Journal of Community Practice, 18:493512, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 online

e DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2010.519683

Using Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity: A Case Study
JENNIFER A. JOHNSON, JULIE A. HONNOLD, and F. PAUL STEVENS
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

As donor agencies become more specic in funding requirements, research that can demonstrate the collaborative efforts of a nonprot agency with its organizational neighbors and how those efforts pay off in terms of capacity and provision of services is highly useful. Recognizing these benets, a local funding agency in Virginia commissioned a study to look at the ways in which social network analysis (SNA) can enhance the data resources available to nonprots for funding and grant requests. In this article, we present a case study of a network of 52 nonprot organizations to illustrate the viability of SNA in terms of funding and research needs specic to nonprot organizations. We discuss the outcomes of the case study in terms of how the visual and metric outputs of SNA can be used by nonprots to enhance the accomplishment of their organizational missions and strengthen their grant requests. KEYWORDS social network analysis, capacity, grants, research, outcomes

INTRODUCTION
As donor agencies become more specic in their funding requirements (Barman, 2008), particularly with regard to resource sharing and collaboration, research that can demonstrate a nonprot organizations collaborative

Address correspondence to Jennifer A. Johnson, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, 919 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284. E-mail: jajohnson3@vcu.edu 493

494

J. A. Johnson et al.

efforts with its organizational neighbors, as well as how well those efforts pay off in terms of capacity and provision of services, is highly useful. Yet, Stoecker (2007) found that, although most nonprots collect data on a wide variety of topics, most do not use the data, nor do they collect data useful to their larger interorganizational network. Furthermore, most nonprots have little to no staff trained in research methods, but all claim a real need for such training and skills. This lack of research data and skills has real consequences for the nonprot community. Research shows nonprots with stronger research abilities are better able to inuence social policy (Appleton, 2003; Fox, 2001) and are more likely to accomplish their organizational missions (Bryson, 1995; Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1999). It is for these reasons, among others, that Stoecker (2007) stated that the most pressing need for nonprot capacity building efforts is building a stronger research tradition inside the organizations. Recognizing this need to improve research within the nonprot community, a prominent local funding agency in Virginia commissioned a study to look at the ways in which social network analysis (SNA) can enhance nonprot data resources available for funding and grant requests. The research objectives for the project were twofold: (a) to explore the viability of SNA in terms of research questions specic to nonprot organizations and (b) to conduct a pretest of a networking initiative just launched by the funding agency intended to facilitate interorganizational connections among local nonprots in a specied geographical region. The start of the project, which we call the social network analysis of the networking initiative (SNA-NI), coincided with the October 2007 launch of the online networking initiative designed to establish and enhance collaborative relationships among local nonprots. This article presents the outcome of the rst phase of the SNA-NI project, which is a baseline measurement (pretest) of the interorganizational network structure of a particular service region to illustrate the usefulness of the methodology. SNA is a descriptive social science methodology that maps, measures, and nds patterns in the connections between people and/or organizations. SNA is interested in how an organization is embedded in a larger system and how its location inuences its actions, power, and resources. SNA yields two forms of dataa visual representation of the network and an ordered list of the organizations based on the centrality or importance of the organization to the overall network. These forms of data can assist an organization in demonstrating how extensively they are working with other organizations, both currently and across time, where networking opportunities exist, the networks of neighboring organizations, as well as resource sharing and ow. The methodology can also be used in conjunction with other standard statistical measures to assess whether the organizations collaboration efforts are translating into increased capacity and/or service provisions.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

495

Last, using SNA, a nonprot organization (NPO) can easily produce compelling visual images and ordered data to demonstrate their organizational capabilities and needs in support of funding requirements and grant applications. To build the network, we used a modied version of Himmelmans (2001) coalition framework to map the relationships between 52 randomly sampled nonprot organizations along ve dimensions, ranging from simple awareness of other organizations up to more intense collaborations. Our aim in this article is to provide an example of how SNA can be used to strengthen the research agendas of nonprots that they may better compete for scarce resources, better meet funding requirements, and advance their interests through policy. We begin with an overview of the theory and methodology of SNA. We follow with a literature review illustrating why a network approach to research can provide a stronger understanding of nonprot organizations. After describing the research design, variables, and methodological considerations used in this study, we present the SNA results including visual representations of select relationships. We conclude with a discussion of the implications our results have for advancing the research skills and agendas of nonprot organizations.

