research groups’ social capital and phd students’ performance: the case of slovenia petra...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Research GroupsResearch Groups’’ Social Social CapitalCapital and PhD and PhD
Students’ Performance: Students’ Performance: The Case of SloveniaThe Case of Slovenia
Petra Ziherl,Petra Ziherl, CATI d.o.o. CATI d.o.o.
Hajdeja Iglič, Anuška FerligojHajdeja Iglič, Anuška Ferligoj, ,
University of LjubljanaUniversity of Ljubljana
OUTLINEOUTLINE• Theoretical background• Data• Methods cluster analysis, structural equation model - SEM
• Results• Discussion
THE AIM OF THE PROJECTTHE AIM OF THE PROJECTAn international research project
(INSOC) in which researchers from Belgium, Germany, Spain and Slovenia study the effect of social relationships (social capital) of doctoral students with their colleagues in their research groups on their academic performance.
THE MAIN HYPOTHESIS AND THE MAIN HYPOTHESIS AND THE AIM OF A STUDYTHE AIM OF A STUDY
• The main hypothesis is that PhD students’ success depends on characteristics of their research group, which consists of several experts from different areas.
• Which of the social capital theories have more explanatory power in the process of knowledge creation in given circumstances?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:DEFINITION 1DEFINITION 1
• “Social” implies that it captures interaction between people.
• “Capital” indicates that it should be understood as an asset of an individual or a group that comes from relations with others (Rothstein and Stolle, 2003).
DEFINITION 2DEFINITION 2One of the most cited definitions belongs to
Bourdieu:• Social capital is the sum of resources,
actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Nevertheless, social capital acquires more than just membership in a certain group that is to change accidental social ties into ties, in which individuals recognize the liabilities to one another.
STRENGTH OF TIESSTRENGTH OF TIES• Granovetter’s strength of weak ties• Complex knowledge transfer and
knowledge creation
HYPOTHESIS 1: The stronger the ties between the PhD student and the other members of research group, the more successful (s)he is.
COHESIONCOHESION• Theory of cognitive balance• Coleman’s theory• Norms and sanctions
HYPOTHESIS 2: The more cohesive the research group, the more successful the PhD student is.
GROUP HETEROGENEITY 1GROUP HETEROGENEITY 1BURT’S RANGE (1983, 1992)• Size of a network• Different people in the network• Quality of relationships
HYPOTHESIS 3: The more heterogeneous the research group, the more successful the PhD student is.
GROUP HETEROGENEITY 2GROUP HETEROGENEITY 2• H.3a:The larger the research group, the more
successful the Phd student is.• H.3b:The greater the number of people with
whom the PhD student cooperates outside the “primary” research group, the more successful (s)he is.
• H.3c: The greater the number of different institutions in which members of research group are employed, the more successful the PhD student is.
• H.3d: The more structural holes exist in the PhD student’s network, the more successful (s)he is (Burt, 1983, 1992)
THEORETICAL MODELTHEORETICAL MODEL
O th e r s
S iz e
C oh e s ion
Tie s tr e n g th
P h .D . s tu de n t' spe r for m an c e
In s ti tu tion s S tr u c tu r al h ole s
H .1H .2
H .3 a
H .3 b
H .3 c H .3 d
DATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTION
Phase 1 (June – Sept. 2003): The doctoral student’s research group was defined by his/her supervisor.
Phase 2 (Jan. – April 2004): Social ties were measured:
• among all members of the research group (complete networks);
• between the doctoral student and his/her research colleagues (ego-centered networks).
Data Collection – Phase 1Data Collection – Phase 1
236 doctoral students and their mentors
204 contacted mentors
190 defined research groups
contacting mentors and arranging a
personal interview
incomplete data, refusal (e.g., concerns about
security of personal data, lack of time)
Data Collection – Phase 2Data Collection – Phase 2
1355 researchers
194 doctoral students190 mentors971 others
711 participated
117 (60,3%) doctoral students99 (52,1%) mentors495 (51,0%) others
Wave Response rate Response (N)
E-mail 36,5% 494
Reminder 1 48,7% 660
Reminder 2 52,5% 711
+ 12,2%
+ 3,8%
Types of supportTypes of supportTypes of support, from members of the
research group:• Advice (work related problems),• Co-operation (e.g., on a project),• Technical (e.g., regarding data,
software),• Socializing (outside work context,
e.g., doing sports),• Emotional (e.g., lack of motivation).
Ego-centered networks vs. Ego-centered networks vs. Complete networksComplete networks
In this presentation analysis on the level of the whole research group will mostly be presented (complete networks).
