\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Advance Relationalism and communnication theory wthout Title page}



\author[1]{Sumitra Balakrishnan}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 15, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Despite claims that social networks lack theoretical foundations, this
paper is part of a larger movement in relational sociology that aims to
move beyond structuralist explanations of social networks and develop a
more sound and theoretically supported understanding of what networks
actually are. It connects various bodies of literature ranging from
sociological theory to research on interpersonal relationships and
social network analysis. It places the relational approach to analysing
communication within the larger field of organizational communication,
and seeks its fit with organisational and organisational communication
theories. The paper majorly reviews works of sociologists like George
Simmel, Harrison White, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann, along with
research by active or visible contemporary relational sociologists like
Fuhse, Crossley, P. Donati, Charles Tilly, and Liang and Liu to explain
the impact of relational sociology on thoughts of structure and social
network in organization.

Key words: Relationalism, structuration, organization, organisational
communication, Theory in Social Network Analysis~%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Looking at a social Relationship perspective of organization,
its communication, Networks and Structure}

\textbf{Abstract}

Despite claims that social networks lack theoretical foundations, this
paper is part of a larger movement in relational sociology that aims to
move beyond structuralist explanations of social networks and develop a
more sound and theoretically supported understanding of what networks
actually are. It connects various bodies of literature ranging from
sociological theory to research on interpersonal relationships and
social network analysis. It places the relational approach to analysing
communication within the larger field of organizational communication,
and seeks its fit with organisational and organisational communication
theories. The paper majorly reviews works of sociologists like George
Simmel, Harrison White, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann, along with
research by active or visible contemporary relational sociologists like
Fuhse, Crossley, P. Donati, Charles Tilly, and Liang and Liu to explain
the impact of relational sociology on thoughts of structure and social
network in organization.

Key words: Relationalism, structuration, organization, organisational
communication, Theory in Social Network Analysis

\textbf{Introduction}

Social network analysis has grown significantly since its inception in
the 1930s as a field of study in sociology. Social network analysis is
seen by many as having the potential to reenergize and unite
sociological research under the guise of a theoretical interest in
relationships rather than individuals. This viewpoint disregards the
fact that social structures are always constructed as symbols of
expectations and are thus replete with ''culture'' (Yeung, 2005, pp.
392ff). The main focus of relational sociology, as developed later by
Harrison White, Mustafa Emirbayer, Charles Tilly, Ann Mische, and others
(Pachucki and Breiger, 2010; Mische, 2011), is how network relations and
culture are intertwined. Despite claims that social networks lack
theoretical foundations, this paper is part of a larger movement in
relational sociology that aims to move beyond structuralist explanations
of social networks and develop a more theoretically sound and
empirically supported understanding of what networks actually are
(Pachucki and Breiger, 2010). It connects various bodies of literature
ranging from sociological theory to research on interpersonal
relationships and social network analysis. It places the relational
approach to analysing communication within the larger field of
organizational communication, and seeks its fit with organisational and
organisational communication theories. The review begins with an
examination of communication, communication in organizations and an
appraisal of major theoretical perspectives about them. This is followed
by understanding of the composition of the contemporary workplace
structure, the development in organizational teams, a description of
team communication and exchange, presented particularly where studied
through the sociological perspective of networks and network analysis.
The definition and description of organisational communication, networks
and its interaction with relational sociology is given.

\textbf{Major theoretical perspectives onorganisational communication}

Organizational communication as a discipline of interest grew
tremendously in the 20\textsuperscript{th} century. With multiple
perspectives talking about definitions, boundaries and the expanse of
the discipline, there was a struggle in establishing a clear identity
for it. Theories of organizational communication have exhibited multiple
pluralities. They have been outlined under significant thematic threads
or ``metatheoretical fiefdoms'' as Corman(2000) calls it, whose
divergences though debated are highly productive for research (Putman \&
Mumby, 2013).

Being metatheoretical in understanding disciplines like organizational
communication allows for a high amount of multidisciplinary work and
inclusivity of thoughts from across threads of thought. There is also
enough space for flexibility and `proliferation of concepts' in the
context of contemporary contingencies. Inclusion of contemporary methods
of theorizing, multi-method research approaches, interdisciplinary
conjunctions and radical conceptualizations are encouraging
communication researchers who ``have been timid in moving out of their
intellectual comfort zones''(Sortrin,2014), Mumby traces conceptual
shifts that transformed organizational communication ``from the study of
communication in organizations to the communication politics of
organizations'' (Miller, K. I., 2008).

Organizational studies have schools of thoughts that intersect with the
schools of thought of organizational communication. The influences are
evident when these schools' major ideas are examined.

The keystone of positivism is empiricism, as positivism upholds the
scientific study of the social world. Its purpose is to develop abstract
and universal laws that govern the social universe's operative dynamics.
Post-positivism upholds that an organization has an objective existence;
people come and go, but the organization endures. Interpretivism upholds
that an organization has a subjective existence; people create and
sustain it through their communication. The Critical theory as an
approach upholds that that the structures of power within an
organization have a fixed existence and reflect larger historical and
cultural forces. Social construction assumes that people construct
(i.e., create, make, invent) their understandings of the world and the
meanings they give to encounters with others, or various products they
or others create. It also assumes that they do this jointly, in
coordination with others, rather than individually (Leeds-Hurwitz, W.,
2016)~. Critical realists emphasize, to a greater extent than most
constructionists account, that social reality `consist of much more than
the linguistic, symbolic, and discursive resources and practices through
which we come to describe, understand and reflect on it' (Reed, 2009a:
434).

