Notes
Working on Walls (WoW)
– an NSERC CREATE Training Program
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
Social Network Analysis
December 2012
By C. Owen Lo & Arwa Alkhalaf
1
Executive Summary
Overall Network Complexity Development
Notes
• The response rate over the course of the 2012 surveys
was 96% (A survey was sent in September 2012 and
62% of the Trainees completed the survey; however due
to some technical glitches, the data was not analyzable,
so the survey was re-distributed in December 2012.
Due to low response rate the December 2012 survey was
re-sent in February 2012). All non-sabbatical WoW
members responded to the survey except on PI.
• Since many of the Trainees took part in organizing and
participating in the 2011 WoW symposium, many of the
external ties made then continued and were mentioned in
this survey (e.g., Y. Watanabe mentioned 5 external ties to
the Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST) in
Japan).
• The overall WoW social network is fairly active.
Among all survey respondents (n=23), a total number of
311 outgoing ties were indicated. On average, each
survey participant had 13.1 outgoing ties (the range of
actual outgoing ties numbered from 4 - 23).
Research-Related Supervision & Mentoring
• More people outside of the WoW context were
indicated in this final survey – a difference from
previous years. In total 17 participants (including 5 PIs,
3 PDFs, and 9 Trainees) listed 56 ties linked to 42
external individuals as part of their academic
professional networks. As part of their professional
(non-academic) networks, 13 ties linked to 12
individuals were indicated by 5 Trainees (including 3
PIs, 1 PDF, and 1 Trainee).
• The increase in external connections could be
attributed to the fact that there was an international
symposium organized by this project group in 2011.
The connections developed, or were increased by
hosting international students and scholars.
• There were four WoW workshops to discuss career
options where new connections may have been developed.
• All of the Trainees in the survey (n=13) consulted with
their designated supervisors during the time period.
Seventy percent of these Trainees also indicated that they
consulted with their designated co-supervisors. PDFs who
participated in this survey only indicated consultation with
their designated supervisors.
• Overall, WOW Trainees indicated at least two colleagues
with whom they had contact for research-related issues.
The average number of out-going consultation ties for the
survey respondents was 5.3.
• Although the sample size was too small for a statistical
test, the number of connections a Trainee has seems to
correlate to a Trainee’s seniority (see Appendix E).
2
Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months?
Overall Network – A General Look
Notes
Density: 0.59, # of Ties: 311
Reciprocity = 0.56
All nodes can reach another with a path shorter than two steps
This map displays the general
social interactions among
Trainees. In total, 311 ties were
indicated by 23 WoW members
(including a program manager)
and 56% of these ties were
indicated as reciprocal.
The network as a whole was
rather coherent with a density
value of 59%.
While this social map displays
the internal interactions, external
connections were determined by
asking two other questions. In
total, 42 people were identified
by the Trainees as part of their
academic professional network
(see Appendix A) while 13
people were identified by the
Trainees as part of their nonacademic professional network
(see Appendix B).
P = PI
D = PDF
T = Trainee
M= Manager
Blue lines = Reciprocal lines
3
Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months?
Overall Network – Density
Notes
Density: 0.57, # of Ties: 274
PIs: 0.81 PDFs: 0.67 Trainees: 0.62
Reciprocity: 0.55
PIs: 0.54 PDFs: 0.50 Trainees: 0.67
The existing ties account for
57% (# = 274) of the possible
ties within this network. Thirtyeight percent of these existing
ties are reciprocal.
As outlined, members with
similar academic ranks (PIs,
PDFs, Trainees) tend to have
stronger affiliations to each
other.
Note, the manager was removed
from this map in order to better
demonstrate the interaction
between Researchers.
The following table
demonstrates the inter- and
intra-group (read as row to
column) densities.
Density
Tr
PDF
PI
Tr
.62
.80
.55
PDF
.31
.67
.33
PI
.46
.50
.81
4
Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months?
Overall Network – In-degree
Notes
Range: 4-20, Average: 12.9, SD: 3.76
PIs: 13.3 PDFs: 15.7 Trainees: 12.1
The size of a node
demonstrates the number of
incoming ties that a Trainee
indicated (the lareger the node,
the more incoming ties.)
M. Schuetz had the highest
value among all Trainees
although he did not participate
in the December 2012 survey.
PDFs, as a group, had the
highest average network.
The table below illustrates the
number of Trainee’s incoming
ties.
Q1 In-degree table
D3
P1
20
19
P2
T8
17
17
D2
P6
P3
T1
T6
T11
T10
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
P8
13
T5
13
T9
T7
T2
D4
T3
T12
T13
P4
P5
T14
13
12
12
11
11
10
9
8
7
4
5
Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months?
Overall Network – Out-Degree
Range: 4-22 Average: 13.1 SD: 5.63
PIs: 13.3 PDFs: 8 Trainees: 14.2
Notes
The size of a node displays the
number of outgoing ties that a
Trainee indicated.
B. Ellis (Project Leader) had
the highest value in the
network. Trainees as a group,
had the highest average.
The table below illustrates the
number of Trainee’s outgoing
ties.
