Social networks in theory and empirical research
Feld, S (1981) The focused organization of social ties
Simmel described modern society as consisting of loosely connected social circles of
relationships. Granovetter has indicated the general significance of these social circles for
communication, community organization and social conflict.
The theory is based upon the idea that the relevant aspects of the social environment can be
seen as foci around which individuals organize their social relations. A focus is defined as a
social, psychological, legal or physical entity around which joint activities are organized
(workplaces, organizations, families). As a consequence of interaction associated with their
joint activities, individuals whose activities are organized around the same focus will tend to
become interpersonally tied and form a cluster.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL PROCESS OF FOCUSING SOCIAL NETWORKS
In the focus theory approach, a social context can be seen as consisting of a number of
different foci and individuals, where each individual is related to some foci and not to others.
A group’s activities are organized by a particular focus to the extent that two individuals who
share that focus are more likely to share joint activities with each other than two individuals
who do not have that focus in common. The balance theory emphasizes that sentiments
among individuals tend to become consistent with the relations that the individuals have to
other objects. The theory is psychological, the process takes place within the heads of the
actors. In order to understand the patterns that are found in a social network, it is necessary
to investigate:
1. The sociological nature of the foci
2. The distribution of the individual relations to the foci
3. The degree to which the foci organize valued social interaction among the individuals
THE NATURE OF FOCI
Foci tend to produce patterns of ties, but all ties do not arise from foci. The central point of
the focus theory is that no matter what proportion of ties arise from foci, the focused
organization has structural significance. Foci may be many different things, including persons,
places, social positions, activities and groups. They may actively bring people together or
passively constrain them to interact.
VARIATIONS AMONG FOCI
By definition f a focus, it is always the case that two individuals who share a focus are more
likely to share joint activities than two random people. However, all individuals who share a
focus do not necessarily interact with each other very much or very often. A focus may
involve very little constraint, but where there is no constraint at all, there is no focus. Small
foci organize the activities of very few people, while large foci organize the activities of many
people. The structure of a network is dependent upon the constraint and size of the
underlying foci. Highly constraining foci will create close-knit clusters of various sizes
depending upon the size of the foci.
,DEVELOPING NEW FOCI
The structural approach underlying the focus theory suggests that the more severe the
restrictions on time, effort and emotion, the more individuals will experience pressures to
combine their interactions with various members of their network by finding and developing
new foci around which to bring more of them together. This will be facilitated if the foci upon
which the original ties are based are more compatible, that is, involve similar types of
activities and social interactions. The more compatible the foci, the more likely it is that the
individual can find or invent some focus that can organize joint activities.
Balance theorists suggest that psychological tendencies toward consistency lead individuals
to bring members of their network together. Balance theory thus implies that the factors
determining whether direct ties will develop are psychological characteristics of individuals.
The focus theory suggests that the factors determining whether direct ties will develop are
characteristics of the social situation and the compatibility of the foci underlying the indirect
connections.
THE FOCUSED ORGANIZATION AND LOOSELY CONNECTED CLUSTERS
A ‘’simply focused’’ situation is an ideal type in which there are multiple foci, but each
individual is related to a single focus. In this type of situation, interactions and sentiments
tend to be within clusters organized around each focus. Any interactions and sentiments
between individuals associated with different foci are not based upon foci and provide
‘’random’’ links between the clusters.
Any focus is likely to include individuals who are associated with other foci, and thus ties
associated with one focus may serve as links in a chain between individuals associated with
other foci. The number of alternative paths between these other foci will depend upon the
nature of the linking focus. The larger and more constraining the linking focus, the more
alternative paths there will be. Therefore, ‘’loose’’ connections between clusters are expected
wherever a connecting focus is relatively small and/or weakly constraining.
FOCUS THEORY IMPLICATIONS
The tendency for two individuals who are both tied to a third to also be tied to each other is
called a tendency toward transitivity. The focus theory suggests the conditions under which
transitivity should be expected and thereby the conditions under which clusters are formed.
The theory suggests that two individuals who are both tied to a third may share a focus with
the third; and if they share the same focus with the third person, then they share that with
each other and are likely to be tied to each other. In general, each individual who is related to
two or more foci can expect that many of his or her ties will be to others who are not tied to
one another. The main focus theory prediction is that transitivity will be present specifically
where ties are based upon highly constraining shared foci and/or where structural pressures
lead actors to create additional transitivity.
LOCAL BRIDGES
Ties which connect two individuals who do not share ties to other individuals are important for
communication and community organization, such ties are called local bridges. Where there is
perfect transitivity, there can be no local bridges, because transitivity requires that every two
individuals who are tied to each other must also be tied to all of the same other.
