Networks Research Paper

This sample Networks Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Social networks are social relationships between two or more people (known as nodes) who have developed some kind of tie with each other (Wasserman and Faust 1994). “The social network perspective focuses on relationships among social entities; examples include communications among members of a group, economic transactions between corporations, and trade or treaties among nations” (Wasserman and Faust 1994, p. i). People use social networks to  acquire new information,  exchange information,  find jobs, learn about new opportunities, and exchange new ideas, among other purposes. Individuals can acquire social ties in a number of social settings such as jobs, social organizations, religious organizations, political organizations, sports groups, a group of friends, and so on.

Wasserman and Faust (1994, p. 4) argue that  the social network perspective should take into account the following:

  • Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rather than independent, autonomous units.
  • Relational ties (linkages) between actors are channels for transfer or “flow” of resources (either material or nonmaterial).
  • Network models focusing on individuals view the network structural environment as providing opportunities for or constraints on individual action.
  • Network models conceptualize structure (social, economic, political, and so forth) as lasting patterns of relations among actors.

In general, social networks are seen as providing individuals or larger groups or social entities with positive outcomes as a result of the information and social support the individuals  who  belong  to  a  specific social network receive. Those who belong to a social network enjoy the advantages of social capital. The concept of social capital (Loury 1977; Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988) has been used to account for the advantages that network members accrue as a result of their inclusion.

According to the organizational literature, the position of the actors in a network or the network structure in which those ties are embedded would in most cases dictate the extent to which belonging to a social network can provide individuals with new information and opportunities that can help them perform better in society or facilitate their upward socioeconomic mobility. For example, central actors can influence how information gets distributed to other members in the network, referred as network centrality (Wasserman and  Faust 1994).  Also, a key actor could control the  information  that  flows between two independent groups, a situation known in the organizational literature as structural  holes (Burt 2001). Also, network homogeneity or  structural equivalence  (if ties are similar), or network heterogeneity (if ties are different), can influence the kinds of advantages or disadvantages network members might experience as a result of their membership in the network (Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Besides the structure and/or the position in the network, tie strength could also dictate the network’s effectiveness. Mark Granovetter, first in his work The Strength of Weak Ties and later on in his book Getting a Job, revolutionized the organizational literature by introducing the concept of the “strength of weak ties” (Granovetter 1973,

1995). He argues that belonging to an open network and having access to weak ties (or acquaintances) can provide individuals with new valuable information that can help them get better jobs. Even though one might not have a strong relationship with those individuals, they are able to share new knowledge and  important  information  that otherwise would not be available in a closed network with mostly strong ties. Those who belong to closed networks with mostly strong ties are considered to be at a disadvantage given the limited amount of information shared by the members of such networks. Studies on racial segregation  (Massey and  Denton  1993)  have suggested that members of closed networks or cliques have less chance to learn about  new  important  information  and  that  the information  that  flows in  those networks tends  to  be redundant and inefficient.

According to  Granovetter  (1982),  strong ties and closed networks could be advantageous only for those who face risk and high levels of uncertainty. However, studies of entrepreneurial networks among Asian immigrants in the United States have shown that for certain immigrant groups, having access to strong ties in a closed network of highly educated or high status individuals who share high levels of socioeconomic status tend to receive the social support necessary to be successful as new entrepreneurs (Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, and DerMartirosian 1994).

Also, the distinction between kin and nonkin ties is fundamental to the understanding of how social networks operate (Adams 1967; Fischer 1982). While individuals can pick their neighbors, friends, or coworkers, they cannot pick the members of their kin (Wierzbicki 2004). In addition, kin ties are everlasting, while any other kind of ties can be dropped at any time (Wierzbicki 2004). Kin ties can be extremely important because they can provide assistance in times of crises, while any other kind of tie might not.

Neighbors can also be important  ties in social networks depending on the relationship between neighbors. According to Fischer (1982), neighbors tend to be similar in race and socioeconomic status, and the individual has the freedom to develop or avoid strong ties with neighbors. Proximity is the most important factor in ties between neighbors. Such proximity can become important because it allows for social interactions that could be more difficult to achieve with other kinds of ties.

Today, technological advances such as the development of personal computers, Internet access, e-mail, and cell phones has provided advantages and disadvantages to the development of social ties. While individuals can communicate  more  often  through  e-mail and  share more information, physical contact has become less frequent. People who are far from each other, even on the other side of the  planet, can be in  touch  every day through  the Internet,  while those who work together next to  each other can also communicate through the computer, limiting their physical and social contact.

Organizational and management literature also uses social networks as the basis for the distribution of information, which could lead to the spread of ideas and innovations and the development of new enterprises (Coleman, Katz, and Menzel 1957; Burt 1987).

Several topics have been studied using the social network perspective approach, including occupational mobility (Breiger 1981,  1990),  networks of friends in urban cities (Fischer 1982), the world political and economic system (Snyder and Kick 1979), markets (Berkowitz 1988; White 1981), six degrees of separation (Watts 2003), social networks and international migration (Wierzbicki 2004), and the networks of elite Americans and  politicians (Domhoff  1998),  among  many  other. Most people around the world are now aware of the power of social networks and how knowing someone or meeting someone could change one’s future. Advances in technology are helping this task, greatly facilitating communication among actors from any part of the world.


  1. Adams, Bert 1967. Interaction Theory and the Social Network. Sociometry 30: 64–78.
  2. Berkowitz, D. 1988. Markets and Market-Areas: Some Preliminary Formulations. In Social Structures: A Network Approach, eds. B. Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz, 261–303. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bourdieu, P. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press.
  4. Breiger, L. 1981. The Social Class Structure of Occupational Mobility. American Journal of Sociology 87 (3): 578–611.
  5. Breiger, L., ed. 1990. Social Mobility and Social Structure. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Burt, Ronald 1987. Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92 (6): 1287–1335.
  7. Burt, Ronald 2001. Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In Social Capital: Theory and Research, eds. Nan Lin, Karen S. Cook, and Ronald S. Burt, 31–56. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  8. Coleman, James , E. Katz, and H. Menzel. 1957. The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians. Sociometry 20: 253–270.
  1. Coleman, S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.
  2. Domhoff, William. 1998. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000, 3rd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
  1. Fischer, Claude 1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Granovetter, Mar 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.
  3. Granovetter, Mar 1982. The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. In Social Structure and Network Analysis, eds. Peter V. Marsden and Nan Lin, 105–130. London: Sage.
  4. Granovetter, Mar 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago: University  of Chicago Press.
  5. Light, Ivan, Georges Sabagh, Mehdi Bozorgmehr, and Claudia Der-Martir 1994. Beyond the Ethnic Enclave Economy. Social Problems 41: 65–79.
  6. Loury, C. 1977. A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, eds. P. A. Wallace and A. M. LaMond, 153–186. Lexington, MA: Heath.
  7. Massey, Douglas , and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. Snyder, , and E. Kick. 1979. Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth 1955–1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions. American Journal of Sociology 84 (5): 1096–1126.
  9. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine F 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Watts, Duncan 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: Norton.
  11. White, C. 1981. Where Do Markets Come From? American Journal of Sociology 87: 517–547.
  12. Wierzbicki, S 2004. Beyond the Immigrant Enclave: Network Change and Assimilation. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

See also:

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom research paper on any topic and get your high quality paper at affordable price.


Always on-time


100% Confidentiality
Special offer! Get discount 10% for the first order. Promo code: cd1a428655