THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING IN TRANSMITTING ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literatures that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Organizational Values
Although that organizational values seem too many people somewhat of a “soft” concept within the field of human resources management Musek Lešnik (2008, p.72) says that it is much more tangible concept than it seems. Kenny (1994) proposed that just like every human community has its own value system, every organization has its own value system. In this context Mesner Andolšek (1995) has established a relationship between individuals’ values and organizational values, where she said that values of organization have grown from values of individuals that have shaped the organizational culture, and since organizational values are one of fundamentals of organizational culture this makes organizational values grow from individual values. Somewhat similar is also the view of Pfeiffer and others (1985) where they see the creation of organizational values as a process of following the philosophy of the company that is embedded in organizational culture. Simmerly (1987, p.15) also agrees that organizational values evolve from organizational culture, in his view organizational values evolve from modes of conduct, communication styles and decision making styles within organization. Svetlik (2004, p. 323) says that organizational values are values that are being pushed forward by the management and have proven itself as a good foundation for development of organization. Same author also says that organizational values are intended to inspire employees with creative energy that will push organization forward towards desired goals. Cingula (1992, pp. 499–500) has also discussed organizational values, he sees organizational values as: “what people within organization think is good for organization, what needs to happen within organization and what might be needed within organization in the future”. Same author also says that due to mentioned above organizational values reflect the mission and strategic goals of the organization.
Discussing organizational values within organization
When defining organizational values within organization Simmerly (1987, p.15) argued that organizational values need to be agreed in a broader circle within organization. Musek Lešnik (2006a) also discussed the advantages of broader consensus on organizational values; he said that organization needs to consider values of individuals that are the members of organization first in order to later find an agreement on common values of organization which consist of these individuals. Seeveres (2000) stresses the importance of good communication when defining organizational values by saying that organizational values directly influence the way how people perform their tasks; thus making poor efforts at discussing organizational values can result in decreasing performance of employees and company. Musek Lešnik (2006b) also argued that the process of discussing organizational values within organization can lead up to conflict, especially between employees and owners; this conflict is almost certainly the result of improper procedures when defining organizational values. According to the same author most common errors in these procedures are: poor timing of discussion, inadequate vision, poor cooperation between management and lower levels of employees, one way communication, lack of transparent demonstration how organizational values should work in practice and lack of recognition of success or punishment of failure.
Importance Of Oranizational Values For Organization
The importance of organizational values for organizations is shown even strongly now in the time of economic uncertainty then even before. Organizations use organizational values to inspire their employees as well as their costumers. Organizational values are often discussed to be a powerful marketing tool, since clear organizational values are positively noted and they encourage potential buyers to buy or use company’s product. It has been established by several authors that organizational values influence organizational structure (Walsh et al. 1981, Kabanoff et al. 1995), organizational culture (Pettigrew, 1979), organizational identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), organizational strategy (Bansal, 2003) thus shaping organizational goals and means to achieve those goals. The importance of organizational values is even more stressed by Musek Lešnik (2006) when he says that organization is just like a human; it makes decisions, does what it thinks its right, has legal limitations on what it can do, has moral limitations, cerates and implements its own rules and beliefs, it advances on the basis of its decisions, creates myths, legends and habits and so on. We can say that organizational values are integrated into personality of a company thus playing a similar role as values do in lives of individuals; directing behavioral patterns, influencing relationships within the organization and influencing how company perceives its costumers, suppliers and competition. When discussing the importance of organizational values for organization it is also important to present how these organizational values influence employee performance. Several authors have discussed this phenomenon; Berkhout and Rowlands (2007) have made a research on personal and organizational values among employees of organizations that specialize in alternative energy sources (solar electricity, wind electricity, smaller hydro-electrical plants, ect.), they have determined, that those organizations that focus their selection procedure on matching personal values with organizational values tend to be significantly more successful in their work because of the fact that employees have a higher level of job satisfaction. Some later studies in the similar conducted by Kaye and Jordan-Evans (2009) have even determined that some individuals even perceive the importance of a good match between organizational and personal values to be more important then the income they get. This clearly shows that people have started to value more how they feel in the organization then how much they get paid for the work they do.
