Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.5049 Editorial In Good Company? Personal Relationships, Network Embeddedness, and Social Inclusion Miranda J. Lubbers COALESCE Lab, GRAFO Research Group, Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain; E‐Mail: mirandajessica.lubbers@uab.cat Submitted: 8 November 2019 | Published: 15 December 2021 Abstract How do individuals’ networks of personal relationships affect their social in‐ and exclusion? Researchers have shown that micro‐level, informal relationships can be highly consequential for social inclusion, but in complex, contradictory ways: Personal networks reflect the degree of relational exclusion and protect against (other forms of) exclusion, but they also erode in conditions of exclusion and reproduce exclusion. While network researchers have widely studied some of these mechanisms, they have yet to embrace others. Therefore, this thematic issue reconsiders the complex relationship between personal networks and social inclusion. It offers a unique vantage point by bringing together researchers who work with different marginalised social groups, typically studied separately: refugees, transnational migrants, indigenous people, older people, people experiencing poverty, LGBT people, and women who have experienced domestic violence. This combination allows us to detect commonalities and differences in network functioning across historically excluded groups. This editorial lays the theoretical groundwork for the thematic issue and discusses the key contributions of the seventeen articles that compose the issue. We call for more attention to relationship expectations, the reciprocity of sup‐ port flows, and contextual embeddedness, and question universally adopted theoretical binaries such as that of bonding and bridging social capital. Keywords bonding and bridging; embeddedness; inequality; informal protection; network erosion; personal networks; relationship expectations; reproduction; social inclusion; social relationships Issue This editorial is part of the issue “In Good Company? Personal Relationships, Network Embeddedness, and Social Inclusion” edited by Miranda J. Lubbers (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain). © 2021 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This editorial is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu‐ tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction and rationalisation of inequalities by dominant groups (e.g., Lamont et al., 2014; Lamont & Pierson, 2019). Processes of social exclusion make the headlines every These processes make people see inequalities as “as nat‐ day, whether it is the progressive banishment of women ural as the air around us” (Galtung, 1969, p. 173). from public life and the oppression of Shia minorities The term “social exclusion” gained prominence in the in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), the racial disparities in 1990s to refer to the unequal power relations that gen‐ access to healthcare or higher education in the US (and erate inequality, contrasting with distributional terms elsewhere), or the disproportionally negative effect of such as poverty. However, it alludes mainly to macro‐ the Covid‐19 pandemic on the vulnerability of people level relations among categories of individuals, such with low incomes worldwide. The events that reach the as between documented and undocumented residents, news are just the tip of the iceberg, as exclusion is a which result in unequal access to markets, services, and daily, global reality. Social exclusion originates from accu‐ spaces (Das et al., 2013). In this editorial, I will argue that mulated histories of opportunity hoarding by categori‐ it is also critical to understand the role of micro‐level, cal groups (Tilly, 1998) and the subsequent legitimisation interpersonal relationships in reproducing, mitigating, Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 203 or magnifying exclusion. Personal network analysis is support, which mitigates the stress adversity produces well‐suited for such research, as it considers the set of and protects well‐being (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kawachi & social relationships individuals have across the different Berkman, 2001). Social capital theories have further qual‐ social circles in which they participate. However, exactly ified ties and networks. For instance, Granovetter (1973) how personal networks bear on exclusion is still unclear. distinguished between “strong” (intimate and durable) As I will explain, they can (1) reflect the degree of net‐ ties, which provide the most emotional and practical sup‐ work exclusion, (2) protect against exclusion, (3) erode port, and “weak ties,” which are less supportive overall in conditions of exclusion, and (4) reproduce exclusion but particularly well‐suited to provide access to novel (see Figure 1). While network researchers have richly information about, for instance, employment vacan‐ described some of these mechanisms, they have yet to cies or housing. Putnam (1993) distinguished between embrace others. “bonding” and “bridging social capital.” Bonding capital This thematic issue