SNA: Theory and Method

SNA is both theory and method. Theoretically, the approach takes seriously the sociological axiom that all social actors, including both humans and organizations, are positioned in and inuenced by larger social structures. Social structure is a term used to describe persistent patterns of relationships among interacting social actors (Laumann & Knoke, 1986). A social structure is an amalgamation of lasting, patterned social relationshipseither direct or indirect linkagesbetween two or more social actors. The analytical focus of SNA is on the relationship between the actors, not on the individual actor. This relational perspective is built upon several theoretical postulates (Laumann & Knoke, 1986; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). First, the patterns of relational ties comprising a social structure are not purely random. Instead, the logic of a pattern is governed by the type of social relationships, i.e., friendships, business ties, neighborhoods, or organizations comprised within. Second, relational ties operate as exchange conduits through which both material and nonmaterial resources are transferred. Last, an actors position within the structure, and hence access to the resources owing within, constrains and/or enables social action. The theoretical goal of SNA is, therefore, to discover how relationships are patterned inside diverse social structures and how those patterns inuence both the ow of resources and the actions, opportunities and power of the social actors who are operate within.

496

J. A. Johnson et al.

Methodologically, SNA provides a precise, quantitative process through which social structures and its constituent relationship patterns can be operationalized, mapped, and measured (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Because the fundamental element of a social structure is relational, SNA requires three points of dataactor A, actor B, and the tie or link between them. These three pieces of data comprise the basic SNA unit of analysis. Actors, or what are called nodes in the SNA lexicon, can be people, organizations, computers, or any entity that can process or exchange information or resources. For the purposes of this artilce, all nodes refer to organizations. Relationships between nodes are called ties, connections, or edges, and can represent an exchange of information, a type of relationship such as collaboration, sharing of resources, or any type of contact be it positive or negative. SNA produces two forms of output; one is visual and the other is mathematical. The visual output is a map or rendering of the network called a social network diagram which displays the nodes and their adjacent links. Figure 1 is an example of the visual output of SNA. The diagram works well to visually answer questions about the nature of organizational connections. For example, the lack of a connection between F and I in Figure 1 suggests the possibility of new networking opportunities. Organization G obviously plays a very important role connecting two parts of the network. With three ties each, B and C exhibit the largest number of connections to other organizations in the network.

FIGURE 1 Example of social network diagram.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

497

The social network diagram is accompanied by a set of quantitative SNA metrics, most often comprised of centrality measures. The centrality of a node, such as an organization, is a metric that identies the prominence or importance of a node to the overall functioning of the network. How important is that organization to the networked community? Does it play a large or small role? Is it most active? Or is it well-positioned in the ow of information? These questions can be answered using basic centrality metrics, including degree, betweenness and closeness.1 Degree measures the number of ties adjacent to a particular node. For example, in Figure 1, node B has a degree of three. Betweenness measures the extent to which an organization controls the ow of resources in the network. For example, in Figure 1, nodes E, G, and H have very high betweenness because they control the ow between two otherwise disconnected regions of the network. Closeness represents the distance between a node and all other nodes in the network. In other words, how many steps or ties between that organization and all other organizations in the network? For example, in Figure 1, node E is the closest to all other nodes in the network; its average distance (three) is the lowest of all other nodes. Nodes are rank ordered according to their centrality with those at the top of the ranking playing the most prominent role in the network. These three centrality metrics offer different ways of identifying prominent players and their associated roles in the network. Prominent players are those who are most actively involved in the network both in terms of activity and in terms of criticality. Prominent players not only know the most players, but also know the right people. As such, these measures can be used independently of one another or used in conjunction to asses the activity of organizations in a network. The value of each of these metrics is determined by the analytical question at hand. For example, if the research question seeks to assess the number of opportunities an organization has to collaborate (Ahuja, 2000; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996), then degree would be appropriate. If the question seeks to differentiate between avenues for collaboration to assess which ones have the greatest potential benet (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999), then betweenness would also be benecial. Or, if the question seeks to assess the organizations level of embeddness in an organization (Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Dowell, 2006), then closeness would be an appropriate measure. Further inferences can be drawn by layering in organizational attributes such as size, age and funding levels into the analysis. As a set of descriptive metrics, these measures cannot tell a researcher what the network structure should be, but rather they can effectively inform the researcher as to what the structure actually is. These measures assess

See Wasserman and Faust (1994) for a full review of these centrality measures.

