SOCIAL NETWORKS
Lecture 1
Readings for today:
Feld: really important!
Höllinger + Martinovic: just illustrations, don’t have to know what is found
Networks: nodes (points/actors) and edges (lines between nodes/ties/relationships between the
nodes)
Networks can represent many things.
For instance: friendship network – nodes: people; - edges: friendships (more on slides)
Our focus: features of social networks (but not exclusively). As sociologists, we tend to pay particular
attention to the context in which interactions take place where do ties emerge? Where are these
networks formed?
The answers on the question: how do social networks emerge? Are:
Focus theory (Feld): who interacts with whom is not a question of preferences but of extra-
individual conditions such as meeting opportunities and foci for contacts. Theory on the supply of
contacts; that is essentially sociological. All those related to a focus tend to form a cluster; loose
connections between clusters are either based on less constraining foci, or not on foci at all.
A focus is defined as a social, psychological, legal, or physical entity around which joint activities
are organized. And individuals whose activities are organized around the same foci will tend to
become interpersonally tied and form a cluster.
So if individuals share the same focus, they tend to become related to each other. And when
individuals are related, they tend to create foci to organize their joint activities.
Thus: networks emerge within foci and across foci that are shared by individuals.
Controlled for focused interaction, similarity on certain attributes may lead to selective
development of ties. However, structural features determine much more where interaction will
arise.
Why is the study of contextual restrictions important?
‘meeting’ comes chronologically before ‘mating’
Opportunities can be manipulated
Without understanding restrictions, individuals’ choices that are structured by these
restrictions cannot be understood.
Yet: in many scientific studies there is more attention for individual preferences (the demand
side of ties).
Characteristics of foci (to what extent foci emerge):
Restrictions, such as: degree of forced interactions/ time spent/ compatibility with other foci
Size
Degree of local boundedness
Degree to which boundaries exist
Foci can also overlap, e.g. if people work in their neighbourhood.
Some foci have restrictions.
Balance theory (Heider/ Granovetter): individuals strive for (cognitive) balance, also in
relationships. A network is balanced if the product of the signs for the relationships is positive.
Therefore: networks have a tendency for closure… Balance theory starts from triads (triadic
closure: if you have 2 actors, then at time the other 2 are going to be related as well), but more
complicated networks are possible (eg 4-cycles). If the relationship between the nodes (actors)
are all positive, then this network is in balance. But also with negative ties (-), there can be
balance (FE: A > B = +, A > C = -, B > C = -). Either all pluses or one plus.
, Focus theory and balance theory give different answers to the question: when does network closure
emerge (or where do new ties form)?
Balance theory: the focal actor strives for cognitive balance
Focus theory: actors become involved in relationships because they share at least one focus
Focus theory can be applied to large networks. Balance theory fits best in the analysis of small
networks (triads).
Focus theory argues for instance that when network members are all in the same focus, and if this
focus is more restrictive, the network members will be more interconnected – balance theory does
not take into account any contextual condition (all networks all the same in that case).
Bridges (rare): sometimes some people form bridges to separate parts of networks.
FE: mother – men > bridge > women – mother: so the men and women can function as a bridge to
connect their mothers.
Local bridges: without the local bridge, the distance between the – now connected – nodes would be
much larger
Social capital (Hanifan): a theory on the creation and returns of relationships. Different forms of
capital are resources for individuals for achieving a good life. These resources are also dimensions of
social stratifications (Max Weber).
Financial capital
Human capital
Symbolic/cultural capital
Modern sociologists in the line of Weber added the term: social capital.
Resources are necessity to guarantee and safeguard living conditions – and, more general, to attain
individual goals. Social resources are 2nd order resources – they consist not of own resources but the
resources of those one knows. Important difference between social capital and other forms of
capital: the rights of ownership of social capital are not by one person, yet by at least two persons.
The value of social capital depends on the value of 2 nd order resources and is related to the costs
which would have been made to achieve the goal via/with other resources.
The theory of social capital is in particular important because it gives networks a ‘meaning’…
Assumption: individuals are the producers of their own well-being and to produce that well being
they employ their social capital.
People invest in relationships with others while taking expected future benefits into account. Social
capital is based largely on alleged reciprocity.
Dimensions/elements of social capital: no matter what kind of help is provided – social capital can be
described in the following dimensions:
The presence of others
Their ability to help
Their willingness to help
The structure of the network, e.g. the particular positions of the focal actor ‘ego’ (“structure is an
asset in its own right”, Ron Burt).
There is no comprehensive encompassing explanation for these country level differences that are in
the paper (Höllinger & Haller). Plausible arguments:
Modernization/technology
Socio-cultural differences
Economy/resources
Political regime/ institutions
More contextual arguments are provided, than arguments on preferences.
