Europe and North America Regional GCED Network

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the phenomenon we aim to describe. This property is called multiplexity, and it refers to the fact that relationships are not generic or of only one type (Robins, 2015). A key theoretical foundation for the study of relations among actors is that of social influence/diffusion, which describes the phenomenon where actors change certain attributes (opinions, behaviors) to accord with those of their partners. Certain characteristics of a node (e.g., disease, innovation) may therefore diffuse through the network. However, network structural properties at the global and local levels impact the ease or difficulty of social influence and diffusion. For this reason, it is crucial to investigate several socio-metrics such as clustering, core-periphery, small world, brokerage, reciprocity, closure, and centrality measures, as articulated in more detail in Chapter 3. These measures allow identification of the difficulties and strengths of the network in favoring the diffusion of information and knowledge. In this study, these structural properties of the networks are analyzed to understand the role of the regional network of GCED providers in the EU and NA to assist in strengthening GCED efforts, as these structural properties impact information flow. For instance, reciprocity is the tendency of actors to reciprocate relationships when the tie is significant and stable. Closure refers to triangulation in networks or the propensity to operate in small groups. These properties relate to a theory in psychology called balance theory (Heider 1958), which has become embedded into network theory (Davis 1967). For example, balance theory predicts that ties that are not reciprocated tend not to last. Network brokerage analyses the actors that bridge (broker) others that otherwise would not be connected. We looked at centrality measures of the actors in the network (in- and outdegree centrality) and the organizations' self-articulated roles to understand how actors involved in the implementation of GCED in EUNA cooperate. We also looked at whether actors tend to collaborate with others that share the same characteristics. This property is called homophily, and it describes the propensity for actors with the same attribute to form ties (McPherson et al. 2001). In our study, we examine homophily based on organizational characteristics, as well as in relation to their respective GCED conceptualizations and objectives. 3.3. Typology of network design There are two main approaches to network design: whole and egocentric network studies. A whole network design requires the definition of a list of actors within a well-defined network boundary. The data includes the ties that are present among all actors within this boundary (Robins, 2015, p.36). By contrast, an egocentric network design is when selected informants are required to nominate alters to which they are connected. The limitation of this design is that it does not allow mapping the connections between the different ego networks. 026ㆍ027
We adopted a whole network design, as it allows for the determination of both local and global social network properties (Butts, 2008, p.18). We used as network representation an adjacency matrix (n x n) where there is a 1 when there is a link reported and 0 otherwise. 4) Digital Methods To complement the social network analysis conducted via structured interviews, we also draw on digital methods in order to identify networks of connections in the public sphere both among our list of organizations and beyond them, including connections that the interviewees may not recognize. By drawing on digital data sources for social network analysis, we acknowledge the increasing digitization of the social world, including the digital structuring of information sharing and networked connections. Further, links embedded in digital data sources such as institutional websites and social media enable us to empirically observe the GCED network across geographic regions and involving multiple types of actors, such as NGOs, governments, researchers, and others who all interact online. In this way, we can attain a view of how the GCED actors interact with one another "in the wild" of the digital sphere, even as we learn of their interactions through interviews with organizational representatives. Our research draws on digital methods as social and political research (Marres, 2015; Rogers, 2014) to map the actors and GCED discourses associated around the same actors interviewed using a structured survey. For digital methods, the digital is the social (Rogers, 2014). In mapping social actors, digital methods assume the digitization of society, whereby digital technology is "affecting most if not all areas of social life, and is itself generative of new social practices, ties, and relations" (Marres, 2015, p. 25). Due to the increasing digitization of society, "electronic interactions have become so pervasive that they can no longer be conceived as a separate social space. No longer limited to a specific sector, digital interactions are now woven throughout the fabric of collective existence" (Venturini, 2012). In the case of GCED actors, it is key to recognize how digital technologies are not only reflective but also "generative of new social practices, ties, and relations" (Marres, 2015, p. 25), as actors interact in the virtual sphere. Rather than relegating digital data to a digital realm, digital methods take advantage of the "accessibility, aggregability, and traceability of the statements and literature as well as their connection to actors and of actors to each other" (Rogers, Sánchez-Querubín, & Kil, 2015, p. 44), which can be visualized for social research. Digital methods repurpose digitally native objects, such as hyperlinks, URLs, and hashtags for social science research. By tracing the digital associations among the GCED actors, it is possible to see the contestations and alliances that form and which discourses dominate. Such patterns can be identified through digital traces such as inlinks and outlinks on websites, follower 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 and 22: Monaghan, C., & Spreen, C. A. (2017
Page 23 and 24: informants are required to nominate
Page 25: Possible examples of typologies of
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?