In addition to Henwood et al., this collection of articles includes explicit analyses of the mechanisms of social change and recommendations for change strategies to promote well-being.īrekke ( 2012) was also careful to point out that a science of social work occurs at many different levels of analysis, including individuals, families, organizations, communities, and even societies. In fact, delineating mechanisms for intervention and social change becomes remarkably straightforward in the context of social network studies when this tool is placed in the hands of social work scientists. Providersand consumers could focus on engagement with individuals already in a consumer’s network and the quality of their consumer–provider relationships” (p. ( 2015), the authors’ analysis of the social network of homeless adults in two housing programs with very different approaches quickly led to recommendations for change strategies: “Because recovery is inherently a social process, providers should discuss with consumers the type of relationships they have and might want to develop.
Again, social network analysis can prove an invaluable tool. However, understanding phenomena is not enough (Brekke, 2012) rather the science of social work is incomplete unless understanding is linked to the processes that promote positive change. 385, this issue) found that homeless persons who exited Housing First programs reported their relationships with the program staff remained distant over time, and they reported higher numbers of peer relationships characterized by both conflict and support. All four of the articles that serve as companions to this article focus on the ways in which relationships between social actors mediate well-being (three published in this issue and one published in a previous issue of JSSWR ).
The power of social network analysis as a tool in the service of this agenda originates from the proclivity of social network analysis to identify mechanisms of social change. From the perspective of a social network researcher, Brekke’s most compelling commentary on the emerging science of social work included the tenet that social work as a science is deeply invested in human change. Spurred by John Brekke ( 2012), a discourse has emerged during the past several years regarding the potential for social work to emerge as a science. In particular, network analysis’s application may be problematic if detached from careful understanding of the specific contexts in which legal institutions operate.The science of social work can be greatly enhanced by active engagement with social network analysis. While optimistic about the growing use of this research strategy for uncovering the sociology of international law, I argue that we should also be cautious of the normative and explanatory conclusions derived from the application of network analysis. I briefly revisit its application to international arbitration and discuss the main limitations of this methodological approach to understanding the role of social dynamics in international law’s making, interpretation, and enforcement. In this contribution, I briefly explain the origins, basic premises, and operation of network analysis, as well as its possible application to specific international legal fields. These tools, and key findings obtained through their application, are only beginning to be applied to the study of law and legal institutions, including international law. Social scientists, including economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, have relied for decades on tools derived from network analysis.
0 kommentar(er)
