QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO SOCIAL REALITY: THE SEARCH FOR MEANING CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO NETWORK STUDIES

Qualitative Approachesi

Betina Hollstein

In: John Scott & Peter J. Carrington (Eds.): Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis.

London/New Delhi: Sage (forthcoming).

INTRODUCTION

QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO SOCIAL REALITY: THE SEARCH FOR MEANING

CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO NETWORK STUDIES

Exploration of networks Network practices Network orientations and assessments How networks matter Understanding network dynamics Validation of network data, field access

QUALITATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

Data collection Observations; Interviews; Documents, archival data

Data analysis Thick descriptions, developing typologies; Developing models and theories; The surplus of

mixed-methods

2

INTRODUCTION

From the outset, network research has made use of qualitative data, less structured approaches

to data collection, and interpretive methods in describing and analyzing social networks. In the

1950s and 1960s, British social anthropologists conducted ethnographic community studies on

class structures in small Norwegian island parishes (Barnes, 1954), networks in Central African

towns (Mitchell 1969), and also personal networks in their own country (Bott, 1957).

Roethlisberger and Dickson’s (1939) seminal study of the Western Electric Company, a

pathbreaking contribution to organization research, adopted an explorative, interpretive, and

inductive approach geared toward openness and responsiveness for what was happening in the

work teams under study. Besides experiments, they mostly relied on participant observation at

the workplace and non-directive interviewing. The concepts developed in these studies became

important points of reference in network research, for instance, density (Mitchell, 1969), cliques

and clusters (Barnes, 1969), or the distinction between formal and informal organization

(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939).

The potential benefits of a qualitative approach in network research, however, are not just

limited to the opportunities for exploring and developing new concepts. Qualitative approaches

to data collection and analysis are powerful tools, which can enrich the study of social networks

in substantial ways. Among other things, qualitative research methods offer special tools for

addressing challenges faced in network research, namely to explicate the problem of agency,

linkages between network structure and network actors, as well as questions relating to the

constitution and dynamics of social networks. The most fruitful results are achieved when

qualitative methods, more standardized methods used to describe network structures as well as

quantitative methods are employed in concert.

The following chapter gives an overview of qualitative approaches and methods used in

studying social networks. It gives a systematic account of the contributions of qualitative

methods to social network research, illustrating them with empirical studies from a variety of

research fields.

First, however, we must determine more precisely what we mean when speaking of qualitative

research and qualitative data.

3

QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO SOCIAL REALITY: THE SEARCH FOR

MEANING

When we speak of qualitative methods, we are referring to a heterogeneous research landscape,

which due to this variety is difficult to comprehensively account for. Among them are different

forms of observation, interviewing techniques with low levels of standardization (such as open-

ended, unstructured interviews, partially or semi-structured interviews, guided or narrative

interviews), and the collection of documents or archival data. At the same time, a host of

methods are used for analysis, which rest on various theoretical assumptions and

methodological positions. Among them are symbolic interactionism, sociology of knowledge,

phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and constructivism to name but a few major approaches.

Yet, in spite of their differences, those approaches all share some common ground, as advocates

of the ‘interpretive paradigm’ agree on certain ideas about the nature of social reality (Hollstein

and Ullrich, 2003). First, social reality is not simply given but constructed. Recall the well-

known Thomas theorem, ‘If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.’

Second, social reality is shaped by social meaning. Social reality is always a meaningful reality

and, by representing meaning, refers to a context of action in which actors (deliberately)

organize action. Third, social reality always depends on a certain point of view or perspective

and is therefore tied to social location. And last, since social reality is negotiated, it is always

dynamic: social reality is a process. In these aspects, one can recognize a common basis of such

different methodological positions as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, or

phenomenologyii.

Interpretive approaches view these aspects of social reality to be of such key importance that

they make up an area of social research in its own right also requiring an appropriate

methodology of its own. Defining feature of qualitative methods is the pivotal role assigned the

understanding of meaning (Sinn-Verstehen). Qualitative research aims to systematically

reconstruct such meaning or, in other words, involves what in German has been coined a

methodically controlled understanding of the other. Qualitative approaches emphasize that

making sense of action and meaning (verbal utterances are also speech acts) always involves

understanding the other. In this respect, they adopt a stance akin to everyday communication,

which also fundamentally relies on interpretation and understanding (first-order constructs) and

in this regard is not categorically different from the process of understanding as applied by the

researcher (second-order constructs). As opposed to the objects of research, however, the

researcher has the privilege of being in a position to reflect upon and reconstruct the situation

without facing demands to act and being forced to do so under the time constraints imposed by

the situation. Differences between qualitative approaches emerge depending on the conception

of ‘meaning’ one adopts and/or and the kind of ‘meaning’ that is supposed to be analyzed. For

4

example, phenomenology is concerned with actors’ subjective perspectives. In contrast,

objective hermeneutics aims at reconstructing latent (unconscious) meaning and the inner logic

of interaction systems (Oevermann et al., 1979; cf. Titscher et al., 2000). Finally, ethno-

methodology is not interested in the thematic content of meaning (instead it focuses on the

‘how’ of action, actors’ sense-making practices, and the formal rules of communication).

Given the objective of understanding meaning, the two most important aspects for analysis can

be derived: First of all, if something has a ‘meaning’, it is understood that such meaning does

not exist apart from a context, i.e. from a specific frame of reference. That is the basic idea of

contextuality: one can only understand the meaning of an action and/or an act of expression

with reference to the context of this action or expression. For example, in a biographical

interview the frame of reference (context) would be the entire life history. Second, an approach

along the lines of a methodically controlled understanding of the other demands the researcher

be open to the subject matter and acknowledge that any previous understanding of the topic in

question is only preliminary: That which is not yet recognized, cannot yet be defined. This does

not suggest handling preconceptions about the subject matter in a naïve fashion, for instance by

simply denying their existence. Rather, an explorative and inductive approach systematically

geared toward maintaining openness must start with an explication of one’s own preconceptions

and commonsense knowledge on the matter of concern. This should occur while at the same

time remaining responsive to the new and unexpected – i.e. open towards the object of research

(Hopf, 1979).

Certain methodological principles for data collection and analysis follow from the objective of

understanding meaningiii. Open procedures are required in collecting data (i.e., in particular, less

structured interviews and observation methods or use of documents already available), and data

analysis calls for use of interpretive methods. Applying openness in data collection, above all

else, means to design the instrument employed for this purpose in a way that it can cover as

broad a data stream as possible. We must take care not to exclude certain data beforehand by

the design of our research instruments (i.e. by phrasing questions in very general terms, thus

avoiding suggestive questions, and allowing interviewees to elaborate their own frame of

relevance and symbol systems when giving answers). The context of meaning should thus be

allowed to unfold in as undistorted a form as possible. Accordingly, any act of expression (be it

action, a verbal utterance, or a written text) that allows inferences about the context of action,

system of meaning, and frame of reference related to the instance of expression in question is

considered qualitative data.

