AEA365 | A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators

Search

Hi, I’m Barbara Klugman. I offer strategy support and conduct evaluations with social justice funders, NGOs, networks and leadership training institutions in South Africa and internationally. I practice utilization-focused evaluation, frequently using mixed methods including outcomes harvesting and Social Network Analysis (SNA).

Rad Resource: For advocacy evaluation, SNA can help identify:

  • how connected different types of advocacy organizations are to each other;
  • what roles they play in relation to each other such as information exchange, partnering for litigation, driving a campaign, or linking separate networks;
  • if and how their positioning changes over time in terms of relative influence in the network.

The method involves surveying all the groups relevant to the evaluation question, asking if they have a particular kind of relationship with all other groups surveyed. To illustrate the usefulness of SNA, the map below illustrates an information network of the African Centre for Biodiversity, a South African NGO.  In the map, each circle is an organization, sized by the number of organizations who indicated “we go to this organization for information” – to answer one piece of the evaluation question, regarding the position and role of the evaluand in its field, nationally and regionally. Of the 55 groups advocating for food sovereignty in the region who responded, the evaluand is the main bridger between South African groups and others on the continent. It is also a primary information provider to the whole group alongside a few international NGOs and a few African regional organizations.

As another example, an SNA evaluating the Ford Foundation’s $54m Strengthening Human Rights Worldwide global initiative distinguished changes in importance and connectedness before the initiative and after four years, among those inside the initiative (blue), ‘matched’ groups with similar characteristics (orange), and five others in Ford’s portfolio (pink). It shows that the initiative’s grantees and notably those from the Global South (dark blue) have developed more advocacy relationships than have the matching groups (see larger size of nodes and more connections). However, the largest connector for advocacy remains Amnesty International – the big pink dot in the middle, demonstrating its continuing differential access to resources and influence relative to the other human rights groups.

 

Hot tips:

  • Keep it simple: As surveys ask about each organization, responding takes time, so ask only about roles that closely answer the evaluation questions regarding the network. For example, “my organization has engaged with them in advocacy at a regional forum”; “my organization has taken cases with them”
  • Work with a mentor: While SNA software like Gephi is open access, making sense of social network data requires statistical analysis capacity and SNA theory to extract meaning accurately.

Lesson Learned:

  • Consider whether or not to show names of groups as your tables or maps will surface who is ‘in’ and who is on the outside of a network in ways that might have negative consequences for group dynamics or for individual groups, or expose group’s negative perceptions of each other.

Rad resources:

Wendy Church, Introduction to Social Network Analysis, 2018.

 

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating APC TIG Week with our colleagues in the Advocacy and Policy Change Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our AP TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Hello, Keiko Kuji-Shikatani (C.E., CES representative for EvalGender+) and Hur Hassnain  (Pakistan Evaluation Association; Impact, Results and Learning Manager, Y Care International) here to share our thoughts on how to engage and collectively think about better evaluating learning and social accountability in FCV (fragility, conflict and violence).

The World Bank estimates that by 2030, the share of global poor living in FCV is projected to reach 46%. According to the OECD, ‘fragile states’ are most at risk of not achieving the sustainable development goals.

Hot Tips and Rad Resources:

stacked stones

Here are seven Hot Tips and Rad Resources to consider wh

en evaluating in FCV:

1-Context.  Take context as a starting point and invest in FCV analysis to understand sources of tension and cohesion.

2-Be conflict-sensitive, whilst working in FCV we need to realise that no one is neutral. Evaluations should explain the interactions between context and the intervention.

3-Good monitoring precedes good evaluations. Traditional periodic evaluations are unrealistic when evaluators struggle to have access to the targeted people. Monitoring supports adaptive programming by informing decision makers faster, resulting in timely project fixes.

4-Engaging local communities where access is restricted, in the M&E processes to make them agents of change. This requires a well-planned and thoughtful process to ensure their safe and meaningful involvement.

5-Third Party Monitoring. TPM is a risk-management to

 

ol intended to provide evidence in inaccessible areas, it also presents some ethical and technical limitations. The Secure Access in Volatile Environments program suggests TPM works best when used as a last resort.

6-Using information and communication technologies where remote programming is needed, ICTs offer creative solutions to compensate face-to-face interaction, making evaluations an agile tool for adaptive-management; new ethical challenges and the new kinds of risks that digital data brings need to be mitigated. See Oxfam’s Mobile Survey Toolkit for tools and providers.

