Once the theory is specified and an operationalization has been chosen for the nodes and links, the next step is to acquire the data. This chapter goes deep into issues that arise when designing surveys to collect data. Although this is not the only method of data collection, it is one that illuminates issues that pertain to all others. This chapter covers the practical question of how to use surveys to elicit network information. The advice leans heavily on a well-formulated theory.

In their influential chapter on the boundary specification problem in network analysis, Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky (1989) argued that social network data often do not mirror the true underlying social structures in which individuals are embedded. Rather, the validity of network data hinges on the alignment of network boundaries and the social system or social mechanisms being studied. For this reason, the process of determining which actors and relationships should be included in a network is among the most critical research design issues in social network analysis, requiring a tight alliance of theory and method. Here, we build on Laumann and coauthors’ insights, updating their review with contemporary examples, and extending their ideas to the personal network research design context. We begin by identifying characteristics of personal network research, such as boundary spanning, that introduce unique challenges and opportunities to the boundary definition issue. We then apply concepts from their typology, reviewing common strategies for establishing boundaries through name generators in the context of personal network research designs.

Social relations are defined by considering the different dimensions involved: interaction, knowledge, emotional involvement, and, more generally, the "driving force" of the tie, which are its essential elements. This characterization of relationships is continued by mentioning qualities that are very important for their becoming: the multiplexity and "strength" of the ties. To explain the link between relationships, networks, and social circles, the different scales at which the entourage can be considered are then evoked. The questions of the homogeneity of relationships, the resources they may constitute, as well as the different ways in which they can be inscribed in social circles are also addressed. Finally, the various types of regulation involved in the positioning of relationships are presented.