I recently had the pleasure of presenting at the Network for Research in Jewish Education 2013 Conference on networks. My introduction was followed by an overview of the work that The Jewish Education Project has done in social network analysis, facilitated by Bill Robinson, CSO. Below is my presentation and some notes from the slides. Let me know what you think and what questions you might have!
Slide 1: How did you get into Jewish educational research? How did you come to this conference?
Odds are the answers to both of these questions have to do with the networks in which you live which have a stronger influence on the choices we make and the opportunities presented to us than we may realize…
Slide 2: At its heart a network is a collection of nodes and the ties among them. I use the definition “a system of purpose-driven relationships.” But really, a network is a model. It’s a way of looking at and understanding the world around us - why, and how, things happen the way they do. And as we know, all models are wrong, some are useful. Networks happen to be a useful model.
Relationships are powerful and the number, strength or quality, depth, diversity, and frequency of those relationships have bearing on who we are and who we will be.
Slide 3: Let’s compare models.
Organization charts are a way of visualizing and explaining a small corner of the world.
Let’s compare that to a network map which illustrates which employees go to one another for help.
Look at the two images and answer the question - how does work get done? In the org chart, there is a hierarchical power structure that determines who makes decisions, who reports to whom, who does what work, etc. In the network map, we begin to unearth a more realistic picture of how work really gets accomplished.
Look at the position of the senior vice president - at the top of the org chart, but in the far right of the network. Now look at the position of “Cole” - random, low-ish spot on the org chart, but totally central to the network. He’s important to many, and many different kinds, of people at the company. Also, note the colors - folks in drilling don’t talk to one another. Folks in production talk ONLY to one another - and Cole.
What are the implications of this view?
What happens when cole leaves, for instance? The org chart doesn’t suffer - either someone gets promoted, they fill the slot, or others take over Cole’s responsibilities. But the work itself will change drastically.
Slide 4: Networks have always been around because we’ve always lived in relationship with one another.
But there’s something fundamentally different happening today, as described here by Clay Shirky.
But lest we think this is merely a technological phenomenon…
Slide 5: “Networked individualism” is a term coined in the book “Networked: The New Social Operating System,” released recently by the smart folks at the Pew Center for Internet and American Life.
It describes a trend that Tom Friedman (in “The World is Flat”) might refer to as globalization 3.0:
globalization 1.0 = countries; 2.0 = companies/businesses/organizations; 3.0 =individuals
Individuals are global. and they no longer get - or expect to get - everything they need from a single community (as with Jewish shtetl life).
What contributed to this change?
Some examples: peace accords across the world, the highway system, nontraditional families, individual retirement plans.
Slide 6: We know we turn to one another for support of various kinds, but the influence that networks have on us is also more tacit and pervasive than we might think.
Reference to Nicholas Christakis, author of “Connected,” and his work. For instance, if my friend’s friend is obese, I am more likely to be overweight as well.
“Our experience of the world depends on the structure of the networks in which we reside.” See his TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html
Slide 7: The “network effect”: the more people use a certain service or product, the more valuable it is. The telephone is a classic example. If 2 people own a telephone, its value is low. If hundreds of people own one, the value grows immensely.
It’s not just that there are more individual users, it’s the connectivity that drives the value.
This is the effect we are trying to tap into when it comes to innovative ideas in Jewish education - there is an important relationship between the connectivity among the innovators (and those they are serving) and the real or perceived value of that innovation - it’s a virtuous cycle.
(Note: the network effect can also work in reverse as with teenagers leaving Facebook - a natural tipping point. Like the saying, “No one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”)
Slide 8: There are two kinds of social capital we can build in a network. Bonding social capital means bringing together people who are alike in some way, bridging is bringing together folks who are different. We are more inclined to connect with people who are “like us.”
Homophily: birds of a feather flock together. It’s an easy trap for networks to fall into, and dangerous because it creates an echo chamber, doesn’t stimulate innovative thought.
This is a network map of the political blogosphere, and whose blogs are linked to one another. With very few exceptions, right- and left-wing bloggers listen and speak only to one another.
So how do we avoid this? That’s the job of a network weaver.
Slide 9: Becoming a network weaver helps avoid the scourge of homophily (among other possible dangers in networks), and helps keeps networks healthy and open to innovation.
Network weaving is a big buzz term now, but at its heart, it’s a simple and powerful concept; this is what we are trying to do, and become, at the Jewish Education Project.
Slide 10: A healthy network (core/periphery network, also called a smart network), one that avoids too much homophily, also provides the necessary foundation for innovative thought and practice - both a strong, central support system and a diverse periphery bringing in new perspectives.
Folks on the “inside” are well-connected and supportive, but the group doesn’t become an echo chamber because there is a healthy and varied periphery bringing in new ideas and challenging assumptions.
In order to be an effective network weaver, you need to have a picture of the networks in which you are working - that’s where a social network analysis comes in.
…and this marked the beginning of Bill’s presentation on social network analysis.
Thoughts? Questions? Kvetches or kvells? I’d love to hear from you!
