Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Social Network Analysis for Assessing Research Team Collaboration
Similaire à Social Network Analysis for Assessing Research Team Collaboration (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Social Network Analysis for Assessing Research Team Collaboration
- 5. MILES SNA SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. With whom do you exchange work-related information or materials? 2. With whom do you spend time with when you want to find out what’s going on within the MILES project? 3. With whom do you brainstorm, share or explore new ideas? 4. With whom do you seek or share expert knowledge or advise? 5. Who do you consider to be an effective implementer, who actively participates to achieve group goals or accomplish difficult tasks? (Kleiner, 2003)
- 7. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 8. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks; different organizational structures • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 9. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 12. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 14. NETWORK DENSITY… …is a ratio of the total sum of all links within a network over the number of possible links 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = ∑ 𝑤, - ,./ 𝑛(𝑛 − 1)/2 In the example network there are 9 links between 6 nodes, and 15 possible links: 6*((6-1)/2) Network density for this network = 0.6 TOTAL LINKS = 9 TOTAL POSSIBLE LINKS = 36 (Wasserman and Faust, 1994)
- 15. MILES NETWORK DENSITIES BY NETWORK & TIME PERIOD 0.059 0.019 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.026 0.012 0.017 0.018 0.018 WORK INFORMAL INNOVATION EXPERTISE IMPROVEMENT 2015 2016
- 16. MILES 2016 Respondents: Involvement Duration* Q5: How long have you been involved with the MILES project? If no longer actively involved, how long were you previously involved? • Less than 1 year • 1 – 2 years • 2 – 3 years • > 3 years < 1yr 29.4% 1-2yrs 30.2% 2-3yrs 22.2% >3yrs 18.3% New participants make up 1/3 of the MILES team *not including inactive and undergraduate participants
- 17. 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 < 1 YEAR 1 - 2 YEARS 2 - 3 YEARS > 3 YEARS AVERAGE NUMBER OF NETWORK LINKS EXTERNAL (EL) AND INTERNAL (IL) PER MILES PARTICIPANT* BY LENGTH OF INVOLVEMENT IN MILES PROJECT WORK IL WORK EL INFORMAL IL INFORMAL EL INNOVATION IL INNOVATION EL EXPERTISE IL EXPERTISE EL IMPROVEMENT IL IMPROVEMENT EL *not including inactive and undergraduate participants
- 18. MILES NETWORK DENSITIES BY NETWORK & TIME PERIOD 0.059 0.019 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.026 0.012 0.017 0.018 0.018 WORK INFORMAL INNOVATION EXPERTISE IMPROVEMENT 2015 2016 New participants may still be acclimating to their roles in the MILES work network v
- 19. MILES NETWORK DENSITIES BY NETWORK & TIME PERIOD 0.059 0.019 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.026 0.012 0.017 0.018 0.018 WORK INFORMAL INNOVATION EXPERTISE IMPROVEMENT 2015 2016 Lower densities often occur in networks where knowledge flow requires greater levels of trust
- 20. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Informal Leaders: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 25. Research Networks by Study Site INNOVATION IMPROVEMENT CDA BOISE-TV EXPERTISE PORTNEUF STATEWIDE* STATEWIDE* STATEWIDE* CDA BOISE-TV PORTNEUF CDA BOISE-TV PORTNEUF
- 26. Research Networks by Study Site: All Edges INNOVATION IMPROVEMENTEXPERTISE CDA BOISE-TV PORTNEUF STATEWIDE* STATEWIDE* STATEWIDE* CDA BOISE-TV PORTNEUF CDA BOISE-TV PORTNEUF CDA has fewer inter-study site interactions with either of the other study sites
- 28. Outreach Networks by Institution: All Edges INNOVATION IMPROVEMENT UI BSU EXPERTISE ISU UI BSU ISU UI BSU ISU
- 30. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 36. 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 WORK INFORMAL INNOVATION EXPERTISE IMPROVEMENT 2016 NETWORK DENSITIES FOR ALL NETWORKS BY INSTITUTION BSU ISU UI ISU IS FREQUENTLY HAS THE HIGHEST NETWORK DENSITY UI IS CONSISTENTLY THE LOWEST DENSITY ACROSS ALL NETWORKS.
- 41. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 42. IDENTIFYING KEY NETWORK NODES KEY NODES CONTRIBUTE TO AN ORGANIZATION’S STABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY • DEGREE CENTRALITY: nodes can quickly disseminate information, and are usually the people “in the know” • BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY: nodes act as liaisons or bridges between groups, or as bottlenecks to information flow • CLOSENESS CENTRALITY: have close proximity to a large number of nodes in the network; usually have their “finger on the pulse” and a good sense of the big picture due to many independent sources of information
- 43. DEGREE CENTRALITY Degree Centrality is a count of the number of other nodes with which a given node is connected. In the example network “A” has a degree centrality of 6, or if normalized by the size of the network 𝑛 − 1 , a degree centrality of 1.0 ( 6 78/ ) Each of the other nodes have a degree centrality of 0.17
- 44. BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY Betweeness Centrality is the percentage of network paths between any two nodes in a network that contain a given node. For information to pass between any two nodes in the example network it must pass through either or both nodes A or B
- 45. CLOSENESS CENTRALITY Closeness Centrality is the inverse of a nodes “farness,” which is the sum of the shortest path between a given node and all other nodes in the network. Node A doesn’t have the highest number of links, but it is still close to the other nodes in the network.
- 48. MILES 2016 Network Key Nodes Administration 18% Outreach 26% Research 56% PRIMARY MILES ACTIVITY
- 53. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.
- 65. MILES 2016 SNA Key Findings • Interdisciplinary: broad distribution of disciplines across networks • Network Growth: Significant increase in network size over time, which has likely contributed to decreased network density • Cross-Site Interaction: Primarily occurs between the Boise-Treasure Valley and Portneuf Watershed sites; some isolation of CDA/Fernan site • Inter-Component Interaction: Strong interaction across MILES component activities in the intra-institutional networks • Key Nodes: Only ½ of self-identified project leaders hold influential network positions. 2/3 of key nodes report no active involvement in project leadership and/or management • Gender Equality: Indicators of strong gender equality at BSU and ISU, and possible gender bias within UI.