aims to advance this research refers to dense networks of relations with people from area by reconsidering how personal networks affect the same categorical group, which involve thick trust social in‐ and exclusion. To do so, we have selected and substantial support for getting by. Bridging capital authors who work with different marginalised social refers to the less densely connected relations to peo‐ groups. While these groups are typically studied sep‐ ple of other categorical groups, which can help a person arately, more contact between personal network get ahead. Empirical research has consistently observed researchers working with different groups can help us see that personal networks are mobilised in times of forced the commonalities and differences in network function‐ and voluntary migration (e.g., Bilecen & Lubbers, 2021; ing across groups, giving us a better understanding of the Wissink & Mazzucato, 2018), mental and physical health intricate relation between networks and social inclusion. issues (e.g., Perry & Pescosolido, 2012), poverty (e.g., Before introducing the articles that compose this the‐ Lubbers, Small, & Valenzuela‐García, 2020; Stack, 1974), matic issue, I will provide a theoretical framework to help reentry in society after imprisonment (e.g., Volker et al., readers place the contributions in the broader literature. 2016), and widowhood (e.g., Guiaux et al., 2007), among other events. They provide individuals with companion‐ 2. Theoretical Framework ship, emotional, material, economic, and practical sup‐ port and information, which help them cope with disad‐ Personal networks, i.e., the sets of informal social rela‐ vantages and increase their social mobility. tionships surrounding individuals (McCarty et al., 2019; While network scholars thus generally conceive of Perry et al., 2018), give detailed insight into individu‐ personal networks as safety nets, exclusion‐triggering als’ participation in society’s primary and secondary net‐ life events such as migration or the onset of a poverty works (Fischer, 1982; Wellman, 1979). Network composi‐ episode or mental health issues can also substantially tion, and more specifically its heterogeneity in terms of change the structure, composition, and resourcefulness the social groups to which friends, family, and acquain‐ of the support networks that are supposed to protect tances belong, is often seen as an indicator of rela‐ people from the very vulnerability these events induce tional inclusion (see Figure 1, relation 1). The extent (see Figure 1, mechanism 3). These events affect net‐ to which people can build heterogeneous networks works by (a) reducing individuals’ participation in specific depends greatly on the diversity of the social settings social contexts or (b) violating general relationship norms they attend, such as workplaces, neighbourhoods, and (Lubbers, Valenzuela‐García, et al., 2020). Let me give voluntary associations (Feld, 1981). However, apart from two examples concerning migration and poverty. First, reflecting relational inclusion, personal networks also as migrants move far away from their core relationships, give a privileged view on the micro‐relational mecha‐ they cannot exchange all the types of resources they pre‐ nisms affecting social in‐ or exclusion in other areas. viously exchanged with these people, leaving their sup‐ Traditionally, personal networks have been conceptu‐ port networks severed. Thus, migrants need to recon‐ alised as sources of informal social protection (Bilecen & struct their local networks at a moment of great need Barglowski, 2014; see Figure 1, mechanism 2). The con‐ for social support (Lubbers et al., 2021). Their access to ceptualisation of personal networks as safety nets draws social settings such as work, neighbourhoods (i.e., sta‐ primarily on theories of social support (Berkman & Glass, ble housing), or schools is essential for rebuilding their 2000; Cohen et al., 2000; Taylor, 2011; van Tilburg, 1994) networks. Second, poverty episodes alter relationships and social capital (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999). Social sup‐ and, therefore, networks’ protective capacity. Job loss port theories have argued that people mobilise their and lack of money may lead to discontinued participation networks to obtain different types of support, which in work and costly leisure contexts, and thus, to a loss affects their health and well‐being. For instance, Kahn of relationships. Furthermore, while people experienc‐ and Antonucci (1980) described personal networks as ing poverty mobilise support from their networks, rela‐ “social convoys,” changing sets of multidimensional rela‐ tionships become conflictive when people cannot meet tionships that accompany people throughout their lives. norms of reciprocity for extended periods (e.g., Hansen, When facing adversity, people draw on these convoys— 2004; Komter, 1996), ultimately excluding them from their family members, friends, and acquaintances—for family networks and balanced personal relationships Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 204 (Lubbers, Valenzuela‐García, et al., 2020). In sum, the ero‐ quantitative personal