Social relationships between the doctoral student and his/her colleagues (egocentered networks) or between mentor and PhD student (dyadic relations) have also been considered.
DATA 1DATA 1Social relation based on complete
cooperation networks:• Consider all situations of the past year (that is,
since 1 November 2002) in which you co-operated with your colleagues, e.g., working on the same project, solving problems together and so on. Minor advice do not belong to this type of co-operation. How often have you been co-operating with each of your colleagues?
Scale: from 1 (not in the past year) to 8 (every day), or 0, if the respondent does not know the person
DATA 2DATA 2• Excluded all research groups in which mentor
or PhD student did not respond• Excluded all research groups which did not
attain response rate over 60%• Excluded all missing members with low
frequencies of cooperation• Other missing members were included, where
the ties from him/her to the others were estimated with the values of answers given by the respondents to him/her
• Thus, 23 research groups remain for the analysis
Representativity of Representativity of thethe sample 1 sample 1
Variables Chi-square test Complete networks Ego-centered networks Non-respondents
Gender Number Percentages Number Percentages Number Percentages
Men 13 56.5 71 60.7 38 50.7
Women 10 43.5 46 30.3 37 49.3
Total
0.84 (p-value=0.66)
23 100 117 100 75 100
Science area Natural sciences 18 78.3 94 80.3 61 81.3 Social sciences 5 21.7 23 19.7 14 18.7 Total
0.99 (p-value=0.61)
23 100 117 100 75 100
PhD students’ year of employment in current department
Before 2000 2 8.7 14 12.7
Year 2000
0.99 19 82.6 89 80.9
After 2000 2 8.7 7 6,4
Total (p-value=0.61)
23 100 110 110
Representativity of the sample Representativity of the sample 22
Size of a network Number of institution
Mean 6,09 2,39
N 23 23
Std. Deviation 2,27 1,08
Mean 7,65 3,20
N 94 94
Std. Deviation 3,28 1,90
Mean 6,68 2,77
N 73 73
Std. Deviation 3,10 1,77
Mean 7,09 2,94
N 190 190
Std. Deviation 3,15 1,78
F-statistics 3,33 2,49
Sig. 0,04 0,86
Total
Complete networks
Ego-centered networks
Non-respondents
VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSES VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSES
Tie strength average frequency of cooperation between PhD student and
other members in research groupCohesion average frequency of cooperation between all members of
research groupGroup Diversity:Size of a research group (original one)Number of different institutions that people from research
group are employed inOthers = number of people with who PhD student cooperates
outside the research group defined by mentorBurt's measure of constraints for PhD students
Burt’s measure of constraintsBurt’s measure of constraints
j
qjq
iqiji )pp(pC
j
jiij
jiijij )zz(
zzp
where zij is the frequency of interaction between person i and person j
CLUSTER ANALYSISCLUSTER ANALYSIS
The goal is to obtain clusters of researchgroups according to the networkcharacteristics
• Standarized variables• Euclidian distance (between two research
groups)• Hierarchical clustering• Ward method
RESULTS 1RESULTS 1
RESULTS 2RESULTS 2
CLUSTER 1 - WEAK SOCIAL CLUSTER 1 - WEAK SOCIAL CAPITALCAPITAL
• Small research groups• Rare cooperation between members of
research group• Rare cooperation between PhD students
and other members• PhD students do not search for
cooperation with people outside their “primary” research groups
• Members of research group are from the same institution
CLUSTER 1 - WEAK SOCIAL CLUSTER 1 - WEAK SOCIAL CAPITAL CAPITAL
Typical research Typical research group of cluster 1group of cluster 1
62225
R7EYK
9L23T
ZL2Y9
4G6WN
Pajek
Average frequency of cooperation Few times a year
Average frequency of cooperation between PhD students and other members
Not in year before interviewing
Number of »outside« people with who PhD student cooperates
None
Number of different instititutions 1
Size of research group 6
Index of constraints 0,78
CLUSTER 2 - BONDING SOCIAL CLUSTER 2 - BONDING SOCIAL CAPITALCAPITAL
• Small research group• Developed cooperation• The highest average strength of ties
between PhD students and others• Some cooperation of PhD students
with others outside “primary” research group
• Members of research group are from the same institution
85QC1
HKG4Z
UBBQB
RDCKA
Pajek
Average frequency of cooperation Once a month
Average frequency of cooperation between PhD students and other members
Few times a year
Number of »outside« people with who PhD student cooperates
3
Number of different instititutions 1
Size of research group 4
Index of constraints 0,85
CLUSTER 2 - BONDING SOCIAL CLUSTER 2 - BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL CAPITAL
Typical research Typical research group of cluster 2group of cluster 2
CLUSTER 3 - BRIDGING CLUSTER 3 - BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITALSOCIAL CAPITAL
• Large networks• Different institutions• PhD students have numerous
cooperation ties with people outside the original group
• Moderate strength of ties and cohesion
• Network structure shows structural holes
CLUSTER 3 - BRIDGING SOCIAL CLUSTER 3 - BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITALCAPITAL
Typical representative of cluster 3Typical representative of cluster 3ESXBW
TRMXP
HKZ2Y
XN3IH
4B76Z
T3K6B
Pajek
Average frequency of cooperation Once/few times a year
Average frequency of cooperation between PhD students and other members
Few times a year
Number of »outside« people with who PhD student cooperates
2
Number of different instititutions 4
Size of research group 8
Index of constraints 0,56
Index of performance Index of performance (Coenders and Coromina, 2004)(Coenders and Coromina, 2004) : :
2*int_art + 2*pub_rev + pub_norm + pap_conf
Index of PerformanceIndex of Performance
1. int_art - article in an international journal (with/without reviewers), book/chapter in a book - with reviewers.