,Highly significant bridging ties tend to be ‘’weak’’ ties. The focus theory also implies that ties
involving high degrees of interaction and emotion are likely to be those that encourage the
finding and development of new foci. Many ties are based upon preexisting foci. The more
constraining is an underlying focus, the stronger a tie is likely to be by any of the available
definitions.
DENSITY OF PERSONAL NETWORKS
The density of personal networks is the extent to which the associates of a particular
individual are tied to one another. If there is perfect transitivity, then all of an individual’s
associates know one another and the personal network is completely dense. If every tie to an
associate is a local bridge, then none of the individual’s associates know one another and the
density is zero. If individuals associate with many different foci, then it is unlikely that their
networks will be dense, because the individuals drawn from different foci will be unlikely to
know one another. The number of foci that two people share is sometimes referred to as the
‘’multiplexity’’ of a relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
The focused organization of social ties is important under practically all circumstances and the
nature of the foci will vary in important ways depending upon the values and activities of the
group.
Drouhot, L.G. (2017) Social Networks
INTRODUCTION
Sociologists have long debated how modern changes like urbanization and industrialization
affect community bonds. Barry Wellman’s work on personal support networks shifted the
focus to individual ties, suggesting that modern communities are not disappearing but are
becoming geographically dispersed while still intimate—the “community liberated” model.
However, earlier studies often overlooked how these networks relate to social inequality.
Using data from six countries in the 1986 International Social Survey, the paper examines two
aspects: the geographic spread of support networks and local social involvement (e.g.,
neighborhood friendships). The findings show that higher education is the strongest predictor
of having more dispersed networks and less local involvement, with notable differences across
national contexts. This indicates that while Wellman’s model is partly supported, the
transformation of community is a gradual process influenced by socioeconomic resources and
the broader national environment.
BACKGROUND
The text reviews how modern research has shifted from seeing urban life as fragmenting
community to understanding that people maintain support through “liberated” networks—
loose, geographically dispersed, and specialized ties rather than dense, neighborhood-based
ones. Wellman’s studies, for instance, found that only a small fraction of social support comes
from immediate neighbors, with most help received from contacts spread across different
, areas. The work also shows that higher socioeconomic status (like better education and
income) is linked to broader, less locally focused networks, while lower status groups tend to
have denser, more localized ties. Finally, the review highlights that personal network
structures vary across national contexts due to cultural, economic, and geographic
differences, emphasizing that the formation and function of these networks are deeply
influenced by the surrounding environment.
RESULTS
The study’s regression analyses reveal that education is the strongest, most consistent
predictor of how geographically dispersed personal support networks are, while demographic
variables have little impact and income shows inconsistent effects. In models of distances to
first and second support providers for material, mental, advisory, and marital support, a one‐
unit increase in education is associated with significant percentage increases in distance
(ranging from about 9% to 16%). This indicates that higher-educated individuals maintain
support networks that are spread over larger areas, whereas lower-educated individuals have
networks that are more locally concentrated. The results also show considerable variation by
country—for example, networks in the US, Australia, West Germany, and Austria tend to be
more dispersed than those in Italy and Hungary. In parallel analyses of local social
involvement, higher education is linked to a lower proportion of neighbors among friends and
reduced reliance on multiple local support providers. Robustness checks using alternative
measures (such as different income specifications and years of education) confirm these
findings, reinforcing the conclusion that educational attainment and national context are key
in shaping the geography and local embeddedness of personal support networks.
CONCLUSION
This paper critically tests the "community liberated" theory—which argues that modern
support networks are increasingly spread out rather than rooted in the neighborhood—and
offers one of the most rigorous comparative analyses of personal support networks to date.
Drawing on urban ethnography and previous network research, the authors hypothesize that
informal support systems vary with individuals’ social resources, meaning that factors such as
class and national context influence how geographically dispersed these networks are. Their
findings support Wellman’s overall thesis but reveal that network dispersion is a matter of
degree: higher education is linked to more dispersed networks, especially in countries like
Australia, the US, Austria, and West Germany, whereas Italy and Hungary exhibit tighter, more
localized networks. Although the study discusses potential reasons for these differences, it
acknowledges that the underlying mechanisms—such as the roles of urbanization, economic
structures, welfare institutions, and neoliberal policies—remain unclear, suggesting a need for
further research using larger, multi-level datasets.
Martinovic, B (2009) Changes in immigrants’ social
integration during the stay in the host country
INTRODUCTION
This study examines social integration—defined as the extent of social interaction between
immigrants and natives—as a dynamic process rather than a static state. Social integration is
Feld, S (1981) The focused organization of social ties
Simmel described modern society as consisting of loosely connected social circles of
relationships. Granovetter has indicated the general significance of these social circles for
communication, community organization and social conflict.
