Social Networks

John Scott, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK; and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Frans N Stokman, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous article by F.N. Stokman, volume 15, pp. 10509–10514, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

This article reviews key ideas in social network analysis methods. Key concepts for describing the connections of individuals
and groups into networks of social relations are introduced and defined. The article identifies the terminology of points and
lines for understanding sociograms and reviews concepts of adjacency, degree, centrality, and forms of cohesion and sub-
rouping. Developments in statistical methodology of hypothesis testing are examined and views of the evolution of social
networks over time are considered. It is argued that social network analysis is to be considered as a methodological approach
rather than a substantive body of theory, although it is shown that there are close links between social networks analysis and
theories of social structure and social capital. It is argued that social network analysis is an essential adjunct to any approach
to relational sociology.

Social network analysis is the study of the patterns of social reciprocated. The direction assigned to the line represents the
relations that comprise social structures, treating these relations likely flow of information or resources between the two
as networks of connections among the individuals and groups participants. These directed lines are often termed ‘arcs.’
that enter into them. While these relations may be formed by Undirected lines are those that represent reciprocated links or
particular individuals, social network analysis is not limited to common memberships, as in the case of two people who meet
microlevel interactions. Individuals form social relations as the as members of the same group or through participation at the
occupants of institutionally defined positions in social orga- same event. Lines can also be distinguished by signs attached to
nizations, and the social relations enter into the constitution of them to indicate the type of relationship. Positive or negative
patterns of macrolevel relations that may equally be treated as signs on directed lines, for example, enable the representation
social networks. A large number of concepts have been devel- of positive and negative relations such as cooperation and
oped to characterize, measure, and compare network structures conflict. The strength of a relation may be represented by
and positions in networks. These include the relative centrality a number, either an actual number (such as the size of
of individuals, groups, and positions within networks; their a shareholding) or a scaled representation of strength. Such
clustering into subgroups; the overall cohesion or density of lines are said to be ‘valued.’
a network; and the centralization of networks around focal This language of points and lines, with directions, signs, and
points. A number of statistical methods have been developed values, provides an intuitive form of representation that can
to estimate their values and to assess the significance of these help in the drawing of simple sociograms. The sociogram,
measures for observed outcomes. largely invented by Jacob Moreno (1934), is a simple visual
There are a number of introductions and overviews of social mapping of the pattern of connections and is most easily
network analysis. A nontechnical introduction is Scott (2013), used in the study of small groups. Indeed, the area of group
and there are a number of introductory surveys (Degenne and dynamics (Cartwright and Zander, 1953) largely developed as
Forsé, 1994; Knoke and Song, 2008; Prell, 2012; Kadushin, a reflection on the consequences of different communication
2012; Scott, 2012). The best advanced text is that of patterns in small groups. An example of this kind of work
Wasserman and Faust (1994). A comprehensive collection of might be Heider’s development of balance theory to study
discussions and applications has been brought together by social influence within groups. Heider represented cognitive
Carrington and Scott (Carrington and Scott, 2011). balance as a signed graph with three points. An individual
under study can have a positive or negative relationship to
another person. Both persons can have a positive or negative
Concepts and Techniques of Network Analysis attitude toward another object (e.g., a third person or
a certain activity). The cognitive system of the individual
In social network analysis, social structures are represented as under study is in balance if and only if all three relationships
patterns of points (or vertices) and lines (or edges). The points are positive or two of them are negative. Harary et al. (1965)
represent individuals, organizations, or positions, while the generalized the idea of balance to a whole social system.
