Why aren't Burt's structural hole measures incorporated in Wasserman and Faust's Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications? I have the 1999 reprint and Structural Holes is not even cited within the extensive bibliography. I have three reasons for asking this question.
First, I've used these measures in past work and have had considerable difficulty in calculating the various measures by hand. I've also had discussions with others who've experienced the same problems. Aside from Borgatti's clarification of the redundancy measures in a 1997 issue of Connections (thanks for writing that piece, by the way), I know of nothing else that is available to help us understand the formalities of Burt's measures (except Burt's own writings, of course). I would assume that Wasserman and Faust's book would be the suitable place for that. Is this a problem with egocentric network measures in general?
Second, effective size, network efficiency, constraints, and hierarchical constraints are all included in various network softwares. Although some explanation is provided in helping us understand the mathematical formulation for each of these measures, my personal experiences and those of several others with whom I have discussed the matter suggest that these tips are not sufficient.
Third, Burt's Structural Holes was amongst those references cited in an earlier discussion which asked us to highlight the more influential works in the social network field.
What we seem to be left with is a context in which a highly influential work's measures have not been incorporated within one of the more complete methods books in the field (for those who read French, see Vincent Lemieux's Les réseaux d'acteurs sociaux, Paris: PUF, 1999 for a strong elaboration on Burt's nonredundancy/deconnectivity concepts). Although we could always rely on UCINET and other softwares for computing the results, it seems that the best way to understand each concept is by going through the motions ourselves.
So tell me, why is it that Burt's study is so good, yet so ignored?