network approach to investigate sive effects of “biographical network disruptions” (Perry how marginalised social groups experience exclusion in & Pescosolido, 2012) temper the idea of networks being their networks and how their relationships protect them safety nets. from or expose them to further vulnerability. The protective effect of networks is not only ham‐ The unique vantage point of this thematic issue is pered by biographical network disruptions, however. that it brings together social network scholars who study While exclusion is historically rooted in macro‐level cat‐ different marginalised social groups, related to migra‐ egorical relations and supported by systemic forces, indi‐ tion (Habti, 2021; Hoor, 2021; Hosnedlová et al., 2021; viduals enact and reproduce them in everyday inter‐ ten Kate et al., 2021), refuge (Brinker, 2021; Korkiamäki actions, intentionally and unintentionally (see Figure 1, & Elliott O’Dare, 2021; Speed et al., 2021; Younes et al., mechanism 4). We clearly see this in interactions among 2021), indigenous ethnic minorities (Huszti et al., 2021), strangers and professional relationships. For instance, poverty and economic exclusion (de Miguel‐Luken & Taliban men physically blocked women and girls from García‐Faroldi, 2021; Huszti et al., 2021; Valenzuela‐ entering workplaces and schools to enforce their rules, Garcia et al., 2021), advanced age (Ferguson, 2021; and health professionals give differential treatment and Korkiamäki & Elliott O’Dare, 2021; Ortiz & Bellotti, 2021), pain management to patients of different races with socioeconomic status (Hanhörster et al., 2021), sexual the same health conditions (Lee et al., 2019), as a orientation (Rengers et al., 2021), and domestic vio‐ result of racial bias (Hoffman et al., 2016). However, lence (Bellotti et al., 2021)—as well as the general pop‐ informal relationships among family members, friends, ulation (Requena & Ayuso, 2021). These populations neighbours, colleagues, classmates, members of the are typically studied separately, governed by different same community of worship, or parents whose chil‐ research interests. For example, for migrants, network dren go to the same school also reproduce exclusion. researchers focus on the process of relational embed‐ Categorically unequal relationships with power differ‐ ding (Ryan, 2018) within a new society of residence; for entials are particularly prone to reproducing exclusion. people experiencing poverty, on the extent to which indi‐ For instance, informal mixed‐race relationships can exert viduals mobilise material support; and for older people, racial micro‐aggressions (Williams, 2020), more affluent on loneliness. However, bringing these areas together family, friends, and acquaintances can shame and stig‐ may reveal commonalities and differences in network matise people experiencing poverty (e.g., Garthwaite, functioning across dimensions of exclusion, as well as 2015), and documented citizens sometimes exploit their intersectionality (for the latter, cf. Habti, 2021; Huszti undocumented friends or relatives (del Real, 2019). et al., 2021; Speed et al., 2021; ten Kate et al., 2021). Consequently, marginalised groups tend to distrust oth‐ The questions we initially asked the authors were: ers (Levine, 2013) or hide their status (e.g., as bene‐ How beneficial are personal networks for social inclu‐ fit recipient; see Garthwaite, 2015) for good reasons, sion? Under which conditions do personal relationships decreasing support mobilisation. Understanding how the and networks contribute to, versus impede, social inclu‐ two parties of an unequal relationship interpret and sion? Which interventions reinforce the protective capac‐ negotiate power differentials is, therefore, fundamental, ities of networks? The transversal themes that emerged but this topic has been underrepresented in social net‐ across the articles, which I will summarise below, were work analysis (cf. Azarian, 2010). related to these questions. 3. The Thematic Issue 3.1. Relationship Expectations Qualify the Supportiveness of Ties The seventeen articles in this thematic issue reconsider the complex role of personal networks in social in‐ and Various articles observe that personal network effects exclusion processes. Their authors adopt a qualitative or on well‐being cannot be understood by only focusing on Meso- and macro-level contexts ≈ (1) Reflecon of (a) size Personal networks – composion homogeneity (1) Social exclusion from (2) Informal protecon networks (a), spaces, structure support capacity (2, 3) – markets, and services turnover power differenals (4) (3) Network erosion + (4) Reproducon of exclusion Figure 1. Relation between personal networks and social exclusion. