.dk/u/stjaenicke/data/papers/Survey.pdf.
