Social Network Analysis

Social network refers to the pattern of partnerships that channel social interaction. Social network analysis addresses how such ties are patterned and how these patterns influence ongoing bonds.

Relations have patterns whether those relations are absent or present. This concept is effectively universal, outside of very small groups, because social interaction takes time. As time is scarce, individuals tend to specialize with relatively few interaction partners to the exclusion of nearly all others. Exclusion is more severe for specialized kinds of interactions or bonds and is more prevalent in larger populations. Exclusion engenders texture in networks because gaps ensure that “who is in touch with whom” is variable, not uniform.

Social network can be understood in terms of a metaphor where persons (including corporate persons such as states) are nodes, and relations among persons are lines that link those nodes. The metaphor is highly adaptable since nodes can be any kind of interaction partners, such as firms, congregations, or computers, while relations can variously refer to assorted modes of exchange, interaction, or social bonds. Networks are studied in many disciplines, from computer science to anthropology, by methods ranging from mathematical modeling to ethnographic observation.

The graphic device of a network map has considerable appeal. But to create such a map empirically, it is usually necessary to abstract bonds to a limited number of alternatives—for example, as absent versus present—without distinctions of degree.

Jacob Moreno's sociometry is widely considered to be the pioneering application of the social network idea. Typical studies began with small populations confined by shared circumstances such as a classroom, dormitory floor, or correctional facility. Every individual could be asked about sentiments or attachments toward each of the others. These responses yielded patterns for which labels were devised. Individuals, termed egos, could be isolates with no ties or few ties, while stars had many ties. Multiindividual patterns were also apparent. Some nodes were connected to others by paths of varying [Page 826]numbers of steps while others were disconnected and could not be reached, for example, by gossip. A set of nodes, each of whose members had ties to every other, was termed a clique. In many settings, multiple cliques were apparent, where two or more distinctive subsets were united by a thick knit of bonds, but where bonds were few (or absent) between different cliques and isolates were excluded from all cliques.

Georg Simmel's accounts of how triads differed from dyads sparked interest in how bonds are affected by surrounding bonds. Many roles, such as in-law or referee, are defined by joint relations to a bonded pair. Transactions, between marriage partners or contestants in a match, are influenced by mutual awareness of how third parties might intervene.

Such concerns help motivate studies of ego-centered networks of focal persons and the others to whom they are tied by frequent interactions and/or formal bonds. When different types of ties—such as kinship, coworkers, and friendship—are distinguished, bonds can be classified as single-stranded versus multiplex. Another concern is whether ego's alters (i.e., the others tied to some focal individual) are tied to each other or not. In turn, such patterns are examined as potential determinants of cohesion, individuality, and social support.

...