Social work theory · Volume B: Relational & Systemic

Social network theory

Social network theory explains social life in terms of the patterns of relationships that connect people, groups and organisations.

1. What it is

Social network theory explains social life in terms of the patterns of relationships that connect people, groups and organisations. Its central assumption is that the structure of these relationships, who is connected to whom and how, shapes people’s opportunities, behaviour and wellbeing, independently of their individual characteristics (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Network approaches study the relationships between actors, and the positions actors hold within the wider web of ties, as the main unit of analysis. In social work, network theory supports the assessment and mobilisation of informal support and helps explain how isolation and exclusion limit access to resources (Tracy & Whittaker, 1990). It is closely related to social capital theory (see Social capital theory) and social support theory (see Social support theory).

Networks. A social network is a set of actors (individuals, families, groups or organisations) and the ties that link them (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Networks can be described by their size, density (the proportion of possible ties that actually exist), composition (kin, friends, neighbours, workers) and the position of actors within them. A person’s personal or ego-centred network consists of the people directly connected to them and the ties among those people. Bott (1957) showed that the density of a couple’s network influenced how they divided household roles, which was one of the first demonstrations that network structure affects family life.

Ties. Ties are the relationships that link actors. Granovetter (1973) defined the strength of a tie as a combination of the time spent together, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocity. Ties also vary in content (emotional, practical or informational), direction, frequency and whether they are multiplex, carrying several types of exchange at once. Strong ties are typically with close family and friends; weak ties are with acquaintances.

The strength of weak ties (Mark Granovetter). Granovetter (1973) argued that weak ties are especially valuable because they act as bridges between otherwise separate clusters of people. Close friends tend to know each other and share the same information, while acquaintances move in different circles and can pass on new information and opportunities. His research found that people more often obtained jobs through acquaintances than through close friends. Granovetter (1983) later noted that people with few weak ties may be cut off from information beyond their immediate circle, which can reinforce disadvantage. Burt (1992) extended this idea with the concept of structural holes, gaps between groups that a well-placed person can bridge.

Social support. Social support refers to the emotional, informational, practical and appraisal resources that people receive through their relationships. Network theory distinguishes the structure of a network from the support it provides: a large network may still offer little support, and a small one may be highly supportive (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Support can protect health directly and can buffer the effects of stress. Epidemiological research has shown that people with fewer social ties have higher mortality (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

Access to resources. Networks are channels through which resources such as information, employment, housing, money and influence flow. Lin (2001) argued that the resources embedded in a person’s network, and their ability to mobilise them, form their social capital. People in marginalised positions often have networks that are dense, kin-based and resource-poor, which provides solidarity but limits access to the wider resources needed to move out of poverty.

Network mapping. Network mapping is the practical application of the theory in assessment. Tracy and Whittaker’s (1990) social network map asks clients to identify network members across domains such as household, family, friends, work or school, organisations, neighbours and formal services, and to rate the support each provides. Related tools include ecomaps and sociograms, which Moreno (1934) originally developed to chart relationships within groups.

2. Historical development

Social network theory has roots in Moreno’s sociometry and in British social anthropology. Barnes (1954) introduced the network concept to describe relationships of kinship, friendship and neighbourliness that cut across formal groups, and Bott (1957) applied it to family life. These studies showed that relationships could be analysed as structures in their own right, which led to the development of mathematical network analysis in sociology (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Granovetter’s (1973) work became one of the most cited papers in sociology and established network structure as an explanation of social outcomes.

Social work interest grew in the 1970s and 1980s as practitioners sought to strengthen informal support and reduce reliance on formal services. Collins and Pancoast (1976) described natural helping networks and the role of “central figures” in neighbourhoods. Network assessment and intervention became part of child welfare, mental health and aged care practice, supported by tools such as the social network map (Tracy & Whittaker, 1990).

3. Practical guidance

Social network theory helps workers understand and strengthen the relationships that sustain people.

• Map the network with the client. Use a social network map or ecomap to identify who is in the person’s life, what support each provides and where there are gaps or conflicts (Tracy & Whittaker, 1990).
• Distinguish structure from support. Ask about the quality of relationships as well as their number. Some ties are sources of stress, control or risk, as in family violence or substance use networks.
• Build weak ties. Link people to groups, volunteering, education, employment programs and community activities that can provide new information and opportunities beyond their close circle (Granovetter, 1973).
• Mobilise informal support. Family group conferencing and care team meetings draw on the person’s network to plan and share care.
• Reduce isolation. Older people, carers, people with disability, refugees and people leaving prison or care are at particular risk of social isolation. Address isolation as a health and wellbeing issue.
• Respect kinship systems. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, extended kinship networks carry obligations and support that formal mapping tools may not fully capture. Let clients define who counts as family and community.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social network theory offers precise, measurable concepts and a strong research base linking network structure to employment, health and wellbeing (Granovetter, 1973; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). It provides practical assessment tools and shifts attention from individual deficits to the relationships and resources around people. The idea of weak ties gives a clear rationale for community connection work.

Limitations. Network analysis can be descriptive and technical, and formal methods are rarely used in everyday practice. Networks are not always beneficial: they can transmit stress, enforce conformity, exclude outsiders and reproduce inequality (Lin, 2001). Mobilising informal networks can shift responsibility from the state to families, particularly to women as unpaid carers. Standard mapping tools may reflect Western assumptions about family and friendship.

Overall importance. Social network theory gives social work a structured way to understand the relational resources available to people and how inequality operates through relationships. It is particularly useful for assessment, community development and work to reduce isolation, and it connects closely with social capital and social support theories.

5. References

• Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39–58.
• Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112674
• Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary urban families. Tavistock.
• Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
• Collins, A. H., & Pancoast, D. L. (1976). Natural helping networks: A strategy for prevention. National Association of Social Workers.
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
• Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
• Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), Article e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
• Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.
• Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
• Tracy, E. M., & Whittaker, J. K. (1990). The social network map: Assessing social support in clinical practice. Families in Society, 71(8), 461–470.
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.