Social network analysis offers much for understanding educational contexts, including inequalities. However, adoption of network methods has not always been accompanied by clear understanding of network theoretical assumptions. With an eye to closing the gap between network methods and theory, literature from three major theoretical perspectives on social networks is reviewed. First, social capital comes from network ties providing access to beneficial outcomes, often material resources. Second, structuralism assumes primacy of network structures, and largely disregards individual agency. Third, at the organizational level, the network form of organization contrasts to hierarchies. Each perspective has conceptual strengths and weaknesses. Critical views are also needed; network research should disrupt inequalities in education.
AllenTDMcManusSERussellJEA (1999) Newcomer socialization and stress: formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior54(3): 453–470. DOI: 10.0.3.238/jvbe.1998.1674
2.
BairJ (2008) Analysing global economic organization: embedded networks and global chains compared. Economy and Society37: 339–364.
3.
BarringerSNTaylorBJSlaughterS (2019) Trustees in turbulent times: external affiliations and stratification among U.S. Research Universities, 1975-2015. The Journal of Higher Education90(6): 884–914. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2019.1574695
4.
BaumannS (2007) Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BearmanPParigiP (2004) Cloning headless frogs and other important matters: conversation topics and network structure. Social Forces83(2): 535–557.
6.
BelleDSmith-DoerrLO’BrienLM (2014) Gendered networks: professional connections of science and engineering faculty. In: DemosVBerheideCWSegalMT (eds). Gender Transformation in the Academy (Advances in Gender Research, Volume 19. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 153–175.
7.
BeunzaDStarkD (2003) The organization of responsiveness: innovation and recovery in the trading rooms of lower Manhattan. Socio-Economic Review1(2): 135–164. DOI: 10.1093/soceco/1.2.135.
8.
BlauPM (1977) A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology83(1): 26–54.
9.
BoltanskiLChiapelloE (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Verso.
10.
BottE (1957) Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock Publications Limited.
11.
BurkhardtMEBrassDJ (1990) Changing patterns or patterns of change: the effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 104–127. DOI: 10.2307/2393552.
12.
BurtRS (1984) Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks6(4): 293–339. . DOI: 10.1016/0378-8733(84)90007-8.
13.
BurtRS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology110(2): 349–399. DOI: 10.1086/421787.
14.
BurtRS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press.
15.
CarleyK (1992) Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science3(1): 20–46.
16.
CarleyKM (2019) Social-Behavioral Simulation: Key Challenges. Social-Behavioral Modeling For Complex Systems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 741–752.
17.
CastellsM (2004) The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
18.
ChaiALeJPLeeAS, et al. (2019) Applying graph theory to examine the dynamics of student discussions in small-group learning. CBE life sciences education18(ar29): ar29. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.18-11-0222.
19.
ChuJSGDavisGF (2016) Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network. American Journal of Sociology122(3): 714–754.
20.
CollinsPH (2002) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
21.
CookKSEmersonRMGillmoreMR, et al. (1983) The distribution of power in exchange networks: theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology89(2): 275–305. DOI: 10.1086/227866.
22.
CraneD (1969) Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Sociological Review34(3): 335–352. DOI: 10.2307/2092499.
23.
DahlinEC (2014) The sociology of innovation: organizational, environmental, and relative perspectives. Sociology Compass8: 671–687.
24.
DavisGF (1991) Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly36(4): 583–613.
25.
DavisGFYooMBakerWE (2003) The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982-2001. Strategic Organization1(3): 301–326. DOI: 10.1177/14761270030013002.
26.
de JanaszSCSullivanSE (2004) Multiple mentoring in academe: developing the professorial network. Journal of Vocational Behavior64(2): 263–283. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2002.07.001.
27.
EmirbayerM (1997) Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology103(2): 281–317. DOI: 10.1086/231209.
FaustKWassermanS (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Hungary: Cambridge University Press.
31.
FeilerDCKleinbaumAM (2015) Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psychological Science26(5): 593–603. DOI: 10.1177/0956797615569580.
32.
FismanRShiJWangY, et al. (2018) Social ties and favoritism in Chinese science. Journal of Political Economy126: 1134. doi: 10.1086/697086.
33.
GardnerH (2008) Five Minds for the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
34.