The theory is based upon the idea that the relevant aspects of the social environment can be
seen as foci around which individuals organize their social relations. A focus is defined as a
social, psychological, legal or physical entity around which joint activities are organized
(workplaces, organizations, families). As a consequence of interaction associated with their
joint activities, individuals whose activities are organized around the same focus will tend to
become interpersonally tied and form a cluster.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL PROCESS OF FOCUSING SOCIAL NETWORKS
In the focus theory approach, a social context can be seen as consisting of a number of
different foci and individuals, where each individual is related to some foci and not to others.
A group’s activities are organized by a particular focus to the extent that two individuals who
share that focus are more likely to share joint activities with each other than two individuals
who do not have that focus in common. The balance theory emphasizes that sentiments
among individuals tend to become consistent with the relations that the individuals have to
other objects. The theory is psychological, the process takes place within the heads of the
actors. In order to understand the patterns that are found in a social network, it is necessary
to investigate:
1. The sociological nature of the foci
2. The distribution of the individual relations to the foci
3. The degree to which the foci organize valued social interaction among the individuals
THE NATURE OF FOCI
Foci tend to produce patterns of ties, but all ties do not arise from foci. The central point of
the focus theory is that no matter what proportion of ties arise from foci, the focused
organization has structural significance. Foci may be many different things, including persons,
places, social positions, activities and groups. They may actively bring people together or
passively constrain them to interact.
VARIATIONS AMONG FOCI
By definition f a focus, it is always the case that two individuals who share a focus are more
likely to share joint activities than two random people. However, all individuals who share a
focus do not necessarily interact with each other very much or very often. A focus may
involve very little constraint, but where there is no constraint at all, there is no focus. Small
foci organize the activities of very few people, while large foci organize the activities of many
people. The structure of a network is dependent upon the constraint and size of the
underlying foci. Highly constraining foci will create close-knit clusters of various sizes
depending upon the size of the foci.
,DEVELOPING NEW FOCI
The structural approach underlying the focus theory suggests that the more severe the
restrictions on time, effort and emotion, the more individuals will experience pressures to
combine their interactions with various members of their network by finding and developing
new foci around which to bring more of them together. This will be facilitated if the foci upon
which the original ties are based are more compatible, that is, involve similar types of
activities and social interactions. The more compatible the foci, the more likely it is that the
individual can find or invent some focus that can organize joint activities.
Balance theorists suggest that psychological tendencies toward consistency lead individuals
to bring members of their network together. Balance theory thus implies that the factors
determining whether direct ties will develop are psychological characteristics of individuals.
The focus theory suggests that the factors determining whether direct ties will develop are
characteristics of the social situation and the compatibility of the foci underlying the indirect
connections.
THE FOCUSED ORGANIZATION AND LOOSELY CONNECTED CLUSTERS
A ‘’simply focused’’ situation is an ideal type in which there are multiple foci, but each
individual is related to a single focus. In this type of situation, interactions and sentiments
tend to be within clusters organized around each focus. Any interactions and sentiments
between individuals associated with different foci are not based upon foci and provide
‘’random’’ links between the clusters.
Any focus is likely to include individuals who are associated with other foci, and thus ties
associated with one focus may serve as links in a chain between individuals associated with
other foci. The number of alternative paths between these other foci will depend upon the
nature of the linking focus. The larger and more constraining the linking focus, the more
alternative paths there will be. Therefore, ‘’loose’’ connections between clusters are expected
wherever a connecting focus is relatively small and/or weakly constraining.
FOCUS THEORY IMPLICATIONS
The tendency for two individuals who are both tied to a third to also be tied to each other is
called a tendency toward transitivity. The focus theory suggests the conditions under which
transitivity should be expected and thereby the conditions under which clusters are formed.
The theory suggests that two individuals who are both tied to a third may share a focus with
the third; and if they share the same focus with the third person, then they share that with
each other and are likely to be tied to each other. In general, each individual who is related to
two or more foci can expect that many of his or her ties will be to others who are not tied to
one another. The main focus theory prediction is that transitivity will be present specifically
where ties are based upon highly constraining shared foci and/or where structural pressures
lead actors to create additional transitivity.
LOCAL BRIDGES
Ties which connect two individuals who do not share ties to other individuals are important for
communication and community organization, such ties are called local bridges. Where there is
perfect transitivity, there can be no local bridges, because transitivity requires that every two
individuals who are tied to each other must also be tied to all of the same other.