Measuring Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance has taken a new turn in the last couple of decades. Many still believe that only the numbers count, but Bakovnik (2002) argues that the serious problem of this traditional view is in the fact that it only measures past events. In practice organizational performance is still very often thought as profits shown in accounting figures, neglecting the fact that these profits do not show current status, maybe not even the profit from core business which is essential for a long term success and development of the organization. Accounting figures can also mislead sometimes, since they can be adapted into focusing in short term profitability on the basis of saving in areas that are not suppose to be saved upon on a long term. We need to stress that in order to understand the financial situation of the organization we need to understand management’s long term plans for organization, adding to what we said above (Firer, 1999) says that in order to understand performance of the organization we need to understand how all the mechanisms that can add on value within organization. Škerlavay et. al. (2007) stressed that alongside with profit margins and other financial data when considering organizational performance we also must consider also employees, partners and costumers. This is based on findings of Cyert and March (2000) which have presented their organization behavioral theory where they have stated that organization is truly a complex mixture of individuals and groups such as management, employees, owners, ect. but looking only at profits will be like only looking after the interests of one particular participle – owners and that is according to Škerlavay et. al. (2007) just not acceptable.
Concept of Social Network
A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics.
Social networks and the analysis of them is an inherently interdisciplinary academic field which emerged from social psychology, sociology, statistics, and graph theory. Georg Simmel authored early structural theories in sociology emphasizing the dynamics of triads and "web of group affiliations". Jacob Moreno is credited with developing the first sociograms in the 1930s to study interpersonal relationships. These approaches were mathematically formalized in the 1950s and theories and methods of social networks became pervasive in the social and behavioral sciences by the 1980s. Social network analysis is now one of the major paradigms in contemporary sociology, and is also employed in a number of other social and formal sciences. Together with other complex networks, it forms part of the nascent field of network science.
Social networks are visual maps of relationships between individuals. They are vital parts of organizational life as well as important when you are first looking for a job. For example, if you are interested in being hired by Proctor & Gamble, you might call upon your social network—the network of people you know—to find the people who can help you accomplish this task. You might ask your network if they know anyone at Proctor & Gamble. If you did so, the people you’d call on aren’t just your friends and family—they’re part of your informal network. In fact, research finds that 75% to 95% of all jobs are never formally advertised but are filled through such social networks (Hansen, 2008).
Much of the work that gets done in organizations is done through informal networks as well. Networks serve three important functions. First, they deliver private information. Second, they allow individuals to gain access to diverse skills sets. Third, they can help create power.
Organizations can conduct a social network analysis (SNA), a systematic effort to examine the structure of social relationships in a group. Their purpose is to uncover the informal connections between people. SNA dates back to 1934 when Joseph Moreno introduced the tools of sociometry. More recently, the advent of computers has made SNA possible on large networks. In the past decade, SNA has become widely used across fields.
Sociogram: A Simple Social Network
Social Network Analysis and the Quality of Work Interactions
The mapping and measuring of relationships and flows among people, groups, organizations, computers, Web sites, and other actors is called social network analysis (SNA). Each connection, or relationship, between actors is known as a network tie, while each actor, or point on the network, is referred to as a node. Direct ties are those in which a single link spans two actors; indirect ties are where connections exist between actors, but only through other actors (hence, indirect ties).
Example of a Social Network Based on Information Ties
How Managers Can Use Social Networks to Create Value
Reciprocity, Exchange, and Similarity
Across all social networks, performance depends on the degree to which three fundamental principles are accounted for.Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2004). Social networks and organizations. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage. The first is the principle of reciprocity, which simply refers to the degree to which you trade favors with others. With the principle of reciprocity, managers have the ability to get things done by providing services to others in exchange for the services they require. For instance, you are more likely to get assistance with a problem from a colleague at work when you have helped him or her out in the past. Although the quid pro quo may not be immediate, over time managers will receive only in proportion to what they give. Unless the exchanges are roughly equivalent over time, hard feelings or distrust will result. In organizations, few transactions are one-shot deals. Most are ongoing trades of “favors.” Therefore, two outcomes are important: success in achieving the objective and success in improving the relationship such that the next exchange will be more productive.
The second principle is the principle of exchange. Like the reciprocity principle, it refers to “trading favors,” but it is different in this way: the principle of exchange proposes that there may be greater opportunity for trading favors when the actors are different from one another. In fact, according to network theory, “difference” is what makes network ties useful in that such difference increases the likelihood that each party brings a complementary resource to the table. Going back to our example where you sought out assistance from a colleague, you probably needed that assistance because that person brought a different skill set, knowledge, or other resources to bear on the problem. That is, since you were different, the value of exchange was greater.
