Evidence, Trust, & Social Networks [PDF]

& , t s u r T , e s c k n r e o d w i t v rs: e o t E a N ig t s l e v a In i l a an c p g i i o c n n in S F Pr i . S Kara & y l a D . J n a Al

ose Purp Stud y Over all

To  ex amin e  the acqu  defin isitio n,  an ition, resea d    use  o rch  e viden f   unde ce  fo r  san r  scho ction which  and   ols    the  u e xtent relati n d e rlying  to   on s h  socia ips  su c on s t l   pport rain  t  or   he  di Rese ffusio arch   Evide n  of   these nce  (  scho RE)  w ols  an s c hoo ithin   d  bet l  and  cent ween ral  offi   ce  sta ff.  

vide

Mov in g E nce

ose Purp SubStud y

To  ex amin e  the supe  role   rinte nden of  are of  ev ts  as   a idenc   “ b e  acr oss  th rokers”   e  sys tem.  

Cont ext SubStud y

  San  D iego   n

2 d  L arges t  Dist Large rict  in st  in  U  CA;  8 th .S.   200+    scho ols   Large  n (incl  5 umber  o f  scho +  res truct ols  in 8  “ar u  PI   ring)   eas”   with   supe rinte nden ts  

ses retic al Le n T heo

  Evide nce   Socia l  Cap ital   Socia l  Net w orks   Trust  

Social Networks

Brokers

Broker Roles Consultant

Liaison

Coordinator B

B

B

A

C

A

B

B

C

A

Gatekeeper

C

A

C

A

Representative

C

ods Meth SubStud y

  Socia l  

Netw ork  S urvey  Sp  

ring  2 011    98%  Resp on s e  Rate  Netw  (n=2 o r k   56)   A  Trust reas, ,    D  Orga Organiza emograp ti nizat ional onal  Clim hics,    Lear a  Qual ning   te,   itativ e  Dat    ques a  –  open   ende tions d    

Find ing 1 : Spa A dm rse T inistr i Limi ted B ators, an es, Isola ted d Var roke ied a ring nd

Distribution of brokerage roles played by the eight Area superintendents 450 400 350 300

Coordinator

250

Gatekeeper

200

Representative Consultant

150

Liaison

100 50 0 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9

Find ing 2 : Var Area iatio s in S n Ac truct Rela ross tions ure o hips f

50% of Areas Selected on Maximum Variation Area 3

Area 8

Area 6

Area 9

Voic e

s of L

eade

rs

Cur r muchently, the their autono Area S could own thi my. Eac uperinte with not be ng. We a h area s ndents h somemy colle more di re a Uni hould ne ave too the s thing d agues a vided. I fied dist ver be d goal ame dis ifferent. nd learnt is fr ust rict that oing acro s and mi trict, withIf we ha that we rating to ss th ssion the s ve the are a meet e , t d h istric en w ame im same ll doin   t. e sho prov job, in g u ld ha emen Inste ve co t toge ad of "a ntinu t r ity h e e r for as" m toge e to ex ther and monthly eting se the t change put the leaders parately our cop to gu ideas, h "unified hip mee , bring u once ulture o ide and ave stron " in SDU tings. Co s f lang direc S m g did. uage t our leadersD. We ne e e h w . I do n't fe ork. We' ip from d el co ve los Deve nnec t l o a mo p con t e d as I Grea re focus sistency supe ter cohe district- among commrintende rence anwide imthe vario netw unicati nts and d consi provem us area s en ork. st on an clus d str ters w ency am t plan. for engt o hen lould imp ng area eade rove rship

Find ing 3 : and Need Damage d Tr u Cont f or L inuit eade s y rship t

Voic e

s of L

eade

rs

If we then are tr us watc why do ted to b their hing ove we need e leader they MAIN jo r us. So Area Su s of our m are j ust ob is to he e of theperintenschools ne m m d l ore op us do o forget t ents hat bstac urs. Build I le in nstea site a tr ust ac o u r pat d r d o m s hs. Supe inistr s the r d a i t n is o t is ex pect endents rs-build trict; dist ed at rict s and tr ust t u h b all le vels eir sites; etween Apport mod rea The e t l what mana urn ove to es gemen r year af profetablish trt/ leader ter year that t ssional ust and ship ma of uppe topic eam tim relation rapport kes it ve r valua s and cu e with c ship can so that a r y hard othe ble as w r rent di olleague grow. I r. do e ten strict s d to initia to discu feel be a s t suppives is ves hot ort fo r y r eac h

Promising Connection Between Brokerage and Trust

Why Brok e r in g Matt e rs

Take Awa y

Evid

ence •  Opp Researc h /T h undeortunity eor y r nuan stand/ to bette “Bro ced roletheorize r evid kers” in s of info e n ce m r •  Imp throu oving mal ghou bothortance t sys o tem q f qual uantit attend relat ity (trus y (broke ing to ionsh t) of the rs) and •  N e e ip relat d to bett diffe ionship er unde and rential bbetwee rstand evid acquisit rokerin n ion a e n ce g rol nd u e se of s

Take Awa y

Prac

tice •  Few brok advice rega erage roties in g distr rding da les speeneral, a ta us cifica nd •  Sign ict e acr lly, oss t he type ificant v acro s of brokariation impass the di erage t in the exch ct the ty strict, w hat occu acro anged a pe of evhich ma rs •  Lim ss the sysnted coheriedence y n ce i m t e d those align posi in form ment b supetions (i.e al “bro etween brok rintend ., area ker” ents) ers i n the and syste infor mal m.

Polic y

• 

Take Awa y

Emp educ hasis on relat ational technic systeional co improve al aspe •  Gre mwide cmhpa onentmtoent ovcetrs of nge com looks fromater atte plex n c , t i o capa mpli on mu •  Lac city-builadnicne oriesntt be paid k g sys ed re to mo profe of atten tems spons ve t s i es to throu sional on to p princ ghout t develop reparat inter ipals) r he syste ment o ion and brok pretatio elating t m (area f sublea •  Co ering n may limoiet videnscueps, ders n capa (withtinued e city f m l or i p incre ttle at hasis that ase the tention on con systealready distrust to supposequen c exist ms s in land fragrt) may es ow-p ment erfor ation ming