1. 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

2. 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.”

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Relationships by Collaborative Activity and Importance1 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

7. Relationships by Position and Importance1 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. “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.

11. 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.

12. 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.