Overall, as one zeros in on the object of research, a qualitative approach does so in an open

mindset and gradually, inductive and by way of iteration. There are different ways to ensure

5

validity and methodically control the fact that researchers are bound by their perspective. For

example, theoretical sampling and comparative analyses, like in grounded theory (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967), interpretation and discussion of the material in groups of researchers, as well as

the explication and representation of the steps of analyses. Of course, such a stepwise, gradual

approach to the subject matter does not allow raising claims of representativity. Instead, when

making statements that go beyond the sample, detailed theoretical justification has to be

provided on the basis of the concrete results and procedure. This implies careful consideration

of the selectivity of the cases investigated as well as the sampling criteria applied.

The discussion so far has sought to argue the case that qualitative methods are especially well-

suited for certain kinds of research questions and objects of research (Hopf, 1979). In formal

respect, new or marginal phenomena fall into this category, or phenomena that have not yet

been studied. In terms of content, we must distinguish between interpretations, relevances, and

complex interpretation systems as well as between structured social entities and interaction

systems. The latter comprise loose systems of interaction (such as conversations or

consultations), group and clique relationships, as well as industrial, state, and other types of

organizations (ibid.).

CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALITATIVE APPROACHES TO NETWORK STUDIES

Now that we have determined the nature of qualitative methodology let us turn to possible

applications in network research. There are essentially six areas most suitable for qualitative

research: exploration of networks, network practices, network orientations and assessments,

network effects, network dynamics, and the validation of network data. These are the areas

where a qualitative approach can hence be expected to yield the most promising results. They

will be exemplified drawing on empirical case studies from different fields of network research.

Exploration of networks

First of all, there is the classical field for applying qualitative procedures: issues that one knows

little about because they are either entirely new or have yet to be studied. In such cases,

qualitative studies are employed to explore new or yet unexplored forms of networks,

integration patterns, and network practices, which are then followed up by quantitative,

hypotheses-testing forms of investigation at a later time. This can involve exploring egocentric

networks of certain people or groups of people, for instance, networks of ‘corner boys’ in slums

(Whyte, 1955), networks of migrants (Wong and Salaff, 1998; Schütze, 2006), or junior

researchers commuting between continents in pursuit of their academic careers (Scheibelhofer,

forthcoming). Networks of organizations can be the objects of such exploration as well, for

6

instance, the effectiveness of community mental health networks (Provan and Milward, 1995)

or the networks in which firms are embedded (Uzzi, 1997). Finally, entire networks are also

explored: networks in small villages (Barnes 1954), in towns (Mitchell 1969), social

movements (Broadbent, 2003; Mische, 2003; 2008), or transnational issue networks, their

actors, their knowledge practices, and networking activities (Riles, 2000).

In many cases, such exploration is only the first – preparatory – stage leading up to the main

study, which then follows a quantitative design, for instance, when policy networks or networks

of research collaborators are initially assessed for important topics, events, actors, and types of

collaboration (Franke and Wald, 2006; Baumgarten and Lahusen, 2006). The methods of choice

in those cases are typically document research and expert interviews. Thorough preliminary

studies of a qualitative nature and pretests are in order especially in quantitative, standardized

research on entire networks. Since such studies typically require expending huge efforts on data

collection, detailed knowledge of the field under study is an important precondition for research

to yield rich results (Baumgarten and Lahusen, 2006).

Network practices

The concrete acts, practices, interactions, and communication patterns in light of the respective

contexts in which they occur – thus what actors actually do and how they network are another

field of application for qualitative approaches. What kinds of exchange patterns characterize the

network ties of immigrants (Menjivar, 2000; Dominguez and Watkins, 2003) or the ties

between entrepreneurial firms (Uzzi, 1997)? What do cooperation and interaction patterns in

innovation networks (Franke and Wald, 2006; Gluesing et al., forthcoming) look like? What

cultural practices are involved in the ‘art of networking’ among the nobility during the time of

the Italian Renaissance (McLean, 1998), or what are the main conversational mechanisms in

Brazilian youth organizations (Mische, 2003, 2008)?

In investigating network practices, traditional social anthropological methods are most valuable.

The methods used are mostly observation techniques and in-depth interviewing, for instance,

for the study of class structures in small Norwegian island parishes (Barnes, 1954) or in

investigating gossip in Central African social networks (Epstein, 1969). The Chicago School

and the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies applied ethnographic

approaches in research on their own society, especially in studies on the cultural practices of

fringe groups and subcultures, for instance, as in William Foote Whyte’s (1955) classic study of

the Street Corner Society in an Italian slum. Furthermore, ethnographic approaches, observation

techniques, and open-ended interviews are also used in research on collaboration and

innovation networks, new patterns of work, newly emerging roles, and new meaning within

global networking organizations (Gluesing et al., forthcoming). Ethnographic research also

7

played a key role in observing the modes of discourse, communication patterns, and

conversational dynamics that Ann Mische, an advocate of relational sociology, studied in

Brazilian social movements (2003, 2008).

Sometimes documents are the main source of information in uncovering cultural practices of

networking: for instance, in his study on the art of networking in Italian Renaissance, Paul

McLean (1998) analyzed several hundreds of private letters through which Florentines sought

favors from one another. Based on an interactionist approach to the presentation of self and

political culture, he analyzed the strategies reflected in these writings that members of this

society employed in constructing network ties with patrons and in building their own careers.

‘Network work’ can also be approached by reconstructing types of actors. This, for example, is

how Engelbrecht (2006) examined the dynamics of knowledge in religious networks in a

phenomenological analysis. Based on in-depth interviews with key members of religious

communities, he differentiates two forms of contact (bridges) among religious networks, the

type he coins ‘diplomat’ and the type referred to as ‘traveler’. While the diplomat mainly acts

as a mediator, translator, and innovator in the dialogue of the religions, the traveler is

characterized by spiritual learning that transcends the traditional demarcation lines drawn by

religious groups and traditions.

Network orientations and assessments

Qualitative procedures are particularly suitable for collecting data on actor interpretations,

individual systems of relevance, and orientations of action. This aspect gains relevance in

network research concerned with actors’ perceptions and assessments of the relationships and

networks of which they are a part. Research falling into this category may address, for instance,

how people locate themselves in their social networks, people’s sense of belonging, or feelings

of loneliness, as in studies on patterns of integration and network strategies of migrants (Wong

and Salaff, 1998; Schütze, 2006), commuters (Scheibelhofer, forthcoming), members of social

movements (Höfer et al., 2006), or the elderly (Schütze and Lang, 1996; Hollstein, 2002).

These studies are preoccupied with individual perceptions, meanings, orientations, and

strategies involved in personal networks. Sometimes only certain relationships are subjected to

qualitative analysis, for instance, different meanings of friendship (Pahl and Spencer, 2004).