7-Is the evaluation worth the cost when money could otherwise be used to relieve human suffering? Think twice if the context is fluid, continuously changing and the target population is on the move. Cost is justified only if the findings have the capability and potential to lead to program improvements andgenerate learning without compromising the security of the affected population, people delivering aid or collecting data.  Depending on the context you can choose from a spectrum of options including more informal reflective learning exercises (e.g., After Action Reviews/Real-Time Evaluations) and use user-friendly communications including social media posts with the evaluation participants.

A greater drive for meaningful conflict-sensitive evaluations that investigates the causes of FCV, instead of ‘fig leaf’, evaluations would contribute to better outcomes and new policies to provide more flexible and faster support for those whose lives are torn apart by war and conflict.

Interested in learning more? Reach out to the International Development Evaluation Association who with its partners established a Thematic Interest Group on Evaluation in fragility, conflict and violence (EvalFCV).

 

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating International and Cross-Cultural (ICCE) TIG Week with our colleagues in the International and Cross-Cultural Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our ICCE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

No tags

Jeneen R. Garcia

Jeneen R. Garcia

My name is Jeneen R. Garcia. I’ve been a full-time evaluator at the Independent Evaluation Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF IEO) for the last seven years. The GEF is the largest multilateral funder of environmental programs worldwide. Because the programs we evaluate almost all take place in complex social-ecological systems, we constantly need to seek out new methods for dealing with complexity.

One of the methods we’ve used is Social Network Analysis (SNA). In one evaluation, we wanted to assess the role of the GEF in increasing interactions among environmental actors at the regional level. Two things made this system complex:

1) the work of these many actors intersected, but they had no hierarchical structure, and

2) interventions took place at multiple scales, which ultimately shaped interactions at the regional scale.

It’s hard to keep track of what everyone says they’re doing and who they’re doing it with. By mapping the relationships among actors, SNA allowed us to see how well-connected the actors in the region are, and which ones are key to keeping the network well-connected.

Because it was an impact evaluation, we also needed some sort of counterfactual to compare our observations with. The big problem was, it is practically impossible to “randomly select” a region that is comparable to any other, much less find a high enough number of them to ensure statistical robustness. In this case, we were looking at the South China Sea, a region with several territorial conflicts, and which GEF has funded for > 20 years. How could we find a region to compare with that?

Hot Tips

  • Instead of looking outward, we created a scenario of the same region without GEF’s presence. We did this by redoing the SNA with the same set of actors except the GEF. The result was, without GEF support, some actors that were important at the country level became disconnected from the regional discussions.
 SNA diagram with and without GEF

(click for larger image)

  • We did not rely on this analysis alone to assess the impact of GEF funding in the region. We triangulated it with field visits, interviews at multiple scales, document reviews, environmental monitoring data, global databases, and satellite images, among others. A wide range of evidence sources and methods for analysis is your best defense against data gaps in complex systems!

Rad Resources:

To find out more about which SNA measures were used to come up with our findings, you can check out this paper that I wrote up on the analysis.

You can also see how this analysis fits in with the larger impact evaluation by reading the full report.

For more on the basics on the basics of SNA and how it can be used in evaluation, you can explore this Prezi I made. It includes links to evaluations, software, and other resources related to SNA. (CAVEAT: I delivered that presentation to a Spanish-speaking audience and haven’t translated it yet. My apologies to the non-Spanish speakers!)

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

My name is Rebecca Swann-Jackson, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Research and Evaluation on Education and Human Services at Montclair State University.  I currently manage evaluation projects focused on teacher preparation and development, and educational programs and community-based initiatives serving urban children and families.  In the evaluation of an urban teacher residency program, I recently used social network analysis (SNA) to examine the relationship between support for novice teachers and retention (i.e., staying in their schools and/or the profession).

Social network analysis is an innovative method used to understand relationships. As relational models, networks show both structure (who and what) and process (how and why) at the same time. Further, you can obtain a more complete picture by combining quantitative (outsider view) and qualitative measures (insider view) of the structure and process.

SNA diagram

Hot Tips: These tips are especially relevant for those who want to try out mixing quantitative SNA with qualitative methods.

The network survey will help to construct the ‘who and what’ relational network. To use the network for evaluation purposes, you also might consider using qualitative methods to investigate ‘how and why’ wonderings. Interrogate, or question, your models; what do you want to know? Ask questions of the relationships and connections you see (and don’t see!).