The third principle is the principle of similarity. Psychologists studying human behavior have observed that relationships, and therefore network ties, tend to develop spontaneously between people with common backgrounds, values, and interests. Similarity, to the extent that your network is composed only of like-minded folks, also makes it more likely that an individual may be dependent on a handful of people with common interests.
Why is it important to understand these three principles? As a manager, you will find your network useful to the extent that you can balance the effects of the three principles. Because of similarity, it is easier to build networks with those with whom you have various things in common, though this similarity makes the network less useful if you need new ideas or other resources not in the current group. A critical mistake is to become overly dependent on one person or on only a few network relationships. Not only can those relationships sour but also the manager’s usefulness to others depends critically on his or her other connections. Those people most likely to be attractive potential protégés, for example, will also be likely to have alternative contacts and sponsors available to them.
Similarity also means that you have to work harder to build strong exchange networks, since their formation is not spontaneous. Most personal networks are highly clustered—that is, your friends are likely to be friends with one another as well. And, if you made those friends by introducing yourself to them, the chances are high that their experiences and perspectives echo your own. Because ideas generated within this type of network circulate among the same people with shared views, a potential winner can wither away and die if no one in the group has what it takes to bring that idea to fruition. But what if someone within that cluster knows someone else who belongs to a whole different group? That connection, formed by an information broker, can expose your idea to a new world, filled with fresh opportunities for success. Diversity makes the difference.
Finally, for reciprocity to work, you have to be willing and able to trade or reciprocate favors, and this means that you might need access to other people or resources outside the current network. For example, you may have to build relationships with other individuals such that you can use them to help you contribute to your existing network ties.
Important Theories For Network And Organizational Studies
Social Capital
Social capital concept has become popular since it first used by the social scientists Bordieu (1983) and Colleman (1988). There are a number of definitions in the literature concerning social capital, but the most recognized version is the concrete and abstract benefits that can be gained through mutual network relations based on familiarity or friendship (Gargulio and Benassi, 2000: 184). Several authors made different definitions about the concept according to their area of interest. Tsai and Ghosal (1998: 464) used the concept to define relational resources that can be useful for the development of individuals in the society; Paxton (1999:89) defined the concept as an approach which is based on the idea of providing resources via social ties between individuals and groups; Bueno, Salmador and Rodriguez (2004:557) interpreted the concept as current and potential benefits that can be gained through network of relationships formed by an individual or a unity; social capital known as the position of an actor in a structure consisting of network relations and explains how some actors become privileged with the help of network ties according to Burt (2005:4). Social capital might be embedded in biggest social groups (countries), organizations and even in the smallest ones like families (Kostova and Roth, 2003: 301). In business life, social capital can sometimes determine a worker’s and a firm’s success. The number of personal ties of an individual and collection of all workers’ social relationships in an organization can be used to obtain required information and to reach critical actors in business life to influence their decisions. Social capital may have various micro and macro level benefits. According to lots of numerous researchers social capital effects professional success, helps individuals during the job search and application process, simplifies transfer of resources between departments in organizations, strengthens the relationships with the suppliers and ensures inter-organizational level learning (Bueno, Salmador and Rodriguez, 2004: 558). This concept forces us to reconsider organizational level performance indicators. Organizations which have broad social networks can gain a great competitive advantage by using social ties to effect external environment for their own benefit. A board member who has strong social ties with the political authorities can create an effect on the legal regulations to the benefit of the organization. Social capital is not an asset owned by the individuals or organizations, it’s a common asset of an organization and its members (Leana and Buren, 1999:540). Recruitment or promotion of individuals who have a broad social network to the managerial positions can increase social capital of the organizations. But, this strategy doesn’t guarantee that the workers show great intention to share their network resources for the organization’s benefit. In the relevant literature, managers are seen as the organizational actors mostly lean on their social ties to conduct their business. Managers not only bring their expertise and experiences to the organizations but also their assets gained through social relations (Gargulio and Benassi, 2000: 183).
Measurement of social capital is an important issue to determine the social strength and information access capacity of an actor into an economy. Social capital can be measured at individual, departmental, organizational level and even in a sector or in an economy. Network methodology gives us tools and items to make a rating between actors in terms of social capital. The number of network ties and strength or importance of those ties for the actor can be an effective measurement item. But, measurement items of social capital may change depending on the theoretical approach regarding the structure of the network. There are three different and competing theoretical considerations that try to explain what type of network formation is the most beneficial one for the focal actor.