lines represent the relations that connect them. Any type of Developments beyond simple representations in socio-
dyadic relationship can be represented, including communi- grams have involved the use of matrix algebra and graph theory
cation, friendship choices, advice, trust, influence, and ex- (see particularly Harary et al., 1965). Major computational
change relationships. The lines depicting the relationship can possibilities became possible by the representation of a social
be characterized by various attributes. Relations may first be network in a matrix. The rows and columns represent the
described as directed or undirected. A line can be said to be points, and the cells the relationships from the row to the
directed from one point to another, for example, when one column point. In an adjacency matrix, only ones (for
person chooses another as a friend but this choice is not a directed line from the row point to the column point) or

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32101-8 473
474 Social Networks

zeros (no such line) are used. In a signed graph, positive ties are information between other points. Betweenness measures
represented by þ1 and negative ones by 1. In a valued graph, assume that information is mainly transmitted through the
the values of the ties can be given. Graphs with different types shortest paths. A point with a high betweenness might be
of relationships (denoted multigraphs) can be represented by regarded as a key ‘broker’ or intermediary in a network.
stacked matrices. Graph theory is a branch of formal The measures considered so far can all be considered to be
mathematics that has been used in the modeling of networks attributes of particular points within a network, based on their
– or ‘graphs’ – in such diverse areas as electrical networks, relations with others. They are often referred to as measures for
computer networks, and networks of rivers. The use of graph ‘egonets.’ However, it is also possible to consider the global
theory allows the formal properties of large networks to be structure of the network itself and to characterize its overall
explored and summarized in numerical form. The basic pattern. The most important are density, centralization, and
concepts used to describe a pattern of points and lines in graph clustering. Density is the number of distance-one relationships
theory are adjacency, neighborhood, and distance, and these that actually exist relative to the total number that might
can be used to describe more complex relational structures possibly exist. It measures how ‘complete’ a web of connections
(Bonacich and Lu, 2012). may be. Dense networks are more important for control and
Adjacency refers to the simple fact of connection: two con- sanctioning than for information. They also tend to generate
nected points are said to be adjacent to each other. The ‘degree’ a lot of redundant information and so result in many constraints
of a point is the number of other points to which it is adjacent, and are inefficient for creative new solutions (Burt, 1992).
and the neighborhood of a point comprises the set of other Comparing densities of networks of quite different sizes is
points to which it is adjacent. When account is taken of the difficult, as large networks tend to be sparse and the measure
direction assigned to a line, it is possible to distinguish the of density varies directly with the typical neighborhood size
‘indegree’ and the ‘outdegree’ of a point and so to differentiate (which increases much more slowly than the size of the whole
its neighborhood. Points in a network are connected by ‘paths’ network). The centralization of a network is a measure of the
– sequences of lines – of varying length, the number of lines in extent to which its connections coalesce around a small subset
a path. The length of the shortest path indicates the distance of globally central points. In connected networks, high
between two points. Adjacent points are connected by a path centralization corresponds with a high variance of the degrees
comprising a single line and are said to be connected at of the points. Snijders (1981) derived the maximal possible
a distance of one. Indirect links through, for example, values of the variance, given the number of points or the
a common friend are at a distance of two, and so on. The number of points and lines. He also derived the expected
famous research of Stanley Milgram (1967) showed the variance for different null models under the same two
significance of six degrees of separation: the fact that conditions. This makes a good comparison of centralization
randomly chosen people, even if located in different possible in networks of different sizes and densities. The third
continents, are typically connected to each other through global measure is the clustering or segmentation of the
intermediaries by a path of maximally length six. network. A simple summary measure of segmentation is the
These basic concepts allow the construction of measures of number of pairs of points at distance two or higher divided by
the relative centrality of points within a network. Freeman the number of pairs of points at distance three or higher
(1978) associated the many centrality measures with three (Baerveldt and Snijders, 1994). More structural measures,
important centrality dimensions in communication networks. however, employ forms of cluster analysis and subdivision to
These are local centrality, global centrality, and betweenness. identify clusters, cliques, and components within a network.
