Executive Summary

Working on Walls (WoW) – an NSERC CREATE Training Program University of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada Social Network Analysis December 2012 By C. Owen Lo & ArwaAlkhalaf

Executive Summary • 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). • There were four WoW workshops to discuss career options where new connections may have been developed. • Research-Related Supervision & Mentoring • 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). • Overall Network Complexity Development • 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. • 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). • 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.

Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months? Overall Network – A General Look 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 non-academic professional network (see Appendix B). P = PI D = PDF T = Trainee M= Manager Blue lines = Reciprocal lines

Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months? Overall Network – Density 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. Thirty-eight 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.

Question 1: Which of the following Trainees have you had connections with in the past 6 months? Overall Network – In-degree 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

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 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

Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research? • 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 Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines

Question 2: Whom do you ask for help when you have a challenging problem and/or an innovative idea in your research? • 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

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 (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) Note: Blue lines are reciprocal lines

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) • 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 (non-Trainees) 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

Appendix A Information on the professional network (academic) outside of the WoW context 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 = BiologieMoléculaire 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

Appendix B Information on the professional network (non-academic) outside of the WoW context When asked to whom they made connections in the non-academic 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).

Appendix C Information on ‘others’ for Q2 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 non-Trainees 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 = BiologieMoléculaire des Plantes, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Strasbourg, France

Appendix E Ego network – P1 General network Consultation network

Appendix E Ego network – P2 General network Consultation network

Appendix E Ego network – P3 General network Consultation network 16

Appendix E Ego network – D2 General network Consultation network 20

Appendix E Ego network – T1 General network Consultation network 23

Executive Summary