Sunbelt XXXI International Network for Social Network ... - INSNA

School/community Policing‐‐mixed Methods Network Strategies In A London Borough Focused On Youth Crime PreventionDickmann, Ellyn M.; Briers, Andrew N.; Cross, Jennifer E.Criminals, Gangs, Terrorists, and NetworksCriminal Behavior, Schools, Law Enforcement, Community Networks, neighborhoods, School PolicingSAT.PM1This study will present the results of a mixed methods study (network analysis, interviews, and open‐ended questionnaires) that were completed by variouscommunity workers and school‐based police officers focused on youth crime prevention in a London neighborhood. School‐based police officers, communityworkers, and school personnel completed questionnaires designed to collect information related to relationships focused on developing and implementingyouth crime prevention strategies as outlined by the UK's Youth Justice Board and London Metropolitan Police Services. This study shows how networks basedin neighborhoods can positively impact the implementation of national strategies related to youth violence prevention.Scientific Consensus And The Structure Of ScholarshipLee, Stephanie Y.Academic and Scientific NetworksCitation Networks, Academic Networks, Education, Structural Equivalence, Consensus Analysis, Scientific ProductionFRI.AM2How is scientific consensus related to the structure of scholarship? Recent works on network structures of academic articles have examined cohesion innetwork structures of researchers, hypothesizing that cohesion is related to ability to come to consensus. However, these studies map network structurewithout relating it to a measure of consensus on relevant research ideas. In this paper, I test the predictive power of structural equivalence and networkcohesion on a measure of consensus for a subfield of academic research in which there is disagreement. I construct two citation networks, a bibliographiccoupling network and a direct citation network, which represent structural equivalence and cohesion, respectively. I then examine whether subgroups found inthese networks have higher consensus, and test hypotheses about how structure affects groups’ ability to reach consensus. The findings show evidence thatstructural subgroups do indeed correspond to cognitive groupings of authors, but differences in cognition do not completely explain the network structure.This implies that scientific consensus is at least partly dependent on structural cohesion and agreement on cognitive authority.