Social network concept

The social network concept

The theoretical background of the social network concept is that people create their own personal communities to have a helpful framework to solve the problems of daily life. The concept of social network differs from the concept of social class, because a social network reflects the people one knows and feels connected to and thus identifies with. An individual’s social network is the aggregate of relationships contracted with others. These personal contacts are called “interpersonal ties” and consist of varying strengths and types. Because every individual is enmeshed by many of these ties, we can speak of a “web through society”. Social networks are locally-relevant groups. Typical types of ties are those of kin, friendship, work relationship or neighbourhood.

It is important to differentiate between strong and weak ties. Strong ties are direct (or first order) network contacts, i.e. to people ego knows and is linked to via kinship, friendship etc. Weak ties are second order network contacts. A good example for that is a “friend of a friend” whom ego does not know directly, but via his/her friend.

Social networks can be further characterised by… (Note that we are talking in relative terms here.)

1. density: One characteristic of a social network is its density. Networks can be relatively dense or loose, depending on whether the people who are part of ego’s first order network know each other. The more these people do also have ties to each other, the denser this network is. The denser a social network is, the more vernacular norms are maintained.

2. plexity: Another aspect is the plexity of a network. Ego can be connected to one person in more than one way (e.g., they can be workmates and friends). This relationship is called ‘multiplex’ then. The more types of connections between ego and other people exist, the more multiplex ego’s network is.

In ego’s social network we usually find some so-called clusters. Relationships within a cluster have a higher density than those existing externally. Most people’s networks consist of series of clusters (e.g., kinship, occupation and specific group membership). The cluster density is a more important norm enforcement mechanism than overall density because of the individuals’ high identification with this cluster.

In order to compare different people’s networks, it is necessary to count a network score for each one. Network scores are counted in different ways and there still is no common sense what measurement is the most effective one.

Nevertheless, the Milroys use the network strength score. Their networks were measured by each individual’s answer to the questions whether they…

1. were member in a high-density, territorially based cluster

2. had substantial ties of kinship in the neighbourhood (more than one household in addition to their own nuclear family)

3. were working at the same place as at least two others from the same area

4. were working at the same place as at least two others of the same [...] from the area

5. voluntarily spent leisure hours with workmates (only asked if conditions 3 and 4 were fulfilled).

The network strength score was counted by one point for each “yes”-answer and zero points for each “no”, so that the maximum score was 5 points.

This social network concept is limited to continuing relationships and does not consider changing ties of any kind.