There is also the post-modern approach that upholds the importance of
power relations within an organization, and believes in their fluidity.
This expands from the earlier approaches to include diverse forms of
inquiry that challenge and reconstruct systems of power, identity, and
representation. (Mease, 2017). The idea of realities being constituted
through interaction, through and by different humans and thus
constituting different versions of reality for their cultural or social
group is also emergent. Theorists challenge any way of structuring truth
and reality that overpowers others. They do this by emphasizing
suspicion, irony, appropriation, pastiche, tension, irrationality, and
vulnerability to demonstrate the inadequacy of any particular structure
or order for understanding reality.

As Putnam and Mumby(2014) say ``theories, by definition, highlight and
hide different elements of a phenomenon under study\ldots{}so a larger
toolbox of theories is of more value to conceptualize organizing
knowledge, and leaning on the same theory is detrimental to knowledge.''
So, scholars develop perceptions and knowledge claims that are as much a
product of ``their own theoretical constructs as much as of the
phenomenon itself''. They also mention that in the future researchers
need to ``develop homegrown theories that will offer communicative modes
of explanation and a discipline-based lens to study organizational
phenomena''. Also, studies of organizational communication need to
utilize communicative modes of explanation from theories,
discipline-based lenses, and multi-level relationships between
organizational elements.

This research requires a nuanced treatment of the
individual-leader-organization relationship. The idea is to understand
how communication is central in its function in mediating this
relationship. It also looks at the treatment of communication in its
forms of construction, organization and discourse.

Organizational communication is often the most generative when it
focusses on complexity and contradiction. Focussing on generative
tensions between communication and materiality can help researchers
unearth complex connections between the material and the symbolic. The
review proceeds to a breadth of scholarship, relational sociology, that
lends strength to the theories of communication, and leadership used in
this research. Inspired from the work on relational sociology by
stalwarts like G.H. Mead to classic scholars like George Simmel,
Harrison White, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann, along with research
by active or visible contemporary relational sociologists like Fuhse,
Crossley, P. Donati, Charles Tilly, and Liang and Liu this section
expands the importance of social forms, system theories, social
relationships and network analysis. (Ruggieri, D. 2017, Fuhse, J. A.
2009). The inspiration coerced the urge to study, argue and reason about
structure and dynamics, about collapse and growth, and about humans and
technology, that co-exist in what are explained here, as networks.

An overview of Relationalism as an approach to understand organization
and structure

In the late 20\textsuperscript{th} century, the dilemma faced by
sociologists with how to conceive the social world- as made of
substances or residing in processes, in static things or in dynamic
relations ( Emirbayer, M., 1997). There were many dualisms that the
science was researching, like ``structure vs agency'', ``material vs
ideal'', and ``individual vs society'', but the most important at that
time , according to Emirbayer, M. (1997), was to decide between
substantialism and Relationalism.

Relationalism in its early research upholds society as a super-structure
of relationships, as a large framework of connections that gives life a
frame. It is to be understood here that is not the substance here which
is important, but the relationships, their strength, and their force in
constructing frames that are perceived as social structures. The classic
sociologist, Simmel, had a lot of initial work contributory to
relational theorizing. He observed that ``society is the supra-singular
structure which is nonetheless not abstract. Through this concept,
historical life is spared the alternatives of having to run either in
mere individuals or abstract generalities. Society is the generality
that has, simultaneously, concrete vitality'' (Jenks, C., 2004,~Simmel
in Simmel, G. 2009; Ruggieri, D. 2017).~ . These thoughts position it
separately from the substantialist view of sociology and social sciences
broadly.

Relationships are not constant, and it is this changing, contingent
nature that makes them the centre of focus in relationist studies. If
relationships were considered to be constant, independent of context or
fixed, they would be another version of substantialism, wrote Erikson.
So, the contingent, dynamic nature of relationships is dependent of the
space within it operates, the social social context, and this in turn,
is shaped by these relationships. (Erikson, E. 2013)

Substantialists identify the source of social action and explanation in
fixed entities, be they individuals, societies, or social structures.
Relationalists instead believe that the ``very terms or units involved
in a transaction derive their meaning, significance, and identity from
the (changing) functional roles they play within that transaction''
(Emirbayer 1997:287). And, ``relational theorists reject the notion that
one can posit discrete, pregiven units such as the individual or society
as ultimate starting points of sociological analysis'' (Emirbayer
1997:287). The individual, or any single unit is incapable of
independent survival as the society is all important.

Relationships, especially social relations, have often been studied as
decisive variables for various phenomenon , but little attention is paid
to the meaning structure of networks of relationships. These social
networks hold together the expectations, symbols, schemata, and cultural
practices embodied in interpersonal networks, and these allow the
interplay of structure and meaning in networks. ( Fuhse, J. A., 2009).

Using the relational sociology lens to analyze organizational research
theories

Relational sociology is interesting to analyze for the weightage it puts
on the constitution of society. Donati (Donati, P., 2018) believes in
society being not a space 'containing' relations, but rather the very
tissue of relations. He said that society 'is~relation' and does not
'have relations'.( Prandini, R.,2015). It is also of specific interest
as a way to overcome stale antinomies between structure and agency
through a focus on the dynamics of social interactions in different
kinds of social settings.( Mische, A.,2011). Incorporating insights from
diverse research traditions such as systems theory, socio-psychological
research on relationships, symbolic interactionism, and social
anthropology, the aim is to avoid a purely `structural' understanding of
networks. The result is finding more meaning in networks, depiction of
social relationships as `intersubjective constructs of expectations and
cultural forms', simplification of complexities attached to network
structure, and adding meaning to identities that exist therefore making
for a ``network culture''.

