ABSTRACT
This chapter moves from the structure of the network, i.e. network morphology, discussed in the previous chapter, to consider the nodes that form the basis of relationships that give it the structure. We do not take this division of nodes and links (the relationships between nodes) as unproblematic, but it is a convenient way to examine the details of networks. This examination starts with a consideration of a ‘descriptive’ analysis of the LHTL project data, whose basis we established and questioned in the previous chapter. This analysis is not purely descriptive, as we were implicitly influenced by the literature on networks, and so in the second section of this chapter we examine how various theories represent ‘nodes’. The uniformity that social network analysis (SNA) attributes to nodes enables the creation of measures associated with nodes indicating their position and centrality. Nodes are not always individual (e.g. people); they can be made up of groups, and we will focus on cliques as a case of strongly connected people, typical of professional learning communities (PLCs), at least in their ideal form. At this point it will be evident that there are assumptions made about nodes that may not reflect the needs of those concerned with educational networks, and we therefore examine these assumptions. Whatever our reservations, particularly about SNA, brokers and experts are well recognised in education and other studies of how knowledge is created and shared (e.g. Hakkarainen et al. 2004), and so we examine both their conceptualisation in networks and other theories. At times we will take on the assumptions of SNA approaches, even if ultimately we may not accept or use their quantitative definitions of concepts. As we have said a number of times, some of these concepts used qualitatively have resonance in our LHTL data and are worth exploring. These concepts are used, in the case of brokers and experts, to make sense of the LHTL mapping and interview data. Finally we return to the issue noted above, the division between nodes and links, in preparation for the next chapter.
The LHTL mapping exercise that was described in Chapter 4 asked teachers and advisers to ‘[s]how who and how communications are made’, hence making an assumption that links were made with people. In fact, there was quite a range of ‘entities’ involved in the maps produced, as Chapter 4 illustrated. In order to try to obtain a general picture of teachers’ and advisers’ maps, and hence to achieve what we thought might be a better understanding of the nature of educational networks, we categorised these entities using the following exclusive categories: role, such as