Local centrality is measured by the degree, the number of Such measures of the social circles within which individuals
points with which a point is directly connected, which is and groups interact provide a picture of the overall shape or
assumed to indicate the communication activity of a point. It landscape of a network. Structurally equivalent points do not
is a measure of how well connected a point is in its local have the same connections, but they do have the same types
environment. In directed networks, centrality in terms of of connections. This kind of analysis has been seen as
outdegree and indegree should usually be distinguished. In identifying typical roles or positions within networks.
friendship choice networks, for example, the number of A large number of other network studies examine the effects
choices received (indegree) generally indicates centrality, of the network structure on the behavior and attributes of the
which may be seen as a measure of likability. In influence network members. In these studies, the network is considered
networks, local centrality may be based on the number of as given and constant, and the ways in which this network
outgoing relationships (outdegree). When the overall influences processes or individuals in the network is examined.
network is considered, rather than its local structure, one is In many of these studies, only relationships of the individuals
dealing with global centrality. This involves the use of under investigation are collected (at most combined with their
distance-based measures to indicate the relative proximity of perception of the relationships among their network
points to other points in the network and the extent to which members). These ego-centered network studies examine the
a point can communicate with other points independently of effects of differences in size and composition of the personal
others. In the literature, various statistical measures on the networks and the multiplexity of an individual’s personal
distances of a point to other points are used to measure this relations (Wellman and Berkowitz, 1997). Examples of effects
dimension of centrality, such as the mean distance to other studied are an individual’s social well-being, social support,
points or the maximal distance to any of the other points. health, labor market position, and career.
Betweenness, or rush, is the third type of centrality and Many of the central properties of social networks studied by
measures how important a point is for the transmission of graph theory have been shown to depend on what have been
 Social Networks 475

called small-world conditions (Watts, 1999, 2003). That is, Evolution and Network Dynamics
they apply when the pattern of connections is such that Mil-
gram’s suggestion of six degrees of separation holds. Funda- Along with the move from descriptive to explanatory concerns,
mentally different processes will be in operation in networks there has been a move from static to dynamic analyses. Existing
where the number of connections is so low that this does not concepts have been largely concerned with the static, cross-
happen or where the connections are so high that almost all sectional features of social networks and fail to grasp the
individuals are closely connected. Thus, a network that changes complexities of social change. Recent work has taken more
incrementally may reach a point at which the pattern of seriously the fact that social networks change over time and
connections changes catastrophically and with radical conse- that these patterns and processes of change must be
quences for the members of the network. explained. Like all social structures, social networks are
The bulk of the measures in social network analysis are produced and reproduced through individual and collective
based on so-called one-mode data. That is, when individuals action, but their structures are generally the unanticipated
are related to each other by common organizational and unintended consequences of these actions. Agent-based
membership, analysis has focused on either the individuals computational models of action (Axelrod, 1997) have been
or the organizations. Recent developments have undertaken particularly useful in understanding this process and in
systematic simultaneous analyses of both individuals and allowing connections to be made with Markov models of
organizations, representing them all as points within the stochastic change.
same network. Measures of centrality, for example, are Holland and Leinhardt (1977) introduced Markov
difficult to conceptualize and understand for two-mode data, processes as the general framework for stochastic models of
but much work is progressing to clarify this. An early usage of network evolution. The basic idea of Markov models is to
two-mode data was block modeling, in which both sets of conceive the social network structure as changing from one
points were simultaneously partitioned into subsets that state into another over time. The parameters that govern the
could be treated as ‘equivalent’ to each other (Everett and process concern the likelihood of transition from one of
Borgatti, 1994). these four states into another. The original Markov models
An important area of development in social network anal- assume that the parameters are stationary over the whole
ysis has been the use of multidimensional scaling, principal process and that the population is homogeneous. Recent
components analysis, and similar techniques to present models have considerably increased the analytic possibilities
graphical visualizations of social networks. These techniques of Markov models by eliminating these strongly limiting
allow a more rigorous extension of the principle of the socio- assumptions and recognizing that change parameters may
gram and embed images of social networks in a multidimen- well be dependent on the stage of network development and
sional space in which distances and directions are depicted as will be different for pairs within and between subgroups
they would be in a geographical map. Thus, distance in this (Leenders, 1996). Snijders powerfully integrated Markov
social space differs from the path distance of graph theory as it models with random utility models to allow a much stronger
takes account of the relative closeness of all points within the link between theory and statistical testing (Snijders, 1996),
network. These developments have led to an impressive range where actors are seen as making and breaking links on the
of visualization techniques, many of which are accessible basis of local knowledge and decision rules that generate
through the Pajek software (de Nooy et al., 2005). General unplanned but structured long-term changes. Many of the
network concepts can be usefully explored through the general issues in this area are considered in Doreian and
UCINET software developed by Freeman, Borgatti, and Stokman (1997).