Human beings believe that they are independent and autonomous
individuals, who think independently. But, in fact, the so called
`independent'' thoughts exist within pre-existing or developing,
pre-determined or instantaneous structures that contain, inform, direct
and determine their actions. Sociology's enterprise is to study these,
often hidden social structures, and highlight their importance and
function.

Where structure is used to define the more fixed and enduring aspects of
the social landscape(Stones, R., 2007). that act as regulators and
constraints on an individual's action; Agency refers to the capacity of
individuals to act independently and make their own free choices. It
lies in in the thoughts and actions taken by people that express their
individual power. ``It is the ability of actors to operate independently
of the determining constraints of social structure'' (Campbell, C.,
2009).).

Human agency and social structure, have a simultaneously antagonistic
and mutually dependent relation (Hays, S.,1994).. Social life is
fundamentally structured, and social structures do make possible a whole
range of choices in everyday life. Also, agency is reproductive of
structure, so it should be studied in inter-relation with structure
along with systems of structure and systems of meaning. ``Structures
should be understood as enabling as well as constraining; they are the
very basis of human power and self-understanding'' (Durkheim 1964,
1965a, 1965b, 1966; Giddens 1982, 1984; Weintraub, 1945). Similarly as
Hays (1994), says `` A sociological understanding of agency, then, does
not confuse it with individualism, subjectivity, randomness, absolute
freedom, or action in general, but recognizes it as embracing social
choices that occur within structurally defined limits among structurally
provided alternatives.

Structure and agency, are co-existent, and schools of Sociology
highlight different aspects differently. (Castells, M., 2000; ). The
reason for looking at these is to understand scholars' interpretations
of the importance of structure and agency, and any relation among the
two. The research undertaken needs these to interpret the sociology of
organizations and put into place why and how certain organizational
structures and constituents function in specific in specific ways. It
also helps in further interpretation of patterns that may emerge due to
differently occurring relationships between structure and agency. These
patterns have been looked at as the main area of interest in Networks.

An overview of thoughts on structure and agency- inter-relating it with
the differential importance of structure and agency in social theory and
organizational communication

Three different schools of thought in social theory question the
relationship between structure and agency, and analyze their interaction
differently. These are the schools of \emph{structuralism, symbolic
interactionism, and post-structuralism} . A look at some representative
thoughts that have been most influential will aid understanding of these
approaches.

An annotation of three main perspectives is provided then to understand
their influence in this study of organizational and human communication.
Their contribution stems from the role of structure and agency in
determining patterns Their reliability as valid communication research,
along with some methodological issues has been put forth. The main
threads presented are the \emph{systems theory, structuration, and
network theory} , which form the main theoretical base for understanding
transfer of information, formation of communication partners and
patterns of exchange.

\emph{Structuralism} is sometimes referred to as
structural-functionalism (Pope,W.1975). This approach has been
criticized for its lack of acknowledgement of individual agency. Social
institutions are seen as collective means to fulfil individual and
collective or social needs

According to structuralism, language serves as a bridge between the
subject's mind and the outside world and scholars' work theorized how
language became action. Language, according to Saussure, is the result
of social interaction. Language, according to Levi-Strauss, is more of a
value than a sign. The distinction between language (social) and speech
is the fundamental premise of Saussure's linguistic structuralism
(individual act).

Structuralism then holds that social structures are patterns of everyday
life, the way that social relationships are organised on a consistent
basis, and that this is what provides order to the social world.
Structuralism thus finds the possibility of social transformation in the
structure's fragility. When the ideas of thinkers are combined, it
becomes evident that in order for social change to occur, the conditions
or behaviours of the masses of people must alter. Thus, in order for
societal change to occur, systems such as the family, schooling, and so
on must be transformed. Structuralism is thus a macrosociology in which
individual human activity is substantially influenced by the environment
that structures provide.

Anthony Giddens \emph{structuration} theory is a contemporary European
social theory that shows inspiration from Karl Marx's thoughts (Giddens,
A. 1992; Tucker, K., 1998). Giddens sees structure as both constraining
and enabling. At its core, Giddens's structuration theory, with its
focus on social practices, is a theory of the relationship between
agency and structure. All social action involves structure, and all
structure involves social action. According to Bernstein (1995), ''the
very heart of the theory of structuration'' is ''intended to illuminate
the duality and dialectical interplay of~agency and structure''.
Giddens's structuration theory deals with the agency-structure issue in
a historical, processual, and dynamic way. Giddens is concerned with the
dialectical process in which practice, structure, and consciousness are
produced. The human actor not only is self-conscious but also is engaged
in the monitoring of the ongoing flow of activities and structural
conditions. Bernstein argues that ''agency itself is reflexively and
recursively implicated in social structures''. Actors use language to
account for what they do, and sociologists, in turn, use language to
account for the actions of social actors.

\emph{Systems theory} is a general theoretical approach to communication
theory located in the structural-functional perspective. It gives
essential notions to aid in the development of more particular theories.
Various theories and research projects have been developed using the
same set of notions, such as wholeness and interconnectedness. Systems
theory was proposed in the 1940's by the biologist von Bertalanffy. But
it is Niklas Luhmann's systems theory which is a modern theory that
studies organizations. Luhmann was the pioneer of the social systems
theory and laid the foundation for creating robust organization science
theories. However, his comparison of the organization to a mechanistic
entity wasn't appreciated by all thinkers. Using a sociological thought
helps understand how teams, organizations and society work together, and
makes room for the Social Systems theory. This theory is rooted in the
thought that organizations consist of decision communication, to the
extent of risking barely considering the presence and role of humans and
human interaction in them( Luhmann 1984, Rhodes \& Niklas , 2013).
Luhmann unfortunately used a biological metaphor to explain the codes of
communication. He also ``bracketed human action and intention as
analytically outside his systems of social coordination''. His view of
the theory has also been criticized for having ``meta-biological
overtones'' (Leydesdorff, 2006) and having inherent issues like
``structural coupling'', which could be considered as a biological
mechanism (Leydesdorff, 2010).