Other studies specifically examine certain aspects of relationships, for instance, which ties play

a role in parenthood decisions (Keim et al., forthcoming), the significance of emotional

closeness (Hollstein, 2002), or what people mean when they state in the US General Social

Survey that they consult others in ‘important matters’ (Bearman and Parigi, 2004). Individual

perceptions and assessments, however, not only play a role in personal, egocentric networks but

also in networks within and between organizations. Research concerned with the functioning

and evaluation of research and innovation networks (Franke and Wald, 2006) or the assessment

8

of the effectiveness of mental health systems (Provan and Milward, 1995) belongs in this

category. In these cases, the respondents are approached as experts of their field of action. Their

perception of their environment (context of action) is shaped by their specific social position.

They define problems and objectives, assign relevance, and pursue strategies accordingly.

Typically, unstructured or semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions are used for

data collection, allowing interviewees to freely respond in accordance with their own systems

of relevance to the greatest possible extent. Of course, perceptions, systems of relevance, and

attributions of meaning can also be assessed employing standardized methods of data collection

and formal methods of analysis (Krackhardt, 1987; Carley, 1984, 1997). Nevertheless, an open,

inductive approach is in order in any research of a more exploratory nature as well as in cases

where individual meanings or systems of relevance can be expected to vary considerable among

respondents or where there is reason to suspect considerable disparity between respondents’

perspectives and the system of relevance assumed by the researcher (Hollstein, 2001; Franke

and Wald, 2006).

Whereas the previous uses are primarily of a descriptive nature, qualitative approaches can also

be of explanatory value: they can help to uncover how networks actually matter (i.e. the effects

of networks) and how networks evolve and change over time. Here, open, less structured

procedures of data collection and interpretive approaches in data analysis are in order in cases

where we expect context and actor strategies to play a crucial role in determining network

impact or network composition and network dynamics (Provan and Milward, 1995; Mische,

2003; Franke and Wald, 2006).

How networks matter

Qualitative approaches not only give insight into how networks work (i.e. the practices of

networking). They can also contribute to a better understanding of how networks matter and –

in combination with quantitative approaches – of what mechanisms and conditions figure in in

producing certain network outcomes. Sandra Susan Smith (2005), for instance, examined job-

finding assistance and strategies of activating social capital among the black urban poor. The

in-depth interviews show that people who have job-relevant information and some leverage in

this respect are very reluctant to provide job-finding assistance for the time and emotional

energy it involves and, in some cases, the risk it may pose to one’s own reputation. Other

research has employed qualitative interviews and participant observation in the study of

assistance practices among poor immigrants (Menjivar, 2000; Dominguez and Watkins, 2003),

the impact of personal networks on decisions to emigrate (Wong and Salaff, 1998) and on

decisions affecting fertility (Bernardi, 2003; Bernardi et al., 2007), as well as for the analysis of

connections between network position and conversion (Smilde, 2005). Qualitative interviewing

9

and participant observation is also used in organization research, for instance, to account for

success or failure of research or innovation networks (Franke and Wald, 2006) or to identify

conditions for the effectiveness of mental health systems (Provan and Milward, 1995). The

members of organizations are considered as experts on the networks of which they are part.

Accordingly, they are interviewed about their perceptions and assessments of problems (e.g.,

why cooperation between research teams failed) and about specific contexts and strategies of

action (e.g. framework conditions and patterns of interpretation in the fields of nanotechnology,

astrophysics, and microeconomics; Franke and Wald, 2006). Drawing on ethnographic

fieldwork in entrepreneurial firms, Brian Uzzi (1997) identifies characteristics of embedded

interfirm relationships (trust, fine-grained information transfer, and joint problem-solving

arrangements) and explicates the mechanisms by which embeddedness shapes organizational

and economic outcomes. It is worth noting that the studies that go beyond thick descriptions

(Geertz, 1973) to explain the impact of networks in terms of Verstehen are always comparative

studies. Generalization of findings and the formulation of theoretical models that are grounded

in data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) are achieved by systematically comparing cases and taking

different contexts of action into consideration (e.g. Provan and Milward, 1995; Franke and

Wald, 2006), as well as by careful analysis of (on first glance) contradictory observations (e.g.

Provan and Milward, 1995; Mische, 2003).

Understanding network dynamics

Apart from the question of how networks function, issues related to the formative conditions,

dynamic processes, and change of networks pose the greatest theoretical and methodological

challenges for network research (cf. Jansen, 1999; Snijders, this volume). This concerns not

only fluctuation or change in networks over time but also fluctuation and change in networks in

physical space (e.g. migrant networks). Qualitative social research provides unique means for

understanding (in the sense of Verstehen) network change: Since so far little is still known

about the emergence and change of networks, qualitative research frequently serves for

purposes of network exploration. Actor orientations and strategies are a first source of

important insights into network formation and change. However, since network dynamics

always involve at least two actors, analysis of concrete interaction and network practices are a

key to understanding the dynamic side of network development. For example, Uzzi’s (1997) in-

depth interviews with managers of entrepreneurial firms reveal how embedded ties are formed.

Embedded ties are distinct from so-called arm’s-length ties in that the former are defined by

special bonds of trust entailing specific competitive advantages. Embedded ties are products of

third-party referral networks and already existing personal networks; in forging such ties, so-

called go-betweens (persons acting as links between previously unconnected actors) play an

important mediating role (ibid.). In cases where research on network dynamics also seeks to

understand connections between network orientations and actual network changes, longitudinal

10

data on concrete networks, changes in those networks, actor orientations, and shifts in such

orientations are most suited. The studies on migrant acculturation by Menjivar (2000) and

Schütze (2006) or on socialization and social integration of young adults by Bidart and

Cacciuttolo (forthcoming) are examples for such research. An interpretive analysis of network

change can also be based on document analysis, as in Crossley’s study (2008) of the changing

music scene in Manchester. If the inquiry is concerned with the influence of concrete social

interaction and actor practices on network dynamics, observation over lengthy periods of time

can be expected to deliver the best data basis for this purpose. Gluesing et al.’s study

(forthcoming) on innovation networks in global teams or Ann Mische’s study (2003; 2008) on

Brazilian youth movements are cases in point. Based on participant observation and semi-

structured interviews, Mische reconstructs different conversational mechanisms (identity

qualifying, temporal cuing, generality shifting, and multiple targeting), each of which have a

different impact on network building and network mobilization depending on institutional

setting (ibid.).