GaughanMMelkersJWelchE (2018) Differential social network effects on scholarly productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values43(3): 570–599. DOI: 10.1177/0162243917735900.
35.
GouldRV (2002) The origins of status hierarchies: a formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology107(5): 1143–1178. DOI: 10.1086/341744.
GranovetterM (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology91(3): 481–510. DOI: 10.1086/228311.
38.
GulatiRGargiuloM (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology104(5): 1439–1493. DOI: 10.1086/210179.
39.
HamiltonLTNielsenK (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
HamptonKN (2017) Studying the digital: directions and challenges for digital methods. Annual Review of Sociology43: 167–188. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053505.
41.
HamptonKNLeeC-JHerEJ (2011) How new media affords network diversity: direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society13(7): 1031–1049. DOI: 10.1177/1461444810390342.
42.
HillLB (2020) Understanding the impact of a multi-institutional STEM reform network through key boundary-spanning individuals. The Journal of Higher Education91(3): 455–482. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2019.1650581.
43.
IbarraH (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly37(3): 422–447.
44.
IkegamiE (2005) Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KadushinC (2012) Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. Oxford [i pozostałe]: Oxford University Press.
46.
KawaNCMichelangeliJACClarkJL, et al. (2018) The social network of US academic anthropology and its inequalities. American Anthropologist121(1): 14–29. DOI: 10.1111/aman.13158.
47.
KezarA (2014) Higher education change and social networks: a review of research. The Journal of Higher Education85(1): 91–125. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0003.
48.
KezarAJLesterJ (2011) Enhancing Campus Capacity for Leadership. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvqsdvj3.
49.
KrippnerGR (2002) The elusive market: embeddedness and the paradigm of economic sociology. Theory and Society30(6): 775–810. DOI: 10.1023/A:1013330324198.
50.
LawsonTJFuehrerA (1989) The role of social support in moderating the stress that first-year graduate students experience. Education110(2): 186.
51.
LazarsfeldPFMertonRK (1954) Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: BergerMAbelTCharlesH (eds), Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1, pp. 18–66.
52.
LinNCookKSBurtRS (2001) Social Capital: Theory and Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
53.
LincolnJRMillerJ (1979) Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relation networks. Administrative Science Quarterly24(2): 181–199.
54.
LizardoO (2006) How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review71(5): 778–807. DOI: 10.1177/000312240607100504.
55.
MarkNP (2018) Status organizes cooperation: an evolutionary theory of status and social order. American Journal of Sociology123(6): 1601–1634.
56.
MarsdenPV (1987) Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review52(1): 122–131. DOI: 10.2307/2095397.
57.
MayhewBH (1980) Structuralism versus individualism: Part 1, shadowboxing in the dark. Social Forces59(2): 335–375. DOI: 10.2307/2578025.
58.
McPhersonJMRotoloT (1996) Testing a dynamic model of social composition: Diversity and change in voluntary groups. American Sociological Review61(2): 179–202. DOI: 10.2307/2096330.
59.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLBrashearsME (2006) Social isolation in America: changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review71(3): 353–375. DOI: 10.1177/000312240607100301.
60.
McphersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–444.
61.
MizruchiMSStearnsLB (1988) A longitudinal study of the formation of interlocking directorates. Administrative Science Quarterly33(2): 194. DOI: 10.2307/2393055.
62.
MohrmanSATenkasiRVMohrmanAM (2003) The role of networks in fundamental organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science39(3): 301–323. DOI: 10.1177/0021886303258072.
63.
MollenhorstGVolkerBFlapH (2008) Social contexts and core discussion networks: using a choice approach to study similarity in intimate relationships. Social Forces86(3): 937–965.
64.
MoolenaarNMDalyAJSleegersPJC (2010) Occupying the principal position: examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools' innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly46(5): 623–670. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10378689.
65.
MooreG (1988) Women in elite positions: insiders or outsiders?Sociological Forum3(4): 566–585. DOI: 10.1007/BF01115415.
66.
MooreG (1990) Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review55(5): 726.
67.
MullinsNC (1972) The development of a scientific specialty: the phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva10(1): 51–82. www.jstor.org/stable/41822130
68.
NalaniAYoshikawaHCarterPL (2021) Social science-based pathways to reduce social inequality in youth outcomes and opportunities at scale. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World7: 237802312110202. DOI: 10.1177/23780231211020236.
