The article provides an overview of network research in the social sciences, highlighting its historical development, key concepts, and theoretical mechanisms. It traces the evolution of network theory from early studies by Jacob Moreno in the 1930s to contemporary applications in various fields. The authors discuss the different types of dyadic links (similarities, social relations, interactions, and flows) and the importance of understanding how these ties affect each other. They also explore the fundamental axioms of social network analysis, such as the idea that structure matters, and the concept of centrality at both the network and node levels. The article outlines four canonical mechanisms—transmission, adaptation, binding, and exclusion—that explain observed relationships among variables. Additionally, it addresses criticisms and challenges in the field, including the lack of a native theoretical understanding, the neglect of agency, and the need to consider the dynamics of network evolution. The authors conclude by comparing network research in the social sciences with that in the physical sciences, noting differences in focus and approach.The article provides an overview of network research in the social sciences, highlighting its historical development, key concepts, and theoretical mechanisms. It traces the evolution of network theory from early studies by Jacob Moreno in the 1930s to contemporary applications in various fields. The authors discuss the different types of dyadic links (similarities, social relations, interactions, and flows) and the importance of understanding how these ties affect each other. They also explore the fundamental axioms of social network analysis, such as the idea that structure matters, and the concept of centrality at both the network and node levels. The article outlines four canonical mechanisms—transmission, adaptation, binding, and exclusion—that explain observed relationships among variables. Additionally, it addresses criticisms and challenges in the field, including the lack of a native theoretical understanding, the neglect of agency, and the need to consider the dynamics of network evolution. The authors conclude by comparing network research in the social sciences with that in the physical sciences, noting differences in focus and approach.