498

J. A. Johnson et al.

the position and prominence of a node in a particular network. If the number of ties or the presence or absence of particular nodes changes in the data, the metrics and rankings will possibly change, as well. This presents a signicant challenge for data collection because the researcher must be able to clearly dene the boundary of the population to be sampled; who is in the network and who is not? Network boundaries can expand from ego-networks or networks centered around a single node whereby the ego nominates those who should be considered members of the network structure (Laumann & Pappi, 1976), to complete networks of an identiable group (Knoke, 1983), to diffuse network that span an entire nation (Levine, 1972). Solutions to the boundary problem can include: (a) a position-based approach where those actors who occupy a particular position in a social structure, such as an organization, would be included and all others would be excluded; (b) an event-based approach identies boundaries using a particular event, time period, or region (this is the sampling method used in this study); or (c) a relation-based approach whereby those actors who are in a select type of relationshipscoworkers, family, friendshipinside a particular social arenaschool, business, neighborhoodwould be included (See Laumann, Marsden & Prensky, 1983 or Marin & Wellman, 2009, for a complete discussion). Sampling procedures can include asking the group members to identify who is in or out, using rosters or membership lists, snowballing where members nominate subsequent members, or random sampling (Frank, 1977, 1981; Scott, 2000). Decisions on how to solve the boundary specication problem must be made early in the analytical process and should be driven by the theoretical and methodological questions at hand (Scott, 2000).

The Relevancy of a Network Approach to Nonprot Organizations

Research on the impact of social networks on the capacity-building efforts of nonprot organizations is sparse. However, a signicant amount of research has been done on the networks of for-prot organizations in competitive markets such as business or scientic research. Such research nds that interorganizational networks play a signicant role in enhancing a for-prot organizations competitiveness and strategic outreach. Through interorganizational network ties, for-prot organizations can increase their access to a broader array of resources, manage uncertainty in the market, enhance their legitimacy and attain collective goals (Galaskiewicz, 1982, 1985; Burt 1983). Organizations that are successful in establishing strong or effective interorganizational ties will see enhanced social capital that comes in various forms: higher experiential learning, which leads to more opportunities to collaborate (Ahuja, 2000; Powell et al., 1996); stronger trust bonds among organizations, which leads to greater control over external uncertainties, as organizations will work with those they trust to mitigate instability (Brass

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

499

et al., 2004; Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Seabright, Levinthal, & Fichman, 1992); more reliable norms and the ability to monitor the behavior of other organizations, thereby limiting an organizations exposure to the reckless behavior of less regulated organizations (Coleman, 1988; Gulati, 1995; Ostrom, 1998); more formalized, stable and longer lasting collaborative relationships (Guo & Acar, 2005); and lastly, a stronger sense of organizational equity in the market (those that are similar in status and power), which leads to the ability to select more protable and effective partnerships (Brass et al., 2004; Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). Similar nonprot organization research on the positive value of network position and enhanced social capital is more complex, primarily because the nonprot sector is more diverse in its goals and includes a broader array of organizations, which creates particular challenges for organizational and network analysis (Blau & Rabrenovic, 1991). Nevertheless, research suggests that interorganizational networks are particularly critical to the goals and outcomes of NPOs (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). Interorganizational ties among NPOs are more important than bureaucratic hierarchies for controlling and coordinating, because they are used to integrate programs within a community, coordinate client services, obtain resources, and deal with governmental agencies (Blau & Rabrenovic, 1991). Organizations in the nonprot sector have more complex links than in the for-prot sector, because interorganizational integration is imperative as an increasingly large number of actors and issues must be organized to implement a program (Milner, 1980, p. 160). Therefore, understanding the nature of interorganizational networks takes on added importance in the nonprot environment. For the most part, research on nonprot interorganizational networks focuses on public charities and private foundations (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). This research suggests that NPOs can effectively use networks to enhance innovation in services and acquisition of resources (Ahuja, 2000; Coleman, 1988); increase chances for survival, particularly for younger, newer nonprot organizations (Hager, Galaskiewicz, & Larson, 2004); and, in some cases, improve organizational performance (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). Nonprot organizations with more extensive networks have signicantly higher survival rates, whether their networks result either from large size and a higher dependence on private donations or from listings in community directories, charitable registration numbers, or having large boards of directors (Hager et al., 2004; Singh, Tucker, & Meinhard, 1991). Furthermore, Uzzi (1997) found that NPOs that are moderately embedded in an interorganizational network have higher survival rates than those that are either weakly embedded or too deeply embedded. In other words, the organizations with the highest survival rates are those that benet from a mixture of embedded ties where trust was high and arms-length ties that provide valuable information from outside the network core without too much dependence or encumbrance.