Validation of network data, field access

Besides the applications just mentioned, it can be worthwhile to complement data from

standardized surveys with qualitative data even in studies that rely exclusively on the formal

procedures of social network analysis in analyzing network data. There are several advantages

in doing so. First of all, combining data in this way can serve as a strategy of validating network

data. For instance, in their study of network effectiveness of community mental health systems,

Provan and Milward (1995) employed three qualitative strategies to enhance validity of the data

and validity of the results: in-depth meetings with members of the organizations in focus to

review questionnaire items and responses to ensure that respondents were interpreting them as

the researcher had intended; follow-up by telephone and additional interviewing to collect

missing data and to check data that appeared to be inaccurate after comparing questionnaire

responses with field notes; and, finally, after data were initially analyzed, to discuss findings

with organization members (‘reality check’) to ensure that major conclusions were consistent

with members’ understandings of system operations (ibid.). Second, a systematic, standardized

survey to identify alteri and the content of relationships, designed to enable comparison,

involves considerable time and effort (Marsden, this volume). For this reason, standardized

studies on whole networks mostly limit themselves to assessing but a few contact and

relationship variables and only ask about more general relationship patterns. Thus, in research

on heterogeneous groups of actors (such as in policy networks) or multiplex relationships, use

of open-ended, less structured methods of collecting data on certain aspects of network

structures can prove to be more effective than sole reliance on standardized procedures. In such

cases, open-ended questions aiming at respondents’ systems of relevance and meaning may be

more appropriate for capturing the multidimensional nature of these networks (Baumgarten and

11

Lahusen, 2006; Franke and Wald, 2006). Third, the ‘soft’ approach employed in qualitative

interviewing sometimes may be the best (or only) way of obtaining information from certain

populations. The advantage of less structured interviews is that in contrast to standardized

questionnaires they to a greater extent resemble ‘normal communication’. Moreover, they can

easily be adapted to the respective interviewee and the demands of the situation at hand. This

can be crucial for being able to obtain network information from some populations at all, for

instance, because they are greatly pressed for time (e.g. politicians), their activities are illegal

(mafia, drug addicts), or they are in danger (e.g. human rights activists under authoritarian

regimes). Network data involve sensitive and sometimes even delicate data. This is more likely

to be the case when such data concerns not only ego’s networks but also relationships among

alteri.

QUALITATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

As demonstrated above, research on social networks uses different kinds of qualitative data and

a range of different modes of data collection: observation techniques, various forms of

interviewing and open-ended questions, as well as collecting all kinds of documents and

archival material. Different interpretive methods are used in data analysis. Theoretical and

methodological points of reference are symbolic interactionism (Fine and Klineman, 1983;

Lazega, 1997; McLean, 1998) and pragmatism (Franke and Wald, 2006), relational sociology

(Mische, 2008), phenomenology, sociology of knowledge (Engelbrecht, 2006), and actor-

network theory (cf. Mützel, forthcoming; Knox et al., 2006). Since the qualitative methods

employed for data collection and data analysis in network research are essentially the same as

the methodology otherwise used in qualitative social research, the following section will be

limited to providing a cursory overview of qualitative research strategies as they are put to use

in social network analysis. For details on individual methods, the reader may consult the

respective literature (e.g. Miles and Huberman, 1984; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Bryman and

Burgess, 1999; Bernard 1994; 2000).

Data Collection

Several aspects need to be considered in choosing the method of data collection. First of all, it

needs to be clarified what aspects of social relations will be studied and how relations and

networks are to be theoretically conceptualized (Marsden, 1990). A key question in this respect

is whether the research will be concerned with actually existing relations (e.g. network

practices) or with actors’ perceptions of such relations (e.g. network orientations and

assessments). This distinction is consequential, inter alia, for issues concerning network effects:

12

‘Accurate knowledge of actually existing ties is arguably important to the study, for example, of

certain diffusion processes (…) while perceived ties might be more appropriate for studying

social influence on attitudes or opinions’ (Marsden, 1990: 437). The focus can also be directed

at concrete interaction between actors when network dynamics are being studied. Besides, such

an approach also lends itself to research aimed at describing strategies and network orientations

at the level of individual actors (e.g. McLean, 1998). The decision to use observation data or to

rely on actor self reports (in interviews or in written ego documents) will depend on whether

actual behavior or strategies of action and perceptions of relations are at the center of attention.

Explorative research often adopts a holistic, ethnographic approach marked by utmost

openness toward its subject matter and aimed at achieving an as comprehensive as possible

understanding of the phenomenon in question. Here, as much data as possible is collected from

multiple sources to shed light on the phenomenon from different angles: observation data,

documents, interviews, diaries, and questionnaires. Some network studies begin with an

exploratory phase in which all available data is compiled and significant actors, relationships,

and modes of communication are identified. This is especially pertinent in studies concerned

with whole networks in order to be able to determine network boundaries (cf. Marsden, 2005),

which is a particularly challenging task in the case of flux networks, such as social movements

(Diani and McAdam, 2003) or transnational NGO networks (Riles, 2000). Initially approaching

the field in this holistic, ethnographic manner is generally useful when network research is

concerned with unfamiliar social worlds (e.g. other cultures) that the researcher has to first

become acquainted with, for instance, in case of organizations (Provan and Milward, 1995;

Uzzi, 1997; Gluesing et al., forthcoming), migrant communities (Menjivar, 2000; Dominguez

and Watkins, 2003), or comparative cultural analyses (Lonkila and Salmi, 2005). Furthermore,

such a multi-source approach, drawing on different types and sources of data (e.g. combining

participant observation and interviewing), represents a strategy for validating data (e.g. Provan

and Milward, 1995; Uzzi, 1997; Gluesing et al., forthcoming).

Of course, the choice of method also involves pragmatic considerations, particularly concerning

available time and funding: Observation, for instance, is very time-consuming. Archival data,

on the other hand, often have the advantage of being easily accessible and thus economical.

And sometimes there is actually little scope for choice of method since only certain data are

available, as in McLean’s study of favor-seeking letters from Florentine nobility during the

Renaissance (1998). This situation forces the researcher to carefully consider what kind of

questions and what aspects of networks can be tackled in view of the available data.

Accordingly, McLean (1998) in his analysis of letters concentrates on strategies of self-

presentation and how actors sought to mobilize social capital through writing letters. In general,

utmost attention must be paid to the conditions under which data originated. The conditions of

13

origin are the ultimate measure in gauging whether certain data lend themselves to answering a

specific question and thus can be considered valid (cf. Marsden, 2005).

Observations

Observation methods belong to the ethnographer’s traditional toolkit. In the early days of

network research, they found most prominent use in social anthropological studies (e.g.

Mitchell, 1969; Epstein, 1969). Today, observation methods are employed in research on social

movements (Mische, 2008; Broadbent, 2003), organizations (Provan and Milward, 1995; Uzzi,

1997; Gibson, 2005; Häussling, 2006; Gluesing et al., forthcoming), and ethnic communities

(Dominguez and Watkins, 2003; Menjivar, 2000; Smilde, 2005). Only rarely does observation

data serve as the main data source, as in Gibson’s (2005) investigation of the conversation

practices of managers or Häussling’s study on interaction and network formation in school

classes (forthcoming). For the most part, observation is used to complement other data. On the

one hand, it serves to access the field (actors, content of relationships, forms of interaction). For

instance, in social movement research, meetings and gatherings of various groups are attended

in order to identify conversation practices, topics, and significant actors

(Broadbent, 2003; Mische, 2008). Some researchers shadow actors, as did Gluesing et al.

(forthcoming) who escorted the members of the innovation team under study over a number of

days to find out who they met, how often, for how long, and what topics they talked about. On

the other hand, observation data play an important role in complementing and checking data

from other sources (e.g. Provan and Milward, 1995; Uzzi, 1997). In this vein, Gluesing et al.

