Social network analysis (SNA), a methodological approach that enables the mathematical examination of interprofessional relationships, can be an important tool for understanding and leveraging the social relationships that support and restrain instructional innovation and the quality and pace of school reform initiatives. In this article, we explicate the conceptual underpinnings of SNA and summarize how it has been used in a range of preK–12 educational evaluation contexts. A school-based case study is presented in which school leaders examined formal and advice-seeking networks among teachers, staff, and administrators and used the findings to reduce teacher isolationism, promote efficient communication, and increase system capacity for instructional innovation. Challenges associated with SNA for educational evaluation and school improvement are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatageljV., & MrvaA. (2008). Pajek: Program for analysis and visualization of large networks.Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubljana. Retrieved from http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/
2.
CityE. A., ElmoreR. F., FiarmanS. E., & TeitelL. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
3.
CoburnC., ChoiL., & MataW. (2010). I would go to her because her mind is math. In DalyA. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 33–50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
4.
CroftA., CoggshallJ. G., DolanM., PowersE., & KillionJ. (2010). Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well.Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
5.
CrossJ. E., DickmanE., Newman-GoncharR., & FaganJ. M. (2009). Using mixed-method design and network analysis to measure development of inter-agency collaboration. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 310–329.
6.
CrossR., BorgattiS. P., & ParkerA. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235.
7.
DalyA. (Ed.) (2010). Social network theory and educational change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding work structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111–138.
9.
DalyA., MoolenaarN. M., BolivarJ. M., & BurkeP. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359–391.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13–24.
11.
DealT. E., PurintonT., & WaetjenD. C. (2009). Making sense of social networks in schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
de NooyW., MrvarA., & BatageljV. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek.New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DiRamioD., TherouxR., & GuarinoA. J. (2009). Faculty hiring at top-ranked higher education administration programs: An examination using social network analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 149–159.
14.
DufourR. (2011). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57–61.
15.
DufourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities that work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Solution Tree.
16.
DufourR., EakerR., & DuFourR. (Eds.) (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
17.
FrankK. A., ZhaoY., & BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.
18.
GajdaR., & KolibaC. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration: A field-tested framework for school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133–154.
19.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
20.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.New York: Routledge.
21.
HaweP., & GhaliL. (2008). Use of social network analysis to map the social relationships of staff and teachers at school. Health Education Research, 23(1), 62–69.
22.
HordS. (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities.New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
KochanS., & TeddlieC. (2005). An evaluation of communication among high school faculty using network analysis. New Directions for Evaluation, 107, 41–53.
LeanaC., & PilF. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 13(3), 1–14.
26.
LiljerosF., EdlingC. R., & AmaralL. A. N. (2003). Sexual networks: Implications for transmission of sexually transmitted infections. Microbes Infect, 5(2), 189–196.
27.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.
28.
McCormickL. K., StecklerA. B., & McLeroyK. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations in schools: A Study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion, 9(3), 210–219.
29.
OtteE., & RousseauR. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.
30.
PapachristosA. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74–128.
31.
PapachristosA. V. (2011, April 25). Social network analysis: A brief overview. Class lecture special presentation, Amherst, MA.
32.
PenuelW. R., SussexW., KorbakC., & HoadleyC. (2006). Investigating the potential of using social network analysis is educational evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 437–451.
33.
PinquartM., & SorensonS. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 15(2), 187–224.
34.
PounderD. G. (1998). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls.Albany: SUNY Press.
35.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-Project.org
36.
RogersE. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations.New York: Free Press.
37.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
38.
SaundersW. M., GoldenbergC. N., & GallimoreR. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.
39.
SongS., NerurS., & TengJ. (2007). An exploratory study on the roles of network structure and knowledge processing orientation in the work unit knowledge management. Advances in Information Systems, 38(2), 8–26.
40.
SpillaneJ., HealeyK., & Min KimC. (2010). Leading and managing instruction: Formal and informal aspects of the elementary school organization. In DalyA. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change. (pp. 128–158). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
41.
StarkD., & VedresB. (2005). Social times of network spaces: Network sequences and foreign investment in Hungary (No. 2005-06-023). Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute.
42.
ThessinR., & StarrJ. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional learning communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48–54.
43.
TuomainenJ., PalonenT., & HakkarainenK. (2010). A special education teacher's networks: A Finnish case. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 46–58.
44.
WoodlandR., & HuttonM. (2012). Evaluating organizational collaborations: Suggested entry points and strategies. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 366–383.
45.
WoodlandR., MinjiK., and RandallJ. (2013). A validation study of the teacher collaboration assessment survey. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice. (19) 5, 442–460.