Nevertheless, the theory's foremost orientation lies towards creating
distance, demarcating boundaries and making distinctions (Schwanitz,1995
; Seidl, D., \& Schoeneborn, D., 2010) , particularly for many parts and
wholes in society. It encourages us to concentrate on systems and
subsystems, as well as the examination of relationship patterns at
various levels. It's been described as an ecological worldview in which
each system is unique while still being a part of a larger whole. Rather
than reducing an entity~to the attributes of its parts or elements ,
systems theory focuses on the arrangement and relationships between the
pieces that link them together to form a whole (holism). It helps think
of the deterministic qualities of the type of communication that
produces decisions, how units function as operationally closed systems,
and the power of conscious communication. Organizations are seen as
self-organizing and self-reflective systems Then, it finally makes
organizations appear like networks of decisions, which is a developed
view from the classic thought of mechanical systems of production or
just machines.

The \emph{symbolic interactionist} school of thought's main thinkers
include George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, and Herbert Blumer. The
theory itself is a micro-level theory (Carter, M. J., \& Fuller, C.,
2015), that concentrates more on individual level or interpersonal
interactions and meanings generated therefore. Symbolic interactionism,
has its origins in pragmatism (Dewey), social theory (Mead, Blumer), and
later social psychology (Goffman), and claims that people understand and
give meaning to events through an intricate system of symbols (Stryker,
S., \& Vryan, K. D., 2006). The meanings of these symbols emerge and
change as a result of human social interaction. So, it examines society
via the descriptive meanings humans have assigned to things, events, and
actions. Humans' behavioural patterns will be based on these descriptive
meanings since people behave based on descriptive beliefs rather than
objective reality. According to this hypothesis, humans construct a
sophisticated collection of symbols that provide meaning to the world
from their perspective. Meanings are formed via interactions with
society. And they interpret these interactions subjectively to fit the
meaning in line with the existing symbols. It might be argued that in
order to comprehend the behavioural patterns of society, we must first
understand ourselves. However, this approach does not answer how certain
groups of individuals come to develop background expectations and roles.
It also does not account adequately for possible social change, lack of
consensus, and subjectivities and micro-aggressions generated by
interactions.

\emph{Post-structuralism} or post-positivism believes in a theory of
knowledge and language (Agger, B. ,1991). This school of thought's main
thinkers move away from previous thoughts of language as something that
makes the world legible to us, to the claim that language makes the
world, i.e. a discursive claim about language.

Through ''habitus,'' Bourdieu discusses how social structures and human
action come to combine and shape the conditions and possibilities of
actions within society . (Townley, B.2014). Derrida, arguably, the most
noteworthy post structural writer contributed the idea of deconstruction
(Agger, B. ,1991). He explains that every definition ''deconstructs,''
or unravels, when one delves deeper into its foundational assumptions
and literary gestures. Because definitions are the product of a
particular time and place, post-structuralism proposes a kind of
suspicion of concise definitions. Supportive theorists are sceptical of
things like grounded theory because there is no such thing as a
'theory-free' field. This is all about power relations, and
post-structuralists are attempting to devise a model that negotiates
between language, the social world, the discursive world, the physical
world, and power systems. If the relationship between a person and their
subjectivity is not fixed, a person can represent competing
contradictory interests.

In this school's thoughts, language creates the world, as opposed to the
structuralist concept of it only referring to the physical world.
Language constructs both subjectivity and the subject (Clegg, S. ,1998).
So, it is only through language that people have the ability to
comprehend something called the world. Fluidity of meaning derived and
attached was appreciated, as it was language that constructed the world.
Post-structuralism was then considered as a philosophical and
metaphysical view of the world.

Most feminists and cultural studies scholars come from this intellectual
tradition because it helps them to see the subject in such a way that
the subject reflects many, multifarious, and often contradictory
entities at the same time. Post-structuralists claim that there exist
rough and tacit phenomena, but those are immaterial to how we perceive
the universe. The world is not a mirror of these objective things out
there, but rather the result of our interaction with it.

Post-structuralism paved the way for sociological research that does not
operate from a fixed conceptual standpoint and challenges normative
understandings of social relations. Post-structuralism then approaches
the issue of structure and agency in a way that provides flexibility to
structure, implying that social phenomena that we assume operate in a
fixed way and can only be one thing are actually a dynamic set of plural
meanings influenced by a wide range of social contestations.

A \emph{network} approach, rather than focusing on the characteristics
of individuals, focuses on the causes and consequences of relationships
and connections between and among sets of people and groups (Monge, P.
R., \& Contractor, N. S., 2001). A network is said to comprise of
interacting patterns formed by individuals and groups through
transmitting and exchanging messages over time and space. Under the
Cybernetic Tradition,'' network theory allows us to observe clusters of
communication relationships created by the objects communicating within
a network. These clusters link together to form organizational
networks.'' (Castells, M., Monge, P., \& Contractor, N.,2011). The fact
that group members are enmeshed in various, previously established as
well as emerging communication networks that differ in structure, type
of interactions, and diversity of links is a major element of intergroup
contexts. (Stohl, C., 2018).

