Network Visual Map of Two Networks

From social network analysis, the valued directed network data was analyzed using UCINET 6. Network maps for Architecture and Economics department derived from UCINET Netdraw are as figure 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, below. Each node has specific color which represents the division where the actor belongs to. Actor's size shows levels of tenure of alter. The thickness of the line represents the magnitude of tie strength between ego (i.e. the key teacher) and alter, which was measured by frequency of contact between teachers.

Because these maps illustrate the whole networks of teachers’ interaction, for examining characteristics of them, density and centralization were used. The concepts of density and centralization refer to differing aspects of the overall 'compactness' of a graph, and they are important complementary measures.

Density (Connectedness). According to Atteberry & Bryk (2010, p. 57), density indicates “the level of interactions among members in the network; it reflects the ratio of the actual total number of ties that members report to the total number of possible ties”.

Network with high density is the network that members interact greatly.

Centralization. Centralization is the degree to which the network revolves around single node (Lin, 2015). Prell et al. (2009) stated that a centralization score of 1 indicates that the maximum number of ties concentrated around one actor is present, and a score of 0 indicates a fully connected network, where all actors are directly connected to each other.

Figure 4.1 Network Visual Map of Architecture Department

The figure 4.1 above is the network visual map of Architecture department. From this map, the color of nodes represents academic divisions in this department. Apparently, teachers in each division formed into sub-networks. There are six divisions in Architecture department, which are Interior Design (in navy), Planning (in light blue), Fundamental of Architecture (in yellow), Fundamental of Arts (in lime), Graphics (in pink), and

Construction Architecture (in red).

The network analysis suggests that whole school network density is 0.158 with total number of 299 ties. The centralization of this network is 0.2716. When taking apart the analysis into departments, the density values of Interior Design, Planning, Fundamental of Architecture, Fundamental of Arts, Graphics, and Construction Architecture are 0.04 (with 76 ties), 0.02 (with 37 ties), 0.017 (with 32 ties), 0.018 (with 34 ties), 0.017 (with 32 ties), and 0.047 (with 88 ties), respectively.

In Architecture network, teachers naturally became arranged in sub groups, their own divisions. This result is corresponding to the fact that teachers tend to discuss about teaching and professional matters with others within their divisions because of the nature of their work. Teachers not only teach their subjects individually, but also form into groups for giving advices and grading architecture students on their projects on specific

majors. For instance, students majoring in Architecture have to finish five big projects to complete the Bachelor program. In each project, there is a board of teachers who work together for giving comments and evaluating students’ works. However, there are some teachers connect to others in external divisions, for example, Teacher 21 whose division is Fundamental of Architecture, has connections to teachers in Architecture Construction, Planning, Graphics, and Interior Design. It is explained that these divisions are

interrelated. The empirical findings of this network feature also resonate with Coburn et al. (2010) that teachers form relationships because they have the same status or

characteristic.

In addition, at individual level, Teacher 62 has the highest level of degree centrality (0.377), which means this person is the most important actor in this network. Teacher 62 is the former Dean of this department and he also has the longest tenure, accordingly, he plays the most important role in this network. This finding is also corresponding to the result of Zagenczyk & Murrell (2009)’s research, which is organization members with greater tenure could have network positions that are more central as a result of the

increased time that they had spent in the organization. Besides, Teacher 41 plays as bridge for connecting Fundamental of Arts division (in lime) to the rest of network because this person is the Dean of department and also Vice rector of this university.

Figure 4.2 Network Visual Map of Economics Department

The figure 4.2 above is the network visual map of Economics department. From this map, the color of nodes represents academic divisions in this department. It is clear that teachers in each division formed into sub-networks. There are three divisions in

Economics department, which are Banking (in purple), Business Administration (in orange), and Accounting (in green).

The network analysis suggests that whole school network density is 0.09 with total number of 194 ties. The centralization of this network is 0.1473. When taking apart the analysis into departments, the density values of Banking, Business Administration, and Accounting are 0.06 (with 65 ties), 0.068 (with 74 ties), and 0.051 (with 55 ties), respectively.

In Economics network, similarly, teachers form in sub groups, their own divisions.

Business Administration division shows the highest network density in comparing to the other two networks, which means the teachers in this division interact and discuss about their teaching more frequently than teachers in other divisions. Besides, Teacher 3, 6, and 18 have the highest level of degree centrality (0.239), which means these people are the most important actors in this network. This is explained that these teachers are the Head of divisions and other teachers often look for them to seek information on teaching matters.

Teacher 19, the Dean of Economics department, has high level of degree centrality, but not the highest, because she is in charge of managerial and administrative work, and this research examines relation on teaching matters only.

Overall, the density of Economics department is higher than Architecture (0.09 >

0.079), which means teachers in the former interact more greatly than those in the latter.

However, the centralization of Architecture network is 0.2716, higher than Economics’

(0.1473). This shows that Architecture network revolves around single node more intensively than the other. It means that there is one actor who tend to draw attention among the whole network. This influence can be observed by the visual map. In sum, these two networks have different patterns which represents its nature of interactions among members in one network.