Participatory Social Network Analysis: Methodological Reflections on Co-constructive Knowledge Production in Multi-professional School Networks

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Saturday 7:45 am - Gold 4
  In Roundtable Session: Co-Constructing Knowledge between Research and School Practice: Qualitative Approaches in Two German Research Projects

Abstract

Objectives
This paper focuses on the conception and implementation of participatory social network analyses (SNA) in a research project (2023-2027), which conceptualizes research as a co-constructive, iterative process. The aim is to produce knowledge, and to reflect collaborative, and to professionalize both research and practice (Farrell et al., 2021). In light of criticism of traditional SNA and educational research, the paper examines how participatory network research can be implemented and what implications can be derived from the experiences for the future design of SNA.

Perspective
The project centers on the collaboration of approximately 100 multi-professional school networks. It involves the transfer of knowledge, experiences, concepts, and materials, with the goal of developing a talent-promoting school culture (Engelmann et al., 2024).
SNA procedures have become internationally established for the systematic assessment of social relationship structures in networks (Carolan, 2013). Beyond this, processes and dynamics are relevant (Datnow, 2012). Qualitative methods are particularly appropriated for this purpose (Crossley/Edwards, 2016). Moreover, qualitative approaches can address two core problems that are also relevant for educational research as a whole: First, the tendency toward distanced external observation of network actors (Hollstein, 2014), which is associated with the demand for greater agency. Second, the insufficient feedback, reflection, and utilization of research findings by the practitioners themselves (Farrell et al., 2021).

Methods
The project uses SNA in nine school networks by combining qualitative methods (Bernhard/Herz, 2025) with longitudinal focus groups (Bär et al., 2020) and visual tools (Hollstein et al., 2020; Schönhuth et al., 2013). It allows for examining the structural characteristics and processes of the networks, while also focusing on the asymmetries of roles and power. The distinctive approach lies in connecting visual data with subjective interpretations and meanings of the actors. This continuously creates spaces for feedback and collaborative reflection between research and practice.

Data sources
The focus lies on presenting the methodological design of SNA and its implementation. Additionally, insight is provided into the data (ego-centric-network maps and transcripts) collected and analyzed using Documentary Method (Bohnsack et al., 2010).

Results
The findings provide insight into the work of networks from the actors’ perspective. Network constellations, processes, and trajectories can be systematically differentiated and compared. The experiences yield important insights for designing participatory SNA. This methodological approach can stimulate reflection and initiate research-practice dialogues. At the same time, new challenges arise: the overlapping of research and consulting roles, and the emergence of a research-reflexive habitus within practice—one that questions and shifts dominant routines. Methodological, ethical, and practical implications are discussed in this presentation.

Significance
The presentation extends participatory SNA through empirical grounding of network actors' agency and reconstruction of their subjective interpretive patterns in network processes. The systematic integration of collaborative research approaches and reflexive analysis of research practice contributes to epistemological advancement by revealing both potentials and areas of tension—particularly regarding the entanglement of research and consultation, as well as the habitual dispositions this interplay requires. These insights are highly relevant for current discourses on research-practice partnerships and evidence-based educational practice.

Authors

• Mirjam Maier-Roeseler, University of Education Karlsruhe

• Mariella A. Winter, Pädagogische Hochschule Karlsruhe