Structural equivalent actors are those who share a similar pattern of relationships (to and from) with others, thus occupy the same position in a network.
First, the institution defines the structural positions of actors and their characteristics.
Thus, techniques of egocentric SNA provide us with necessary information with respect to network membership and structural interconnections between actors.
Consider the example in Fig. 2, on the law of structural equivalence, 5 actors in social network Group "Y" have been divided into three groups.
Whereas the information within one network is considered to be redundant, structural holes provide actors with new information and, thereby, with a competitive advantage.
Next, all variables were classified either as factors (i.e. structural trends) or actors (i.e. recognizable and purpose-oriented players).
Political scientists have persuasively argued for the use of a different type of centrality to measure actors' structural influence in policy networks.
Balancing the various priorities and strengths of social and biomedical sciences, including the multiple levels of focus (individual, social structural) and multiple actors involved (youth, parents, health care providers, community-based organizations) are all significant factors to be considered when situating global health discussions.
Nonetheless, these assumptions overlook a basic social fact: due to the segregation of actors and the structural nonequivalence, "structural holes" in the market are more commonly seen in reality than patron-client relations.
The concepts "brokerage" and "structural hole" refer to actors' structural embeddedness.
Hubs and Authorities analysis represents a natural generalization of the eigenvector centrality analysis, which can effectively identify the structural importance of individual actors in social networks [ 19, 20].
