[Social network analysis in general studies behaviour of the individuals at the micro level, the pattern of relationships (network] structure) at the macro level, and the interactions between the two.
The analysis of the communication structures that is comprised in
SNA study is known as an important element in the analysis of the
micro-macro link, the way in which individual behaviour and social
phenomena are linked with one another. In this sense, social
networks can assist the analysts both the root cause and the result of
the behaviour of an individual.
It is fact that social networks study provides and bound chances of
individual selections in the mean-time time individuals initiate,
build, continue, and break up links and by doing so define the
universal structure of a network. However, network structure is
seldom constructed by its individuals. It is known as the
‘unintended’ effect of the actions of the individual and can as be
called a “spontaneous order”.
Social network analysis [FN 1] studies the behavior of the individual [FN 2] at the micro level, the pattern of relationships (network structure) at the macro level, and the interactions between the two. The analysis of the interaction structures that is involved in social network analysis is an important element in the analysis of the macro-micro-macro link, the way in which individual behavior and collective phenomena are connected with one another. In this perspective, social networks are both the cause of and the result of individual behavior. Social networks provide and limit opportunities of individual choices, whereas at the same time individuals initiate, construct, maintain, and break up relationships and by so doing determine the global structure of the network. However, individuals seldom consciously construct network structures beyond their own relationships. The overall network structures are often the ‘unintended’ effect of individual actions and can as such be called a “spontaneous order” (see e.g. Hayek 1973).
No reference given. The content is identical, but formulations have been somewhat adapted.
SNA methods provide specific mathematical definitions of five groups of characteristics of the actors/ nodes and of the network itself (Bonacich, P., 1987; Burt, R. S., 1992):
2. equivalence (role-groups),
3. power of actors,
4. range of influence, and
These characteristics are expressed in terms of corresponding network structure parameters derived from the relations among actors. There is vast amount of material is available for the introduction to SNA which can be easily, for example, in (Scott, J., 2000; Hanneman, R. E., 2005; Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994). The insights that can be obtained from the various values of the
network structures are elaborated in Burt (1990)
SNA methods provide precise mathematical definitions of five groups of characteristics of the actors and of the network itself [EN 18, EN 19]: cohesion, equivalence (role-groups), power of actors, range of influence, and brokerage. These characteristics are expressed in terms of corresponding Network-Structure parameters derived from the relations among the actors. An introduction to SNA can be found in Scott  and Hanneman . For a comprehensive text, see Wasserman and Faust . Burt  elaborates on the insights that can be obtained from the various values of the network structures.
[EN 18] Bonacich, P., Power and Centrality. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1170-1182 (1987).
[EN 19] 'Burt, R. S., Structural Holes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Looks like a bonafide overview on the subject done by Nm, but in fact Nm only copies what already could be found in Aviv (2003). No reference to Aviv given.