Everett (http://www.analytictech.com/). One of the most important theoretical topics in social
network analysis concerns the relative importance of selection
and influence processes: do, for example, friends seek and select
Statistical Models for Social Network Analysis friends with similar characteristics or become friends more
similar because of their repeated interactions? As both
Much research in social network analysis has been descriptive networks and characteristics like attitudes change over time, the
and has prompted questions about the significance of the relative importance of the two processes is one of the key
structures described for actual behavioral outcomes. Recent questions social networks researchers seek to answer. Snijders’
developments have produced a range of statistical techniques dynamic approach to network analysis (Snijders, 2011) makes
that can allow the use of social network analysis in explanatory it possible to estimate the relative importance of the two
studies by assessing the statistical significance of the results. processes in designs where we have data at three or more
Standard statistical models are more difficult to apply to time points.
social networks because the relationships between the points
cannot be treated as independent observations. The most
useful alternative to have been developed involves exponential Method or Theory?
random graph models in which observed patterns are
compared with those found in large numbers of random Social network analysis is primarily to be understood as
computer simulations given certain characteristics of the over- a method of analysis and not as a substantive theoretical
all network to assess the probability that the observations are approach. It is, however, more compatible with certain theo-
the result of chance (Wasserman and Pattison, 1996; Snijders retical approaches and can be considered as an essential
et al., 2006; Robins et al., 2007). adjunct of any relational sociology (Emirbayer, 1997). Early
476 Social Networks

arguments emphasized the links between social network folds, where success is related to overlapping memberships in
analysis and exchange theory. different groups rather than isolated positions between groups.
The fact that social networks create conditions for cooper- Functional and cognitive interdependencies differ particu-
ation through information and sanctioning is due to exchange larly between what Granovetter (1973) has termed strong and
processes that create win–win situations (Homans, 1950; Blau, weak ties. Strong ties are valued in themselves. The ties are not
1964). A fruitful and very promising approach is the study of primarily instrumental for the attainment of other goals. Their
the effects of social networks in noncooperative game theory value is based on the other individual as a person and the
(Raub and Weesie, 1990; Flache and Macy, 1996; quality of the relationship with that individual. Family and
Bienenstock and Bonacich, 1992). Network exchange theory friendship ties are typical examples of such relationships.
specifically investigates the effects of network structures on Strong ties tend to be reciprocal, transitive, and clustered.
the choice between alternative exchanges and on exchange Strong ties give a sense of belonging to a group and the
rates (Willer, 1999). Major effects are particularly due to group often has priority above the individual and individual
possibilities for social actors to exclude others. Exchange relationships. Sharing is often based on need and norms tend
network theory illustrates again that effects of network to promote equality (Lindenberg, 1998). Creating negative
structures are context sensitive and cannot be generalized attitudes toward other groups often helps to strengthen the
without taking the context and substance into account. The predominance of the group, which may give strong negative
integration of exchange theory and social networks has also externalities for society as a whole (think of gangs and other
been proved to be very successful in the field of policy criminal organizations). Weak ties are valuable long-term
networks. Most of these models build on Coleman’s social relationships but their value is primarily instrumental, related
exchange model and confine exchanges to influence network to higher ordered goals, goals not primarily located in the
relationships (Laumann et al., 1987). These models make the relationship or individuals themselves. Weak ties tend to be
step from microbehavior to macroeffects explicit and are able less clustered; the group is less dominant and often only
to predict outcomes of decisions, to derive the power of vaguely delineated. Reciprocity based on equity norms prevails.