,Highly significant bridging ties tend to be ‘’weak’’ ties. The focus theory also implies that ties
involving high degrees of interaction and emotion are likely to be those that encourage the
finding and development of new foci. Many ties are based upon preexisting foci. The more
constraining is an underlying focus, the stronger a tie is likely to be by any of the available
definitions.
DENSITY OF PERSONAL NETWORKS
The density of personal networks is the extent to which the associates of a particular
individual are tied to one another. If there is perfect transitivity, then all of an individual’s
associates know one another and the personal network is completely dense. If every tie to an
associate is a local bridge, then none of the individual’s associates know one another and the
density is zero. If individuals associate with many different foci, then it is unlikely that their
networks will be dense, because the individuals drawn from different foci will be unlikely to
know one another. The number of foci that two people share is sometimes referred to as the
‘’multiplexity’’ of a relationship.
CONCLUSIONS
The focused organization of social ties is important under practically all circumstances and the
nature of the foci will vary in important ways depending upon the values and activities of the
group.
Drouhot, L.G. (2017) Social Networks
INTRODUCTION
Sociologists have long debated how modern changes like urbanization and industrialization
affect community bonds. Barry Wellman’s work on personal support networks shifted the
focus to individual ties, suggesting that modern communities are not disappearing but are
becoming geographically dispersed while still intimate—the “community liberated” model.
However, earlier studies often overlooked how these networks relate to social inequality.
Using data from six countries in the 1986 International Social Survey, the paper examines two
aspects: the geographic spread of support networks and local social involvement (e.g.,
neighborhood friendships). The findings show that higher education is the strongest predictor
of having more dispersed networks and less local involvement, with notable differences across
national contexts. This indicates that while Wellman’s model is partly supported, the
transformation of community is a gradual process influenced by socioeconomic resources and
the broader national environment.
BACKGROUND
The text reviews how modern research has shifted from seeing urban life as fragmenting
community to understanding that people maintain support through “liberated” networks—
loose, geographically dispersed, and specialized ties rather than dense, neighborhood-based
ones. Wellman’s studies, for instance, found that only a small fraction of social support comes
from immediate neighbors, with most help received from contacts spread across different
, areas. The work also shows that higher socioeconomic status (like better education and
income) is linked to broader, less locally focused networks, while lower status groups tend to
have denser, more localized ties. Finally, the review highlights that personal network
structures vary across national contexts due to cultural, economic, and geographic
differences, emphasizing that the formation and function of these networks are deeply
influenced by the surrounding environment.
RESULTS
The study’s regression analyses reveal that education is the strongest, most consistent
predictor of how geographically dispersed personal support networks are, while demographic
variables have little impact and income shows inconsistent effects. In models of distances to
first and second support providers for material, mental, advisory, and marital support, a one‐
unit increase in education is associated with significant percentage increases in distance
(ranging from about 9% to 16%). This indicates that higher-educated individuals maintain
support networks that are spread over larger areas, whereas lower-educated individuals have
networks that are more locally concentrated. The results also show considerable variation by
country—for example, networks in the US, Australia, West Germany, and Austria tend to be
more dispersed than those in Italy and Hungary. In parallel analyses of local social
involvement, higher education is linked to a lower proportion of neighbors among friends and
reduced reliance on multiple local support providers. Robustness checks using alternative
measures (such as different income specifications and years of education) confirm these
findings, reinforcing the conclusion that educational attainment and national context are key
in shaping the geography and local embeddedness of personal support networks.
CONCLUSION
This paper critically tests the "community liberated" theory—which argues that modern
support networks are increasingly spread out rather than rooted in the neighborhood—and
offers one of the most rigorous comparative analyses of personal support networks to date.
Drawing on urban ethnography and previous network research, the authors hypothesize that
informal support systems vary with individuals’ social resources, meaning that factors such as
class and national context influence how geographically dispersed these networks are. Their
findings support Wellman’s overall thesis but reveal that network dispersion is a matter of
degree: higher education is linked to more dispersed networks, especially in countries like
Australia, the US, Austria, and West Germany, whereas Italy and Hungary exhibit tighter, more
localized networks. Although the study discusses potential reasons for these differences, it
acknowledges that the underlying mechanisms—such as the roles of urbanization, economic
structures, welfare institutions, and neoliberal policies—remain unclear, suggesting a need for
further research using larger, multi-level datasets.
Martinovic, B (2009) Changes in immigrants’ social
integration during the stay in the host country
INTRODUCTION
This study examines social integration—defined as the extent of social interaction between
immigrants and natives—as a dynamic process rather than a static state. Social integration is