500

J. A. Johnson et al.

Regarding network conditions that lead to higher organizational performance, although some similar ndings to those for higher survival rates have been found, the conclusions are more mixed. Brass et al. (2004) found that a blend of strong (high interdependence) and weak (low interdependence) ties can help create status and a reputation that can be used to further network ties and procure resources. However, the benets generated by network ties are sometimes not worth the costs of establishing, maintaining, and managing them (Smith-Doerr & Powell, 2005), and such ties can weaken and compromise organizational boundaries (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). In sum, this research shows that a strong understanding of interorganizational networks is critical for nonprots because networks are at the center of their activities and they have environmental uncertainties that are unique to their sector. Some interorganizational consequences of networks appear to be less important for nonprots, such as innovation; others, such as survival and performance, are in some ways more sensitive to and dependent on networking. What is clear is the success of an NPO is, in part, contingent upon its interorganizational networks and as such future research on nonprot interorganizational networks should focus on eshing out this relationship between network structure and the capacity of nonprot organizations to fulll their missions and contribute to the social capital of the communities in which they operate.

METHODOLOGY
The research project from which this article is drawn was commissioned by a prominent funding agency that operates in a large service region in central Virginia. The service region consists of eight highly diverse communities, including three small manufacturing cities with 2004 populations ranging from approximately 17,500 to 36,000 and four rural counties with 2004 populations ranging from 7,000 to 35,000, as well as a large suburban county with a 2004 population of approximately 250,000. The area is home to several universities and community colleges, as well as a large military base. The sampling frame was created by rst selecting all the organizations listed in Guidestar that were located in the service region (N = 637). The study sample was then limited to those organizations that were listed under the IRS Subsection 501(c)3 Public Charity label, excluding religious organizations, because they use different criteria for assessing capacity than was included in the survey for this project (N = 283). Sixty organizations were randomly selected from our sampling frame. Of the 52 directors who agreed to participate (87% of the 60 sampled), 39 completed the survey in full (75% of the 52 directors). This sampling frame, although appropriate for the assessment of the impact of a Web site designed to stimulate connections

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

501

in a specied geographical area, does not produce either a complete network or a series of ego-networks, either of which are needed to make claims regarding the functionality of this network. As such, our focus here is not on describing how nonprot interorganizational networks function but rather on the benets of a network approach to nonprot organizations. For example, we explore how both the social network diagram and the centrality metric of degree can be used in a grant application, a funding report, or a year-end status report to illustrate current inter-organizational work as well as opportunities for inter-organizational growth. The survey consisted of two sectionsan organizational relationship assessment and an organizational capacity assessment. For this article, we focus on the organizational relationship assessment, which included ve questions asking the respondent to select from the list of 52 participating organizations all those to which their organization was connected according to a specic set of criteria for determining a relationship as specied using Himmelmans (2001) coalition framework. Connection types ranged from simple awareness up to collaboration. The SNA analysis was conducted using Blue Spider, an SNA software tool. SNA is based in matrix algebra and, therefore, can include some intensive calculations and output large amounts of data, both of which require sophisticated and specialized software. Using a modied version of Himmelmans (2001) coalition framework, we measure degree across ve relationship dimensionsawareness, networking, coordinating, cooperating, and collaborating. Himmelmans coalition framework theoretically operationalizes four strategies nonprot organizations use to interact and develop their relationships: (a) networking is the exchanging of information for mutual benet; (b) coordinating is the exchanging of information and altering activities for mutual benet and to achieve a common purpose; (c) cooperating is the exchanging of information, altering activities, and sharing resources for mutual benet and to achieve a common purpose; and (d) collaborating is the exchanging of information, altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another for mutual benet and to achieve a common purpose. His original continuum does not include awareness. We added awareness as a baseline measure to assess the name recognition of the NPOs. We dene awareness as having a general knowledge or consciousness of another organizations existence. The list of 52 participating organizations was presented for each strategy type, and the respondents were asked to select from the list all those with which they had the type of relationship in question. From these responses, ve relationship networks were constructed. For this analysis, we focus on the SNA metric of degree. Because the analytical question driving the SNA-NI research project is the number of connections before and after the launch of the Web site, degree is the most informative SNA metric. As a reminder, degree, as measured by the number