A fundamental concept of the theory is that behaviour is best understood
socially; and each social unit is at the crossroads of a plethora of
limiting and enabling alignments. Traditional social scientific
techniques to intergroup communication are extended and supplemented by
a network perspective.

\textbf{Implementation of philosophical assumptions or positions in
research methods:} Theories chiefly reflect assumptions with regard to
ontology, epistemology and axiology. Ontology explains the reality of
existence of things, including social phenomena such as organizations;
epistemology explains how things become known and the scope of knowledge
and axiology explains what is worth knowing and what is right.
(Anderson, J. A., 1996; Littlejohn, S. W., \& Foss, K. A., 2010).

The application of Ontology and Epistemology in analyzing knowledge :
Positivism and Objectivism. Interpretivism and Constructivism

Positivism, an epistemological position, emphasises the importance of
objectivity and evidence in seeking truth, and the researcher has no
influence on the world. Furthermore, inpositivism, facts and values are
different, allowing for objective and value-free inquiry (Snape \&
Spencer, 2003)

Objectivism believes that when we recognise objects around us, we merely
find meanings that have always been there in them. Furthermore, truth is
static and always objective, according to the positivism/objectivism
paradigm.

Because all information about the world originates in our experiences
and is gained through our senses, only facts (and hence knowledge) that
can be validated by the senses may be regarded as true knowledge
(Bryman, 2008; Ormston et al, 2014). According to Wellington (2000),
positivist knowledge is objective, value-free, generalizable, and
reproducible. This is why positivism is frequently associated with the
'scientific approach.'

Since the early twentieth century, the positivist and objectivist
traditions and thought have been criticised. The rejection of positivist
thinking and tradition was based on the premise that if rules and laws
are solely formed through observation, then a future observation may
prove to be an exception to a current rule or law (Ormston et al, 2014).
This viewpoint spawned a second kind of positivism known as
post-positivism.

Interpretivism- . The researcher knows the social world utilising both
his/her understanding as well as the participants' understanding. The
researcher and the social world interact and absolutely bias-free
interpretation is not possible. Objective and value-free inquiry is
impossible since findings are invariably influenced by the researchers'
opinions and values. Knowledge is formed through studying and
comprehending the social world of the individuals being studied.
Knowledge is viewed as personal, subjective, and distinctive. The use of
an emergent and collaborative strategy is congruent with the
interpretivist notion that humans can adapt and that no one can have
prior knowledge about time and context constrained social realities
(Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). As a result, rather than generalising and
forecasting causes and effects, the purpose of interpretivist research
is to understand and interpret the meanings in human behaviour (Neuman,
2000; Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). An interpretivist researcher must
comprehend intentions, meanings, reasoning, and other subjective
experiences that are time and context bound (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988;
Neuman, 2000).

Constructivist : Knowledge is created by exploring and comprehending
(rather than discovering) the social world of the people being studied,
focusing on their meanings and interpretations, i.e., meanings are
socially constructed by the social actors in a given context.
Constructivists believe that scientific knowledge is created by
scientists rather than discovered from the outside world. Because
reality is a mental construct, it is perceived to be subjective.
(Fuller, T., \& Loogma, K., 2009).

The researcher follows more of an interpretivist approach towards
knowledge-seeking and interpretation. The ``paradigmic commitment'' is
Constructivist- interpretivist as the methodology used is that of a
case-study(Taber, K. S., 2014).

Relations, networks and communication- emergence, organization,
structure and agency

Though sociology and social theory have evolved significantly since the
times of their founding fathers such as Comte,~Weber, Durkheim, and
Marx, questions about the scientific status of sociological research and
theorising can still be raised. The epistemological status of a lot of
knowledge content is undergoing slow change. It has been argued that
sociology does not do much justice to and has failed to incorporate a
theory of communication. As Prandini says ``The individual is
social(ized), and the social is interiorized by individuals; they are
made by the same stuff, relationships\ldots{}..the theoretical
(ontological) block of relational sociology is `communication',
conceived as an ongoing social process.'' (Prandini, R., 2015). Pure
relationists tend to remove the social from the relation, and study it
like quantum mechanics is studied- like a `system' of flow and movement
which is dependent on connections. (Rovelli,C. 2016 in Whimster, S.
2018; Whimster, S. 2018).

There was a need to move beyond the formality and technicality of
network research which made it formidable and inaccessible for many
non-mathematical researchers (Mische, A. 2011). Similarly, the field of
cultural sociology felt constricted by its orientation towards artistic
production, and started moving towards the study of its intersection
with significant areas in sociology. Political sociology, social
movements, comparative studies, historical sociology, practice and
discourse, and the study of collective behaviour had major overlays with
cultural sociology. There were few scholars steering network analytics
techniques to study cultural and historical processes, so the gap was
felt and so was the need for more ``interpretively oriented cultural
research'' (Prandini, R., 2015). The social network approach argues that
organizations are groupings of objects in a system formed by a variety
of relationships(Tichy, N. M. et al. 1979, Mische, A. 2011).