(forthcoming) analyzed thousands of e-mails (documents) and also face-to-face encounters

(observed) in their study revealing national differences in e-mail usage. Observation data are

considered to be particularly reliableiv when actual behavior (that is, the content of relationships

and modes of communication) is the main concern (cf. Marsden, 1990; 2005). Of course, it

needs to be mentioned that there can be great variation in the quality of observation data. For

instance, much depends on the window of observation selected (time-sampling; Kashy and

Kenny, 1990; cf. Marsden, 2005). To be sure, repeated observation over extended periods of

time is an appropriate strategy of ensuring good data quality (e.g. Menjivar, 2000; Dominguez

and Watkins, 2003; Mische, 2008; Gluesing et al., forthcoming). Yet it is also very time-

consuming. Careful attention must further be paid to the number and training of research staff

involved in observation, the choice of recording devices (video, audio), placement of recording

devices, as well as the mode of transcription.

Interviews

Open-ended interviewing of some kind is employed in almost all of the qualitative studies

discussed in this overview: in-depth-interviews (e.g. Wong and Salaff, 1998; Menjivar, 2000;

Broadbent, 2003; Smith, 2005; Gluesing et al., forthcoming), narrative Interviews (Hollstein,

14

2002), focused, thematic, or problem-centered interviews (e.g. Lonkila and Salmi, 2005;

Bernardi et al., 2007; Scheibelhofer, 2008), but also single, open-ended questions as part of

standardized surveys (Bearman and Parigi, 2004). Qualitative interviews are typically used to

complement other data, particularly observation data, in research on actual behavior (network

practices; see above, e.g. Uzzi, 1997; Gluesing et al., forthcoming). They are the first choice in

studying actors’ networking strategies, network orientations, and assessments (thus the

individual significance attached to and perception of relationships and networks). This includes

studies of integration into personal networks (Höfer et al., 2006; Schütze, 2006), the impact of

networks on life course decisions (Lonkila and Salmi, 2005; Bernardi et al., 2007), or the

assessment of networking strategies and network success among and between networks of

organizations (Provan and Milward, 1995; Uzzi, 1997; Franke and Wald, 2006). In addition,

open-ended interviews are a useful way of becoming familiar with the field under study

(exploration) and for accessing certain populations (politicians, criminals; see above). An open-

ended approach in inquiring about significant relationships and relationship content can also be

in order for economical reasons, for instance, when a standardized survey would be too time-

consuming due to the multiplexity of relationships or contents (Franke and Wald, 2006;

Baumgarten and Lahusen, 2006). Franke and Wald (2006) argue that, as a rule of thumb,

questions should be designed as open-ended the more so, the less one knows about a

phenomenon, the more important individual actors’ strategies and systems of relevance are, and

the greater impact context factors can be assumed to have.

In case of self-reports, we must bear in mind that utterances (as a matter of perspective) are

always bound to social location. This can be the particular focus of research, as is the case in

research concerned with the individual perception of integration into personal networks.

However, in cases when actors are approached as experts on specific behavior (e.g. routines,

other actors, or relations in organizations), the socially biased nature of individual perception

must be reckoned with in the choice of interview partners and the interpretation of statements.

For example, persons who occupy central positions in networks are more knowledgeable about

network events compared to persons on the fringes (Krackhardt, 1990). The greater the

proximity between persons the more accurate are their statements concerning the other

(Bondonio, 1998). Research has produced an array of findings on factors affecting the accuracy

of self-reports; the work in the wake of the Bernard, Killworth, and Sailer Studies (1981) are

especially noteworthy in this respect (cf. the overviews provided in Johnson, 1994; Marsden,

2005; this volume).

Finally, it must be noted that even the most open and unstructured interviews are typically

combined with some form of standardized inquiry, especially for obtaining information via

name generators and name interpreters (Hanneman and Riddle, Marsden, this volume; e.g.

15

Franke and Wald, 2006; Bernardi et al., 2007). Such method triangulation ensures the

comparability of data (across cases as well as between certain aspects of an individual case). At

the same time, it allows making substantive statements about the structure of networks that go

beyond a merely metaphorical reference to the term ‘network’ (cf. Johnson, 1994). Network

charts are another useful tool for collecting qualitative data, for instance on egocentric networks

(cf. Straus, 2002; McCarty et al., 2007; Hogan et al., 2007). Kahn and Antonucci’s concentric

circles (1980) are a good example of such an instrument. Due to its semi-standardized design,

the instrument also supports the comparability of cases. Furthermore, the graphical

representation of networks functions as a cognitive aid in describing relationships. It allows

keeping track of the relationships discussed in the interview. In qualitative interviews, geared

toward approaching as close as possible the systems of relevance and action orientations of

interviewees mapping networks is a well-suited means of facilitating the discussion of

relationships while it provides a strong stimulus for the production of narratives (e.g. Hollstein,

2002; Bernardi et al., 2007).

Documents, archival data

In addition to qualitative data obtained through observation and interviewing, various kinds of

documents can also be put to use in network-related inquiry: archival data, newspaper articles,

biographies, letters, e-mails, weblogs, etc. The main advantage of this type of data is that it is

mostly easily accessible and available at low cost. In recent years, data offered by computer-

mediated systems have gained increasing importance in network research. Because of large

volume, such data are usually subjected to computerized, more strongly standardized and

formalized methods of data mining (see below; on archival records Batagelj et al., this volume).

In these cases, documents are mostly the primary data sources. Studies based on interpretive

methods of analysis, on the other hand, generally draw on documents only for complementary

information. For instance, newspaper articles, books, archival material are used in research on

political parties and social movements (e.g. Broadbent, 2003; Mische, 2008) or company

documents and company portrayals in company case studies (e.g. Gluesing et al., forthcoming).

Of course, documents are the key source of data in historical studies. Examples for network

research of this type are McLean’s work on network practices of Florentine nobility based on

analysis of favor-seeking letters (1998) or Crossley’s (2008) study of the changing music scene

in 1970s Manchester based on musicians’ biographies and autobiographies, as well as online

resources. Documents represent data ‘not created expressly for social research’ (Marsden, 2005:

24). This to an even greater extent demands giving close thought to the conditions under which

the data originated with an eye to the respective research question (see above). Data

interpretation requires giving consideration to such aspects as motives, purpose, and mode of

data production, the specific demands posed by the medium, and initiating parties and the

intended audience.

16

Data Analysis

In principle, qualitative data can be analyzed using interpretive as well as formal (quantitative)

methods of analysis. The majority of qualitative studies referred to in this article employ

grounded theory as the method of choice (e.g. Lonkila and Salmi, 2005; Bernardi et al., 2007),

often in conjunction with ethnographic descriptions (e.g. Provan and Milward, 1995; Uzzi,

1997; Menjivar, 2000, Broadbent, 2003; Dominguez and Watkins, 2003, Gluesing et al.,

forthcoming). Yet, it needs to be emphasized that, depending on research focus and

methodological orientationv (interactionist, structuralist, pragmatic, or oriented by sociology of

knowledge), a range of interpretive methods may qualify as candidates well-suited for the

analysis of network practices, network orientations, and network assessments. Methods of

analysis are frame analysis (e.g. McLean, 1998), conversation analysis (e.g. Mische, 2003),

various types of interaction analyses (e.g. Häussling, 2006), narrative analysis (e.g. Uzzi, 1997;

Hollstein, 2002), as well as analytical procedures based on sociology of knowledge or

phenomenology (e.g. Engelbrecht, 2006).