Social Embeddedness of Economic Action
The existence of markets driven by social relations indicates a problematic competition structure in markets according to classical and neoclassical economic models, and it is hard to conceptualize such an economic system (Kripner, 2004: 19). These models assume economic actors as independent behaving agents who are making optimized decisions with sufficient information about price (Beckert, 2003: 769). Markets ideally shaped by the actions of the fully informed buyers and sellers who don’t need to have a social connection or relation with each other (Granovetter, 1985: 483). Rational actor assumption was heavily criticized by some of the authors because of being unrealistic. This antisocial viewpoint shaped by the individualistic choices is impoverishing the field of economics and decreasing the relatedness of the discipline with the current economic problems and causes discussions even in most rigid groups (Rodrigues, 2004: 190). Economic action is socially constructed like all other actions and it is impossible to explain it without considering individual motives (Granovetter, 1992). It’s impossible for the actors to behave independently from the societal context and social relations can inevitably effect the economic action (Granovetter, 1985). Economic action is a type of social action and economic institutions are socially constructed according to social embeddedness theory (Swedberg and Granovetter, 1992:6). Polanyi (1992) defines the importance of social ties in economy as, “One of the remarkable findings of the recent historical and anthropological studies has shown that human being’s economic life is embedded in ongoing social ties. Individuals don’t attempt to protect material elements related to his or her self interest, they try to protect their social standing in society” The defenders of rational actor assumption claim that the industrial revolution transformed society and changed the close social ties to arms-length ties transaction relations between parties (Whiteman and Cooper, 2003). But, a group authors (Granovetter, 1992, 1995 and Uzzi, 1996) opposed this idea by stressing that modernization have not changed or minimally changed the effect of social relations on economic action. Social embeddedness as the major concept of new economic sociology shows us a world shaped by the social networks consist of interaction patterns between individuals and organizations. If we assume economic action is socially embedded, this idea will lead us to reinterpret the fundamental concept regarding business life and economy. Demand and supply, transactions between parties, financial decisions and the structure of competition between actors is determined by social networks in the case of high level of embeddedness. Uzzi (1999: 481) states that the possibility of access to the credits and the costs of obtaining these credits highly depend on embedded relations. Thus, an important (central, brokerage) position in a social network provides competitive advantage by increasing opportunity to reach valuable resources (Gnyawali and Madhavan, 2001: 432). When sociologists carried embeddedness argument to organizational level analysis; they showed the social structures have an effect on economic outcomes like fixation of prices, elimination of small firms and flow of information regarding to production installation standards for production (Rao, Dawis and Ward, 2000: 268). In general, social embeddedness approach assumes economic actors are embedded in social relations and cooperative networks with varying degrees (Uzzi, 2004: 320). Despite originality of the idea, some aspects of social embeddedness approach have been found insufficient by some authors to bring a concrete explanation. The concept of embeddedness is quite useful to explain why do the neoclassical models fail, but it can’t clearly explain how social ties affect economic outcomes (Uzzi, 1999: 483). Embeddedness idea is not an alternative for the rational actor model according to Beckert (2003: 768). Uzzi (1999: 483) emphasizes the insufficiency of theoretical and empirical studies to demonstrate the benefits of embedded relationships for the economic actors.
Three Approaches to Evaluate Effectiveness of Different Network Formations
Strength of Strong Ties
The traditional approach related to social capital defends that close social ties (Coleman, 1988) can lead to production of common social norms and harmony which ease constitution of trust and trade relationships between parties (Gargulio and Benassi, 2000: 184). Trust is a prerequisite to form a bridge between unconnected parts in a social system because, parties who have trust based relations may have a higher chance to guess other’s behavior (Burt, 2005: 95,97,99). Strong ties between parties can transfer large amount of information if it’s compared with arm’s length ties according to Podolny (2001: 24). More intense and long lasting relationship networks provide advantage to the actors according to comprehensive research results conducted by network researchers (Dore, 1983 and Uzzi, 1996). The high level of social interaction for a long period of time between parties is required to strengthen the relationship; business connections of the past will guarantee future collaborations (Burt, 2005: 1011). Strong ties may emerge between employees working in the same department, sharing the same office environment or people having same educational background in the organizations. If we assume socially intense relations are more beneficial for the actors, people will attempt to form strong ties with the others in the organizations. This behavior of employees may cause emergence of closed network groups in organizations. The number of strong ties with the powerful actors and others in the organization can be defined as social capital of the focal actor. In this case network researchers not only calculate the number of ties of the focal actor to the others, but also the weight of those relationships according to social intensiveness.
