Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Eva Eckenh<strong>of</strong>er
Figure 2: Aggregated Network in 2010 (left) and 2011 (right)
The colour and <strong>the</strong> shape <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nodes in <strong>the</strong> networks in Figure 2 was chosen according to <strong>the</strong>
country. Red, round nodes indicate Czech students, grey squared ones are Slovak students and
green, triangle-shaped nodes are foreign students. It can be observed that in <strong>the</strong> year 2010 (on <strong>the</strong>
left side) <strong>the</strong>re was a gap between foreign students (green, triangle nodes), Czech students (red,
round nodes) and Slovak students (grey, squared nodes), who are well integrated into <strong>the</strong> network
and mixed with Czech students. Even though still being connected by a few relations <strong>the</strong>re is a
distance between Czech and Slovak students and <strong>the</strong>ir foreign colleagues. This distance got smaller
in year 2011 (network on <strong>the</strong> right side). Moreover <strong>the</strong> density (number <strong>of</strong> relations) increased from
892 ties to 1103 ties. Some foreign students (green, triangle nodes) are well integrated in <strong>the</strong> network
<strong>of</strong> 2011, while still several green, triangle-shaped nodes are pushed to <strong>the</strong> periphery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> network
due to lack <strong>of</strong> relations to Czech and Slovak students.
Table 2: Density and Homophily Values
Density Homophily
2010 2011 2010 2011
Aggregate 0.4089 0.4773 -0.2974 0.0788
R1 (knowing) 0.1516 0.2085 -0.4286 0.1500
R2 (going out) 0.0586 0.0469 -0.2152 -0.0872
R3 (Project) 0.0301 0.0291 -0.4438 0.0435
R4 (talking) 0.0322 0.0405 -0.4685 0.0980
R5 (pr<strong>of</strong>. advice) 0.0272 0.0299 -0.5817 0.0833
R6 (private advice) 0.0291 0.0329 -0.5804 0.0719
R7 (lending money) 0.0272 0.0299 -0.3237 0.0197
R8 (sharing <strong>of</strong>fice) 0.0529 0.0595 -0.3755 0.0664
Table 2 shows <strong>the</strong> calculation <strong>of</strong> density and homophily values for all relations in both years. It can be
observed that <strong>the</strong> density increased from 2010 till 2011 in all relations except relation 2, going out and
relation 3, working on a joint project or paper. On <strong>the</strong> one hand one might say that it is not a negative
change when <strong>the</strong> relations <strong>of</strong> students going out toge<strong>the</strong>r decreases, but on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand going out
toge<strong>the</strong>r builds a basis for informal and private communication, which contributes to <strong>the</strong> development
<strong>of</strong> trust and has <strong>the</strong>refore an impact on pr<strong>of</strong>essional communication and cooperation as asking for
advice in pr<strong>of</strong>essional matters is enabled.
The degree for homophily is indicated by <strong>the</strong> index E-1 whereas -1 means homophily and +1
heterophily (Hanneman, 2007). In 2010 all homophily measures were negative indicating a tendency
towards homophily. The strongest signs <strong>of</strong> homophily were in <strong>the</strong> relations 5 and 6, pr<strong>of</strong>essional and
private advice. These tendencies improved into <strong>the</strong> year 2011, when in all but relation 2 (going out)
positive homophily indices E-1 have been measured. The best value, in <strong>the</strong> means <strong>of</strong> heterophily is
reached in <strong>the</strong> relation 1 (knowing). In this relation a density <strong>of</strong> 0.21 was measured in 2011, which
means that 21% <strong>of</strong> all possible relations are realized. The next highest E-1 index is from <strong>the</strong> relation
4, talking about <strong>the</strong> dissertation topics, where <strong>the</strong> value is 0.09.
168