502

J. A. Johnson et al.

of ties a particular node possesses, is a measure of power or inuence in a network. Those with high degree are organizations that are more central to the overall functioning of a network and have the most inuence in the network. These organizations know the greatest number of other organizations, have the greatest access to resources and information, and have the greatest reach out into the network. However, as research indicates, high degree also means that these organizations are the most exposed and have a higher level of interorganizational dependency, making them more vulnerable to external uncertainties (Smith-Doerr & Powell, 2005; Uzzi, 1997). Degree centrality comes in two forms: in-degree and out-degree. In-degree is the number of organizations that indicate they are connected to a particular organization, and out-degree is the number of organizations to which a particular organization indicates it has a connection. In other words, in-degree is the number of people who say they know a person, but out-degree is the number of people that person says he or she knows. Degree is a description of an organizations position in the network, rather than an assessment of good or bad positioning. SNA can only measure what an organizations degree is; it cannot evaluate what it should be. Whether it is better to have a high or low degree, relative to others in the network, depends on the research question and/or goals of the organization. We also use the SNA measure of density is to compare the networks created from the ve relationship matrices. Density measures the level of interconnectivity of a network and is measured by the total number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties. In other words, density measures how many connections exist in a network out of all the possible connections that could exist. The measure ranges from zero to one, with values closer to one reecting higher density. A network with high density means that there are many ties among the members of the network, but a network with low density means that there are few ties among members. Density is a structural measure in that it describes the network as a whole as opposed to the centrality measures which describe the position of a node in the network.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As a descriptive analysis, presentations of SNA ndings are generally accompanied by a discussion of the implications of the results. Therefore, we present the results of our analyses, as well as discuss the specic ways in which nonprot organizations can benet from this type of analysis. We begin with a discussion of how the metric outputs can be used by organizations in developing strategic goals and in support of funding requests. We will follow with a discussion of the visual outputs and how these can be used for setting organizational goals.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

503

Table 1 presents a ranking of participating organizations across the ve relationship dimensions. To describe organizations both relative to others and across the ve dimensions, we use ranks, rather than raw scores. We use one standard deviation from the raw score mean on the dimension as a descriptive method of distinguishing organizations that are relatively high (more than 1 SD above the mean) or relatively low (more than 1 SD below

TABLE 1 Ranks and Standard Deviation Data (1 SD) on All Variables Arranged from High to Low Collaborating Degree Awareness Awareness Organization in-degree out-degree Networking Coordinating Cooperating Collaborating H N I Q XX C W AA EE P LL TT QQ X Y ZZ GG HH II OO VV Z F WW YY D DD G M NN U J L T A BB K KK S 2 17 10 7 7 18 5 3 18 4 28 22 32 7 10 30 14 37 10 29 18 6 25 15 37 37 18 30 1 22 10 25 24 25 35 36 15 34 32 2 16 11 7 9 20 4 3 18 4 26 23 32 8 11 26 11 35 10 26 18 6 26 11 38 38 21 31 1 21 11 26 24 25 35 35 16 33 33

2 24 5 9 10 8 6 4 13 7 17 14 27 1 16 30 27 24 21 17 11 14 23 11 37 33 30 35 2 17 20 32 24 27 36 33 21 39 37

1 14 9 3 11 3 5 1 9 8 11 18 24 6 20 27 18 24 24 21 6 16 27 16 36 34 38 27 11 14 21 32 32 21 36 27 27 38 34

3 9 7 3 1 9 14 2 12 18 14 22 29 6 5 30 20 26 14 20 7 9 26 18 34 22 31 31 13 22 22 37 34 34 37 26 14 37 31

1 2 3 3 3 6 6 8 8 10 11 11 13 13 13 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 23 23 23 26 26 26 26 26 26 32 32 32 35 35 35 35 35

Note. More than 1 SD below the mean.

More than 1 SD above the mean.

