Reassessing Constraint’s Meaning: A Framework for Reinterpreting Structural Holes’ Findings

Structural holes’ vast empirical literature has ostensibly advanced our knowledge of strategic behavior, outcomes, and dynamics. But this empirical research predominantly relies on Burt’s opaque and misunderstood constraint index. This paper shows that empirical research using constraint does not reliably support structural holes theory but does support simpler insights related to available alternatives, exchange partner diversity, and concentration. Using formal, computational, and empirical methods, this paper reveals that network constraint almost exclusively operationalizes dyadic constructs and not the broader structural network constructs with which constraint is associated. The paper provides a path for reinterpreting extant constraint-based research and for guiding future network research. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2024.0297 .