Q1 Out-degree table
P1
T5
22
21
T6
P6
14
13
T12
20
T11
10
T3
T9
20
20
T10
P5
10
9
T2
T1
P3
T8
18
16
15
15
T7
P4
D4
T14
9
7
6
6
P2
D3
14
14
T13
D2
5
4
6
Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research?
Notes
Consultation Network – Density & Reciprocity
Density: 0.19, # of Ties: 94
PIs: .47, PDFs: 0.33, Trainees: 0.08
Reciprocity: 0.32
PIs: 0.48, PDFs: 0.27, Trainees: 0.31
94 ties were indicated by 22
respondents (exclude the
project manager). The 13
Trainees who participated in
this survey indicated 23
outgoing ties with the PIs and
17 outgoing ties with the PDFs.
On average, a Trainee reported
3.4 outgoing ties to the PIs and
PDFs.
The table below indicates that
when PIs encounter problems,
they most likely solicited
information from other PIs and
PDFs; PDFs mostly likely
would go to other PDFs;
whereas Trainees approached
the PDFs.
Q2 density table
Tr
Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines
PDF
PI
Tr
.08
.44
.25
PDF
.05
.33
.19
PI
.12
.39
.47
7
Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research?
Notes
Consultation Network – In Degree
Range: 0 – 11, Average: 4.1, SD: 3.58
PIs: 6.3 PDFs: 8.7 Trainees: 1.8
The size of a node indicates the
number of incoming ties a
Trainee received in regards to
obtaining help with challenging
problems.
PDFs as a group had the highest
average (8.7 ties) of this
measure. In the map, Trainees
with more seniority tended to
have more incoming ties.
Q2 In Degree table
Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines
D3
P2
11
10
T6
P4
3
2
P6
D2
P1
P8
9
9
8
8
T1
T13
T2
T3
2
2
2
1
D4
T5
6
6
T14
T7
0
0
P3
T8
T9
4
4
4
T12
T11
T10
0
0
0
P5
3
8
Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research?
Notes
Consultation Network– Out-Degree (internal)
Range: 1-9, Average: 4.3, SD: 2.59
PIs: 5.5 PDFs: 2.7 Trainees: 4.1
The size of a node indicates the
number of outgoing ties a
Trainee indicated when asked to
whom they consulted with
challenging problems within the
WoW context.
Q2 Out-degree table (within WoW)
T6
P2
P1
T9
T3
P6
T5
P4
D3
T1
T13
Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines
9
8
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
T12
P5
P3
D2
T7
T8
T11
T10
D4
T14
T2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research?
Consultation Network – Out-degree (all)
Notes
Range: 1 – 13, Average: 5.3, SD: 3.17
PIs: 6.3 PDFs: 3.7 Trainees: 5.2
The size of a node indicates the
number of outgoing ties a
Trainee indicated in regard to
consulting challenging
problems.
Appendix C gives more
detailed information on the
triangle-shaped nodes (nonTrainees) in the map.
In Appendix D, the nodes are
coloured according to the
primary lab in which a Trainee
works.
Q2 Out-degree table (with others)
Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines
T9
13
T13
5
T6
P1
P2
T3
P6
T5
P5
11
9
8
8
7
7
6
T12
P3
D4
T14
T7
D2
T8
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
D3
P4
T1
6
5
5
T11
T10
T2
2
2
1
10
Appendix A
Information on the professional network (academic) outside of the WoW context
Name
Position
Notes
Name
Bjorn Sundberg
Professor
UPSC, Sweden
Chris Somerville
Taku Demura
Professor
NAIST, Japan
David P. Latorre
Grad Student
Uni. of Alberta
Yoshimi Nakano
PDF
NAIST, Japan
Kerstin Müller
Position
Notes
UC Berkeley
John Page
Uni. of Calgary
Zander Myburg
Professor
Uni. of Pretoria, SA
Staffan Persson
MPI, Germany
Anna Pielach
Eliana GonzalesVigil
PDF
Galway, NUI
Lise Jouanin
Versaille, INRA
Hitoshi Endo
Doctoral Student
Alexandra Tauzin
PDF
MSL, UBC
Olivier Hamant
Professor
U of Lyon, France
Mellissa Roach
UBC PDF
Thomas Grigliatti
Professor
UBC
Yoshito Ogawa
Doctoral Student
NAIST, Japan
Debra Mohnen
Professor
NAIST, Japan
CCRC, Uni. of
Georgia
MPI, Germany
Bo Xu
PDF
NAIST, Japan
Jane Parker
Arata Yoneda
Qingning Zeng
Assistant Professor NAIST, Japan
previous PhD in the
lab
Faride Unda
PDF, UBC
Stefan Jansson
Professor
Umea, Sweden
Rosie Redfield
Professor
UBC
Michael Friedmann Lab Manager
Douglas Lab, UBC
Dr. David Bird
Daniele WerckReichhart
Patrick von
Aderkaas
Professor
MRU, Calgary
Research Director
IBMP, Strasbourg
Professor
UVic
Barbara Hawkins
Professor
UVic
PDF, UBC
Hannele Tuominen Professor
UPSC, Sweden
Diyana Rejab
Doctoral Student
NAIST, Japan
Daniel Matton
Professor
Uni. of Montreal
Natasha Worden
Doctoral Student
UC Davis
Keiko Yoshioka
Professor
Marcus Samuel
Professor
Uni. of Calgary
Ralf Reski
Professor
Freiburg, Germany
Lukas Schreiber
Professor
Bonn, Germany
Peter Constabel
Professor
UVic
Nicholas Provart
Professor
UofT
Notes
When asked to whom they made
connections with from outside of
the WoW group for professional
academic issues, 56 ties to 42
people were named by 17
Trainees.