Why study social integration?
Lecture 1
Readings for today:
Feld: really important!
Höllinger + Martinovic: just illustrations, don’t have to know what is found
Networks: nodes (points/actors) and edges (lines between nodes/ties/relationships between the
nodes)
Networks can represent many things.
For instance: friendship network – nodes: people; - edges: friendships (more on slides)
Our focus: features of social networks (but not exclusively). As sociologists, we tend to pay particular
attention to the context in which interactions take place where do ties emerge? Where are these
networks formed?
The answers on the question: how do social networks emerge? Are:
Focus theory (Feld): who interacts with whom is not a question of preferences but of extra-
individual conditions such as meeting opportunities and foci for contacts. Theory on the supply of
contacts; that is essentially sociological. All those related to a focus tend to form a cluster; loose
connections between clusters are either based on less constraining foci, or not on foci at all.
A focus is defined as a social, psychological, legal, or physical entity around which joint activities
are organized. And individuals whose activities are organized around the same foci will tend to
become interpersonally tied and form a cluster.
So if individuals share the same focus, they tend to become related to each other. And when
individuals are related, they tend to create foci to organize their joint activities.
Thus: networks emerge within foci and across foci that are shared by individuals.
Controlled for focused interaction, similarity on certain attributes may lead to selective
development of ties. However, structural features determine much more where interaction will
arise.
Why is the study of contextual restrictions important?
‘meeting’ comes chronologically before ‘mating’
Opportunities can be manipulated
Without understanding restrictions, individuals’ choices that are structured by these
restrictions cannot be understood.
Yet: in many scientific studies there is more attention for individual preferences (the demand
side of ties).
Characteristics of foci (to what extent foci emerge):
Restrictions, such as: degree of forced interactions/ time spent/ compatibility with other foci
Size
Degree of local boundedness
Degree to which boundaries exist
Foci can also overlap, e.g. if people work in their neighbourhood.
Some foci have restrictions.
Balance theory (Heider/ Granovetter): individuals strive for (cognitive) balance, also in
relationships. A network is balanced if the product of the signs for the relationships is positive.
Therefore: networks have a tendency for closure… Balance theory starts from triads (triadic
closure: if you have 2 actors, then at time the other 2 are going to be related as well), but more
complicated networks are possible (eg 4-cycles). If the relationship between the nodes (actors)
are all positive, then this network is in balance. But also with negative ties (-), there can be
balance (FE: A > B = +, A > C = -, B > C = -). Either all pluses or one plus.
, Focus theory and balance theory give different answers to the question: when does network closure
emerge (or where do new ties form)?
Balance theory: the focal actor strives for cognitive balance
Focus theory: actors become involved in relationships because they share at least one focus
Focus theory can be applied to large networks. Balance theory fits best in the analysis of small
networks (triads).
Focus theory argues for instance that when network members are all in the same focus, and if this
focus is more restrictive, the network members will be more interconnected – balance theory does
not take into account any contextual condition (all networks all the same in that case).
Bridges (rare): sometimes some people form bridges to separate parts of networks.
FE: mother – men > bridge > women – mother: so the men and women can function as a bridge to
connect their mothers.
Local bridges: without the local bridge, the distance between the – now connected – nodes would be
much larger
Social capital (Hanifan): a theory on the creation and returns of relationships. Different forms of
capital are resources for individuals for achieving a good life. These resources are also dimensions of
social stratifications (Max Weber).
Financial capital
Human capital
Symbolic/cultural capital
Modern sociologists in the line of Weber added the term: social capital.
Resources are necessity to guarantee and safeguard living conditions – and, more general, to attain
individual goals. Social resources are 2nd order resources – they consist not of own resources but the
resources of those one knows. Important difference between social capital and other forms of
capital: the rights of ownership of social capital are not by one person, yet by at least two persons.
The value of social capital depends on the value of 2 nd order resources and is related to the costs
which would have been made to achieve the goal via/with other resources.
The theory of social capital is in particular important because it gives networks a ‘meaning’…
Assumption: individuals are the producers of their own well-being and to produce that well being
they employ their social capital.
People invest in relationships with others while taking expected future benefits into account. Social
capital is based largely on alleged reciprocity.
Dimensions/elements of social capital: no matter what kind of help is provided – social capital can be
described in the following dimensions:
The presence of others
Their ability to help
Their willingness to help
The structure of the network, e.g. the particular positions of the focal actor ‘ego’ (“structure is an
asset in its own right”, Ron Burt).
There is no comprehensive encompassing explanation for these country level differences that are in
the paper (Höllinger & Haller). Plausible arguments:
Modernization/technology
Socio-cultural differences
Economy/resources
Political regime/ institutions
More contextual arguments are provided, than arguments on preferences.
Why study social integration?