However, qualitative data can also be analyzed using quantitative or other methods of a more

formal nature. Methods of this type applied to qualitative data are, for instance, methods

designed to analyze texts (transcripts, documents) for formal structures, such as quantitative

content analysis (Franzosi, 2008), semantic network analysis (Carley, 1984, 1997), network

analysis of narratives (e.g. Bearman and Stovel, 2000; Smith, 2007), or Galois lattice analysis

(e.g. Yeung, 2005; Mische, 2008). Those methods of analysis are to a greater degree

standardized, less interpretive, and in this sense reduce data complexity. For this reason, they

have clear advantages when the task is handling large volumes of data (cf. Bagatelj et al., this

volume), as increasingly is the case in the wake of easier access to large quantities of data via

the Internet as well as ongoing advances in software development (cf. Huisman and van Duijn,

this volume).

This is not the place to discuss the various methods in detail. Instead, some final considerations

will be devoted to the general strategies pursued in analyzing qualitative data as observed in the

qualitative studies touched upon so far. They can be distinguished by the generalizability of their

findings and the claims they can make as to the scope of explanation. There is some agreement

that systematically combining qualitative with quantitative data and data on network structures

(so-called mixed method designs) enhances the explanatory power of analysis.

Thick descriptions, typologies

A common strategy of analyzing qualitative data is to give a detailed account of individual

cases by way of ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz 1973) geared toward tracing how actions or events

17

unfold and the impact they have in order to make them comprehensible (Verstehen) and in this

way explain them. Understanding the individual case is the objective and, as such, an ‘end in

itself’, as exemplified by Riles’ study on knowledge practices and networking activities in

transnational issue networks (2000). In another strategy, analysis proceeds by systematic

comparison and abstraction aimed at developing typologies that capture the range of possible

variation that can be expected in a certain field of action. An example is the typology of

‘traveler’ and ‘diplomat’ developed by Engelbrecht (2006) to account for the different modes of

bridging the gap between different religious communities.

Developing models and theories

Typologies based on descriptions leave questions unanswered pertaining to the conditions

under which the respective types emerge and the impact they have. Generalization of findings

and formulation of theoretical models grounded in data (Glaser and Straus, 1967) require using

the respective data for systematically comparing cases and contrasting patterns of action and the

conditions surrounding them (e.g. Provan and Milward, 1995; Franke and Wald, 2006) as well

as systematic and careful analysis of (on first glance) contradictory findings and outliers (e.g.

Provan and Milward, 1995; Mische, 2003). This also involves careful consideration of sample

composition and the selection of cases (cf. Frank, this volume).

The surplus of mixed method designs

Mixed method designs open an array of opportunities for data analysis (cf. Tashakkori and

Teddlie, 2003; Axinn and Pearce, 2006; Bryman, 2006; Creswell and Plano, 2007; Bernardi,

forthcoming). In network research, this refers, first, to research designs that employ both

qualitative data as well as standardized data used to describe formal properties of networks,

such as network size, measures of density, centrality, etc. This specific mode of data

triangulation (Denzin, 1970) is a key element in network research in order to make substantive

statements about actual networks that range beyond using the term ‘network’ merely in a

metaphorical sense (Johnson, 1994). Relating data in this way also has theoretical implications:

Since qualitative data comes closer to individual actors, their systems of relevance (compared to

relational data on relationship and network structures), incorporating qualitative and structural

data provides a way of linking theoretical perspectives that either focus on structure or agency

(Hollstein, 2001; Häussling, 2006). Advocates of a relational sociology have been arguing to

that effect since the early 1990s (White, 1992; Emirbayer and Goodwin, 1994; Mizruchi, 1994).

We can thus expect empirical studies along such lines to also yield theoretically inspiring

insights.

Moreover, mixed methods designs can enhance the explanatory power and generalizability of

statements. This is the case if, secondly, qualitative and quantitative strategies of analysis are

18

combined as well (‘method-triangulation’; Denzin, 1970). Combining qualitative and

quantitative analyses can take very different shapes depending on the research in question.

Quantitative analyses can provide a general framework for selecting specific cases for

qualitative analysis (e.g. typical cases, outlier) and for determining their significance (in terms

of quantity, distribution, relevance, etc.) (mapping; e.g. White, 1961; McLean, 1998; Wong and

Salaff, 1998; Hollstein, 2002). In this way, McLean (1998) maps networking strategies of

Florentine nobility by using multidimensional scaling techniques. Quantitative analyses not

only allow more precisely assessing the extent to which certain patterns of action are spread

among a certain population. They also help gaining a more complete picture of the conditions

(institutional settings) under which such patterns have effect (Mische, 2003; 2008). By means

of in-depth interviews about assistance practices among black urban poor, Smith (2005), for

example, brings to fore why people having job-relevant information are reluctant to pass such

knowledge on to others. She then employs quantitative survey data to check for circumstances

(strength of ties, socio-economic status of neighborhood) that make providing assistance more

or less likely (ibid.). In other research, quantitative and qualitative approaches are used

simultaneously and are more strongly integrated (e.g. Häussling, 2006; Bernardi et al., 2007;

Gluesing et al., forthcoming), for instance, by applying formal procedures like cross-site display

(Miles and Huberman, 1984; adopted for network research by Uzzi, 1997) or qualitative

comparative analysis (Ragin, 1987; applied in network research by Smilde, 2005).

I believe to have demonstrated that qualitative approaches have important contributions to make

to social network research. Their definite strengths lie with exploring networks, validating

network data, describing network practices, network orientations and assessments, and the

insight they can provide into network impacts and dynamics. Yet, combining qualitative and

quantitative data and analyses promises to yield the most fruitful results.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Axinn, William G. and Pearce, Lisa D. (2006) Mixed Method Data Collection. Cambridge:

Cambridge, University Press.

Barnes, John A. (1954) 'Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish', Human Relations,

7: 39-58.

Barnes, John A. (1969) 'Networks and political process', in J. Clyde Mitchell (ed.), Social

networks in urban situations. Analyses of personal relationships in central African towns.

Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 51-77.

Baumgarten, Britta and Lahusen, Christian (2006) 'Politiknetzwerke – Vorteile und Grundzüge

einer qualitativen Analysestrategie', in Betina Hollstein and Straus, Florian (eds),

19

Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag

für Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 177-199.

Bearman, Peter S. and Stovel, Katherine (2000) 'Becoming a Nazi: A model for narrative

networks', Poetics, 27(2-3): 69-90.

Bearman, Peter S. and Parigi, Paolo (2004) 'Cloning Headless Frogs and Other Important

Matters: Conversation Topics and Network Structure', Social Forces, 83(2): 535-557.