Sociology saw a change in the early 1990s with the `relational' turn
seen largely in New York and some areas in America. Two previously
distinct strands of studies, cultural sociology and social network
analysis, that studied the content and form of relationships in society
and its constituents, were meshed in relational studies. With this turn,
sociological research took a healthy turn from the
individualistic-collectivistic divide, to studying events and phenomenon
from the angle of relationships, with the individual and the society
being main determinants. So, sociologists like Mucha (2003) carried
forth Simmels's thoughts on duality from early
20\textsuperscript{th}century and worked on the micro-sociology of
relationships. They brought out the angle of the co-existence and
interdependence of individualistic and collectivistic perspective of
existence, and this was social reality to relational sociology. The
``associations between interdependent human beings'' were the
``objects'' of relational sociology. Networks and matrices could be used
to study concentrations and clusters of associations, usually formed due
to similar preferences or tastes, also called homophily. Donati(2011)
explains the connection to formation of social ties ad networks well. He
says that the social relation is the emergent effect of reciprocal
actions reiterated over time among social actors/ subjects occupying
different positions in a societal configuration (system or social
network)''.

So, according to relational sociology, social networks are interwoven
with meaning and culture (Erikson, 2013, Fuhse, 2009, Crossley, N.,
2015\textbf{;} Fuhse, 2022, Mische, 2011). Social connections are
interaction and expectation patterns that emerge as a result of larger
cultural models and institutionalised roles. In accordance with
neo-institutionalism and current field theory, we see network formation
situations as fields with different social-cultural organisation
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, Martin, 2011: 268ff, Fuhse, J. A.,2020;
Fuhse, J. A., \& Gondal, N. , 2022).

Relational sociology offers a comprehensive analysis of social networks,
viewing them as actual social structures intertwined with meaning.
Stories, identities, social categories (including role categories), and
institutions are all forms of meaning that are linked to network
configurations (as part of their 'domains') (\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Fuhse, J., \&
Mützel, S.,} 2011; \textbf{Fuhse, J.,} 2015). ~Neo-sociological stands
concentrate on linkages and relationships that are especially important
within the relational strand. Considering that Nedeva (2000, as cited in
Lopes, H. E. G.,2004)\textbf{,} explains organizations in the
perspective of relationships of networks as \textbf{`} any organization
can be understood and analyzed in terms of multiple relationships, that
take place among the actors, with emphasis on the interactions that they
develop inside and outside the boundaries of the organization. These
also encourage analysis that investigates the relationships between
perspectives and theoretical positions.

Inter-organizational exchange networks are a type of market that
consists of both direct and indirect business relationships (Achrol,
1997; Miles and Snow, 1992; Möller et al., 2005). Understanding systemic
structures such as networks, as well as the embeddedness of firms within
these structures, has been identified as a distinct research focus.

\textbf{Networks in society - a relational perspective}

Networks hold multiple meanings and connotations in multiple
disciplines. In using the term social network, there has been a shift in
its denotation over time. Studying people as social entities, network
research believes that all human beings are ``embedded'' in ``networks''
of relationships. These networks are interconnected and are termed
social, as they require interaction in some form. This meaning owes its
origin to sociological research. ``Social'' network is used in the
context of relations of an individual as a member or part of a
collectivity or group. The term ``collectivity'' (Coleman , 1971,
Jenkins, 2002) is used more often in association with the word
``social'' in sociological parlance and has the same meaning as the word
``collective'' (Fuhse, 2009, von Scheve, 2019 ).may have in some
definitions i.e. that of a group or assemblage of people (Callon \& Law,
1997 , von Scheve, 2019) . It does not refer to the frequently
interpreted connotation of ``social network'' as ``online social
networks'' which are identified by its online actors. These terms are
often used interchangeably. Wellman talked the perspective of computer
and human connectedness in saying ``When a computer network connects
people or organizations, it is a social network.'' Andrews makes it
clearer by stating that an ``online social network (OSN)'' like Facebook
or LinkedIN, ``uses computer support as the basis of communication
amongst all its members'' (Andrews et al., 2002), requiring the presence
of that particular technical system. So, interpersonal relations and
exchanges that exist over technical platforms are considered as a
``type'' of social network only for network research.

Hawes, 1974 initiated an interesting study of speech, conversations and
a search of patterns in organizational behavior through interaction
analysis. Centrality within organizations. He said that ``a social
collectivity is patterned communicative behavior ; communicative
behavior does not occur within a network of relationship but is that
network'' ( Hawes, 1994). Social behavior and communicative behavior are
therefore important in studying a group as a possible network.

According to one group of authors, networks are defined as the
connections between organisations, whereas the other group focusses on
the actors who are interconnected (Cook and Emerson, 1978). The networks
described in the first group are more stable; when one actor disappears,
its function is taken over by an existing actor(s) or a new one, and the
network remains relatively intact\textbf{.}

Researchers like Wellman had recognized and included other entities and
form of relations by defining it as ``a social network is a set of
people (or organizations or other social entities) connected by a set of
social relationships, such as friendship, co-working or information
exchange.'' He compared the connectedness among people to the way a
computer network is connected by a set of cables. We can see the mention
of linkages even in some early ones like that of Mitchell ( 1962)'s
definition of networks as `` a specific set of linkages among a defined
set of persons, with the additional property that the characteristics of
these linkages as a whole may be used to interpret the social behaviour
of the persons involved''. Castells' explanation is similar to that of
Wellman's when saying that ``a network is a set of interconnected
nodes'' (Castells, 2000). He also mentions the adaptivity and
flexibility of these structures, when abled by information technology,
making them capable of accomplishing tasks that the network is
programmed for.

Relational perspectives preliminarily use the sociological perspective
of networks, to understand relations, ties, associations, dependencies
and exchanges (Pescosolido, 2011) . Te use the understanding of social
networks as ``a socially constructed organizing process'' (Chewning,
2019), to analyse its formative, distributive and collective properties
in the processes of communication. Therefore, networks are dealt with as
structures of relationships among people in groups .

