随着 COVID-19 带来全球经济、政治和社会不稳定的持续发展，关于各种社会系统复原力的研究越来越受欢迎和关注 [ 24 ]。现有的概念化研究表明，弹性可以通过采用过程或能力视角来定义 [ 25 , 26 ]，分别侧重于弹性相关的协调活动或弹性组织可以开发的状态和资源。同样，学者们区分了复原力的不同表现，包括预测不良事件、减少不良事件的扰动或从失败中恢复 [ 27 , 28]。因此，对弹性的全面理解应包括使组织能够预测和管理逆境的过程和能力，可以将其组合成四个互补的维度：危机预测、危机管理、反弹恢复和逆向改进[ 29 ]。

At present, a systematic research system on resilience has been formed, which can be divided into individual resilience, team resilience, and organizational resilience at the research level. The research objects include the antecedents, processes, and results of resilience [30]. However, project resilience is still a relatively new concept, and although publications on it are increasing, there is still conceptual debate as to whether project resilience should be considered as a capacity or a process [31].

From the perspective of capacity, Turner and Kutsch [32] proposed an interpretation of project resilience, defining it as the art of detecting changes in the project environment, understanding these changes, planning answers, minimizing damage when changes occur, and adapting to new realities. Giezen [33] put forward the concepts of prevention, response, and adaptation in their definition of project resilience, and also mentioned two types of project resilience: Passive resilience and active resilience. In all of these studies, project resilience takes a capacity perspective.

The process perspective sees project resilience as a long-term strategy to deal with complexity and risk. Williams et al. [26] believed that resilience is a process in which individuals or groups avoid the tendency to react negatively to challenging situations and maintain positive adjustment or coping. Similarly, Crosby [34] points out that resilience is the process of managing risk, crisis, or contingencies. Another group of studies, starting with project teams, views resilience as a collective construct, including “an interactive, coordinated, and collaborative team interaction process that describes the actual behavior of teams in coping with adversity” [35,36].

Due to different research objects and focuses, and different research methods [37], empirical studies rarely integrate the process perspective and capacity perspective into the same research. Researchers select one of the perspectives according to the research purpose and the theoretical contribution they are trying to make [38]. In this study, we use a process perspective (i.e., project resilience as the whole process of recovery from disaster) to construct meaningful theories and conduct reasonable in-depth research. As Kahn’s research shows, resilience stems from the relationships between the components of a system and is a social process. Therefore, we define project resilience as the whole process in which the positive interaction between component units enables the project collective to withstand shocks, cope with challenges, and recover.

Consistent with previous studies based on organizational relationships and structure [39], we propose the use of social capital theory to study the resilience of building projects. Social capital has been studied in different areas of social, economic, and political science, creating a wealth of definitions and characterizations of its characteristics [40]. Different researchers distinguish social capital by the context, form, possible use, and group of interactions. Bourdieu [41] proposed the most widely accepted and applied concept of social capital, believing that social capital is the total amount of actual or potential resources obtained through the relationship network, that is, social network is social capital. Coleman [42] defined social capital as a kind of social structural resource from a macroperspective, which is the relationship of responsibility, expectation, trust, and power between individuals or groups. He believed that various exchanges based on the interests of different actors in the social network form a continuous social relationship, which is social resource and social capital. Portes [43] also proposed that social capital is a special connection attached to social relations and an expression of ability. Burt [44] believes that structural hole is social capital and the ultimate competitive advantage of enterprises and other economic activity subjects. Finally, Lin’s [45] discussion on social capital represents the general consensus of theoretical research on social capital. In his view, social capital is the investment of rewarding resources embedded in social networks.

In addition, there are many research angles on social capital theory. In sociology, Carrillo et al. [46] argue that social capital is the most important indicator of family health. In terms of enterprise management, Harris et al. [47] tested the effect of coordination between human capital and social capital on enterprise performance. In the field of policy research, Muringani et al. [48] found that different types of social capital have different incentive effects on European economic development, thus adjusting economic policies.

Of course, there are contradictions between different schools of study on social capital theory. One of the principal contradictions is that between the individual and the collective. Burt and Lin regard social capital as individual capital, which is acquired based on people’s action network. However, in Bourdieu and Coleman’s study, social capital can be acquired in groups. The two views are not completely opposite fundamentally. The individual is embedded in the collective, and the collective is embedded in the larger social network. Therefore, this study is based on Bourdieu’s view to identify collective social capital at the project level but also combines Burt’s network-based analysis method. Based on the view that resilience emerges due to the interaction of each unit of the system, we believe that the process of project resilience can be represented by the change in social capital, and try to summarize the process of project resilience by measuring the change in social capital in each phase of the project network under adversity.

Social network analysis (SNA) is a quantitative analysis method based on graph theory and mathematical symbols [49]. In SNA, a social network is a collection of social actors as nodes and relationships between nodes as edges [50]. Its essence provides a mathematical method to evaluate the impact of the embeddedness of nodes and related actors in the social network on their behavior and decision-making results [51,52].

The social capital available to actors of a group is integrated into their social networks [53]. In other words, social capital lies in actors’ social relationships and network positions. Therefore, using SNA to research social capital is a feasible method. One dominant view is that the connections made between network actors form the basis of social capital [54]. This view is strongly influenced by network theory.

Some progress has been made in the measurement of social capital based on SNA [53]. On the one hand, some researchers have constructed social network capital measurement scales and considered the measurement results as social capital [55]. These scales have been used in a large number of surveys, using surveys or questionnaires as data collection tools. On the other hand, some researchers use SNA to measure social capital, which is measured by the description of network genus [22]. These studies provide us with the possibility to review the resilience capital of construction projects.

长期以来，建设项目一直被认为是涉及多个参与者的临时组织[ 56 ]。在建设中使用 SNA 的一个理论桥梁是将建设项目视为一组网络 [ 57 ]。以建设项目中的关键参与者为节点，以参与者之间的关系为联系，定量分析项目组织的合作能力，实施有效的项目网络管理[ 58,59,60 ]。