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 205 the amount of social support without considering indi‐ (Bourdieu, 1986) of life events and network functioning viduals’ relational expectations about support. A rela‐ that cannot always be reduced to current levels of social tionship is a “force‐field” (Azarian, 2010, p. 328) where capital. The authors adopt an innovative retrospective individuals negotiate contrasting expectations. Focusing life‐history approach to reconstruct network trajectories on women who experienced domestic violence, Bellotti over time. Studying retirement exclusion, they show that et al. (2021) formalise this complexity by crossing the sup‐ cumulative (dis)advantage describes the trajectories of portiveness of ties with women’s relational expectations the majority of respondents, but a minority experienced about support. They distinguish between positive and changes from disadvantageous to advantageous trajecto‐ negative “consistency” (i.e., receiving expected support ries or vice versa. and not receiving non‐expected support, respectively) and positive and negative “ambivalence” (i.e., receiving 3.2. Questioning Theoretical Binaries and Common non‐requested support and being denied requested sup‐ Assumptions port, respectively) in relationships. They use this classi‐ fication to show that agreement on the framing of the Theoretical binary distinctions such as those of strong situation and the modalities of help (i.e., consistency) is and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973) or bonding ver‐ vital for victims’ disclosure and escape. sus bridging social capital (Putnam, 1993) have often The lens these authors introduce resonates with been reduced to platitudes over time, concealing more other findings presented in this thematic issue. For nuanced realities (Patulny & Lind Haase Svendsen, 2007). instance, ten Kate et al. (2021) show that older migrants’ The articles in this issue question these binaries and unfulfilled expectations about their adult children’s sup‐ other sometimes taken‐for‐granted assumptions about port, rather than support itself, are related to loneli‐ personal networks. ness. They, too, use the term “ambivalent relationships.” Regarding strong versus weak ties, Younes et al. Focusing on older people in care homes, Ferguson shows (2021) show that ties between refugees and volunteers that adult children give essential support, but they do in a neighbourhood initiative could not be classified as not always meet parental expectations, and sometimes weak nor strong, as they had characteristics of both types they restrict their parents’ agency, making such rela‐ of ties (e.g., intense contact, but distant lifeworlds). They tionships “ambiguous.” Rengers et al. (2021) demon‐ called such ties “hybrid.” Many articles show that strong strate how LGB individuals carefully consider expected ties are not always supportive, and weak ties can be unex‐ acceptance of colleagues and weigh their own, some‐ pectedly highly supportive. times conflicting, needs for belonging and authenticity Regarding the conception of bonding versus bridging in the decision to disclose their sexual orientation at social capital, both Younes et al. (2021) and Speed et al. work. Younes et al. (2021) direct our attention to the (2021) show that intra‐ethnic networks should not be expectation of support providers. Dutch citizens who vol‐ equated with the qualities often attributed to “bonding untarily helped Syrian refugees in a housing initiative networks,” such as thick trust and horizontality. Internal expected refugees’ gratefulness and unlimited availabil‐ divisions of education, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, ity, exacerbating relationship inequality. Brinker (2021) religion, or life stage (Speed et al., 2021) and competi‐ focuses on another grassroots initiative that aims to tion over material resources, connections, and informa‐ enhance the inclusion of refugees, namely the interna‐ tion (Younes et al., 2021) divided the networks of Syrian tional NGO Refugees Welcome, which connects home‐ refugees, showing the need for an intersectional lens to owners who have a spare room with refugees in need of reevaluate bonding and bridging social capital. housing. Based on previous analyses of power differen‐ Similarly, Habti (2021) focuses on highly‐skilled tials in such arrangements, she analyses the role of the Russian migrants in Finland, who combine a high pro‐ intermediaries the organisation assigns to these arrange‐ fessional status with a migrant background. His respon‐ ments to compensate for potential power imbalances dents had the opportunity to professionally connect with in the refugee‐home owner dyad. She finds that inter‐ locals in the work context (i.e., “bridging” in one social mediaries give refugees a sense of safety and balance, setting) but had similar difficulty establishing close ties but they can also disconnect when not feeling needed with locals as observed for other migrants with lower pro‐ (again indicating relationship expectations) or overpro‐ fessional positions. tect refugees. Together, these analyses show the need Related to bonding, an assumption commonly found to consider relationship expectations and negotiations in personal network research is that large and dense (or “control attempts”; White, 2008) for categorically personal networks are better suited to provide mate‐ unequal ties. rial and emotional support than smaller and sparser net‐ These relational dynamics and the aggregation of works. However, in a quantitative analysis of the overall relations make personal networks extraordinarily