\textbf{Discussion and Conclusion}

Organizations were perceived similar to machines in traditional
management understanding and early theories. Using a sociological
thought helps understand how teams, organizations and society work
together, and makes room for modern organizational theory. The formation
of inter-organizational and intra- organizational networks has become
critical to prosperity and success (Tapscott 1996). When considered as
complex adaptive systems, inter-organizational networks exhibit high-
level emergent behaviour based on very simple interactions at lower
levels of abstraction (Axelrod 1997; Holland 1998).

To understand the dynamics of organisations, it is necessary to consider
not only the dyadic relationships between two firms, but also the larger
environment in which they operate. The economic network in which the
organisation operates is one dimension of the environment. Organizations
must be viewed as being embedded in a multidimensional environment.
Organizational~development~guarantees~that~when~one~aspect~of~a~system~changes,~the~other~
parts~of~the~system~are~aligned~with~that~change~to~enable~effective~implementation.~
In an organization, there are many relations that differ in degree,
intensity, tenure and tenacity, at work at the same time. We cannot
argue against the fact that any organization relies heavily on its human
capital and that of these relationships. With the advent of `virtual
organizations' and `timeless time' (Castells, 1996), experiences of
organizations, people and life itself changed. This experience is a
phenomenon led and maneuvered by machine led features like hypertext,
hyperlinks, image adjustments and message combinations. So, `networks'
translate experience into relations and them `within and between levels
or units of social reality', as required. (Van Dijk, J. 2012 :28).

But in analysing organizational structures as networks of relations ,
there need to be soe considerations. Social relationships are not a
prerequisite for every social structure. Social networks are more than
just a collection of social connections. These need to be linked
together in order to create network effects.~Also, not all ties in
networks are personal in the sense that they connect people, whereas
social relationships are always exclusive in the sense of formulating
expectations about the behaviour of precisely two people in relation to
each other. The only requirement is that, during communication, these
entities be treated as accountable social actors, i.e., as beings acting
out of internal attitudes like~motivations and~interests,~that can be
addressed by expectations.~ While analysing relations at the macro
level, Fuhse argues for a close connection between the communication in
relationships and the wider culture through the concept of relational
frames. the study of cultural models for relationships and of the
micro-processes in social relationships can yield important
contributions to relational sociology. (Fuhse, 2011)

According to Emirbayer and Goodwin, network researchers have overlooked
the significance of culture, values, and agency. However, when viewed
through the lens of relationalist theory, it is clear that social
network analysts work within a theoretical tradition that places a
premium on form (most commonly understood as structure) over content
(most often understood as culture). Relationalists value the concept of
relationships over abstract concepts such as agency and value. Imposing
only one theoretical narrative suppresses the philosophically grounded
and logically sound reasons why formalists consciously avoid emphasising
culture or how relationalists challenge the concept of agency and
normative values. The inclusion of contingency in social processes, as
well as sensitivity to context and content, all significantly limit the
scope of any research completed in relationalism.

Relationalism has a less well-defined agenda, but it is also less
dependent on the outcomes of individual actors. Many social processes
are of great interest because of their impact on society as a whole,
rather than on any single person (or actor). Relationalism, with its
emphasis on historical context, lends itself naturally to historical
transformation research. Relationalism's theoretical presuppositions
drive researchers to investigate collective dynamics that emerge only
through the complexity of multiple interacting units, rather than in
discrete interactions between individual and collective forces. Indeed,
focusing on relations rather than identities leads researchers away from
focusing on groups, and many of these works locate the source of change
in the interstices between groups rather than through endogenous group
developments.

However, Relationalism significantly narrows the scope of any research
done in the relationalist tradition by recognising contingency in social
processes and emphasising context as well as content.

Social network analysis has grown significantly since its inception in
the 1930s as a field of study in sociology. Social network analysis is
seen by many as having the potential to reenergize and unite
sociological research under the guise of a theoretical interest in
relationships rather than individuals. A theoretical model of what
occurs in social relationships and how these relational processes relate
to interactions and network structure is necessary for network research
and relational sociology. According to this strategy, network studies
must be combined with analysis of social relationship and network
structure processes. This calls for improvements in the theoretical
framework and discussion of alternative conceptions of the fundamental
components of networks. An explanation based on communication theory of
how social structures, such as social relationships, develop during
communication. However, factors like non-accountability of culture
because the units of analyses ``suppresses an interest in culture as an
object of analysis'', dynamism, transformation, and problem of universal
generalization pose as restrictions. This saw an active voice from
researchers like Fuhse, Goodwin, Erimbayer, and Erikson (Erikson, 2013)
wo mentioned the need to have more dyadic ad group-level factors in the
`paradigm', and research about ``a close connection between the
communication in relationships and the wider culture through the concept
of relational frames'' (Fuhse, 2011), and not forget about thhe
importance of culture, values and agency in social network analysis.