UPSC = Umeå Plant Science Centre,
Umea, Sweden
NAIST = Nara Institute of Science and
Technology, Nara, Japan
MPI = Max Planck Institute of
Molecular Cell Biology and
Genetics
MSL = Michael Smith Laboratories,
UBC, BC
UBC = University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
MRU = Mount Royal University,
Calgary, Alberta
IBMP CNRS = Biologie Moléculaire des
Plantes, Centre national de la
recherche scientifique, Strasbourg,
France
UofT = University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada
UVIC = University of Victoria, Victoria,
Canada
NUI = National University of Ireland,
Galway
UC = University of California
CCRC = Complex Carbohydrate
Research Center, Athens, Georgia
11
Appendix B
Information on the professional network (non-academic) outside of the WoW context
Name
Position
Notes
Ellie Griffith
Program manager
Genome BC
Ashleen Shado
Research program manager Genome BC
Meilin Yi Zink
Green house manager
Kris Palama
Technical support
New England Biolabs, Career
Choices Workshop
Christopher Roach
Grad student
UBC
Min Xia
Grad student
UBC
Lindsay
Grad student
UBC
Vicky Earl
Graphic designer
UBC media group
Jessica Page
Research Accounting
Sean Myles
Professor
UVic
Lead Organizer - Canadian
Plant Genomics Workshop
2013, Halifax
Alison Dendoff
Coordinator
Genome BC
Sandy Blight
Research Accounting
Univ. of Victoria
Notes
When asked to whom they
made connections in the nonacademic professional network
outside of the WoW group, 12
people were named by 5
Trainees (research fellows
only). Of note, the Program
Manager named 8 other people
to her non-academic
professional network (not
included in the table).
12
Appendix C
Information on ‘others’ for Q2
Name
Position
Notes
Dr. Bjorn Sundberg
Professor
UPSC
Heather McFarlane
Doctoral student
UBC
Dr. Chris Ambrose
Research Associate
UBC
Dr. Alexandra Tauzin
PDF
UBC
Dr. Sylwia Wajos
PDF
Wasteneys lab, UBC
Dr. Minsheng You
Professor
FAFU, China
Dr. Arata Yoneda
Assistant professor
NAIST
Yuan Ruan
Doctoral student
Wasteneys lab, UBC
Dr. Yoshimi Nakano
PDF
NAIST
Dr. Taku Demura
Professor
NAIST
Hitoshi Endo
Doctoral student
NAIST
Dr. Wnzislawa Ckurshumova PDF
UofT
Dr. Peter Constabel
Professor
UVic
Dr. Patrick von Aderkaas
Professor
UVic
Dr. Barbara Hawkins
Professor
UVic
Dr. Kevin Hodgson
Microscopy technician
UBC
Dr. Daniele Werck
Director of a research group
IBMP CNRS Strasbourg, France
Dr. Hugues Renault
Professor
IBMP CNRS Strasbourg, France
Notes
The table lists people with
whom Trainees indicated they
contacted for help with a
challenging problem and/or an
innovative idea in their
research. 22 outgoing ties
which connected to 18 nonTrainees were indicated by 13
WoW members.
UBC = University of British
Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada
FAFU = Fujian Agriculture and
Forestry University,
Fuzhou City, Japan
NAIST = Nara Institute of
Science and Technology,
Nara, Japan
UofT = University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
IBMP CNRS = Biologie
Moléculaire des Plantes,
Centre national de la
recherche scientifique,
Strasbourg, France
13
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P1
General network
Consultation network
14
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P2
General network
Consultation network
15
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P3
General network
Consultation network
16
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P4
General network
Consultation network
17
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P5
General network
Consultation network
18
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – P6
General network
Consultation network
19
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – D2
General network
Consultation network
20
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – D3
General network
Consultation network
21
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – D4
General network
Consultation network
22
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T1
General network
Consultation network
23
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T2
General network
Consultation network
24
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T3
General network
Consultation network
25
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T5
General network
Consultation network
26
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T6
General network
Consultation network
27
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T7
General network
Consultation network
28
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T8
General network
Consultation network
29
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T9
General network
Consultation network
30
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T10
General network
Consultation network
31
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T11
General network
Consultation network
32
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T12
General network
Consultation network
33
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T13
General network
Consultation network
34
Appendix E
Notes
Ego network – T14
General network
Consultation network
35