69.
PachuckiMABreigerRL (2010) Cultural holes: beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology36: 205–224. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102615.
70.
PaikASanchagrinK (2013) Social isolation in America: an artifact. American Sociological Review78(3): 339–360. DOI: 10.1177/0003122413482919.
71.
PerrucciRHuH (1995) Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international graduate students. Research in Higher Education36(4): 491–508. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196160.
72.
PodolnyJM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology107(1): 33–60. DOI: 10.1086/323038.
73.
PowellWW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. In: CummingsLLShawB (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 12, pp. 295–336.
74.
PowellWWKoputKWSmith-DoerrL (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly41: 116–145.
75.
RawlingsCMMcFarlandDADahlanderL, et al. (2015) Streams of thought: knowledge flows and intellectual cohesion in a multidisciplinary era. Social Forces93(4): 1687–1722. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24754202
76.
RidgewayCLSmith-LovinL (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology25: 191–216. DOI: 10.0.4.122/annurev.soc.25.1.191.
77.
RogersEM (2010) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.
78.
RomeroM (2017) Reflections on “the department is very male, very white, very old, and very conservative”: the functioning of the hidden curriculum in graduate sociology departments. Social Problems64(2): 212–218. DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spx004.
79.
Rothschild-WhittJ (1979) The collectivist organization: an alternative to rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review44(4): 509–527.
80.
SandefurRLLaumannEO (1998) A paradigm for social capital. Rationality and Society10(4): 481–501. DOI: 10.1177/104346398010004005.
SimmelG (1955) Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliation. New York: Free Press.
83.
SmallML (2009) Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press.
84.
SmallMLSukhuC (2016) Because they were there: access, deliberation, and the mobilization of networks for support. Social Networks47: 73–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.05.002.
85.
SmallML (2017) Someone to Talk to. New York: Oxford University Press.
86.
Smith-DoerrL (2004) Women’s Work: Gender Equality vs. Hierarchy in the Life Sciences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
87.
Smith-DoerrL (2010) Flexible organizations, innovation and gender equality: writing for the US film industry, 1907-27. Industry & Innovation17(1): 5–22.
88.
Smith-DoerrL (2013) Networked organizations. In: SmithV (ed), Sociology of Work: an Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 621–623.
89.
Smith-DoerrLPowellWW (2005) Networks and economic life. In: SmelserNJSwedbergR (eds), Handbook of Economic Sociology. 2nd edition.Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 379–402.
90.
SnowDAZurcherLAEkland-OlsonS (1980) Social networks and social movements: a microstructural approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review45(5): 787–801.
91.
SouleSA (1997) The student divestment movement in the united states and tactical diffusion: the shantytown protest. Social Forces75(3): 855–882.
92.
StarkD (2001) Ambiguous assets for uncertain environments: heterarchy in postsocialist firms. In: DiMaggioP (ed), The Twenty-First-Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, pp. 69–104.
93.
StarkDVedresB (2006) Social times of network spaces: network sequences and foreign investment in hungary. American Journal of Sociology111(5): 1367–1411.
94.
StearnsLBMizruchiMS (2005) Banking and financial markets. In: SmelserNJSwedbergR (eds), Handbook of Economic Sociology. 2nd edition.Princeton University Press, pp. 284–306.
95.
StevensMLGebre-MedhinB (2016) Association, service, market: higher education in american political development. Annual Review of Sociology42: 121–142.
96.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDAvent-HoltDR (2018) Relational inequalities: An organizational approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
97.
TurnerF (2006) From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
98.
UzziB (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42(1): 35–67.
99.
WattsDJ (2003) Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: Norton.
100.
WellmanBHaaseAQWitteJ, et al (2001) Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 436–455. DOI: 10.1177/00027640121957286.
101.
WhiteHC (1970) Chains of Opportunity: System Models of Mobility in Organizations. Harvard University Press.
102.
WootenME (2015) In the Face of Inequality: How Black Colleges Adapt, Albany. NY: State University of New York.
103.
WuchtySJonesBFUzziB (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science316(5827): 1036–1039.
104.
ZuckermanEWKimTYUkanwaK, et al. (2003) Robust identities or nonentities? Typecasting in the feature‐film labor market. American Journal of Sociology108(5): 1018–1073.