\textbf{References}

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism:
  Their sociological relevance.~\emph{Annual review of sociology}
  ,~\emph{17} (1), 105-131.
\item
  Campbell, C. (2009). Distinguishing the power of agency from agentic
  power: A note on Weber and the ``black box'' of personal
  agency.~\emph{Sociological Theory} ,~\emph{27} (4), 407-418.
\item
  Carter, M. J., \& Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic
  interactionism.~\emph{Sociopedia. isa} ,~\emph{1} (1), 1-17.
\item
  Castells, M., Monge, P., \& Contractor, N. (2011). Network
  Theory\textbar{} Prologue to the Special Section\textbar{} Network
  Multidimensionality in the Digital Age.~\emph{International Journal of
  Communication} ,~\emph{5} , 6.
\item
  Clegg, S. (1998). Foucault, power and organizations.~\emph{Foucault,
  management and organization theory} , 29-48.
\item
  Crossley, N. (2015). Relational sociology and culture: A preliminary
  framework.~\emph{International Review of Sociology} ,~\emph{25} (1),
  65-85.
\item
  Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational
  sociology.~\emph{American journal of sociology} ,~\emph{103} (2),
  281-317.
\item
  Erikson, E. (2013). Formalist and relationalist theory in social
  network analysis.~\emph{Sociological Theory} ,~\emph{31} (3), 219-242.
\item
  Fuhse, J. A. (2009). The meaning structure of social
  networks.~\emph{Sociological theory} ,~\emph{27} (1), 51-73.
\item
  Fuhse, J. A. (2020). The Field of Relational
  Sociology.~\emph{Digithum} , (26).
\item
  Fuhse, J. A. (2020). Theories of Social Networks.~\emph{The Oxford
  Handbook of Social Networks} , 34-49.
\item
  Fuhse, J. A., \& Gondal, N. (2022). Networks from culture: Mechanisms
  of tie-formation follow institutionalized rules in social
  fields.~\emph{Social Networks} .
\item
  Fuller, T., \& Loogma, K. (2009). Constructing futures: A social
  constructionist perspective on foresight methodology.~\emph{Futures}
  ,~\emph{41} (2), 71-79.
\item
  Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of
  culture.~\emph{Sociological theory} , 57-72.
\item
  Scott,J.~~P.~Carrington~(Eds.),~Sage Handbook of Social Network
  Analysis,~Sage,~London~(2011), pp.~80-97
\item
  Jenks, C. (2004).~\emph{Subculture: The fragmentation of the social} .
  Sage.
\item
  Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The communication of meaning and the
  structuration of expectations: Giddens'``structuration theory'' and
  Luhmann's ``self\selectlanguage{english}-organization''.~\emph{Journal of the American Society
  for Information Science and Technology} ,~\emph{61} (10), 2138-2150.
\item
  Luhmann, Niklas. Introduction to Systems theory. Polity. 2013b
\item
  Luhmann,Niklas and Barrett Rhodes. A theory of Society.Volume 2. A
  cultural memory of the past. Stanford University Press. 2013 a (Change
  to APA- refer JORR paper)
\item
  Martin, J. L. (2011).~\emph{The explanation of social action} . OUP
  USA.
\item
  Miller, K. I. (2008). Organizational communication\textbf{.~\emph{The
  international encyclopedia of communication}. Sage handbook (p.103)}
\item
  Mische, A. (2011). Relational sociology, culture, and
  agency.~\emph{The SAGE handbook of social network analysis} , 80-97.
\item
  Monge, P. R., \& Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication
  networks.~\emph{The new handbook of organizational communication:
  Advances in theory, research, and methods} , 440-502.
\item
  P.~DiMaggio,~W.W.~Powell; The iron cage revisited: institutional
  isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.
  American Sociological Rev.,~48~(2)~(1983),
  pp.~147-160,~10.2307/2095101
\item
  Pope, W. (1975). Durkheim as a Functionalist.~\emph{Sociological
  Quarterly} ,~\emph{16} (3), 361-379.
\item
  Prandini, R. (2015). Relational sociology: a well-defined sociological
  paradigm or a challenging `relational turn'in
  sociology?.~\emph{International Review of Sociology} ,~\emph{25} (1),
  1-14.
\item
  Ruggieri, D. (2017). Georg Simmel and the ``Relational Turn''.
  Contributions to the foundation of the Lebenssoziologie since
  Simmel.~\emph{Simmel Studies} ,~\emph{21} (1), 43-71.
\item
  Schwanitz, D. (1995). Systems theory according to Niklas Luhmann: its
  environment and conceptual strategies.~\emph{Cultural Critique} ,
  (30), 166.
\item
  Seidl, D., \& Schoeneborn, D. (2010). Niklas Luhmann's autopoietic
  theory of organisations: Contributions, limitations, and future
  prospects.~\emph{University of Zurich, Institute of Organization and
  Administrative Science (IOU), IOU Working Paper} , (105).
\item
  Simmel, G. (2009).~\emph{Sociology: Inquiries into the construction of
  social forms} . Brill.
\item
  Stohl, C. (2018). Network Theory and Intergroup Approaches.
  In~\emph{Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication} .
\item
  Stones, R. (2007). Structure and agency.~\emph{The Blackwell
  encyclopedia of sociology} .
\item
  Stryker, S., \& Vryan, K. D. (2006). The symbolic interactionist
  frame.~\emph{Handbook of social psychology} , 3-28.
\item
  Taber, K. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education
  research: a perspective from the philosophy of science.
  In~\emph{International handbook of research in history, philosophy and
  science teaching} ~(pp. 1839-1893). Springer, Dordrecht.
\item
  Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., \& Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network
  analysis for organizations.~\emph{Academy of management review}
  ,~\emph{4} (4), 507-519.
\item
  Townley, B. (2014). Bourdieu and organizational theory: A ghostly
  apparition.~\emph{The Oxford handbook of sociology, social theory, and
  organization studies: Contemporary currents} , 39-63.
\item
  Tucker, K. (1998).~\emph{Anthony Giddens and modern social theory} .
  Sage.
\item
  Whimster, S. (2018). Pure relationality as a sociological theory of
  communication.~\emph{Frontiers in Sociology} ,~\emph{3} , 1.
\end{enumerate}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