com‐ population, de Miguel‐Luken and García‐Faroldi (2021) plex entities to study. Unsurprisingly, personal networks find that these network characteristics are unrelated to are infrequently studied over time, let alone over a higher economic inclusion. Instead, the average occu‐ lifetime. Yet, as Ortiz and Bellotti (2021) show, social pational status of non‐kin relations is related to inclu‐ in‐ or exclusion results from an “accumulated history” sion. In a qualitative analysis of women in households Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 206 experiencing poverty, Valenzuela‐Garcia et al. (2021) fur‐ ilies explicitly seek diversity and non‐exclusionary spaces. ther show that large and dense networks can go hand in They also argue that successful mixing requires a certain hand with loneliness. In this vein, higher network density level of policy mediation and leading‐by‐example. can reflect bonding, but also a restricted number of social Huszti et al. (2021) show that the spatial segrega‐ settings (Feld, 1981). In Valenzuela‐Garcia et al. (2021), tion of economically excluded communities aggravates what caused feelings of loneliness among those women relational exclusion. Comparing three marginalised com‐ were the many care tasks these women had toward their munities with distinct levels of spatial segregation in network members, many of whom were in similar con‐ the same city but comparable population characteris‐ ditions of precarity. These findings and those of other tics, they found differences in personal networks’ spa‐ authors in this thematic issue also question the idea that tial and ethnic homogeneity. Individuals in the spatially refugees (Younes et al., 2021), women who experienced most integrated community had, perhaps somewhat sur‐ domestic violence (Bellotti et al., 2021), and people expe‐ prisingly, most bonding ties on average, and in addition, riencing poverty (Valenzuela‐Garcia et al., 2021) are pre‐ Roma inhabitants of this area had spatially and ethni‐ dominantly recipients of support, ignoring the help they cally more diverse bridging capital than Roma inhabi‐ provide to others and how this affects their well‐being. tants elsewhere. Regarding academic preconceptions about friend‐ While not explicitly studying them, the participat‐ ship, Korkiamäki and Elliott O’Dare (2021) argue that ing authors acknowledge the effects of organisational intergenerational friendships have received insufficient contexts on network composition and mobilisation. scholarly attention. Their empirical study observes that Ferguson (2021) focuses on older residents of seven care such friendships are vital sources of support and belong‐ homes and finds that their policy of person‐centred care ing and can be an excellent alternative for support from fails to the extent that residents do not nominate staff as age peers. Furthermore, they found that intergenera‐ support providers. Adult children were primary support tional friendships are characterised by equality and reci‐ providers, and external friendships were pivotal to main‐ procity, challenging the supposed “generational order” taining connections to wider communities and church of support flows from older to younger individuals. groups. No resident made new friends in care homes, Regarding the idea that migrants have high migra‐ which identifies an unfulfilled opportunity. Rengers et al. tory capital (i.e., relationships with earlier migrants), (2021) studied LGB individuals’ disclosure of their sexual Hosnedlová et al. (2021) argue that relationships with orientation at work in an explicitly LGBT‐friendly organ‐ non‐mobile people are equally necessary for migra‐ isation, and encouraged similar research in less inclu‐ tion. The authors further find that people with a sive organisational climates for comparison. Younes et al. high proportion of kin and friends in countries out‐ (2021) evaluated a grassroots organisation for accommo‐ side a transnational migration corridor are not highly dating refugees, which provided a safety net for these mobile themselves. people in highly vulnerable conditions. Nonetheless, Together, these results suggest that binary distinc‐ they show that the good intentions of leaders and vol‐ tions such as weak versus strong ties and bonding unteers do not guarantee social inclusion, as unacknowl‐ versus bridging social capital are critical theoretical edged power differentials between refugees and locals devices but should not conceal the complexity of real‐life resulted in prejudice and privacy invasions. social situations. Social settings that have received relatively little attention in personal network research that focuses 3.3. Macro‐Level Contexts Affect Network Functioning on social inclusion are online networks. Focusing on the general population, Requena and Ayuso (2021) The articles in this issue also stress that the spatial, show that participation in online networks complements institutional (cf. Small, 2009), and structural contexts in offline networks in generating subjective well‐being. which networks are embedded affect network function‐ Interestingly, personality influences the extent to which ing. Interventions may therefore