We need a new model for social network analysis

In spite of the large and growing volume of academic publications using social network analysis, little development has taken place in theorizing about social networks since Burt launched his notion of structural holes. It seems as if the field is locked for new insights, in particular ones that question that concept of structural holes.

I have been attempting a breakthrough, or probably more appropriately: break-in using social integration (SI) model of social constructionist organization theory for some time now. This has led to a number of publications, many co-authored. None of these publications have ‘an alternative model of social networks’ as the main theme, but all contribute to that endeavor. In this more informal LinkedIn article, I would like to try to make a short but comprehensive call for such an alternative, quoting from my publications, in particular Chapter 3 of the textbook Peverelli & Verduyn (2012).

My core problem with mainstream social network models is that all take individuals as nodes. I propose that the nodes should be social groups. Two or more social groups are related, if they share at least one member.

Social network analysis is a highly useful tool for studying the way individuals form alliances to cope with their daily tasks on the micro-level. We can map the interaction between the key persons involved in a graph, representing the social network (note: the graph IS NOT the network, it is a graphic representation of it and is, like all research tools, a construct). We can then add comments on the nature of each relationship between two nodes. The result is a snapshot of who interacts with whom and why/how at the time the data was collected.

However, this method of analysis seems to deviate from the way in which people form networks of relationships in social practice. In social reality, human actors tend to form relationships on the basis of inclusions in particular social groups. For example, a teacher at a certain school is included in the school (type: organization; inclusion was initiated through a process of hiring), but also in the trade of teachers (type: professional field; inclusion which was initiated through a process of education). Being a member of the organization (being a teacher of that school) and belonging to a professional field (being a teacher), although related, have different consequences for that person. The teacher may, for example, develop a conflict with his superiors in the school. As a consequence, he may decide to start looking for a different place of employment. However, his being a teacher will restrict his search to other schools. This person could also decide to look for a different type of job, but this would mean a break with two social inclusions: the current employment and the profession. This would explain why looking for another school would be the more obvious choice, a step easier to take (for a real life example case, see: Peverelli & Song (2010)). We can map this in the follow graph.

Figure 1: N is included in School as a teacher, but also in the Teaching space, because of his profession.

To avoid confusion: figure 1 is not a network of two persons with the same name. It shows the same person in two social inclusions. The graph in fact represents many more actors, like the colleagues of N in School and the other teachers in Teaching, but we know that on the basis of our general knowledge, so we do not include those in the graph, unless those that may play a role in a specific case.

Burt (1992, 2005) has attempted to address the problem of links between groups of people by introducing the concept of structural hole, a gap between tighter networks. In this view, society is imagined as consisting of networks of tightly related individuals that can be linked by brokers, people who have ties within different networks. Although we agree that this was a major step forward, this model is problematic because it still takes individuals as nodes; it puts the broker in the relatively isolated position of linking groups while apparently not belonging to any of them. Xiao and Tsui also highlight this problem (2007: 20), but fail to provide an solution. A more natural solution would be to conceive the role of Burt’s ‘brokers’ as people who are members of multiple social-cognitive groups. This is exactly what the notion of multiple inclusion in the SI model is saying. In other words, without any addition, an SI analysis of any organizing process is automatically simultaneously a social network analysis of that case.

When describing a person’s social relationships, it is not always necessary to know precisely with whom that person is relating. Very often, it suffices to indicate social inclusions. This makes standard social network analysis a less suitable tool for investigating all of an individual’s relationships. In Fig. 1 we do not need to indicate that the School inclusion has more members (other teachers, technical staff, etc.) as this is general knowledge, which is regarded as an important source of information in naturalistic inquiry.

We are not arguing that standard social-network analysis should be replaced by the SI model; rather we are attempting to increase the explanatory power of both by combining them. We could say that the relationships between the members of the School inclusion look more like a standard social network between actors, as indicated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The relationship between the members of the School inclusion can be described using a standard social network

The graphic representation of multiple inclusions introduced here is therefore not posed as an alternative to mainstream social network analysis, but should be regarded as an enrichment. The combined methods can describe any case in any desired degree of detail. We could even compare it with geographical information on a website such as Google Maps, where we would first see the network of inclusions (from a higher, macro perspective), gradually zooming in until we reach the social networks between individual actors, at the street level (the micro-perspective).

The resulting model is a powerful tool that can be used to describe a large variety of complex social relationships between people in a very simple way. To stay with our teacher, suppose that he would opt to switch schools. We could the situation right after the switch in graph 3.

Fig. 3: Teacher N is included in his Current School as a paid teacher. He is also included in his Former School as a former teacher and remains included in the professional field of teaching.

In the classic perception, N is no longer part of the former school, while in reality his influence on the sensemaking within that social group can still be felt. Moreover, when interacting in the Current School, N can, when needed, fall back on ‘how we did things in my former school’, e.g. to solve a problem that is regarded as tough to crack in the framework of sensemaking in his current school. N is the conduit through which part of the sensemaking in the Former School can be introduced to the sensemaking in the Current School. This seems like a more natural way of describing social reality than positioning N as a ‘broker’ bridging a ‘structural hole’.

I am inviting readers to whom this simple statement appeals to join in and further develop this line of research.

Related article

Organizational diversity from a constructionist perspective

References

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peverelli, P & Song L. Jiwen (2010). Extending Network Analysis with Social Inclusions: A Chinese Entrepreneur Building Social Capital, in: Frontiers of Business Research in China.

Peverelli, P.J. & Verduyn, K. (2012). Understanding the Basic Dynamics of Organizing. Delft: Eburon.

Xiao, Z. & Tsui, A.S. (2007). ‘When Brokers May Not Work: The Cultural Contingency of Social Capital in Chinese High-Tech Firms’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 1 – 31.

Other publications in which this model has been used:

Peverelli, P. J. & Song, J. W. (2012). Chinese Entrepreneurship - a Social Capital Approach, Heidelberg: Springer.

In this book we combine the SI network analysis with McAdams Life Story Analysis to investigate the social construction of the entrepreneurial identy of Chinese private entrepreneurs.

Ruelle, O. & Peverelli, P. J. (2017). The discursive construction of identity through interaction on social media in a Chinese NGO, In : Chinese Journal of Communication. 10, 1, p. 12-37.

The raw data fort his study were 7 months of online conversation on the Chinese social network WeChat.

Ma, Y. & Peverelli, P. J. (2019). Strategic decisions in Chinese state-owned enterprises as outcome of the sensemaking of the CEO: the case of COSCO’s emerging involvement in the Port of Piraeus. In : Transnational Corporations Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2019.1578158

The initiation and growth of the configurations in China and Greece supporting COSCO's involvement in Piraeus are reconstructed using the SI model. This paper shows how the investigation that started by focusing on the CEO of COSCO also revealed another key actor on the Greek side by using the network model as proposed above.