SIUE STEM Center EXTERNAL Social Network Analysis: Fall 2013 Matt Feldmann, Ph.D. Goshen Education Consulting, Inc. Sharon Locke, Ph.D. SIUE Center for STEM Research, Education, & Outreach

What is Social Network Analysis? Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a methodological approach used to analyze patterns of relationships and interactions between individuals or groups in order to discover underlying social structures. Common Terms Vertex – Individual in the network Node or Edge – A connection among two individuals Background slide to introduce the topic. Note that NodeXL uses funny terms. A vertex is the “dot” or individual. The line connecting them is often called a “node”, but in NodeXL it is a “vertex.”

Why Social Network Analysis? An original and poignant way to determine the degree to which the STEM Center pursuit of: STEM Center Goal #5 to “Develop and maintain partnerships that support STEM Center goals.” Graphically organizes the outreach of the Center staff. Demonstrates three levels of interaction: Micro (individual) Meso (group at one point in time) Macro (group over time) This is a strategy to be used in addition to more traditional ways of determining impact or mission accomplishment. Other ways include counting publications, adding up research dollars sought and awarded, and identifying specific projects.

What happened? A survey was conducted among the STEM Center staff members in Spring 2014. Each individual identified all of their professional contacts, as well as several small details about the individuals and their importance. Evaluator used NodeXL to compute the SNA. Data were shared and confirmed with center staff The survey instrument should be referenced here.

STEM Center SNA – Fall 2013 The SNA identified the individuals in five boxes. The boxes grouped the staff by the types of individuals with whom they spent time. It is notable that DO is the administrative assistant and SL is the Center director. Each of these individuals had their own squares.

Relationships by Collaborative Activity and Importance 1 2 3 4 5 Total AVG St Dev Research 14 18 20 69 3.55 1.23 Education/ Outreach 10 106 40 61 32 249 3.00 1.16 Administration 19 68 63 41 21 212 2.89 1.12 Other 28 34 1.32 0.84 60 191 119 120 74 564 2.92 1.22 Note that the columns indicate importance and that the rows are the key mission areas. Note: The columns represent an importance scale where 1 = Unimportant, 2 = Little importance, 3 = Moderately Important, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important

Relationships by Position and Importance 1 2 3 4 5 Total AVG St Dev Funder   11 3.82 0.75 K-12 Staff/ Admin 9 3.56 1.24 University Administrator/Staff 18 75 61 54 40 248 3.09 1.21 Community Organization 8 24 20 72 2.97 1.26 Student 12 26 2.81 1.2 K-12 Teacher 19 2.74 1.33 University Faculty 28 32 153 2.63 Other 15 2.54 1.07 60 191 119 120 74 564 2.92 1.22 The columns still represent importance while the rows indicate the different types of individuals. Note: The columns represent an importance scale where 1 = Unimportant, 2 = Little importance, 3 = Moderately Important, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important

SIUE Relationships by Importance SIUE Affiliation 1 2 3 4 5 Total AVG St Dev SIUE 48 116 89 81 55 389 2.95 1.25 Not SIUE 12 75 30 39 19 175 2.87 1.16 60 191 119 120 74 564 2.92 1.22 The columns still represent importance while the rows indicate the SIUE affiliation Note: The columns represent an importance scale where 1 = Unimportant, 2 = Little importance, 3 = Moderately Important, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important

Who is Benefitting? Network Individual Edges Avg Importance Ed Faculty Member 6 3.67 Physics Faculty Member 3.33 Biology Faculty Member 2.83 Graduate Student 2.17 SIUE Marketing 5 3.20 Evaluation Consultant 4 3.25 3.00 English Faculty Member Illinois Math & Science Ac 2.75 These individuals have the most contacts (edges) with the STEM staff. Note. Edges refers to the number of connections or links in a network. Importance was rated on a 5-point likert scale (1, Unimportant to 5, Very important)

“Very Important” Contacts with Only One Connection Network Individual Affiliation Community Director K-12 Staff/Admin Community Organization Reg Supt Dept Chair University Faculty HS Teacher K-12 Teacher University Chancellor University Administrator Other/Not Defined External Consultant Facilities Technician University Staff Dir. of Advancement Engineer Ext. College Professor IRB Director Note that these very important contacts only had one connection with the STEM center.

Recap & Questions Key Findings & Recommendations: Large, distributed network Little overlap of contacts, particularly among “important” contacts. There were 14 individuals who were considered “very important” and 55 who were considered “important” but had only one contact with the STEM Center. Staff should seek to involve each other with the “important” contacts to better serve the STEM Center mission.

Discussion Questions What value does this approach bring to an evaluation? What would you do differently? How could this be used for other organizations? What feedback would you provide for another presentation in June? Questions to elicit conversation.