ABSTRACT
In either case, the analyst is usually interested in asking three types of questions about the positions or roles represented by the categories of actors. The first set of questions concerns the level of participation in social relations of a subgroup: is it a transmitter, a carrier, or a receiver of relations, or is it an isolate?1 A second set of questions pertains to the internal relations of a subgroup: are relations dense within a category, or not? If relations are concentrated within a category, then it takes on features of a social group, while if they are not so concentrated, the category is a set of unrelated but structurally similar actors (e.g., the "hangers-on" of White et al. [1976] or the "sycophant" or "broker" positions of Burt [1976]). The final set of questions concerns the homogeneity of the external relations of subgroups: does a subgroup act as a transmitter, carrier, or receiver to the same extent with respect to all other subgroups, or do roles in the network differ depending on the position occupied by an external transaction partner? If external relations are homogeneous, then roles can be egocentrically defined in terms of the participation levels and the internal and external relations characteristic of a position. If external relations are not homogeneous, then a more complicated description of a focal actor's role is required; such a description must specify that actor's typical relations with incumbents of a differentiated set of other roles. Concepts such as social distance may be required in an analysis at this point.