504

J. A. Johnson et al.

the mean) compared to others on that dimension.2 Those organizations that stand out at or near the top of the rankings are highlighted with two stars. Those that stand out at or near the bottom are highlighted with one star. Organization H, the sponsor of this research project, is the most active node in the network, ranking in the top three organizations across all relationship dimensions. This is not surprising, given that organization H is the primary funding organization for the service region under study. From this study, organization H can nd validation in its efforts. It is well known in the community (in-degree), and its executive director is well aware of the organizations in the service region (out-degree). Organization H can also use this research to illustrate its success in developing advanced relationships with its organization neighbors. It is in the top spot in terms of coordinating and collaborating relationships and is in the top two and three in networking and cooperating. Not only can organization H use SNA to substantiate its own capacity developing efforts, but, as a funding organization, it can see where there are gaps in the network and which organizations could best use its support. For example, organization M ranks very high in in-degree and out-degree, as well as networking, illustrating that the executive director is aware of many organizational neighbors and the neighbors know of organization M. Organization M has also been able to develop an exceptional number of networking relationships but has not been able to move into more complex and productive cooperative, coordinating, or collaborative relationships. Organization M is one of the oldest, most established nonprots in the area providing foster care services, but has seen some instability on its board, and its community activities have waned. What this analysis illustrates is that organization M has a strong networking foundation that can be built upon with some concerted organizational development. Funding organizations such as organization H can use this information to make strategic decision on where to invest. For example, in comparison to organization M, organizations S and KK have very little social capital in terms of interorganizational connectivity. Depending on the service goals of the expenditures, a funding organization may decide that money is better spent on organizations with a baseline source of social capital on which the organization can build (M), or it could decide that funds would be better spent cultivating relationships with established, yet weakly connected organizations (S or KK). Instead, funding effort may be concentrated on organization P, which has strong name recognition, but has not been able to translate that into strong reciprocal relationships even at the networking level. Although SNA can inform these funding decisions with quantitative reasoning, it cannot stand alone; SNA is best used in conjunction with an
2 In a normal distribution, a majority of cases (about 68%) fall within one standard deviation of the mean, and a minority (about 32%) are higher or lower.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

505

agencys qualitative knowledge of the service region and the specic service goals of the organizational mission statements. Participating organizations can also use SNA metrics to help them set organizational goals and compete for external funding. Awareness can be useful to an organization in understanding where they stand relative to others in terms of how many organizations they are aware of, as well as relative to how many are aware of them. Not only can an organization simply draw comparisons between itself and others in terms of rankings, but it can also better understand where to concentrate its efforts. Research shows that nodes that are more aware of their surroundings are in a better position to advance their interests than nodes that have limited understanding of their network neighborhood (Burt, 1992). For example, organization X is doing a good job at forming productive, complex relationships (networking and coordinating), but very few organizations beyond those with which it is working are aware of its existence, nor does it have a strong understanding of its service region. As such, organization X is not well positioned to view the network and understand how to expand its network reach (out-degree) nor is it likely to be seen (in-degree). By comparison, organizations Z or Q are better positioned to see a broad scope of the network (out-degree), but are not well positioned to be seen (in-degree). These two organizations would benet from some name recognition efforts to enhance their ability to fully benet from their relationships. By providing an agency a broad understanding of who is most active in the network, SNA can help an organization strategize on where to concentrate its connection efforts. For example, organization W stands out in its awareness, networking, and coordination efforts, but is in the middle of the pack in terms of cooperation and collaboration. Organization W can look at the activities of others to nd an organization with the same development needs, e.g., organization X or M, where mutual need would drive the development of more complex relationships. Also, organization W could identify those organizations that have an established record of successful cooperative and/or collaborative relationships in order to benet from their expertise. Finding these critical gaps in connections, or what Burt (1992) called structural holes, can tremendously enhance the prestige of an organization inside the network. Burts work on structural holes illustrates how a node can gain power and prestige in a network by being able to bridge open spaces in a network. If an organization can step in and ll a critical gap in the network, the organization can enhance its position in acquiring the information, resources, and inuence that ow through the network. The visual output or social network diagram can assist in searching for these structural holes by providing a map of the organizational network. For example, Figure 2 presents a visual representation of the in-degrees and out-degrees of the awareness network. The arrows indicate the direction of

506

J. A. Johnson et al.

FIGURE 2 Awareness network.

the relationship. The visual display reveals a relatively well-connected or dense network. The density measure of this network is .373, meaning that 37% of all possible ties are present in the network. In a well-connected community such as this one, news and information will ow between organizations more effectively and efciently (Haythornthwaite, 1996); however, highly dense networks can stie innovation and creativity (Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). With regard to structural holes, high density networks present fewer opportunities for an organization to close critical gaps, whereas lower density networks, such as coordinating or collaborating networks, present more opportunities for closure. Figure 3 displays the coordinating network. The two organizations that play the most dominant roles in the network, represented by squares in Figure 3, have coordinating degree scores more than two standard deviations above the mean. As the time and resource requirements grow for establishing these types of connections, the number of ties decreases.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

507

FIGURE 3 Coordinating network.

