Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Research Design and Methodological Procedures This chapter presents the research design and methodological procedures for analyzing the GCED network in Europe and North America. This chapter is composed of seven parts. First, the main objectives of the study are described, highlighting the connections with the preliminary part of the research. Next, the overall methodological approach is introduced. Third, the main features of the social network analysis approach are described. Fourth, digital methods are outlined. Fifth, the main procedures for data collection and research ethics procedures are detailed. Sixth, the main steps followed for data analysis are presented. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary. 1) A Relational Approach to the GCED Europe and North America Network The present study aims at understanding the characteristics of the GCED network in Europe and North America (NA). We map multiple ties among active promoters of GCED in Europe and NA, where promotion is understood broadly to include funding, education, programming, policy development, networking, research, and teacher education. To this end, we adopted two parallel methodological approaches based on a relational approach to research. First, we conducted a social network analysis (SNA), focusing on a closed list of policy actors where participation in the network is defined by very specific criteria (which are explained in detail in sections 5.1 and 5.4). The other component of our study applies digital methods to trace the links between GCED actors on both (a) organizational websites and (b) Twitter, using crawler techniques. This study constitutes a continuation of the preliminary research-based Montreal meeting, where we carried out a social network analysis exercise with the meeting participants. The present research allows us to overcome the limitations present in this preliminary research. The Montreal research only allowed us to map the connections among 12 organizations that are key policy actors in GCED implementation and promotion. That typology of research design (egocentric) and based on open-ended name generator questions presented some limitations. An egocentric network design is when selected 022ㆍ023
informants are required to nominate alters to which they are connected. First, we do not know if the 59 organizations named are also associated with the 12 institutions interviewed nor how the 59 remaining organizations connect among them. Therefore, we could not explore the overall characteristics of the network due to the lack of information referred to above. Second, only a small sample of institutions invited by APCEIU and AFS were interviewed. Last, the formulation of the question on further names as an open-ended question created different interpretations. Some indicated names, while others simply named categories (such as NGOs, education institutions etc.). In this way, we lost some information, such as the vision of alters. If node A nominates X, but it is not in our sample, we cannot know if X is connected to A. Furthermore, while these results were meaningful, we could not build an accurate picture of the connections among all actors. Instead, the current study allows us to understand who the key actors are and map relationships connecting them as a network of GCED providers and policy actors. We used the most common instrument in social network analysis to identify links, referred to as a "roster" (Butts, 2008). All respondents were asked to indicate, among the same list of entities provided, to which they were connected. 2) Methodology Overview We apply two complementary means of understanding the relations between GCED actors in Europe and North America. 1. Social network analysis. This quantitative approach allows us to systematically map and describe the relationships among key actors in GCED in North America and Europe according to representatives from organizations we have identified through research as central to the sector. A structured interview was administered to GCED actors to understand how ideas connect and groups formed within the network of GCED actors in Europe and North America. Specifically, relationships of mutual cooperation, technical and scientific information exchange, and meetings between GCED actors, were explored. These relations were analyzed with reference to key attributes of the GCED actors, such as typology of organization, geography, and GCED definition and emphasis. 2. Digital methods. The other component of our study applies digital methods to trace the links between GCED actors on both (a) organizational websites and (b) Twitter. Digital methods complement the network mapping enabled by structured interviews by allowing us to see actors, networks, and relations that might be outside our familiar sphere or may be hidden, ignored or disregarded by ourselves or our study participants (whether purposefully or inadvertently). The following two sections outline the main characteristics and assumptions of social network analysis and digital methods. Europe and North America Regional GCED Network
Page 1 and 2: Europe and North America Regional G
Page 5 and 6: 039 039 042 047 055 062 062 064 064
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Global citizenshi
Page 9 and 10: characteristics. This network struc
Page 11 and 12: Introduction This report presents t
Page 13 and 14: About Studying Networks As mentione
Page 15 and 16: References Bourdieu, P. (1986). The
Page 17 and 18: knowledge development and critical
Page 19 and 20: from within the modern/colonial ima
Page 21: Monaghan, C., & Spreen, C. A. (2017
Page 25 and 26: Possible examples of typologies of
Page 27 and 28: We adopted a whole network design,
Page 29 and 30: The goals for the SNA are to define
Page 31 and 32: DEAR Multi-Stakeholder Group meetin
Page 33 and 34: We conducted four pilot interviews
Page 35 and 36: possible patterns of proximity. The
Page 37 and 38: McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & C
Page 39 and 40: Social Network Analysis Results In
Page 41 and 42: Chart 5 : Importance attributed to
Page 43 and 44: - Node position is determined by th
Page 45 and 46: Chart 7 shows the distribution of i
Page 47 and 48: We also analyzed whether organizati
Page 49 and 50: interaction. Table 13 illustrates t
Page 51 and 52: Table 16 shows that the vast majori
Page 53 and 54: Graph 5 : Technical/scientific info
Page 55 and 56: 3.2. Summary of main results In thi
Page 57 and 58: 4.1.2 Organization-keyword network
Page 61 and 62: International Policy Pink No Easy A
Page 63 and 64: egression analysis of dyadic data.
Page 65 and 66: 2.1. Methods and data set To unders
Page 67 and 68: ease of reading and to identify pat
Page 73 and 74:
Another set of interconnected organ
Page 75 and 76:
5) Conclusion and Further Questions
Page 77 and 78:
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051156
Page 79 and 80:
in this summary, we would like to h
Page 81 and 82:
While some qualitative results emer
Page 83 and 84:
Appendices Appendix A: List of Orga
Page 85 and 86:
UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global C
Page 87 and 88:
Global Citizen 3610 @GlblCtzn Globa
Page 89 and 90:
Europe and North America Regional G
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
All organizations (as per list in A
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix D: Question 14 Answers Ala
Page 97 and 98:
Enabel; Engagement Global, GENE als
Page 99 and 100:
CONTENTS 100 100 100 101 101 101 10
Page 101 and 102:
2. How do the actors work individua
Page 103 and 104:
Knoke, D. & Yang, S., (2008). Socia
Page 105 and 106:
Name of organization Code (es 01EU,
Page 107 and 108:
• Explain that the interview will
Page 109 and 110:
advisable to skip the formal ethica
Page 111 and 112:
Policy development & decision makin
Page 113 and 114:
B: Sometimes one organization provi
Page 115 and 116:
the study. Findings will be present
Page 117 and 118:
9.3 Invitation letter Dear My name
Page 119:
show all

Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?