Examination of a Tribal Community and Research Early Childhood Network: Results from a Social Network Analysis of the Tribal Early Childhood Research Center

This paper discusses the work of the Tribal Early Childhood Research Center (TRC), a network of Tribal early childhood education program partners and university-based researchers working collaboratively to address research, practice, and policy issues regarding healthy development of young American Indian/Alaska Native children. Results from a social network analysis (SNA) will be presented to illustrate how community and research partners have worked together on this effort.

This study of the TRC examines four primary aspects of structure and function of the network. 1. We examined the connections of TRC network members. 2. We examined if the relationships were bound by partner type (research or community partner) or program (T-HS or T-HV). 3. We sought to identify an individual or group of individuals who serve as the “hub” for the network. 4. We examined the data for evidence of “boundary spanners” – individuals who cross network boundaries to connect unconnected individuals.

An online survey was administered to all TRC participants that asked the following question: “Who do you talk to about Tribal early childhood research or evaluation activities?”. The survey included questions regarding involvement in network activities and connection of network activities to daily work.

At the time of the study, there were 54 members in the TRC, and 51 completed the survey (community=24, researchers=21, federal=9).    

Data were analyzed using UCI-NET, calculating the density (.273) and reciprocity of relationships (.535).  A core/periphery model was tested, and results indicated a good fit of the data to a core/periphery model (fitness=.616). Examination of the “indegree” for participants in the core of the network indicate a hub of eight individuals with another 27 members who serve as the larger core surrounding the hub. Community and research partners were in the hub and the core of the network. Analysis of the data by program indicates a clear delineation in the network. While there were many connections across T-HV and T-HS participants, participants in these two programs were strongly clustered with others from their program. Examination of betweeness scores indicates six members of the hub served as boundary spanners. 

Results from this study indicate the existence of a strong network of research and community partners with a tightly connected hub. Community and research partners are both at the core of the network and serve as boundary spanners. Results will be discussed in relation to how structures of the larger network allow for collaboration between community and university partners. We will engage in discussion regarding how SNA can be used to further understandings of the ways communities and researchers collaborate to address societal issues.