Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 79–90 | Cite as

Homophily and Agency: Creating Effective Sustainable Development Networks

Article

Abstract

Community networks are self-organized groupings that form for many different reasons. Some networks, connected mainly through bonding ties, are based on personal interests and relationships; others, based mainly on bridging ties, centre around broader interests. These networks form to create collective agency for engaging with social, environmental, and other issues through the concentration of social capital. The multi-scaled and evolutionary nature of sustainable development issues requires that community groups dedicated to engaging with such issues be particularly diverse, resilient, and flexible. As such, they must build a large number of bridging ties leading to external resources and limit the potential for bonding ties to impose constraining norms upon the group.

Over time, however, volunteer groups tend towards a state of homophily, the tendency of groups to form from similar actors and then become more similar with time. This tendency leads to a decrease in the number of the bridging ties that help to provide group agency. Homophily must be actively recognized within community sustainable development groups if they are to remain effective over the long term. This paper suggests methods to prevent and control group homophily drawn from experience in forming small, time-limited sustainable development networks.

Keywords

agency bonding ties bridging ties community activism homophily networks social capital sustainable development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert R., Jeong H., Barabasi A., 2000, Error and attack tolerance of complex networks Nature 406: 378–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas A., Danon L., Diaz-Guilera A., Weiser P., Guimera R., 2004, Community analysis in social networks European Physical Journal B 38: 373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ameral L., Ottino J., 2004 Complex networks European Physical Journal B 38: 147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhaskar R., 1994, Plato, Etc: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution, Verso, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu P., 1980, The Logic of Practice, Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti S., Foster P., 2003, The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology Journal of Management 29(6): 991–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brundtland G., 1987, Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Carley K., 1991, A theory of group stability American Sociological Review 56(3): 331–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman J., 1990, Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Dale A., 2005, Social capital and sustainable community development: Is there a relationship? in: Dale A., Onyx J., (eds.), A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  11. Dale A., 2001, At the Edge. Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale A., Onyx J., 2005, A Dynamic Balance. Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  13. Gargiulo M., Benassi M., 2000, Trapped in your own net? network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital Organization Science 11(2): 183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gladwell M., 2000, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Granovetter M., 1973, The strength of weak ties The American Journal of Sociology. 78(6): 1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey D., 2002, Agency and community: a critical realist paradigm Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 32(2): 163–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiesner J., Poulin F., Nicotra E., 2003, Peer relations across contexts: network homophily and network inclusion in and after school Child Development 74(5): 1328–1343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Krishna A., 2001, Moving from the stock of social capital to the flow of benefits: the role of agency World Development 29(6): 925–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lesser E., Prusak L., 2000, Communities of practice, social capital and organizational Knowledge in E. Lesser, Fontaine M., Slasher J., (eds.), Knowledge and Communities, Butterworth Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Louch H., 2000, Personal network integration: transivity and homophily in strong tie relations Social Networks 22: 45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mark N., 2003, Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches American Sociological Review 68(3): 319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J., 2001, Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Narayan D., 1999, Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty, World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Nuclear Waste Management Organization. (2005) [accessed Agust 2nd, 2005]Google Scholar
  25. Omerod P., Roach A., 2004, The medieval inquisition: scale free networks and the suppression of heresy Physica A 339: 645–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onyx J., Bullen P., 2000, Measuring social capital in five communities The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1): 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Popielarz P., McPherson J., 1995, On the edge or in between: niche position, niche overlap, and the duration of voluntary association memberships American Journal of Sociology 101(3): 698–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Portes A., 1998, Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Putnam R., 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Reuf M., 2002a, A structural event approach to the analysis of group composition Social Networks 24: 135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruef M., 2002b, Strong ties, weak ties and islands: structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 427–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reuf M, Aldrich H., Carter N., 2003, The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs American Sociological Review 68(2): 195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rydin Y., Holman N., 2004, Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving sustainable development Local Environment 9(2): 117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dale A., 2005, Social capital and sustainable community development: Is there a relationship? in: Dale A., Onyx J., (eds.), A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development, UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  35. Volker B., Flap H., 2001, Weak ties as a liability: the case of east germany Rationality and Society 13(4): 397–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watts D., 2003, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, W.W. Norton, Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson P., 1997, Building social capital: a learning agenda for the twenty first century Urban Studies 34(5/6): 745–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woolcock M., 2001, The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1): 11–17Google Scholar
  39. Wright K., 2000, Perceptions of on-line support providers: an examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication, and social support within on-line groups Communication Quarterly 48(1): 44–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Postdoctoral ScholarRoyal Roads UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Environment and SustainabilityRoyal Roads University, Trudeau Fellow, Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Community DevelopmentVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations