This depends on the type of network (egocentric or whole network). If you use an egocentric network that is not derived from a whole network, you can pass a name generator to your participants and then ask them to identify the links between members of its network. If you use a whole network and you have a list of network members, you can apply directly to participants with whom they have relationships. These data can be converted in a matrix form and then be analyzed using a social network analysis software. I could not tell you by cons if any of surveys to collect this type of data. Hoping to have answered, at least in part, to your question. I wish you a nice evening!

Thank you for your answer.

I found some useful information from Burt's works, and I am trying to propose a couple of new measures. From mathematical point of view we have nothing to do with networks members we just consider a graph as whole.

Thank you again Ms Berger

Hi Hanif, I proposed a procedure for detecting brokers through role equivalence (by means of triadic prositions; see also R. Burts (1989) reception of Hummell and Sodeur's work "Detecting Role Equivalence"). My contribution "Measuring the social capital of brokerage roles" was published in "Connections" and can be downloaded from Research Gate.

Kind regards, Volker

Thank you Mr Taube.

I downloaded the paper and I think it will be very helpful for me.

I appreciate for your answer sir.

Betweenness is very important for "brokers". No matter which metric you decide to use in the end (including defining your own), you will probably need to get betweenness results as well and include them in your analysis.

Yes betweenness is important but it have some defects. I think a better measure is needed.