社会网络迅速发展的兴趣可以说是社会科学研究的主要趋势之一。据科学数据库（埃里克，picarta，Web of Science），使用“社会网络在社会科学出版物的数量（S）的标题、关键词、或抽象，在过去的二十年中成倍增加（2003 Borgatti & Foster）（见1）。越来越多的文章侧重于社会网络和教育在越来越多的各种设置和重点领域的交叉越来越多的教育证据表明这一趋势。本文认为“关系”是目前激励教育世界各地的研究人员在学校学习团队的社会网络（戴利，在新闻发布会；达利与质谱仪、2009；Daly等人，在出版社；麦考密克，狐狸，Carmichael，与宝洁、新闻；Penuel，Riel，克劳斯，弗兰克，2009）（参见1）。在社会网络的学校可能获得的见解的重要前提是社会网络的研究提供了一个加深了解教师职业关系的结构和内容的出现（科本&罗素，2008）。社会网络学者强调社会网络的，在网络交换的社会资源内容或目的型（Burt，1992；科尔曼，1990；林，2001；Putnam，2000；史葛，2000；沃瑟曼和浮士德，1997）。研究表明，在网络资源的分布可能依赖于网络的内容（海恩斯和AH，1992；丽影和Burt，1996）。例如，一个以交换工作相关知识和专业知识为目的的社交网络看起来与个人支持的社交网络有很大的不同。即使这两个社会网络包含社会资源，可以访问和利用，这两个网络可能会形成不同的。一些学者因此提出需要检查多个关系的同时（弗里德金，2004；伊巴拉&安德鲁斯，1993；麦克弗森，史密斯lovin，和厨师，2001；Mehra，Kilduff，铜，1998；蒙和承包商，2003；Pustejovsky & Spillane，2009；沃瑟曼和浮士德，1997）。然而，很少有研究已进行的方式，社会网络的形状不同，取决于他们的关系的内容
新西兰马努考理工学院论文代写:社会网络
The rapidly growing interest in social networks can be characterized as one of the major trends in social science research. According to scientific databases (ERIC, Picarta, and Web of Science), the number of publications in social sciences using the word ‘social network(s)' in the title, keywords, or abstract, has increased exponentially over the last two decades (Borgatti & Foster, 2003) (see 1). Evidence of this trend in education is exhibited by an increasing number of articles focusing on the intersection of social networks and education in a growing variety of settings and areas of emphasis. The thesis that ‘relationships matter' is currently inspiring educational researchers around the world to study social networks in school teams (Daly, in press; Daly & Finnigan, 2009; Daly et al., in press; McCormick, Fox, Carmichael, & Procter, in press; Penuel, Riel, Krause, & Frank, 2009) (see also 1). An important prerequisite for gaining insights in the potential of social networks for schools is the emergence of social network studies that provide a deepened understanding of the structure and content of teachers' professional relationships (Coburn & Russell, 2008).Social network scholars emphasize that social networks are shaped by the content or purpose of the social resources that are exchanged in the network (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001; Putnam, 2000; Scott, 2000; Wasserman & Faust, 1997). Studies suggest that the distribution of resources in a network may depend on the content of the network (Haines & Hurlbert, 1992; Raider & Burt, 1996). For instance, a social network that is maintained for the purpose of exchanging work related knowledge and expertise may look significantly different from a social network that is created for personal support. Even though both social networks contain social resources that may be accessed and leveraged, both networks may be shaped quite differently. Several scholars have therefore voiced the need to examine multiple relationships simultaneously (Friedkin, 2004; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998; Monge & Contractor, 2003; Pustejovsky & Spillane, 2009; Wasserman & Faust, 1997). Yet, few studies have been conducted into the ways in which social networks are shaped differently depending on the content of their ties