target such contexts to people resort to online networks and benefit from them. reinforce the protective capacities of networks. The results can inspire social inclusion researchers to Two articles compared spatial contexts. Hanhörster study whether online networks mitigate or magnify the et al. (2021) compare three neighbourhoods with diverse inclusion of different marginalised communities. social classes and ethnicities. While personal network For structural contexts, two articles compare groups research concerning social inclusion usually focuses on of individuals with different rights in the same structural respondents from marginalised social groups, these context. Speed et al. (2021) observe that the broader authors cleverly flip the lens to study middle‐class people legislative context recognises different migration and and their in‐ and exclusionary practices (e.g., boundary‐ asylum routes, creating distinct individual opportunity drawing and “bridging‐out” to other neighbourhoods). structures, which affect relational embedding processes. This perspective on hegemonic groups indicates a rele‐ Similarly, Hoor (2021) delineates the personal networks vant avenue for future personal network research in the of migrants with two legal statuses (asylum‐seekers ver‐ area of social inclusion. The authors show that even in sus expatriates) in the same structural context and shows disadvantaged neighbourhoods, some middle‐class fam‐ that the two groups vary in personal network size, the Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 207 number of transnational ties, and access to friendship References and support. Together, these analyses remind us that the meso‐ Azarian, R. (2010). Social ties: Elements of a substantive and macro‐level contexts in which networks are embed‐ conceptualization. Acta Sociologica, 53(4), 323–338. ded can greatly constrain or promote meeting opportu‐ Bellotti, E., Boethius, S., Åkerström, M., & Hydén, M. nities and network functioning. Empirical comparisons of (2021). Ambivalent and consistent relationships: The network functioning across different contexts, or across role of personal networks in cases of domestic vio‐ populations with different rights in the same context, are lence. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 211–221. needed to improve our comprehension of the relation‐ Berkman, L. F., & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, ship between personal networks and social inclusion. social networks, social support, and health. In L. F. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 4. Conclusion 137–173). Oxford University Press. Bilecen, B., & Barglowski, K. (2014). On the assemblages This introduction described the state of the art of of informal and formal transnational social protec‐ research into the relationship between personal net‐ tion. Population, Space and Place, 21(3), 203–214. works and social inclusion and presented the seventeen Bilecen, B., & Lubbers, M. J. (2021). The networked char‐ articles included in the issue. By bringing together stud‐ acter of migration and transnationalism. Global Net‐ ies about different social groups, the thematic issue works, 21(4), 837–852. reveals interesting commonalities, such as the impact Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson of relational expectations on in‐/exclusion, the need to (Ed.), Theory and research in the sociology of educa‐ consider the care and social support that marginalised tion (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press. people provide to others, alternative sources of support Brinker, L.‐D. (2021). Security net and ambassadors for such as online networks and intergenerational friend‐ social inclusion? The role of intermediaries in host– ships, and the constraining or promoting effects of spa‐ refugee relationships in homestay programs. Social tial, organisational, and structural contexts. The authors Inclusion, 9(4), 232–242. have further shown that common theoretical distinc‐ Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support tions and assumptions can conceal relationship differ‐ and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, ences that are consequential for inclusion. 98(2), 310–357. In light of the findings regarding relationship expec‐ Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (Eds.). tations and assessments, personal network analysts may (2000). Social support measurement and interven‐ find it helpful to seek a closer alignment with rela‐ tion. A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford tional sociology. Qualitative network researchers already University Press. build upon and contribute to relational sociology, but it Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of is also valuable for network‐structural analyses. Future human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, research could investigate whether and how relation‐ 95–120. ship expectations are structurally embedded, detect the Das, M. B., Fisiy, C. F., & Kyte, R. (2013). Inclusion different roles that network members play in terms of matters: The foundation for shared prosperity. New in‐ and exclusion, or analyse the