Bernard, H. Russell (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. 2nd edn. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Bernard, H. Russell (1994) Research methods in anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bernard, H. Russell, Killworth, Peter and Sailer, Lee (1981) 'Summary of research on informant

accuracy in network data and on the reverse small world problem', in Connections, 4(2):

11-25.

Bernardi, Laura (2003) 'Channels of Social Influence on Reproduction' Population Research

and Policy Review, 22: 527-555.

Bernardi, Laura, Keim, Sylvia and von der Lippe, Holger (2007) 'Social Influence on Fertility.

A Comparative Mixed Methods Study in Eastern and Western Germany' Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(1): 23-47.

Bernardi, Laura (forthcoming) 'Social relationships in a Mixed Methods Framework', in Abbas

Tashakkori and Teddlie, Charles (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioral research. 2nd Edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bidart, Claire and Cacciuttolo, Patrice (forthcoming) 'Socialization Processes and Networks of

Young Adults: A Mixed-Method Longitudinal Study', in Silvia Dominguez and Hollstein,

Betina (eds), Mixed-Methods in Studying Social Networks.

Bondonio, Daniele (1998) 'Predictors of accuracy in perceiving informal social networks', in

Social Networks, 20: 301-330.

Bott, Elisabeth (1957) Family and social network. London: Tavistock.

Broadbent, Jeffrey (2003) 'Movement in Context: Thick Networks and Japanese Environmental

Protest', in Mario Diani and McAdam, Doug (eds), Social movements and networks.

Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 204-229.

Bryman, Alan (2006) (ed.) Mixed Methods Set, 4 Vol., London: Sage.

Bryman, Alan and Burgess, Robert G. (eds) (1999) Qualitative Research. 4 Vol., London: Sage,

Carley, Kathleen (1984) 'Extracting culture through textual analysis', Poetics, 22(4): 291-312.

Carley, Kathleen (1997) 'Network text analysis: The network position of concepts', in Carl W.

Roberts (ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical

inferences from texts and transcripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 79-

100.

Creswell, John W., and Plano, Vicki L. (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

20

Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crossley, Nick (2009) 'The man whose web expanded: Network dynamics in Manchester’s

post/punk music scene 1976-1980', Poetics, 37(1): 24-49.

Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (eds) (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks (1st edn, 1994).

Denzin, Norman K. (1970) The Research Act. Chicago: Aldine.

Diani, Mario and McAdam, Doug (eds) (2003) Social movements and networks. Relational

approaches to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dominguez, Silvia and Watkins, Celeste (2003) 'Creating Networks for Survival and Mobility:

Social Capital among African-American and Latin American Low-Income Mothers', Social

Problems, 50(1):111-135.

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Goodwin, Jeff (1994) 'Network analysis, culture, and the problem of

agency', American Journal of Sociology, 99 (6), 1411-1454.

Engelbrecht, Martin (2006) 'Netzwerke religiöser Menschen – Die Dynamik von

Wissensbeständen und Netzwerken religiöser Traditionen zwischen kollektiver

Selbstabgrenzung und individueller Wahl', in Betina Hollstein and Straus, Florian (eds),

Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag

für Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 243-267.

Epstein, A.L. (1969) 'Gossip, Norms and Social Network', in J. Clyde Mitchell (ed.), Social

networks in urban situations. Analyses of personal relationships in central African towns.

Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 117-128.

Fine, Gary Alan and Kleinman, Sherryl (1983) 'Network and Meaning: An Interactionist

Approach to Structure', Symbolic Interaction, 6: 97-110.

Foote Whyte, William (1955) Street corner society. The social structure of an Italian slum.

Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Franke, Karola and Wald, Andreas (2006) 'Möglichkeiten der Triangulation quantitativer und

qualitativer Methoden in der Netzwerkanalyse', in Betina Hollstein and Straus, Florian

(eds), Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS

Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 153-177.

Franzosi, Roberto (ed.) (2008) Content Analysis. 4 vol. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gibson, David R. (2005) 'Taking Turns and Talking Ties. Network Structure and

Conversational Sequences', in American Journal of Sociology 110(6): 1561-97.

Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory.

Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gluesing, Julia, Riopelle, Kenneth and Danowski, James A. (forthcoming) 'Innovation

Networks in Global Organizations: Understanding Network Practices and Dynamics by

Mixing Ethnography and Information Technology Data', in Silvia Dominguez and

21

Hollstein, Betina (eds), Mixed-Methods in Studying Social Networks.

Häussling, Roger (2006) Interaktionen in Organisationen. Ein Vierebenenkonzept des

Methodologischen Relationalismus und dessen empirische Anwendung. Karlsruhe:

Universität Karlsruhe.

Höfer, Renate, Keupp, Heiner and Straus, Florian (2006) 'Prozesse sozialer Verortung in

Szenen und Organisationen – Ein netzwerkorientierter Blick auf traditionale und reflexiv

moderne Engagementformen', in Betina Hollstein and Straus, Florian (eds), Qualitative

Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 267-295.

Hogan, Bernie, Carrasco, Juan Antonio and Wellman, Barry (2007) 'Visualizing Personal

Networks: Working with Participant-Aided Sociograms', in Field Methods 19(2): 116-144.

Hollstein, Betina (2001) Grenzen sozialer Integration. Zur Konzeption informeller Beziehungen

und Netzwerke. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Hollstein, Betina (2002) Soziale Netzwerke nach der Verwitwung. Eine Rekonstruktion der

Veränderungen informeller Beziehungen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Hollstein, Betina and Ullrich, Carsten G. (2003) 'Einheit trotz Vielfalt? Zum konstitutiven Kern

qualitativer Sozialforschung', Soziologie. Forum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie,

pp. 29-44.

Hopf, Christel (1979) 'Soziologie und qualitative Sozialforschung ', in Christel Hopf and Wein-

garten, Elmar (eds), Qualitative Sozialforschung, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. pp. 11-41.

Jansen, Dorothea (1999) Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Johnson, Jeffrey C (1994) 'Anthropological contributions to the study of social networks: a

review', in Stanley Wasserman and Galaskiewicz, Joseph, (eds), Advances in social

network analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. pp. 113-51.

Kahn, Robert L. and Antonucci, Toni C. (1980) 'Convoys over the life course: Attachment,

roles, and social support', in Paul B. Baltes and Brim, Olim G. (eds), Life-span development

and behavior. New York: Academic Press. pp. 383-405.

Kashy, Deborah A., and Kenny, David A. (1990) 'Do you know whom you were with a week

ago Friday? A re-analysis of the Bernard, Killworth, and Sailer Studies', in Social

Psychology Quarterly, 53:55-61.

Keim, Sylvia, Klärner, Andreas and Bernardi, Laura (forthcoming) 'Qualifying social influence

on fertility intentions: composition, structure, and meaning of fertility-relevant social

networks in western Germany', Current Sociology.

Knox, Hannah, Savage, Mike and Harvey, Penny (2006) 'Social Networks and the Study of

Social Relations: Networks as Method, Metaphor and Form', Economy and Society, 35(1):

113-140.

