在社交网络方面，多重关系的关系，服务于多个利益或具有多种用途（Gluckman，1955，1965）。换句话说，复用的重点是在何种程度上有不同的社会关系之间的重叠，例如建议和友谊。许多研究集中在多元化的交流在一个单一的关系，比如，是否两个人之间的关系的特点是工作相关的建议和友谊的交流（De Klepper，Van de Bunt，汉森，格罗奈维根，2007；莫斯岛，与洛瓦斯，2005；海特et al.，2006；威廉姆斯&鲍，海特，2005、koehly &派特森，2005；lazega &派特森，1999；Lomi，2002）。得到关于整个网络的复用问题关注较少。推进这一方向的社会网络理论，因此本章着重对整个网络的多样性。意义，我们将研究整个网络之间的重叠在同一组的个人，其特点是多种用途。可比的关系，只为一个单一的目的更是多重关系，一举多得，和个人，通过多重网络连接将在访问和调动资源，取得更大的成功（卡普费雷，1969；doreian，1974）。复用，或多维社会网络进行了研究，教育的外部验证名称发电机的问题（阮，1998），对律师之间的关系模式（lazega &派特森，1999），区分不同类型的支持网络之间（伯纳德et al.，1990）和咨询网络（交叉，Borgatti和帕克，2001）。然而，知识在何种程度上社会网络在学校团队可以分化是稀缺的。
新西兰媒体学代写essay:多重关系
In social network terms, multiplex relationships are relationships that serve multiple interests or are characterized by a multiplicity of purposes (Gluckman, 1955, 1965). In other words, multiplexity focuses on the extent to which there is overlap between different social relationships, for instance advice and friendship. Many studies focus on multiplex exchanges within a single relationship, for instance, whether a relationship between two individuals is characterized by the exchange of both work related advice and friendship (De Klepper, Van de Bunt, Groenewegen, 2007; Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005; Hite et al., 2006; Hite, Williams, & Baugh, 2005, Koehly & Pattison, 2005; Lazega & Pattison, 1999; Lomi, 2002). Less attention has been paid to the issue of multiplexity in regard to whole networks. To advance social network theory in this direction, this chapter therefore focuses on multiplexity of whole networks. Meaning, we will examine the overlap between whole networks among the same set of individuals that are characterized by a multiplicity of purposes. Multiplex relationships that serve multiple purposes are suggested to be stronger than relationships that only serve a single purpose, and individuals who are connected through multiplex networks will have greater success in accessing and mobilizing resources (Kapferer, 1969; Doreian, 1974). Multiplex, or multi-dimensional social networks have been studied outside education to validate name generator questions (Ruan, 1998), to examine the pattern of relationships among lawyers (Lazega & Pattison, 1999), to differentiate between different types of support networks (Bernard et al., 1990) and advice networks (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2001). Yet, knowledge on the extent to which social networks in school teams can be differentiated is scarce.