In the case of the evaluation of the urban teacher residency program, I was curious about:

  1. How does each supporter do their job?
  2. Why do novice teachers reach out to these people for support?
  3. Why do novice teachers reach out to these people for these specific types support?

Tip 1: Have a data party to engage respondents in interpretation and questioning: Reconvene your survey respondents. Distribute copies of the network model with the identifiers removed. Have them identify the questions they have about the model. Ask participants which node they think represents them and ask them to explain their decision-making.

Tip 2: Investigate questions through qualitative inquiry with key nodes. In my evaluation, I used focus groups to further understand the nature of key nodes’ roles. I interviewed the key nodes to learn more about their day-to-day operations.

Lessons Learned: Combining SNA with qualitative methods provided a more holistic understanding of the relationship between support and retention. Learning how people perceived the network and the content and meaning of ties between individuals was essential to understanding network patterns as well as evaluating program implementation and outcomes.

Rad Resources:

Nvivo by QSR – Enabling Qualitative Social Network Analysis https://youtu.be/8cUBQSWgGqg

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation – Using Social Network Analysis in Evaluation https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2013/12/using-social-network-analysis-in-evaluation.html 

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Bethany Laursen

Bethany Laursen

Hello, everyone! I’m Bethany Laursen, principal consultant at Laursen Evaluation & Design, LLC and doctoral student at Michigan State University. I love sense making tools, don’t you? I need help untangling complex data into meaningful findings! Social network analysis (SNA) is one of those tools, and it can do a lot more than its name indicates if you know how to hack it.

SNA is fundamentally network analysis, and you can study almost anything as a network. In fact, if you’re a systems thinker like I am, you probably do this already!

Hot Tip: All you need to hack SNA is at least one set of nodes and one set of edges. Stuck? A few inspiring questions include: What is flowing in my network? What do I care about? What is easy to measure?

Here are some basic examples:

Nodes Edges
Bus stops Bus routes
Grants Shared objectives
Land preserves Wildlife migrations
Accounts Fund transfers
Activities Causes

 

Level 2 hacking adds more edges to make a multiplex graph. For example, we might track shared personnel as well as shared objectives among grants. Level 3 hacks add another set of nodes to create 2-mode networks, such as bus stops with ATMs within one block. Combining levels 2 and 3 gets you to level 4—a multiplex, two-mode network (!). There are more secret levels to discover if you create new nodes and edges out of your original ones using the analytic transformations available in SNA software.

For example, I once turned a simple information-exchange network into a two-mode expert-expertise network, and then—through a co-affiliation transformation in UCINET—I ended up with an awesome group concept map of everyone’s shared expertise, where the nodes were expertise types and the edges were people recognized as those experts. How cool is that?

Figure 1: An expertise network made of areas of expertise connected by people who have those expertises. From Laursen 2013.

Figure 1: An expertise network made of areas of expertise connected by people who have those expertises. From Laursen 2013.

Lesson Learned: You can make intangible, complex constructs visible and interpretable by re-purposing SNA.

Lesson Learned: It’s fun to play with the possibilities of SNA, but in the end, you need to have a purpose for the information you generate. Having a good question to answer is half the secret of sense making tools.

 

Rad Resources: Here are some methods and tools that re-purpose SNA:

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

My name is Sophia Guevara, MLIS, MPA.  I am a co-chair for the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group at the American Evaluation Association.   My co-writer is Simon Geletta, who was a past program chair of the SNA TIG. Simon is a professor of public health at the Des Moines University.

In this post we would like to introduce a software called “ORA”.  ORA is an extremely flexible network analysis tool that is ideal for creating, manipulating and analyzing networks and network structure from data that are stored in a number of different ways and formats (e.g., as a set of relational tables stored in a database or in a spreadsheet, as an n-dimensional matrix etc.) It allows visual as well as statistical analysis capabilities on both static social networks and dynamic social networks that can vary over time and/or space.

ORA is versatile, as it is a “multi-platform” toolkit that can operate either in stand-alone mode, or as a service “plug-in” within a web architecture. With both a GUI version and batch mode version of ORA, it is noteworthy to mention that the batch mode version has been used with networks with 106 nodes.  ORA supports high dimensional network data (or “meta-network” data), including data that represent spatiotemporally dynamic network structure. Hence, while most SNA tools are capable of mapping single-mode or two-mode networks, ORA can handle n-mode networks – this makes it ideal for measuring and understanding network changes over time or through space.