The coordinating network has a density of .085, or in other words, 8% of all possible ties are present. There are ve isolated organizations and several organizations lying on the periphery of the network, loosely connected with only one tie. The coordinating network is centered on a handful of key players. Organizations H and AA are crucial to the success of the overall network, because many organizations work through them to coordinate events and activities. They are key nodes or hubs in the larger nonprot structural network. As the networks grow sparser, they begin to rely more heavily on the actions of a few key players. There are many open spaces or structural holes that an organization can strategically work to ll, yet the network is vulnerable to fracturing if one of the key nodes is removed. This network vulnerability can be seen most clearly in the collaborating network (Figure 4), where the density level is .056, meaning that 6% of all possible ties are present. The network is heavily reliant on one organization,

508

J. A. Johnson et al.

FIGURE 4 Collaborating network.

H, whose collaborating degree is more than two standard deviations higher than the mean for the entire network. This illustrates its importance in the success of the overall network structure. Many of the nonprot organizations in the service region depend on the organization H for their survival. Organization H ties or links many of the organizations together, and its removal would devastate the collaboration network. This heavy reliance on one organization to facilitate collaboration means that there are many structural holes for other agencies to bridge and in the process, enhance their positions in the network (Burt, 1992). This type of information can be very helpful in making strategic decisions about which kinds of ties with which organizations would produce the greatest benet. An organization that wants to partner with another organization that has a high number of connections would look to those at the center of the network for allies. An organization that would like to reach out to others who would most benet from a connection would look to the periphery of the network for partners. An organization can also use this

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

509

visual output to strategically identify where connections are most needed. By using the visual output of SNA, an organization can get a lay of the land to acquire a better sense of where it stands and how to take strategic action to better position itself to achieve its organizational goals.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our goal in this article is to introduce the methodology of SNA to the nonprot research community. Evidenced-based programs are increasingly preferred by funders (Snyder, 1997), yet the lack of research skills and resources available to most nonprots limits their ability to produce such evidence (Stoecker, 2007). Furthermore, research shows that participation in networks enhances an NPOs innovation in services and acquisition of resources (Ahuja, 2000; Coleman, 1988), can improve organizational performance (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006), can sustain and strength collaborative relationships (Guo & Acar, 2005), and increases the organizations chances of survival (Hager et al., 2004). It is, therefore, in the best interests of nonprot organizations to develop a strong research foundation that focuses on understanding the network of the local service region. We suggest that SNA is a robust methodology that can help ll this research gap. Through SNA, an organization can get a sense of where it stands relative to other organizations, which organizations would be ideal partners for achieving particular goals, which organizations need outreach, and which organizations would be best suited for gathering information about the network. Centrality measures provide the researcher with quantitative data on how organizations are related to one another, which can enhance the funding, resource management, and service provision strategies of an organization. The growing demand for evidenced-based programs requires that organizations be able to demonstrate growth in their capacity to serve their clients. SNA metrics are effective tools in grant applications, funding requests, or year-end reports to quantitatively illustrate an organizations position relative to others in the service region as well as how that position changes over time. First, these metrics can be used to assess a baseline level of connectivity for the service region and the current status of the NPOs network connections, as well as providing insight into other organizations networks. This information can be used to develop strategies to enhance capacity. Nodes that are more aware of their network position relative to others are more empowered to negotiate the network to their advantage (Burt, 1992). An organization can set goals of increasing its connectivity quantitatively, to specic organizations or to new regions in the network to negotiate a stronger position in the network (Uzzi, 1997). The rank ordered listings can also be used to chronicle change over time; an organization can use its rankings to illustrate how well it is establishing new connections or

