Skip to main content
Log in

Introduction to the CMOT Special Issue on Mathematical Representations and Models for the Analysis of Social Networks within and between Organizations

  • Introduction
  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. and P. Marsden (1988), “Environments of Organizations,” in Neil J. Smelser (Ed.) Handbook of Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 361–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. and D. Whetten (1981), “Organization Sets, Action Sets and Networks: Making the Most of Simplicity,” in P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design,Vol. I: Adapting Organizations to their Environments. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 385–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, S. and D. Knoke (Eds.) (1999), Networks in and Around Organizations.Research in the Sociology of Organizations,Vol. 16. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1972), The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. (1992), “The Network Organization in Theory and Practice,” in N. Nohria and R.C. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 397–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. R. Faulkner (2002), “Interorganizational Networks,” in J.A.C. Baum (Ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 520–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A. and G. Means (1932), The Modern Corporation and Private Property.New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordieu, P. (1998), “The New Capital,” in P. Bordieu (Ed.) Practical Reason, Chapter 2: pp. 19–34. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California (Essay originally published as “The New Capital: Introduction to a Japanese reading of State Nobility,” in Poetics Today, 12(4), 643–653 (Winter 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S.P. and R. Cross (2003), “A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks,” Management Science, 49, 432–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. and M. Everett (1997), “Network Analysis of 2-mode Data,” Social Networks, 19, 243–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. and P. Foster (2003), “The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology,” Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiger, R.L. (2002), “Poststructuralism in Organizational Studies,” in M. Lounsbury and M. J. Ventresca (Eds.) Social Structure and Organizations Revisited.Research in the Sociology of Organizations.JAI Press/Elsevier Science, vol. 19, pp. 295–305.

  • Breiger, R.L. (2000), “A Toolkit for Practice Theory,” Poetics, 27, 91–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiger, R.L. (1974), “The Duality of Persons and Groups,” Social Forces, 53, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (2000), “The Network Structure of Social Capital,” in R. Sutton and B. Staw (Eds.) Research in Organi zational Behavior. Greenwitch, CT: JAI Press, pp. 345–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. and J. Jannotta (1998), “Personality Correlates of Structural Holes,” Social Networks, 20, 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. and I. Talmud (1993), “Market Niche,” Social Networks, 15, 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L.-E. (1997), Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. (2002), “Intraorganizational Complexity and Computation,” in J.A.C. Baum (Ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 208–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. (1995), “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Perspectives and Directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley. K.M. and M. Prietula (1994), “Computational Organization Theory: An Introduction,” in K. Carley and M. Prietula (Eds.), Computational Organization Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. xi–xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, G. and M. Hannan (2000), The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. and J.G. March(1976), Leadership and Ambiguity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., J. March and J. Olsen (1972), “A Garbage can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J.S. (1974), Power and the Structure of Society.New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. and H.R. Greve (1997), “Corporate Elite Networks and Governance Changes in the 1980s',” American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G., M. Yoo and W. Baker (2003), “The Small World of the American Corporate Elite, 1982–2001,” Strategic Organization, 1(3), 301–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (2001), “Making Sense of the Contemporary Firm and Prefiguring its Future,” in P. DiMaggio (Ed.) The Twenty-First Century Firm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1986), “Structural Analysis of Organizational Fields,” in B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavio, Greenwitch, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 8, pp. 335–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. and W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R. (2001), “Firms (and Other Relationships),” in P. DiMaggio (Ed.) The Twenty-First Century Firm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 186–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1992), “Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology,” in N. Nohria and R. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanann, M. and J. Freeman (1989), Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. (1993), “Interorganizational Imitation: The Impact of Corporate Interlocks on Corporate Acquisition Activity,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 564–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M. and K. Corley (2000), “Organizational Culture from A Social Network Perspective,” in N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom and M. Peterson (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M. and W. Tsai (2003), Social Networks and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. and L. Porter (1986), “The Snowball Effect: Turnover Embedded in Communication Networks,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. (2003), Four Complications in Understanding the Evolutionary Process. Santa Fe Institute Bulletin, Vol. 18, No.1(Winter).

  • Luczkovich, J., S. Borgatti, J. Johnson and M. Everett (2003), “Defining and Measuring Trophic Role Similarity in Food Webs Using Regular Equivalence,” Journal of Theoretical, Biology, 220, 303–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., M. Schultz and X. Zhou (2000), The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and H.A. Simon (1958), Organizations.New York: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, R. (1967), The Economic Growth of Managerial Capitalism. London, UK: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, A., M. Kilduff and D. Brass (2001), “The Social Networks of High and Low Self-Monitors: Implications for Workplace Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1967), “The Small World Problem,” Psychology Today,2,60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1992), Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mische, A. and P. Pattison (2000), “Composing a Civic Arena: Publics, Projects, and Social Settings,” Poetics, 27, 163–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. and M. Schwartz (Eds.) (1987), Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J. and V. Duquenne (1997), “The Duality of Culture and Practice: Poverty Relief in New York City, 1888–1917,” Theory and Society, 26, 305–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. and N. Contractor (2003), Theories of Communication Networks.New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. (2003), “Local Rules and Global Properties: Modeling the Emergence of Network Structure,” in R.L. Breiger, K.M. Carley and P.E. Pattison (Eds.) Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis.Washington, DC: National Academies Press, pp. 174–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. and C. Ansell (1993), “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434,” American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattison, P. and G.L. Robins (2002), “Neighbourhood Based Models for Social Networks,” Sociological Methodology, 32, 301–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1993), “Small-Firm Networks,” in N. Nohria and R.C. Eccles (Eds.) Networks and organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 430–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1997), New Directions for Organization Theory.New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1987), in M. Mizruchi and M. Schwartz (Eds.) Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business.New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations.New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J., T.E. Stuart and M.T. Hannan (1996), “Networks, Knowledge, and Niches: Competition in the World-wide Semiconductor Industry, 1984–1991,” American Journal of Sociology, 102, 659–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W., K. Kenneth Koput and L. Smith-Doerr (1996), “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raider, H. and D. Krackhardt (2002), “Intraorganizational Networks,” in J.A.C. Baum (Ed.) The Blackwell Com panion to Organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, J. and A. Casella (Eds.) (2001), Networks and Markets.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, G.L., P.E. Pattison and J. Woolcock (in press), “Small and Other Worlds: Global Network Structure Form Local Processes,” American Journal of Sociology.

  • Scott, R. (1998), Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W.R. and J.W. Meyer (1983), “Organization of Societal Sectors,” in J. Meyer and W.R. Scott (Eds.) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1948), “Foundations of the Theory of Organization,” American Sociological Review, 13, 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1991), “Organizations and Markets,” Journal of Economic Perspective, 5(2), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2001), Ambiguous Assets for Uncertain Environments: Heterarchy is Postsocialist Firms,” in P. DiMaggio (Ed.) The Twenty-First Century Firm. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 69–10.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D.J. (1999), Small Worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1969), The Social Psychology of Organizing.New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D. and F. Harary (2001), “The Cohesiveness of Blocks in Social Networks: Node Connectivity and Conditional Density,” Sociological Methodology, Inc., Boston, USA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 305–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H.C. (2002), Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H.C., S. Boorman and R. Breiger (1976), “Social Structure from Multiple Networks I: Blockmodels of Roles and Positions,” American Journal of Sociology, 81, 730–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.E. (1991), “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lomi, A., Pattison, P. Introduction to the CMOT Special Issue on Mathematical Representations and Models for the Analysis of Social Networks within and between Organizations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 10, 5–15 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000032626.00525.7b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000032626.00525.7b

Navigation