social actors and the value of decisions. Later models try to
solve a number of remaining theoretical issues (Stokman and
Van den Bos, 1992; Pappi and Henning, 1998). Stokman Conclusion
et al. (2013) give a more general theory of bargaining in
which three fundamental bargaining processes (persuasion, Since the early 1970s, there has been impressive cumulative
logrolling, and enforcement) are related to three types of progress in social network analysis and research. From a rather
social networks (information, exchange, and hierarchical isolated field, strongly oriented to descriptive structural and
power networks). They argue that in any bargaining situation static analysis, social network analysis has grown into a well-
all three are present, but only one is likely to be dominant. embedded field, widely accepted as highly important for
Social network analysis has recently, however, been shown solving central theoretical problems of cooperation and
to be especially fruitful for discussions of social capital. Social coordination. With the growing importance of social
capital gives individuals access to resources of others that can networks in the information society with virtual communities
be exploited for the realization of their goals and so constitutes developing in many segments of society, its importance and
an opportunity structure generated by social relationships (Lin, contributions to theoretical solutions can only grow. Issues of
1982; Coleman, 1990; Burt, 1992). The amount of social scope are challenging. Objects of study will vary from small
capital depends on the amount of these resources, their value group networks to social networks of billions of points. New
for the goal realization of the individual, and the willingness techniques to visualize networks are also challenging. These
of others to mobilize them (Flap, 1999). The value of the allow certain structural characteristics to become visible and
resources for the individual strongly depends on functional the effects of changes on these characteristics to become
interdependence, the willingness of others to mobilize transparent. These developments can be followed by linking
resources for the individual on their perception of the with the international virtual community of the International
interdependence (i.e., the cognitive dependence). Social Network for Social Network Analysis and the links to be
capital emphasizes the relationship between social capital found there (http://www.insna.org/).
and success of actors, whereas Lindenberg and Foss (2011)
change the perspective to success of group production and See also: Action, Theories of Social; Exchange: Social; Rational
derive the conditions for joint production motivation. Choice Theory in Sociology; Social Structure; Status and Role:
Important ideas developed by Putnam (2000) on bridging Structural Aspects.
and bonding capital can be directly modeled in network
terms. Large and dense networks create shared information,
high visibility, and common norms in a community. Burt Bibliography
(1992), on the other hand, stresses the importance of unique
and nonoverlapping relationships for acquiring unique Axelrod, R., 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition
information in organizations, giving individuals a better and Collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
chance to find creative solutions for problems and thus Baerveldt, C., Snijders, T.A.B., 1994. Influences on and from the segmentation of
networks: hypotheses and tests. Social Networks 16, 213–232.
providing them better opportunities for career. Vedres and Bienenstock, E.J., Bonacich, P., 1992. The core as a solution to exclusionary
Stark (2010) disputed Burt’s emphasis on broker positions networks. Social Networks 14, 231–244.
for performance and introduced the concept of structural Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.
 Social Networks 477

Bonacich, P., Lu, P., 2012. Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. Princeton Milgram, S., 1967. The small world problem. Psychology Today 2, 60–67.
University Press, Princeton and Oxford. Moreno, J.L., 1934. Who Shall Survive? Beacon Press, New York.
Burt, R.S., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard Pappi, F.U., Henning, C.H.C.A., 1998. Policy networks: more than a metaphor? Journal
University Press, Cambridge, MA. of Theoretical Politics 10, 553–575.
Carrington, P.C., Scott, J. (Eds.), 2011. Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage, Prell, C., 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology. Sage,
London. London.
Cartwright, D., Zander, A. (Eds.), 1953. Group Dynamics. Tavistock, London. Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu-
Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge. nity. Simon and Schuster, New York.
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., Batagelj, V., 2005. Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Raub, W., Weesie, J., 1990. Reputation and efficiency in social interactions: an
Pajek. Cambridge University Press, New York. example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology 96, 626–654.
Degenne, A., Forsé, M., 1994. Introducing Social Networks. English translation. Sage Robins, G., Snijders, T.A.B., Wang, P., Handcock, M.S., Pattison, P., 2007. Recent
Publications, Beverley Hills, 1999. developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for Social Networks. Social
Doreian, P., Stokman, F.N. (Eds.), 1997. Evolution of Social Networks. Gordon and Networks 29, 192–215.