Strength of Weak Ties
Granovetter (1973) found that people mostly prefer their weak ties instead of strong ties for the job search and application process in his impressive study. Weak ties which are rare and non-social ties can transfer technical and professional knowledge more effectively (Granovetter, 1983: 205). Uzzi (1999: 483) defined those kinds of relationships as the rare and weak transactions interactions operating without any kind of social closeness (Uzzi, 1999: 483). Individuals who have numerous weak ties have an advantage over the others to access information and to reach the critical actors from remote parts of the social system. Intense relationships inside a social network may prevent the flow of information between groups or industries and may restrict information flow and sharing inside the group (Burt, 2005: 15). According to Burt (1992: 26) weak ties undertake an integrative role in the society by establishing ties between unconnected social sets.
Individuals who have less intensive but a large number of ties in and outside the boundaries of their organization can gain access to various kinds of actors in business life. The amount of network ties instead of weight of the ongoing relationships of an individual or an organization becomes important to determine level of benefit from networks. Network research efforts have to focus on degree of centrality of an employee or an organization in a social network. It is quite easy to have many arms-length relationships in a short amount of time. But, the formation of trust based strong ties requires long time than weak ties.
Strength of Brokerage Roles in the Social Networks
Structural holes theory (Burt, 1992) focuses on the position of the actors in the social networks instead of the characteristics of their ties. A structural hole is a state of not connected parts in a network. If there is a social connection between A and B, A and C but not between B and C; the situation between B and C is a structural hole. The structural hole between B and C gives A a brokerage role between B and C. Numerous structural holes in a social network create brokerage opportunities and the actors who undertake these roles can control information flow between unconnected sides according to Burt, (1992). Organizations which connect the structural holes by their management and cooperation networks function as bridges in their field can learn faster and can be more creative in production than the others (Burt, 2004: 357). Burt (2005: 23) defines three benefits of building bridges over structural holes: (1) Ability to access alternative visions and applications. (2) Early access to new ideas and thoughts in the social system. (3) Transfer of information to the groups if there is an advantage to be gained. Network centrality is not an item which shows power of an actor in a social network according to structural holes theory. It is also not related to the hierarchical status of an actor in an organization. Any kind of position (clerical or secretarial) in organizations can naturally give an individual a chance of being a broker in the system. But, people’s awareness of their positional power depends on their perceptions and experiences (Burt, 2005: 23).
Burt (1992: 27) indicates that structural holes emerge in two different ways in the representation of a sample network. Imagine that you have a relation with the actors in two different network groups. First structural hole emerges between the members of two groups and your group members. Your group members and the members of the other two groups depend on you to access the others. Other structural hole emerges between two unconnected groups. You have a brokerage function between the other two groups because you have a relation with two actors who are members of two different groups. Structural holes theory shows the importance of a position in a network in terms of social capital. A broker can be a centre of information by connecting different network sets with a few connections. Thus, strong brokers in organizations, in a sector or in an economy can gain considerable advantage over the others. Sözen (2007) found that, some of the big and very well known organizations in the technology intensive sectors in Turkey are hiring strong brokers to transfer technical know-how. Structure holes theory changes the focus of network research toward finding the actors who occupy brokerage positions in social networks. Actors who fill structural holes with a few connections can be more powerful than the actors who are in central position in a network. There are similarities between strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973) and structural holes theory (Burt, 1992) but, the major difference is the emergence of brokerage roles through weak or strong ties.
