SNA on either organ trafficking or humanitarian professionalization

I will be taking the 2^nd module of this course.

Right now, I am looking into two possible SNAs: one on organ trafficking networks, and one on humanitarian professional networks. I will be choosing which one to pursue in the coming week, but for now I have laid out some possible approaches for each of them. The humanitarian professional network is more viable at this point, but I’m eager to look into whether the network on organ trafficking could work out. I'll comment on this same post once I can narrow this down a bit next week, but to start:
On organ trafficking:
Background: The sale of organs is illegal in almost all countries today, with the exception of Iran. In combination with persistent poverty and quicker/more affordable transportation, black market trading has filled the shortage of transplantable organs for those who need them. While broad data is difficult to come by, case studies show that the trade is global and that it implicates hospitals and health clinics across the world.
A few weeks ago, I reached out to an organization with a focus on organ trafficking to see if they would be willing to share some of their data. (They responded with a "yes.") Their researchers conduct background data and interviews to compile case studies of organ trafficking incidents. I will rely primarily on their research for this network analysis, supplemented by some quantitative research conducted by Yosuke Shimazono.
Ideally, this SNA would focus on the demand side of the trade: those who seek out organs are likely to be more networked than are victims. But unfortunately – and predictably – data on the demand side is even scarcer than data on the supply side. As such, this SNA would focus on the relationships between victims and victims, victims and brokers, and brokers and brokers.
Nodes = the individuals - victims and brokers
Links = whether one individual “knew” the other (not including victims who come to know other victims after the event). The bar for what constitutes “knowing” is low: for victims-brokers, “knowing” is about whether the broker managed the victim’s organ harvesting; for victims-victims, “knowing” is whether they had met the other before; for brokers-brokers, “knowing” is whether they have collaborated professionally with the other.    
Attributes =

•     How did the victim came into contact with the trafficker? (By newspaper advertisement? Mutual contact? By imprisonment? Other? )

•     Was the organ harvesting a coercive situation, for monetary gain, or for some other transactional benefit?

•     What type of organ was harvested?

•     Was the victim living or deceased at the time of the harvesting?

•     Was the victim an immigrant or native to the city/town where he/she first came into contact with the broker? If an immigrant, where was the city/state/country of origin?

•     Was the recipient already known to the victim? (E.g. in situations where the victim donated the organ to a distant relative for monetary gain.)

•     How far was the victim transported from his/her original site and the site of the surgery?

•     From what town/city/state/country does the broker come?

•     Is the organ broker involved in any other black market trades?

Challenges:

• Making sure this is really a network and not just a set of trafficker-nexuses with victims radiating outward, unconnected by anything.
• Issues of confidentiality – I’ve signed a confidentiality agreement but need to make sure that all measures are taken to ensure the anonymity of all individuals in the analysis – esp. given that I would be applying this toward the capstone.
• Quality + quantity of data – I need to diversify my sources and am limited by the fact that most available info is based on case studies.
• Most of all, I need to talk more with the organization. Ideally, there would be another angle to look at this from aside from victims --- but while info on victims is difficult to attain, info on the demand side is even harder.

On humanitarian professional networks:

For the past two years, I’ve been working as a research assistant at the Feinstein International Center and, since September, at the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR). Both centers have been taking steps toward professionalizing the humanitarian sector: agreeing upon a set of core competencies, planning training programs and qualification measures, integrating national and international disaster response professional standards, etc. These efforts build upon work by The Sphere Project, CBHA, PHAP, ELRHA, and others.
Right now, HPCR is looking at professional networks as a method of disseminating information and best practices across the humanitarian sector. By means of surveying and interviews, HPCR will ask questions such as: from which individuals do you gain the most information on innovations and best practices? Which five individuals do you know to be most concerned with this issue of professionalization? Centrality measures are important here, as the group looks to use the network analysis to organize a group of key actors to the professionalization effort. Attributes include geographic origin, humanitarian agency/organization, and level of leadership. Challenges include: too wide a dispersion of answers to identify key leaders; political limitations of the social network analysis (e.g. geographic, type of profession, leadership level); too low a number of responses to be accurate and not self-selecting (those who are most “in the know” about who is concerned with professionalization may be the best trained – thereby leaving out those on the margins who need training most).