Knowing Who to Ask: Educators’ Use of Network Brokers to Learn about Social Skills Programs

• In Event: 3-022 - Seeking Advice in Schools: Understanding Social Network Ties among Educators

Integrative Statement

Public schools enroll approximately 90% of all children and adolescents in the U.S. (Kena et al., 2016), and are a promising venue for the delivery of social skills programs. Although social skills programs can improve childhood and adolescent outcomes (e.g., Durlak & Wells, 1997), public school educators often adopt social skills programs with questionable effectiveness (Greenberg et al., 2003). Educators’ social networks offer promise for bridging this research-practice gap. Specifically, individuals in educators’ social networks often serve as brokers who can transfer research evidence about social skills programs between researchers and educators (Neal et al., 2015). In this study, we measure the social networks through which educators seek information about social skills programs, examining how often these networks lead to researchers and how often they resulted in communication breakdowns. Additionally, we characterize the types of brokers that are effective and ineffective in facilitating communication between these educators and researchers.

This study draws on a theoretical conception of triadic brokerage that identifies five types of brokers (Gould & Fernandez, 1989; see Table 1). Brokers play different functional roles in transferring information (i.e., coordinators, gatekeepers, representatives, liaisons, and itinerants) based on whether they are situated in the same or different subgroups as the provider and/or recipient of information. More specifically, subgroups are defined as sets of individuals that share similar interests or activities.

We traced the network chains that a random sample of 247 Michigan superintendents and principals used to learn about social skills programs. Our goal was to identify whether the chain reaches a researcher and the types of brokers that facilitate such indirect communication. For the purposes of determining whether superintendents’ and principals’ network chains led successfully to researchers, we operationally defined researchers as individuals who (a) hold a post-MA degree and has published in a peer-reviewed journal in the past 10 years or (b) are employed as a professor. To determine brokerage types, we defined distinct subgroups in our data (e.g., District or School Building Education, Professional Associations), then applied Gould & Fernandez’ (1989) typology.

In our sample, 70 educators (28.3%) were able to reach a researcher within six steps using brokerage in their communication chains. Analyses using Monte Carlo simulations to test statistical significance revealed that some types of brokers are more effective than others in helping close the research-practice gap. For example, when a principal’s or superintendent’s information seeking network included an itinerant-type broker, who helped circulate information within a single subgroup, they were five times less likely to be in indirect contact with a researcher (OR=.20, p=0.0011). In contrast, when a principal’s or superintendent’s information seeking network included a representative-type (OR=2.53, p=0.034) or liaison-type broker (OR=3.42, p = 0.012), who helped information flow from one subgroup to another, they were more than twice as likely to be in indirect contact with a researcher (See Table 2). Interventions designed to improve educators’ access to and use of research evidence should focus on leveraging types of brokerage that involve boundary-spanning across subgroups (e.g., representative, liaison).

Authors

• Jennifer Watling Neal, Michigan State University
  Presenting Author

• Zachary P Neal, Michigan State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kristen J. Mills, Michigan State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jennifer A. Lawlor, Michigan State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kathryn McAlindon, Michigan State University
  Non-Presenting Author