Reassessing Constraint’s Meaning: A Framework for Reinterpreting Structural Holes’ Findings
本文指出结构洞研究中广泛使用的约束指标实际上并未可靠支持结构洞理论，而是支持更简单的关于替代选择、伙伴多样性和集中度的见解，并提供了重新解释现有研究和指导未来网络研究的路径。
Structural holes’ vast empirical literature has ostensibly advanced our knowledge of strategic behavior, outcomes, and dynamics. But this empirical research predominantly relies on Burt’s opaque and misunderstood constraint index. This paper shows that empirical research using constraint does not reliably support structural holes theory but does support simpler insights related to available alternatives, exchange partner diversity, and concentration. Using formal, computational, and empirical methods, this paper reveals that network constraint almost exclusively operationalizes dyadic constructs and not the broader structural network constructs with which constraint is associated. The paper provides a path for reinterpreting extant constraint-based research and for guiding future network research. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2024.0297 .