Krackhardt, David (1987) 'Cognitive Social Structure', Social Networks, 9(2): 109-134.

Krackhardt, David (1990) 'Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in

22

organizations', in Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 432-369.

Lazega, Emmanuel (1997) 'Network Analysis and Qualitative Research: A Method of

Contextualisation', in Gale Miller and Dingwall, Robert (eds), Context and Method in

Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. pp. 119-138.

Lonkila, Markku and Salmi, Anna-Maria (2005) 'The Russian Work Collective and Migration',

European-Asia Studies, 57(5): 681-703.

Marsden, Peter V. (1990) 'Network Data and Measurement', Annual Review of Sociology, 16:

433-463.

Marsden, Peter V. (2005) 'Recent developments in network measurements', in Peter J.

Carrington, Scott, John and Wasserman, Stanley (eds), Models and Methods in Social

Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 8-31.

McCarty, Christopher, Molina, Jose Luis, Aguilar, Claudia and Roth, Lara (2007) 'A

Comparison of Social Network Mapping and Personal Network Visualization', Field

Methods, 19(2): 145-162.

McLean, Paul D. (1998) 'A Frame Analysis of Favour Seeking in the Renaissance: Agency,

Networks, and Political Culture', American Journal of Sociology, 104(1): 51-91.

Menjivar, Cecilia (2000) Fragmented ties : Salvadoran immigrant networks in America.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Miles, Matthew and Huberman, Michael (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park:

Sage.

Mische, Ann (2003) 'Cross-Talk in Movements: Rethinking the Culture-Network Link', in

Mario Diani and McAdam, Doug (eds), Social Movements and Networks: Relational

Approaches to Collective Action. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 258- 280.

Mische, Ann (2008) Partisan Publics. Communication and Contention across Brazilian Youth

Activist Networks. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Mitchell, J. Clyde (ed.) (1969) Social networks in urban situations. Analyses of personal

relationships in central African towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mizruchi, Mark S. (1994) 'Social Network Analysis: Recent Achievements and Current

Controversies', Acta Sociologica, 37: 329-343.

Mützel, Sophie (forthcoming) 'Networks as cultural constructions: a comparison of relational

sociology and actor-network-theory', Current Sociology.

Oevermann, Ulrich, Allert, Tilman, Konau, Elisabeth and Krambeck, Jürgen (1979) 'Die Me-

thodologie einer „objektiven Hermeneutik“ und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische

Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften', in Hans-Georg Soeffner (ed.), Interpretative

Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Enke. pp. 352-434.

Pahl, Ray and Spencer, Liz (2004) 'Personal Communities: Not simply families of ‚fate’ or

‚choice’', in Current Sociology, 52(2): 192-221.

Provan, Keith G. and Milward, H. Brinton (1995) 'A preliminary theory of interorganizational

23

network effectiveness: A comparative study of four mental health systems', Administrative

Science Quarterly, 40(1): 1-33.

Ragin, Charles C. (1987) The Comparative Method. Moving beyond Qualitative and

Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Riles, Annelise (2000) The network inside out. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.

Roethlisberger, Fritz J. and Dickson, William J. (1939) Management and the Worker.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scheibelhofer, Elisabeth (2008) 'Combining Narration-Based Interviews with Topical

Interviews: Methodological Reflections on Research Practices', International Journal of

Social Research Methodology, 11(5): 403-416.

Scheibelhofer, Elisabeth (forthcoming) ‘“You always take your headaches with you – no matter

where you go” - Contemporary Migration Biographies of Austrians and their Relation to

Modernization Processes’, Current Sociology.

Schütze, Yvonne (2006) 'Quantitative und Qualitative Veränderungen in den sozialen

Netzwerken junger Migranten – Eine Langzeitstudie', in Betina Hollstein and Straus,

Florian (eds), Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. pp. 295-311.

Schütze, Yvonne and Lang, Frieder R. (1996) 'Integration in family, kinship and friendship

networks', in Heidrun Mollenkopf (ed.), Elderly people in industrialized societies. Berlin:

Sigma. pp. 25-40.

Smilde, David (2005) 'A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Conversion to Venezuelan

Evangelicalism: How Networks Matter', American Journal of Sociology, 111(3): 757-796.

Smith, Sandra Susan (2005) '“Don’t put my name on it”: Social Capital Activation and Job-

Finding Assistance among the Black urban Poor', American Journal of Sociology, 111(1):

1-57.

Smith, Tammy (2007) 'Narrative boundaries and the dynamics if ethnic conflict and

conciliation', Poetics 35: 22-46.

Straus, Florian (2002) Netzwerkanalysen. Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verlag.

Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (2003) (eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in social

and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth and Vetter, Eva (2000) Methods of Text and

Discourse Analysis, In Search of Meaning. London: Sage.

Trotter, Robert T. II (1999) 'Friends, Relatives and Relevant Others: Conducting Ethnographic

Network Studies', in Schensul, Jean J., LeCompte, Margaret D., Trotter, Robert T. II,

Cromley, Ellen K. and Singer, Merrill, Mapping Social Networks, Spatial Data and Hidden

Populations, Ethnographers Toolkit. Vol. 4. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. pp. 1-50.

Uzzi, Brian (1997) 'Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of

embeddedness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35-67.

24

White, Harrison C. (1961) 'Management conflict and sociometric structure', American Journal

of Sociology, 67(2): 185-199.

White, Harrison C. (1992) Identity and Control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wong, Siu-lun and Salaff, Janet W. (1998) 'Network capital: emigration from Hong Kong',

British Journal of Sociology, 49(3): 358-374.

Yeung, King-To (2005) 'What Does Love Mean? Exploring Network Culture in Two Network

Settings', Social Forces, 84(1): 391-420.

i For helpful comments on an earlier draft, I am grateful to Janet Salaff, Stephan Elkins,

Laura Bernardi, and Werner Rammert. ii Although these approaches share the same basic assumptions, they focus on different

aspects in detail. For example, some focus more on the process of action and the construction of

reality (like ethnomethodology). Other approaches are more concerned with the results of the

construction processes, i.e. the ‘structures of meaning’ (like objective hermeneutics; cf. Titscher

et al., 2000). iii For details on qualitative approaches and individual methods, see for example the

overviews in Miles and Huberman (1984), Denzin and Lincoln (2005), Bryman and Burgess

(1999) and Bernard (1994; 2000). iv In particular, see the seminal studies by Bernard, Killworth, and Sailer on informant

accuracy (1981). For details about the important debates initiated by these studies, see Johnson

(1994); Marsden (1990; 2005; this volume). v Acts of expression can be analyzed for different layers of meaning, for instance, with

regard to an intended or deliberate meaning but also for latent meaning. Depending on the level

of meaning targeted by an analysis either more phenomenological approaches (which focus on

actor perspectives) or methods relying on a more in-depth, structural hermeneutical analysis

(like objective hermeneutics, which focuses on the latent, unconscious aspects of meaning and

the logic of action; Oevermann et al., 1979, cf. Titscher et al., 2000) are employed.