relational benefits that frontiers of social policy. World Bank Group. http:// exclusion implies for the excluders (cf. Wyer & Schenke, documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/114561468 2016). We hope that this thematic issue inspires readers 154469371/Inclusion‐matters‐the‐foundation‐for‐ to take up such research. shared‐prosperity de Miguel‐Luken, V., & García‐Faroldi, L. (2021). Two Acknowledgments sides of the coin: The link between relational exclu‐ sion and socioeconomic exclusion. Social Inclusion, I am most grateful to the authors for their original contri‐ 9(4), 339–349. butions to this thematic issue and their dedicated work, del Real, D. (2019). Toxic ties: The reproduction of legal to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback violence within mixed‐status intimate partners, rel‐ on the articles, and to Mariana Pires and the editorial atives, and friends. International Migration Review, team of Social Inclusion for their fantastic help editing 53(2), 548–570. this thematic issue. I would also like to thank the La Caixa Feld, S. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. Foundation (grant no. SR0587) and ICREA Acadèmia for American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035. their financial support. Ferguson, J. M. (2021). How do the support networks of older people influence their experiences of social iso‐ Conflict of Interests lation in care homes? Social Inclusion, 9(4), 315–326. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal The author declares no conflict of interests. networks in town and city. University of Chicago Press. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 208 Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. and persistence as multidimensional processes: An Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191. interdisciplinary agenda. Daedalus, 148(3), 5–18. Garthwaite, K. (2015). “Keeping meself to meself”: How Lee, P., Le Saux, M., Siegel, L., Goyal, M., Chen, C., Ma, social networks can influence narratives of stigma Y., & Meltzer, A. C. (2019). Racial and ethnic dispar‐ and identity for long‐term sickness benefits recipi‐ ities in the management of acute pain in US emer‐ ents. Social Policy & Administration, 49(2), 199–212. gency departments: Meta‐analysis and systematic Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Amer‐ review. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, ican Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. 37(9), 1770–1777. Guiaux, M., van Tilburg, T., & van Groenou, M. B. (2007). Levine, J. (2013). “Ain’t no trust”: How bosses, boyfriends, Changes in contact and support exchange in personal and bureaucrats fail low‐income mothers and why it networks after widowhood. Personal Relationships, matters. University of California Press. 14, 457–473. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Habti, D. (2021). Differentiated embedding and social Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487. relationships among Russian migrant physicians in Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2021). How do Finland: A narrative socio‐analysis. Social Inclusion, migrants’ processes of social embedding unfold over 9(4), 266–277. time? Global Networks, 21(3), 529–550. Hanhörster, H., Ramos Lobato, I., & Weck, S. (2021). Peo‐ Lubbers, M. J., Small, M. J., & Valenzuela‐García, H. ple, place, and politics: Local factors shaping mid‐ (2020). Do networks help people to manage poverty? dle‐class practices in mixed‐class German neighbour‐ Perspectives from the field. Annals of the Ameri‐ hoods. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 363–374. can Academy of Political and Social Science, 689(1), Hansen, K. V. (2004). The asking rules of reciprocity in 7–25. networks of care for children. Qualitative Sociology, Lubbers, M. J., Valenzuela‐García, H., Escribano Castaño, 27(4), 421–437. P., Molina, J. L., Casellas, A., & Grau Rebollo, J. (2020). Hoffman, K. M., Trawalter, S., Axt, J. R., & Oliver, M. N. Relationships stretched thin: Social support mobiliza‐ (2016). Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment tion in poverty. Annals of the American Academy of recommendations, and false beliefs about biological Political and Social Science, 689(1), 65–88. differences between blacks and whites. Proceedings McCarty, C., Lubbers, M. J., Vacca, R., & Molina, J. L. of the National Academy of Sciences of the United (2019). Conducting personal network research: A States of America, 113(16), 4296–4301. practical guide. Guilford Press. Hoor, D. (2021). A privilege not a choice: Transnational Ortiz, F., & Bellotti, E. (2021). The impact of life tra‐ support networks of asylum seekers and expatriates. jectories on retirement: Socioeconomic differences Social Inclusion, 9(4), 254–265. in social support networks. Social Inclusion, 9(4), Hosnedlová, R., Fradejas‐García, I., Lubbers, M. J., & 327–338. Molina, J. L. (2021). Structural embeddedness in Patulny, R., & Lind Haase Svendsen, G. (2007). Exploring transnational social fields: Personal networks, inter‐ the social capital grid: Bonding, bridging, qualitative, national (im)mobilities, and the migratory capital quantitative. International Journal of Sociology and paradox. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 278–290. Social Policy, 27, 32–51. Huszti, É., Albert, F., Csizmady, A., Nagy, I., & Dávid, B. Perry, B. L., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2012). Social network (2021). When spatial dimension matters: Comparing dynamics and biographical disruption: The case of personal network characteristics in different segre‐ ‘first‐timers’ with mental illness. American Journal of gated areas. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 375–387. Sociology, 118(1), 134–175. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2018). life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, P. B. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life‐span development and models. Cambridge University Press. and behavior (pp. 253–286). Academic Press. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic tra‐ Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and men‐ ditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. tal health. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 458–467. Rengers, J. M., Heyse, L., Wittek, R. P. M., & Otten, S. Komter, A. E. (1996). Reciprocity as a principle of exclu‐ (2021). Interpersonal antecedents to selective disclo‐ sion: Gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology, 30(2), sure of lesbian and gay identities at work. Social Inclu‐ 299–316. sion, 9(4), 388–398. Korkiamäki, R., & Elliott O’Dare, C. (2021). Intergener‐ Requena, F., & Ayuso, L. (2021). Online networks and sub‐ ational friendship as a conduit for social inclusion? jective well‐being: The effect of “big five personality Insights from the “book‐ends.” Social Inclusion, 9(4), traits.” Social Inclusion, 9(4), 399–412. 304–314. Ryan, L. (2018). Differentiated embedding: Polish Lamont, M., Beljean, S., & Clair, M. (2014). What is migrants in London negotiating belonging over missing? Cultural processes and causal pathways to time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(2), inequality. Socio‐Economic Review, 12(3), 573–608. 233–251. Lamont, M., & Pierson, P. (2019). Inequality generation Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of net‐ Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 209 work inequality in everyday life. Oxford University (pp. 79–88). VU University Press. Press. Volker, B., De Cuyper, R., Mollenhorst, G., Dirkzwager, A., Speed, F., Scurry, T., Edward, P., & Moufahim, M. (2021). van der Laan, P., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). Changes Networks amongst Syrians: Situated migrant posi‐ in the social networks of prisoners: A comparison of tionalities and the impact on relational embedding. their networks before and after imprisonment. Social Social Inclusion, 9(4), 243–253. Networks, 47, 47–58. Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The inti‐ black community. Harper & Row. mate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In M. S. Sociology, 84(5), 1201–1231. Friedman (Ed.), The handbook of health psychology White, H. (2008). Identity and control: How social forma‐ (pp. 189–214). Oxford University Press. tions emerge. Princeton University Press. ten Kate, R. L. F., Bilecen, B., & Steverink, N. (2021). Williams, M. T. (2020). Microaggressions: Clarification, The role of parent‐child relationships and filial expec‐ evidence, and impact. Perspectives on Psychological tations in loneliness among older Turkish migrants. Science, 15(1), 3–26. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 291–303. Wissink, M., & Mazzucato, V. (2018). In transit: Chang‐ Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. University of Califor‐ ing social networks of Sub‐Saharan African migrants nia Press. in Turkey and Greece. Social Networks, 53, 30–41. Valenzuela‐Garcia, H., Lubbers, M. J., & Molina, J. L. Wyer, N. A., & Schenke, K. C. (2016). Just you and I: The (2021). “She’s surrounded by loved ones, but feel‐ role of social exclusion in the formation of interper‐ ing alone”: A relational approach to loneliness. Social sonal relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Inclusion, 9(4), 350–362. Psychology, 65, 20–25. van Tilburg, T. G. (1994). Social network size and support. Younes, Y., Ghorashi, H., & Ponzoni, E. (2021). Conflicting In D. J. H. Deeg & M. Westendorp‐de Serière (Eds.), experiences with welcoming encounters: Narratives Autonomy and well‐being in the aging population I: of newly arrived refugees in the Netherlands. Social Report from the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam Inclusion, 9(4), 222–231. About the Author Miranda J. Lubbers is an associate professor of anthropology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and director of the COALESCE Lab. She is an ICREA Acadèmia fellow and an ERC advanced grant‐holder. Her recent work has appeared in Social Networks, Global Networks, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Human Nature, and International Migration Review. She is one of the co‐authors of the book Conducting Personal Network Research: A Practical Guide (Guilford Press, 2019). Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 203–210 210