1. MHEDIC Structure and Accomplishments Naorah Lockhart, Liz Mellin, Paul Flaspohler, & Seth Bernstein

2. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF MHEDIC

3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND  Interdisciplinary collaborative groups increasing in both research and practice  Often use network language (members/actors and relational ties) to describe these collaborations  Social network analysis (SNA) – measures interdependent relationships among group members – important for understanding the structure and accomplishments of social networks like MHEDIC

4. CURRENT STUDY  Document the structure of MHEDIC and knowledge transfer across traditional disciplinary/professional boundaries.  Examination of the way in which members are tied with other members from their home discipline/profession and members from other disciplines or professions.  Future analyses will also examine ties among members across different status positions (e.g., faculty members and graduate students, male and female, level of position) and how collaboration varies across these positions.

5. METHODS  Sociometric (complete) network design  Eligible if attended at least 2 MHEDIC meetings between Fall 2010 and Fall 2013 (36 members eligible)  Developed survey based on Haines et al., (2011) that asked each member about his/her connections to other members within 6 different types of relationships (cite, co-author, grants, met professionally, mentoring, co-present)  UCINET 6.0 to analyze networks  Open-ended questions or additional context

6. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS TERMS  Network: The elements of a collaboration linked by relationships between actors that forms a structure.  Actors: members of MHEDIC  Relationships: ways actors affiliate within the network cited, co-authored, co-presented, submitted a grant with, mentored, met with professionally Isolates: actors with no ties within the relationship Terms and key structural concepts are adapted from Haines, Godley & Hawe, 2010.

7. KEY STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS  Density (expressed as a percentage): the number of ties between network members out of all possible ties. Higher density indicates more interaction.  Degree centralization: the extent that the relationship is clustered around influential network members  Reciprocity (expressed as a percentage): the ratio of the number of pairs with a reciprocated tie relative to the number of pairs with any tie  Betweenness centrality: the degree to which certain members are more central than others to the network. This should decline as the network matures and influence distributes across the network.  Subgroup: strongly interrelated groups within the network where all the members of the group are directly connected to one another (and in which no additional person in the network is connected to all the members). Subgroups help drive collaboration.

8. NETWORK DENSITY & DEGREE CENTRALIZATION RelationshipDensityNo. of tiesDegree Centralization Cited 25%311 50% Co-authored 11%139 31% Grants 4%52 33% Met with professionally 20%247 60% Mentoring 20%248 57% Co-presented 17%215 38%  Network density: the ratio of actual ties compared to possible ties within a relationship  Degree centralization: the extent the relationship is clustered around influential network members  Over time, density percentages should increase and degree centralization should decrease resulting in a more cohesive network We are citing 25% of MHEDIC members, but of those citations, 50% are clustered around just few key members of the group.

9. ISOLATES RelationshipIsolates Cited1 Co-authored6 Grants14 Met with professionally 0 Mentoring0 Co-presented0 Network members who are not tied to a relationship Should decrease as the network matures Reducing isolates indicates increased interaction between members and more knowledge sharing Overall, MHEDIC is inclusive. MHEDIC members are included in the network in multiple ways. When people are not included, it may make sense based on their professional role (i.e., practitioner, policymaker). Grants is an area to consider for improvement.

10. RECIPROCITY RelationshipReciprocity Cited 45% Met with professionally 51%  The extent to which ties are returned between actors within a relationship (in this case, relationships that are not inherently reciprocal).  Percentages should increase over time  Important for interdisciplinary collaboration to diversify knowledge exchange

11. BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY RelationshipBetweenness Centrality Cited 19% Co-authored 15% Grants 12% Met with professionally 33% Mentoring 21% Co-presented 18%  Extent to which certain members are more central than others in the network.  The higher the percentage, the more distributed the relationship is across members of MHEDIC.  As the network matures, these percentages should increase, demonstrating an increase in ties directly between two actors rather than through highly centralized (or influential) actors. Grants are clustered across a narrow group of whereas mentoring relationships are more widely distributed.

12. NUMBER OF SUBGROUPS (3 people or more) RelationshipSubgroups Cited 66 Co-authored 19 Grants 7 Met with professionally 68 Mentoring 47 Co-presented 46 An indication of network cohesiveness Opportunities for shared perspectives Mini “think tanks” within the network Over time, both the amount of subgroups for each relationship and individual membership to subgroups should increase

13. CITED Larger nodes signify more influential members. Same network, just different view sorted by discipline M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

14. CO- AUTHORED MHEDIC members not included in this relational network M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

15. GRANTS M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

16. MET WITH PROFESSIONALLY M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

17. MENTORING M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

18. CO- PRESENTED M01 = Liz M10 = Mark M15 = Anna M29 = Dawn M37 = Aidyn Pink = Counseling Orange = Education Blue = Psychology Green = Social Work

19. PROFESSIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO MHEDIC INVOLVEMENT  Limited travel funding and/or funding for travel that prioritizes traditional conference presentations  Critical climates both within and outside of MHEDIC (related to status position in MHEDIC or value of interdisciplinary work by home profession/institution)  Tenure and review criteria that prioritize contributions to home profession/discipline

20. VALUE OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN MHEDIC  COLLABORATIVE SUCCESSES – Expanding network – Professional advancement – New ways of thinking, new knowledge – Diversifying ideas in home profession/discipline  MISSED OPPORTUNITIES – Lack of representation from education in membership – Funded research – Disciplinary/profession centrism within the group

21. REFLECTIONS AND DISCUSSION  What stood out to you as you looked at the maps and understood the data?  What relationships were not measured that you think would be useful to consider in the future?  How is this helpful to ongoing MHEDIC development?  Pros/cons/comments to repeating this every X years?