Main Contributions: Principles Underlying The Social Network Perspective
There is no single network “theory”; in fact, Knoke (1990) sees this as unlikely and even inappropriate. The network approach is considered by most, who use it as more of a perspective or frame that can be used to develop specific theories. Yet sociologists share, across studies, basic principles that often underlie much research using a network frame and guide the development of specific investigations and analyses.3 1. Social actors, whether individuals, organizations, or nations, shape their everyday lives through consultation, information and resource sharing, suggestion, support, and nagging from others (White et al. 1976). Network interactions influence beliefs and attitudes as well as behavior, action, and outcomes. 2. Individuals are neither puppets of the social structure nor purely rational, calculating individuals. Individuals are “sociosyncratic,” both acting and reacting to the social networks in their environment (Elder 1998a, 1998b; Pescosolido 1992). They are, however, always seen as interdependent rather than independent (Wasserman and Faust 1994). Some theorists (e.g., Coleman 1990) see networks in the purposive action, rational actor tradition, but this represents only one view that can be subsumed within a network perspective (Pescosolido 1992). 3. Important but often daunting and abstract influences such as “society,” “institution,” “culture,” the “community,” and the “system” can be understood by looking to the set of social interactions that occur within them (Tilly 1984). Networks set a context within groups, formal organizations, and institutions for those who work in or are served by them, which, in turn, affects what people do, how they feel, and what happens to them (Wright 1997). 4. Three characteristics of social networks are distinct—structure, content, and function. Structure targets the architectural aspect of network ties (e.g., size, density, or types of relationships). Content taps what flows across the network ties. They are “channels for transfers of material or non-material resources” (Wasserman and Faust 1994). That is, attitudes and opinions, as well as more tangible experiences and collective memory, are held within networks (Emirbayer and Goodwin 1994; Erikson 1996; Stryker 1980). Finally, networks serve a variety of functions, including emotional support, instrumental aid, appraisal, and monitoring (Pearlin and Aneshensel 1986). 5. Network influence requires the consideration of interactions among these three aspects. Structural elements (e.g., size) of a network may tap the amount of potential influence that can be exerted by the network (i.e., the “push”). However, only the content of the network can provide an indication of the direction of that influence (i.e., the “trajectory”). For example, large networks can influence individuals on the Upper West Side of Manhattan to seek out medical professionals (Kadushin 1966) while keeping individuals in Puerto Rico out of the medical system (Pescosolido, Wright, et al. 1998). The intersection of the structure and content of social networks together calibrates whether and how much individuals will be pushed toward or away from doctors and alternative healers or even rely only on family for assistance (Freidson 1970; Pescosolido 1991). 6. Networks may be in sync or in conflict with one another. Different contexts can circumscribe different sets of networks (Simmel 1955). Family, peer, and official school-based networks, for example, may reinforce messages or clash in priorities for teenagers. The level of discordance in the “culture” of networks and the interface of social circles may be critical to understanding the behavior of social actors (Pescosolido, Wright, and Sullivan 1995). They may also be different from the perspective of interacting parties in ways that provide insight into social action and outcomes (Pescosolido and Wright 2002). 7. Social interactions can be positive or negative, helpful or harmful. They can integrate individuals into a community and, just as powerfully, place stringent isolating regulations on behavior. The little research that has explored negative ties in people’s lives has found them to have powerful effects (Berkman 1986; Pagel, Erdly, and Becker 1987). Portes (1998), Rumbaut (1977), and Waldinger (1995) all document how tight social interactions within ethnic groups lead to restricted job opportunities for those inside and outside of the ethnic networks. 8. “More” is not necessarily better with regard to social ties. As Durkheim (1951) pointed out, too much oversight (regulation) or support (integration) can be stifling and repressive (Pescosolido 1994). Further, “strong” ties are not necessarily optimal because “weak” ties often act as a bridge to different information and resources (Granovetter 1982), and holes in network structures (Burt 1980) provide opportunities that can be exploited. The focus on social support, and now social capital, may have obfuscated the focus on the “dark” aspects of social networks (see below). 9. Networks across all levels are dynamic, not static, structures and processes.4 The ability to form and maintain social ties may be just as important as their state at one point in time. There may be changes in the structure of networks or changes in membership. In fact, early work on this topic suggests that turnover rates may hover around 50%, while the structure (e.g., size) tends to remain stable (Perry 2005a). As Moody, McFarland, and Bender-deMoll (2005) note, “An apparently static network pattern emerges through a set of temporal interactions” (p. 1209). Further, the underlying reasons for changing networks may mark important insights into the influence of networks (Perry 2005a; Pescosolido and Wright 2004; Suitor, Wellman, and Morgan 1996; Wellman, Wong, Tindall, and Nazer 1996). This focus represents some of the newest work in sociology and some of the greatest theoretical, methodological, and analytical challenges (Bearman, Moody, and Stovel 2004; Snijders 1998). In fact, Carrington et al. (2005) refer to the analysis of social networks over time as the “Holy Grail” of network research. New analytical methods and visualization approaches are becoming available to see how social networks look and trace how they change (Bearman et al. 2004; Freeman 2004). 