A second powerful feature is its ability to visualize geo-spatial networks. The ESRI proprietary geographic “shape” file can be used together with network data to visualize relationships between entities over geographic space. Further, ORA outputs can also be export to Google Earth, or to KML files, thus enabling interoperation with third-party tools.

Finally, ORA is interoperable with a number of other SNA tools such as Pajek and UCINET. Further, its output can be consumed by a wide range of applications because they can be made to conform to CSV, TSV, XML, JSON and similar standards.

According to the Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS) website, there is ORA-LITE which is limited to 2,000 nodes and a Pro version with no node limit available at Netanomics.com.  The Netanomics.com site invites visitors to access an article published in The Economist in 2015 that mentions the use of this software.

Rad Resource: ORA Google Group https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ora-google-group

This Google Group provides information for those interested in “network science and network science tools”.  You can find more information on the page about training and purchasing tools.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Hello, my name is Rebecca Woodland and I teach Introduction Social Network Analysis as an AEA pre-conference workshop and at UMass Amherst. Those who enroll in these courses come from all walks of the evaluation field and I feel quite fortunate to have the opportunity to learn alongside so many talented professionals.

What I’ve learned.

Whether people seek to conduct evaluation in health and medicine, education, environmental non-profits, or in any number of other settings and sectors, there are some common misconceptions that seem to exist. I too held many of these misconceptions when I first ventured into SNA for program evaluation.

Myth #1 – SNA is about Facebook, Twitter, etc. and other social networking sites.

A lot of people think that the “N” in SNA refers to “networking.” The reality is that there is no “ing” in SNA. Yes, online social networking can be analyzed using SNA, but SNA is not about the study of social networking per se. In the context of evaluation, SNA is most often about examining relationships (ties) between actors (people/organizations) and how a program’s “network” may enable or inhibit actor access to important resources.

Myth #2 – SNA is only about ties between people.

Perhaps because SNA has the word “social” in its title – it is widely assumed that SNA is exclusively about people. Evaluators are rightly concerned about program effects for individuals, but SNA is also a sophisticated way to examine ties between program resources, inputs, outputs, and outcomes. With SNA, we might examine ties between nonprofits and grant-making organizations, program activities and geographic regions, or policies and governmental groups, just to name a few.  An almost unlimited number of relationships between human AND/OR non-human actors can be examined through SNA.

Myth #3 –SNA is all about creating those cool pictures.

It is true that the production of colorful and dynamic sociograms is one of the most powerful aspects of SNA! However, effective SNA does not have to entail the creation of any pictures. SNA is predicated on matrix algebra – sociograms visually depict results of mathematical computations. Sometimes it is more important, accurate, and useful to tell the story of program cohesion and actor centrality using quantitative network measures and descriptive and inferential statistics.

Rad Resources:

If you find SNA intriguing – check out the following resources. Each text addresses SNA misconceptions and may help you to further incorporate this powerful approach into your evaluation practice.

  • SNA: Methods and Applications by Wasserman & Faust
  • SNA: History, Theory and Methodology by Prell
  • Analyzing Social Networks by Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson
  • Social Network Analysis by Scott
  • SNA: Methods and Examples by Yang, Keller & Zhang
  • The SAGE Handbook of SNA

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

Maryann Maxwell Durland

Maryann Maxwell Durland

I am Maryann Maxwell Durland and I am part of the leadership team of the Social Network Analysis (SNA) TIG, along with Rebecca Woodland, and Sophia Guevara. One important distinction between our TIG and many others is that we are not a primary TIG for many members, but rather a “secondary” choice. Primary choices tend to be the area or field where we work or a specific interest such as the Disaster & Emergency Management Evaluation TIG. A secondary choice is of interest to an evaluator but generally not at the level of attending the business meeting or participating in TIG activities. Our leadership has been addressing this pattern and working to encourage evaluators to become more engaged in their secondary TIG’s, as well as providing resources that will address learning and professional development needs better. To inform this goal, in December 2017, we sent a survey to our members (300+) with a response rate of 12%.

