Slides for presentation at the EARLI 2019 conference

1. Understanding the social transition
experiences of doctoral students:
Lessons from a mixed methods social
network study
@JLMittelmeier
Dr Jenna Mittelmeier Co-Authors:
Prof Bart Rienties (Open University)
Prof Divya Jindal-Snape (University of Dundee)
Dr Kate Yue Zhang (American University of Paris)

2. Half of doctoral
students were
found to experience
psychological
distress during their
studies
(Levecque, Anseel, De Beuckelaer,
Van der Heyden, & Gisle, 2017)
@JLMittelmeier

3. Doctoral students’ social
communities frequently
identified as a key
support
(Sala-Bubaré & Castelló, 2017; Janta et al., 2014; Stubb
et al., 2011; Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2015)
@JLMittelmeier

4. ‘Doctoral Community’What is happening in the
social community?
What social relationships exist
between peers in the
community?
Which factors impact students’
experiences in the community?
Why and how do students
develop social support
with peers?

5. 1) Social Network
Analysis Survey
(24 Participants)
3) Longitudinal
Reflective Diaries
(20 Participants)
2) Interviews
(14 Participants)
@JLMittelmeier

6. Social network analysis visualisation:
Pink circle = 1st year students
Green square = 2nd year students
Blue triangle = 3rd year students
Overall
density
0.242
No. of ties 183
Std Dev 0.428
Avg Degree 6.536
Network size = 28 students

7. Comparing students’ behaviours with their social networks
(Longitudinal diaries)
Pattern A: The Community Builders
• Many ties within the community
• Strong density, betweenness and centrality in the network
• Frequently physically present on campus
• Often organised or hosted social events
• Frequently used the students’ social media groups
• Often demonstrated leadership in forming, developing, and
supporting the doctoral student community
• More often: Younger, without dependents, had physically
relocated for doctoral study, or lived in the local area
@JLMittelmeier

8. Comparing students’ behaviours with their social networks
(Longitudinal diaries)
Pattern B: The Social Followers
• Moderate ties within the community
• Moderate density, betweenness and centrality in the network
• Often physically present on campus
• Often attended social events
• Often ‘followed the crowd’ – was part of the social community,
but not active in developing it
• More often: More mature, with dependents, or commuted to
the university
@JLMittelmeier

9. Comparing students’ behaviours with their social networks
(Longitudinal diaries)
Pattern C: The Social Ghosts
• Few ties within the community
• Low density, betweenness and centrality in the network
• Infrequently physically present on campus
• Rarely attended social events
• More peripheral to the social community, but maintained ties
with a few peers
• More often: International students without dependents or
students in their final year of study
@JLMittelmeier

10. SNA Visualisation as an Interview Mediating Artefact

11. Why ‘Community Builders’ build
‘Community Builders’ naturally saw intrinsic value in the network:
‘There’s been several times in my life where I’ve been in a situation that
was quite isolated. That makes me miserable. I know this about myself. I
really need connection and if it’s not there, I’m not going to make it.’
(Participant 8)
‘I just like to organise something so we all can have an opportunity to
meet and do something as a whole community…. I think it’s just good to
catch up with people, to know how they’re doing. It’s a nice feeling to
have everyone sit together.’ (Participant 13)
@JLMittelmeier

12. Role of the ‘Community Builder’
‘Community Builders’ as essential to the network:
‘I think there are certainly individuals, particularly based from this network,
that help bridge those connections. Those people in particular might initiate
certain events or they’re just kind of a hub where people go to and they’re
easier to connect to, so they kind of get other people to get together.’
(Participant 7)
But this frequently led to unpredictable social opportunities:
‘It depends on how busy the frequent social event organisers are. There’s only
a handful of people who often take initiative to organise social events, and if
they are busy, then nothing’s going to happen’ (Diary Participant 11)
@JLMittelmeier

13. Influential institutional factors
 Physical working spaces
 Supervisor attendance expectations
 Frequency of trainings or supervision meetings
 Frequency of social opportunities
Inclusion in informal events: Christmas parties,
writing camps, etc.
 Inclusion of doctoral students in research culture
@JLMittelmeier

14. Challenges for the ‘Social Ghosts’
‘I have found that being at home and not speaking to the people here and
feeling like you are disconnected from it really impacts me personally.’
(Participant 5)
‘Sometimes this is quite a big building, quite a big campus, and you could walk
around and not really speak to anybody, so if you knew certain people then
it’d be more personal and you could just have a five minute, ten minute
conversation here and there. It probably would make you maybe…not feel so
isolated.’ (Participant 2)
When things got really tough here, then I just withdrew to home. I didn’t
really feel comfortable in here in the office. (Participant 10)
@JLMittelmeier

15. Taking an MMSNA Approach
Benefits:
 Triangulation of SNA data
 Exploration of both ‘what’
and ‘why’
 Deeper and more in-depth
look into the network
 Space for participant voice
and member checking
Challenges:
 Sensitive and personal
information collected: need for
strong anonymization protocol
 Social discomforts in the
interviews
 Time to complete the project
 ‘Messiness’ of triangulating
multiple pieces of data
@JLMittelmeier

16. More information
Jenna Mittelmeier
jenna.mittelmeier@manchester.ac.uk
@JLMittelmeier