2. pub_rev - article, paper in proceedings - with reviewers.
3. pub_norm - article, book/chapter in a book, paper in proceedings, internal research - without reviewers.
4. pap_conf - international/national conference/workshop – with/without presentation.
COMPARISON OF INDEX OF COMPARISON OF INDEX OF PERFORMANCE BETWEEN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN
CLUSTERSCLUSTERS
Clusters Index of performance Mean 6,63 1 – Weak social capital cluster S td.dev. 5,65 Mean 9,29 2 – Bonding social capital cluster Std.dev. 4,07 Mean 22,13 3 – Bridging social capital cluster Std.dev. 8,87 Mean 12,83 Total Std.dev. 9,44
ANOVA RESULTSANOVA RESULTS
F - statistics Significance
ANOVA 12.44 0.00
Bonferroni’s post hoc tests Mean difference Significance
2 - 2.66 1.000 Cluster 1 3 - 15.50 .000 1 2.66 1.000 Cluster 2 3 - 12 .84 .004 1 15.50 .000 Cluster 3 2 12.84 .004
SUMMARY OF CLUSTERING SUMMARY OF CLUSTERING RESULTSRESULTS
• Three clusters according to social capital variables were obtained: bonding social capital, weak social capital and bridging social capital
• Average strength of ties and cohesion in three clusters have non-linear influence on PhD students’ performance
• Most successful PhD students are included in large, diverse research groups with network structure that is characterized by structural holes
STRUCTURAL EQUATION STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELMODEL
DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Index of performance
Independent variables Independent variables
Tie strength = average frequency of cooperation between PhD student and other members in research group – the linear and quadratic terms were centralized
Cohesion = average frequency of cooperation between all members of research group
Range = size of a network + number of different institution + Burt's measure of constraints for PhD students (-)
Others = number of people with who PhD student cooperates outside the research group defined by mentor
Control variablesControl variablesJob centrality: job centrality was
measured by four indicators (scale from 1 to 7):
• I'll do overtime to finish my job, even if I'm not paid for it.
• The major satisfacion in my life comes from my job.
• The most important things that happen to me involve my work.
• Some activities are more important to me than work. (-)
Mentor’s performance
RESULTS 1RESULTS 1
R an g e
M e n tor 'spe r for m an c e
C oh e s ion
Tie s tr e n g th
Tie s tr e n g th 2
P h .D . s tu de n t' spe r for m an c e
W or k c e n tr al i ty O th e r s
0 .3 2
0 .5 7
0 .3 9
0 .3 1
0 .0 6
-0 .0 0
0 .2 6
0 .5 0
0 .3 3
0 .0 2
0 .5 4
1 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .8 9
0 .8 5
0 .7 5
0 .4 2
0 .9 0
1 .0 0
t-valu e s above 2
t-valu e s above 1 .5
t-valu e s above 1 .0
t-valu e s be low 0 .5
LEGEN D :
R 2 = 0 .5 8 4
RESULTS 2RESULTS 2
STRONG EFFECT OF RANGE ON PERFORMANCE
• size of network (H3a), partially the number of others (H3b)
• the number of different institution from which people in research group come from (H3c)
• PhD student’s brokering position between unconnected parts in his network (H3d)
RESULTS 3RESULTS 3
SHOWING SOME EFFECT OF • Quadratic term of strength of ties on
performance
NO EFFECT OF• Linear term of strength of ties on
performance
FURTHER PLANSFURTHER PLANS
• Analysis on ego-centered and dyad level and the comparison between levels
• Comparison across countries
top related