10. A network perspective allows for, and even calls for, multimethod approaches. Jinnett, Coulter, and Koegel (2002) conclude that quantitative research is powerful in documenting the effects of social networks but only when accompanied by qualitative research that describes why they operate and look the way they do. There is no standard way to chart network relationships—they may be derived from a list on a survey where individuals are asked to name people they trust, admire, or dislike or with whom they share information. Alternatively, the information may come from observing the behavior of individuals (e.g., who they talk to in their work group; Homans 1951, 1961). Network information can be collected through archival sources such as citation records (Hargens 2000) or by documenting the behavior of organizations or countries (e.g., trade agreements; Alderson and Beckfield 2004). Even simulated data can be and have been used to examine network processes (Cederman 2005; Eguiluz et al. 2005; Moss and Edmonds 2005).5 In sum, deciding which kinds of social networks are of interest, how to elicit the ties, and how to track their dynamics remain critical issues (Berkman 1986; House, Robbins, and Metzner 1982; Leik and Chalkey 1996; O’Reilly 1998; Suitor et al. 1996; Wellman et al. 1996). 11. Sociodemographic characteristics are potential factors shaping the boundaries of social networks but provide, at best, poor measures of social interaction (Collins 1988; Morgan, Patrick, and Charlton 1984; White et al. 1976). Originally, networks were circumscribed by the place where people lived and their customs (Fischer 1982; Pescosolido and Rubin 2000; Simmel 1955; Wellman 1982). But a process of “disembedding” (Giddens 1990) from local places has been replaced by a “re-embedding” at the global level. While we may continue to see gross differences in, for example, the number of network ties by these “actor attributes” (Monge and Contractor 2003) or “composition variables” (Wasserman and Faust 1994), these static characteristics only indirectly tap the real underlying social forces at work—the content, structure, and function of social interactions. Used in combination with social network factors, these characteristics offer two possibilities. First, complicated issues—for example, that men tend to report more networks but that women’s networks are more intimate (Campbell and Rosenfeld 1985; Moore 1992)—can now be more readily examined with analytical techniques (Carrington et al. 2005; Freeman 2004; Koehly and Pattison 2005). Second, networks may operate differently for different groups. That is, considered as potential interactive factors, rather than simply shaping ones, attribute variables may provide insights into how social network processes create different pathways of beliefs and behaviors for social actors. 12. Individuals form ties under contextual constraints and interact given social psychological and neurological capacities. Thus, social networks exist in a multilevel environment. Some of these levels (e.g., organizations) may also be conceptualized in network terms. For example, an individual’s network ties within the religious sphere exist within geographic areas that themselves have a structure of religious network types and a more general social capital profile (e.g., areas where the religion is dominant or in a minority; Pescosolido 1990). Such a view leads to additional research questions about whether network structures operate in the same way in different contexts (Pescosolido 1994). Similarly, other factors (e.g., laws) may set structural conditions on relationships (e.g., within organizational or business organization fields). Further, individuals’ social networks are not divorced from the body and the physical/mental capacities that individuals bring to them (Leventhal, Leventhal, and Contrada 1997; Orlinsky and Howard 1987; Rosenfield and Wenzel 1997). As Fremont and Bird (2000) report, when social interactions are the source of social stress, the impact appears to be more devastating in magnitude (see also Perry 2005b). Social psychological characteristics (e.g., self-reliance) may also influence the effect of network ties. Biological challenges may lie at the heart of dramatic changes in individuals’ social network systems both for those affected directly and for caregivers (Dozier 1993; Dozier, Cue, and Barnett 1994; Lysaker et al. 1994; Rosenfield and Wenzel 1997; Suitor and Pillemer 2002). It has long been known that children with physiological or neurological deficits have difficulties in establishing social relationships (Perry 2005b). Sociologists know that these early social relationships affect adult educational outcomes (Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 2005). Networks may also affect biology. In trying to understand why social networks matter—for example, in cardiac health—researchers have linked constellations of social networks to biological processes (e.g., plasma fibrinogen levels; Helminen et al. 1997). Furthermore, social support has been shown to influence the phenotypic expression of genetic predispositions (Caspi et al. 2002).
Network Basics
Even with some agreement on network foundations, a myriad of concepts and approaches confront the network approach with the necessity of clarifying terms (see also Monge and Contractor 2003). The most frequently referenced terms are briefly described below. This is neither an exhaustive nor a technical lexicon of network terminology; rather, the goal is to provide an orientation to network language and its basic variants.