510

J. A. Johnson et al.

maintaining ties over time, both of which are critical to managing capacity building efforts (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). The visual output of a social network diagram provides a valuable and unique way of conceptualizing how the service region functions. This visual map can be used to identify which organizations would be better partners for achieving a desired end or to demonstrate community needs to a funding organization. An organization can see how embedded it is in the network; does it reside at the core or at the periphery? Research shows that being too deeply embedded in a network can stie growth (Uzze & Spiro, 2005) and leave an organization more vulnerable to external uncertainties (Smith-Doerr & Powell, 2005; Uzzi, 1997). Instead, a blend of stronger and weaker connections provides the benets of social capital without the costs of inexibility (Brass et al., 2004). A visual rendering of the network can help an organization strike the right balance by providing an understanding of which organizations would be better connection partners, to either establish stronger ties to the core or facilitate ties to the periphery. SNA is a unique social science methodology that uses special computational software. As is the case with popular statistical programs, such as SPSS, SAS, or STATA, there are several SNA software programs available. The one that is used most frequently by academics is UCINet (www.analytictechnologies.com). For this analysis, we used Blue Spider, a new SNA software program on the market (www.bluespiders.net). The main advantage of Blue Spider over UCINet, relative to nonprot research needs, is the ability to create and save a repeatable set of methodological steps that can easily and reliably be opened and executed. An organization need not have a deep pool of SNA expertise on staff. Rather, the organization can work with a consultant to design a methodology to meet its research needs and then, using the software, can quickly and effectively run the methodology and interpret the results. The organizations research needs are appropriately focused on interpretation and implementation. As nonprot organizations vie for an increasingly smaller pool of resources, those with stronger research skills and a deeper understanding of their network position are better able to compete. This current analysis reveals the potential of SNA to provide unique insights into the ways in which NPOs can enhance their capacity building efforts and better meet increasingly demanding funding requirements.

REFERENCES
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 , 425455. Appleton, L. (2003). The contribution of NPOs to family policy formulation in EU member and applicant atates. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprot Organizations. 14, 79103.

Social Network Analysis to Enhance Nonprot Organizational Research Capacity

511

Barman, E. (2008). With strings attached: Nonprots and the adoption of donor choice. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37 , 3956. Blau, J., & Rabrenovic, G. (1991). Interorganizational relations of nonprot organizations: An exploratory study. Sociological Forum, 6 , 327347. Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 795817. Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprot organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burt, R. (1983). Corporate prots and cooptation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy. New York, NY: Academic Press. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 24(Supplement S95S120), S95S120. Frank, O. (1977). Survey sampling in graphs. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 1, 235264. Frank, O. (1981). A survey of statistical methods for graph analysis. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 1981 (pp. 110155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fox, J. (2001). Vertically integrated policy monitoring: A tool for civil society policy advocacy. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 30, 616627. Galaskiewicz, J. (1982). Modes of resource allocation: Corporate contributions to nonprot organizations. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 235253). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Inter-organizational relations. In R. Turner J. Short (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 11, pp. 281304). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprots. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337380. Gulati, R. (1995). Familiarity breeds trust? The implications of repeated ties on contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal , 38 , 85112. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104, 14391493. Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprot organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 340361. Hager, M., Galaskiewicz, J., & Larson, J. (2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprot organizations. Public Management Review, 6 , 159188. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and set of techniques for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18 , 323342. Himmelman, A. T. (2001). On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: Collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology 29, 277284.

512

J. A. Johnson et al.

Knoke, D. (1983). Organizational sponsorship and inuence reputation of social inuence associations. Social Forces, 61, 10651087. Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1986). Social network theory. In S. Lindenberg, J. S. Coleman, & S. Nowak (Eds.), Approaches to social theory (pp. 83110). Chicago, IL: Russell Sage Foundation. Laumann, E. O., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1989). The boundary specication problem in network analysis. In L. C. Freeman, D. R. White, & A. K. Romney (Eds.), Research methods in social network analysis (pp. 6187). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Laumann, E. O., & Pappi, F. (1976). Networks of collective action: A perspective on community inuence systems. New York: Academic Press. Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprot organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact . New York: John Wiley. Levine. J. H. (1972). The sphere of inuence. American Sociological Review, 37 , 1427. Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2009). Social network analysis: An introduction. Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/ newbies/newbies.pdf Milner, M. (1980). Unequal care. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 122. Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116145. Scott, J. P. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seabright, M., Levinthal, D., & Fichman, M. (1992). Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal , 35 , 122160. Singh, J., Tucker, D., & Meinhard, A. (1991). Institutional change and ecological dynamics. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 390422). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. (2005). Networks and economic life. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd ed., pp. 379402). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stoecker, R. (2007). The research practices and needs of non-prot organizations in an urban center. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 4, 97119. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interrm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 3567. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 11(2), 447504. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University press.

Copyright of Journal of Community Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.