IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v7y1978i2p189-212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cohesion Versus Structural Equivalence as a Basis for Network Subgroups

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald S. Burt

    (University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

Two basic approaches to network analysis are compared in terms of the network subgroups each produces. The relational approach, developing from traditional sociometry, focuses on relations between actors (individuals, groups, or corporations) and aggregates actors connected by cohesive bonds into "cliques." The positional approach focuses on the pattern of relations in which an actor is involved and aggregates actors with similar patterns, i.e., "structurally equivalent" actors, into jointly occupied positions. There are several questions that can be posed for a specific project that might lead an individual to analyze subgroups in terms of cohesion versus structural equivalence. Here, considering a series of such questions, I conclude that subgroups based on structural equivalence are to be preferred to those based on cohesion. Cliques can be analyzed as a special type of jointly occupied network position. Illustration is provided by data on the elite experts in methodological and mathematical sociology circa 1975.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald S. Burt, 1978. "Cohesion Versus Structural Equivalence as a Basis for Network Subgroups," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 7(2), pages 189-212, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:7:y:1978:i:2:p:189-212
    DOI: 10.1177/004912417800700205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/004912417800700205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/004912417800700205?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence Hubert & Frank Baker, 1978. "Evaluating the conformity of sociometric measurements," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(1), pages 31-41, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Siyu & Zhao, Xiande & Huo, Baofeng, 2018. "Supply chain coordination and innovativeness: A social contagion and learning perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 47-61.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence Hubert, 1979. "Matching models in the analysis of cross-classifications," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 21-41, March.
    2. Frank B. Baker & Lawrence J. Hubert, 1981. "The Analysis of Social Interaction Data," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 9(3), pages 339-361, February.
    3. Dawn Iacobucci & Stanley Wasserman, 1990. "Social networks with two sets of actors," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 707-720, December.
    4. Lawrence Hubert, 1979. "Generalized concordance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 135-142, June.
    5. Michael Brusco & Douglas Steinley, 2008. "A Binary Integer Program to Maximize the Agreement Between Partitions," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 25(2), pages 185-193, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:7:y:1978:i:2:p:189-212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.