Overall Results indicate that:

  • Half of the 38 members who responded are at the novice and beginner level; Another 13% rate themselves as experts
  • Based on respondents ranking of their confidence level with SNA concepts, we have a mix of members some who are very confident about concepts and a larger percentage who are not confident or have a little confidence.
  • Very few of respondents indicated confidence with software on a three point scale 11% with Gephi, 11% with R and 14% with UCINET. Respondents also listed 11 other software they use.
  • Over 70% of respondents have used SNA in describing a program as part of an evaluation and measuring/visualizing program outputs. Another 68% have used it in creating a final evaluation report, and 55% in engaging stakeholders.
  • The majority of respondents have not read common texts related to SNA concepts and several listed other texts they have read.

In the chart below are the specific concepts we asked about. Based on the survey results, the leadership team thought that we would address, from not confident to the very confident levels, the concepts that are foundational to doing SNA. All of our posts this week will discuss a variety of concepts and uses for SNA. I have started by illustrating how our TIG is addressing how we can be useful to our members. In addition, I’ll provide under Rad Resource, a short description of a classic book for first getting a sense of SNA.

Rad Resource:

John Scott’s  Social Network Analysis (3ed) gives a clear and readable overview of Social Network Analysis. Scott provides key definitions and an historical perspective, as well as covering key conceptual concepts. He includes brief examples in each chapter to further illustrate applications.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis TIG Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

We are Caitlin Ruffenach, Researcher, and Kim Leonard, Senior Evaluation Officer, from The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF). Among other things, we are working on an evaluation of the Studio to School Initiative at OCF, which focuses on the development of sustainable arts education programs through partnerships between arts organizations and schools.

This past summer, in collaboration with the Oregon Arts Commission, we conducted a survey of arts organizations in Oregon in an effort to learn about the arts education programming they provide, often in concert with what is available more directly through the school system.

The purpose of this survey was to help the Foundation understand how the grantees of its Studio to School Initiative fit into the broader arts education landscape in Oregon. We hope the survey results will also serve as a resource for grantees, funders, and other stakeholders to understand and identify programs delivering arts education throughout the state.

Lesson Learned: To ensure we would have the most useful information possible, our survey design process included several noteworthy steps:

  1. We started with existing data; by gathering information about organizations who had received funding in arts education in Oregon in the past we were able to target our efforts to recruit respondents.
  2. We consulted with others who have done similar surveys to learn from their successes and challenges;
  3. We paid close attention to survey question wording to ensure that we were focusing as tightly on what was measurable by survey as possible; and
  4. We vetted our early findings with arts education stakeholders.

Hot Tip: A collaborative, inclusive survey design process can result in better survey tools. We used a small, informal advisory group throughout the process that included members who had conducted similar surveys and representatives of our target respondent group. They helped with question wording, as well as with identifying a small survey pilot.

Hot Tip: Vetting preliminary findings with stakeholders is fun and helps support evaluation use. We took advantage of an existing gathering of arts stakeholders in Oregon to share and workshop our initial findings. We used a data placemat, complete with re-useable stickers, to slowly reveal the findings. We then engaged the attendees in discussions about how the findings did or didn’t resonate with their experiences. What we learned during this gathering is reflected in our final report.

Resources: We are not the first to try a more inclusive process both in developing our survey tool and in vetting/interpreting the results! Check out the previous aea365 post about participatory data analysis. And check out the Innovation Network’s slide deck on Data Placemats for more information about that particular tool.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from OCF team members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

My name is Sophia Guevara, Program Co-Chair for the Social Network Analysis (SNA) TIG.  This week, several evaluation professionals have shared with this blog’s readers their thoughts on social network analysis. With posts discussing logic models to examples of the application of social network analysis on a wide-range of evaluation questions, you’ve hopefully gained a better understanding of it.

Rad Resource: The SNA in Evaluation LinkedIn group. This group provides TIG group members with an opportunity to discuss topics of interest for those utilizing or learning about social network analysis.

Rad Resource: Join the SNA TIG group. As a member, make sure to make use of the eGroup discussion option.

Rad Resource: SNA TIG business meeting. If you are thinking of joining the TIG or have already joined and are looking to connect with other evaluation professionals making use of SNA, the business meeting is an excellent place to do just that. The SNA TIG business meeting is held at the annual American Evaluation Association conference.

Rad Resource: AEA public eLibrary and the Coffee Break Archive. There are a variety of resources that can help you learn more about the topic. For example, if you are looking to learn more about the use of SNA related-programs, check out Dr. Geletta’s coffee break webinar focused on importing spreadsheet data into Gephi.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Social Network Analysis Week with our colleagues in the Social Network Analysis Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our SNA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

No tags

Older posts >>

Archives

To top