Breach, Amsterdam. Scott, J., 2012. Social Network Analysis, third ed. Sage, London.
Emirbayer, M., 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Soci- Scott, J., 2013. What Is Social Network Analysis? Bloomsbury, London.
ology 103 (2), 281–317. Snijders, T.A.B., 1981. The degree variance: an index of graph heterogeneity. Social
Everett, M.G., Borgatti, S.P., 1994. Regular equivalence: general theory. Journal of Networks 3, 163–174.
Mathematical Sociology 19, 29–52. Snijders, T.A.B., 1996. Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. Journal
Flache, A., Macy, M.W., 1996. The weakness of strong ties: collective action failure in of Mathematical Sociology 21, 149–172.
highly cohesive groups. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21, 3–28. Snijders, T.A.B., 2011. Network dynamics. In: Carrington, P.C., Scott, J. (Eds.), Sage
Flap, H.D., 1999. Creation and returns of social capital. A new research program. La Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage, London.
Revue Tocqueville 20, 1–22. Snijders, T.A.B., Pattison, P., Robins, G., Handcock, M.S., 2006. New specifications
Freeman, L.C., 1978. Centrality in social networksdconceptual clarification. Social for exponential random graph models. In: Stolzenberg, R.M. (Ed.), Sociological
Networks 1, 215–239. Methodology, vol. 36. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, Stokman, F.N., Van den Bos, J.M.M., 1992. A two-stage model of policy making: with
1360–1380. an empirical test in the U.S. energy policy domain. In: Moore, G., Whitt, J.A. (Eds.),
Harary, F., Norman, R.Z., Cartwright, D., 1965. Structural Models. An Introduction to Research and Society, The Political Consequences of Social Networks, vol. 4. JAI
the Theory of Directed Graphs. Wiley, New York. Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 219–253.
Holland, P.W., Leinhardt, S., 1977. A dynamic model for social networks. Journal of Vedres, B., Stark, D., 2010. Structural folds: generative disruption in overlapping
Mathematical Sociology 5, 5–20. groups. American Journal of Sociology 115, 1150–1190.
Homans, G., 1950. The Human Group. Harcourt Brace, New York. Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis. Methods and Applications.
Kadushin, C., 2012. Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Find- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
ings. Oxford University Press, New York. Wasserman, S., Pattison, P., 1996. Logit models and logistic regressions for social
Knoke, D., Song, Y., 2008. Social Network Analysis, second ed. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA. networks: I. An introduction to Markov random graphs and p*. Psychometrika 60,
Laumann, E.O., Knoke, D., Kim, Y.H., 1987. Event Outcomes. In: Laumann, E.O., 401–426.
Knoke, D. (Eds.), The Organizational State. Social Choice in National Policy Stokman, F.N., Van der Knoop, J, Van Oosten, R.C.H., 2013. Modeling collective
Domains. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. decision making. In: Nee, V., Snijders, T.A.B., Wittek, R (Eds.), Handbook of
Leenders, R.T.A.J., 1996. Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal Rational Choice Social Research. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA,
of Mathematical Sociology 21, 133–148. pp. 151–182.
Lin, N., 1982. Social resources and instrumental action. In: Marsden, P.V., Lin, N. Watts, D., 1999. Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and
(Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis. Sage, London. Randomness. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lindenberg, S., 1998. Solidarity: its microfoundations and marco dependence: Watts, D., 2003. Six Degrees. The Science of a Connected Age. W.W. Norton,
a framing approach. In: Doreian, P., Fararo, T.J. (Eds.), The Problem of Solidarity: New York.
Theories and Models. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, pp. 61–112. Wellman, B., Berkowitz, S.D. (Eds.), 1997. Social Structures: A Network Approach. JAI
Lindenberg, S., Foss, N.J., 2011. Managing joint production motivation: the role of goal- Press, Greenwich, CT.
framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 36, 500–525. Willer, D. (Ed.), 1999. Network Exchange Theory. Praeger, Westport, CT.