• Node, social atom, actor: These terms refer to the central “units” that have networks. Social actors often refer to individuals; however, actors may also be families (Padgett and Ansell 1993), organizations (Galaskiewicz 1985), nations (Alderson and Beckfield 2004; Snyder and Kick 1979), or any other entity that can form or maintain formal (e.g., legal, economic) or informal (friendship, gossip) relationships (Figure 20.1: A, B, D through F represented as circles are “actors”).
• Ties, links, relationships, edges: The network connections between and among actors are referred to as ties. Ties can be directed (sent or received) or not directed (joint organizational memberships). In Figure 20.1, a tie is sent from B to D (out-degree); D receives a tie from E (in-degree). A and B send and receive ties to each other. Double-headed arrows indicate “mutual,” “bidirectional,” “symmetrical,” or “reciprocal” ties. They may map the existence of a relationship or have an intensity (ties in Figure 20.1 are lines 1 through 6). The two-actor connectors are dyads; three-actor connections are triads.
• Subgroups: When the focus is on some subset of actors and their linkages, the search is for subgroups.
• Sociogram: This is a picture of the relationships among members in a social network (Figure 20.1).
• Sociomatrix/adjacency matrix: Network ties can also be recorded and depicted as a set of numbers in a square table that consists of rows (recording ties sent) and columns (ties received) (see Figure 20.2). • Type of tie: Networks can depict or illustrate different kinds of relationships called “types.” For example, Padgett and Ansell’s (1993) study of a Florentine family included both marriage and business ties.
• Sociometric star: In a social network, an actor(s) receiving a relatively high degree or number of ties is considered to be a “star.”
• Isolate: An ego or node receiving no ties is an isolate
• Network path: Paths are determined by tracing ties to determine the number of degrees of separation between two actors. If two actors are directly connected, the value of the path is 1. The path value between E and A is 3 since E can be connected to A by tracing the path from E to C, C to B, and B to A.
• Size: In a network, the number of social actors constitutes the network size. In ego-based networks, size refers to the number of ties listed for each social actor (e.g., How many confidants do you have?).
• Density: The “tightness” or “connectedness” of ties among actors in a network is calculated by the proportion of ties existing in a network divided by the possible number of ties that could be sent and received. Density answers the question of how well all the members of a network are connected to one another .
• Content/function: Both describe the meaning or nature of the tie.
Strength: This is a measure of intensity or potency of a tie. It may indicate frequency (e.g., how many trading agreements countries share), closeness (How close do you feel to X?), or another relevant quality that offers a value to the tie or defines a name generator (How many close business associates do you have in this firm?).Multiplexity: When ties are based on more than one relationship, entail more than one type of social activity or social role, or serve more than one purpose, they are thought to be multiplex, “many stranded,” or “multipurpose” (Barnes 1972). Multiplex ties tend to be more durable and deeper than those based on only one connection (Holschuh and Segal 2002; Morin and Seidman 1986; Tolsdorf 1976).Instrumental support: Ties that offer practical resources or assistance are said to deliver instrumental support.
Emotional support: Ties that provide love, caring, and nurturing offer emotional support (Thoits 1995).
Appraisal: This targets network assistance in evaluating a problem or a source of aid (Pearlin and Aneshensel 1986).
Monitoring: When network ties watch, discipline, or regulate the behavior of other social actors, the monitoring function is fulfilled (Pearlin and Aneshensel 1986).
• Latent versus activated ties: Latent ties represent the number, structure, or resources of those ties on which actors expect to rely on a regular basis (Knoke 1990; Who can you rely on generally?). Activated ties represent a list of those persons, organizations, and so on that actors actually contacted in the face of a specific problem or task (e.g., Who did you consult?).
• Network “holes”/network “bridges”: Holes refers to places in a network structure where social actors are unconnected (Burt 1992, 2001). These holes afford opportunities to build bridges where social actors can connect different subgroups or cliques, bringing new information to each (Granovetter 1982).
• Binary/valued data: These terms differentiate between the reporting of whether a tie exists or not and reporting ties where there is some sort of assessment (How close are you to X? Rate from 1 to 4).
• Diffusion: This type of network analysis focuses on the flow of information through a network—for example, why some social actors adopt a new idea and others do not (Deffuant, Huet, and Amblard 2005; Valente 2005).