Figure 1
Within-Department Discussion Networks in Year 1-Year 3. Note: Red, Staff; Blue, Director/Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies; Black, Graduate Assistant; Gray, Department Head; Pink, Instructional Faculty; Green, Tenure System Faculty. Circles represent the DAT members of this department.
Table 1
DAT members’ data information and degree centrality.
| DAT member | Job | Appeared in the network | Answered survey | Out-degree centrality | In-degree centrality | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | ||
| 22096 | Instructional faculty | X | X | X | X | X | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.13 | |
| 22163 | Instructional faculty | X | X | X | X | X | 0.00 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.27 | |
| 22165 | Staff | X | X | X | X | X | X | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
| 50022 | Tenure-system faculty | X | X | X | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |||||
Note. Normalized degree centrality scores were reported to account for the different network sizes over time.
Figure 2
Instructional Faculty 1’s Discussion Networks in Year 1-Year 3. Note. Red, Staff; Blue, Director/Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies; Black, Graduate Assistant; Gray, Department Head; Pink, Instructional Faculty; Green, Tenure System Faculty. Circles represent the DAT members of this department.
Figure 3
Instructional Faculty 2’s Discussion Networks in Year 1-Year 3. Note. Red, Staff; Blue, Director/Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies; Black, Graduate Assistant; Gray, Department Head; Pink, Instructional Faculty; Green, Tenure System Faculty. Circles represent the DAT members of this department.
Figure 4
Staff 1’s Discussion Networks in Year 1-Year 3. Note. Red, Staff; Blue, Director/Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies; Black, Graduate Assistant; Gray, Department Head; Pink, Instructional Faculty; Green, Tenure System Faculty. Circles represent the DAT members of this department.
Table 2
DAT Members’ Brokerage roles and relative scores.
| 22096 – Instructional Faculty 1 | 22163 – Instructional Faculty 2 | 22165 – Staff 1 | 50022 – Tenure Faculty 1 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
| Coordinator (a → a → a) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Gatekeeper (b → a → a) | 0.00 | 1.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Representative (a → a → b) | 5.53 | 3.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Consultant (b → a → b) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Liaison (b → a → c) | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.53 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Note. Brokerage roles are highlighted in bold, and matching letters indicate the same job classification. Tenure Faculty 1 did not appear in the Year 1 discussion network.
Table 3
Summary of four DAT members’ interview responses after one-year facilitation.
| 22096 – Instructional Faculty 1 | 22163 – Instructional Faculty 2 | 22165 – Staff 1 | 50022 – Tenure Faculty 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning from DAT experience | Providing a leadership opportunity in the department | Demonstrating the importance of collaboration with diverse roles in groups/projects | Evolving focus from administrative support for student graduation to enhancing education for career readiness | Having limited power to make changes as an individual but acknowledging the value of DAT proposal |
| Culture of DAT | Collaborative but limited to a small group without high-profile faculty in the department | Collaborative in the process of DAT facilitation and friendly comparing with other community | Caring about undergraduate education but limited to a small group without much authority | Friendly and easy to express opinions and talk in the meeting |
| DAT’s changes in the department | Not making anything impactful yet (e.g., a request for space but no change; collecting limited data to gather information from alumni network) | In progress, but collecting data for guiding undergraduate students to find internships or jobs more effectively | In progress, with identifying issues in curriculum and at least taking steps to find a way for proactively engaging with alumni | Too soon to expect change, but initiating activities to help students succeed in their future career in industry |
| Department members’ value of DAT work | Not widespread, and loosely supported | Not widespread, but very supportive (e.g., helping expand data collection to alumni network) | Not widespread, and more supported by younger faculty open to changes despite less power | Perceiving support for the DAT throughout the department |