alumni futures

All The People You Know Who Know People

The mania over social networking is really a mania over the online component. Social networks have been in place for millennia. And reminders of this pop up in unexpected places all the time. Like in Truman Capote's classic novella, Breakfast at Tiffany's. 

The earnest, plodding young narrator follows all the rules for getting his writing published. He mails each manuscript off and passively waits for rejection letters by return post. But he gets a casual dose of common sense networking from his neighbor, Holly Golightly, who says that she can help him land a Hollywood script deal:

"I'm going to help you," she said. "I can, too. Think of all the people I know who know people." 

There's the strength of weak ties, clearly articulated in a fictional conversation, 15 years before Granovetter published it as a scholarly finding.

And there's something else here. Holly and her author-neighbor are not connected by a common alma mater or some other granfalloon. They're connected by something that Holly herself determines is relevant:

"I'm going to help you, because you look like my brother Fred. Only smaller."

This can serve as a cautionary reminder about how little it often takes for groups to form, with or without your alma mater as a focal point. And now that forming groups is so easy, looking like brother Fred is sometimes much more important than sharing a school connection. 

That should be a wake-up call to alumni organizations, which no longer (necessarily) play a central role in connecting people to one another and helping them organize around their interests.

A Revised Matrix of Social Network Effects on Alumni Relations

Back in February, web strategist Jeremiah Owyang blogged about "impacts to alumni organizations in a world of social networks." Part of his posting was a matrix that showed these impacts in five different use cases. His excellent summary was designed as a brief analysis of the risks and potential rewards for alumni organizations approaching online networks in various ways.

I found this matrix very useful, and well thought-out. As I read it, I found myself annotating it with additional points based on my own experience. Jeremiah encouraged me to blog a slightly expanded version, and I did. It appears below.

My additions and changes to Jeremiah's original version are written in italics in the matrix accompanying this blog post. I hope you can use it, and I hope you will add missing factors in the comments below, or point out aspects with which you disagree. 

Click image to enlarge:

 
Jeremiah embedded in his matrix a couple of links that are worth listing separately:

• Stanford's tagged directory of alumni-written blogs (opportunity to aggregate alumni voices)
• Jeremiah Owyang's checklist for developing advocacy for your program (ambassador/marketing opportunity)

Here's my original posting about the matrix.

Thanks to Jeremiah for encouraging me to build on his efforts.

White Paper: Alumni Networks and Twitter - An Update

Today I'm excited to announce the publication of a new white paper, co-authored with Elizabeth Allen. The paper is titled Alumni Networks and Twitter: An Update. It's a quick look back at changes since our January 2009 paper, which examined Twitter's potential to influence alumni relations and higher education advancement.

We repeated the non-scientific survey on Twitter awareness and usage in alumni relations, so there is now basic comparative data to show changes in Twitter's role in our professions. This year we also added questions about Twitter Lists to the survey.

To download the paper (PDF format), click on the link below and the document will be downloaded to your computer.

Download Alumni Networks and Twitter: An Update [713kb PDF]

Leave comments about the white paper below this posting. To notify your own Twitter followers about the white paper, click this link: 

Tweet This White Paper

Or use the "Tweet this White Paper" button on the second page of the PDF. 

Thanks for reading; we hope you find it useful!

Social Networks' Impact on Alumni Associations: Jeremiah Owyang

Update: I updated and revised the matrix somewhat, and blogged about it here:

A Revised Matrix of Social Network Effects on Alumni Relations 

***

This morning I was lucky enough to hear Altimeter Group's analyst and consultant Jeremiah Owyang address the Council of Alumni Association Executives (CAAE) on "Social Marketing and Research Strategy" for alumni organizations. I have quoted Owyang here on occasion and it was great to have a chance to discuss directly his ideas for alumni groups using social technologies.

Every alumni professional should read the blog post that Jeremiah wrote to accompany his presentation:

Matrix: Impacts to Alumni Organizations in a World of Social Networks

His comments are self-explanatory, but the reader comments are illuminating as well. And be sure to read the five use cases in the matrix, which shows a simple snapshot of the risks and rewards of various approaches.

I'll post a follow up article here soon, discussing some of Owyang's specific comments about the opportunities available to alumni organizations connecting with alumni where they live online. 

CAE: 2009 Saw Drop in Giving to U.S. Higher Education

This is the time of year when the Council for Aid to Education (CAE) publishes its annual report on Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) – that is, financial donations to colleges and universities in the United States.

According to a New York Times article about the CAE's survey, 

Gifts to colleges and universities declined almost 12 percent in the 2009 fiscal year, to $27.85 billion...the steepest decline in the survey's 53-year history.

The article goes on to state that

• private liberal arts colleges saw the largest decline (18.3%);
  
• capital gifts (for endowment or buildings and property) dropped 25%;
• the last decade has seen an average 4.1% overall increase in giving each year.

Here are past Alumni Futures postings on this survey since 2007:

2007: Alumni Dollars Are Up, Participation Is Down (Again)

2008: CAE: Alumni Participation and Dollars Both Declined in 2007

2009: I did not report on the CAE survey last year, but here is a statement from CASE about the survey's results.

Here is the Chronicle of Higher Education's report on today's announcement of survey results.

The Bologna Process and Alumni Relations, Part II

[Updated 18 February, 2010: InsideHigherEd interview with Paul Gaston, author of The Challenge of Bologna: What United States Higher Education Has to Learn from Europe, and Why It Matters That We Learn It.]

Back in November of 2009, I looked at the Bologna Process of European higher education standardization and how it might affect alumni relations in Europe. In this second and final post on the topic, I'm sharing a few more comments from Dr. Daniel Guhr and Simon Lange of Illuminate Consulting Group. Illuminate's consulting practice focuses on international strategic development in higher education.*  

In this post Guhr and Lange address:

• Threats and challenges to alumni engagement under Bologna
• The prospects for alumni loyalty to a specific institution
• The most likely time frame for changes to appear

Will threats or challenges to engagement make it harder for institutions to maintain already tenuous connections with alumni?

Daniel Guhr: Yes, but this is independent of the Bologna Process. If institutions ignore alumni demand patterns, the alumni will walk away. Down the road, having effective alumni networks will be a recruiting benefit, and it already works this way for small, elite private institutions (primarily business schools). It will be more than three years before we see concrete examples emerge – once the first full cohort of Europe-wide "Bologna System" alumni leave universities.

How does this relate to traditional "study abroad" experiences?

Daniel Guhr: It will have a negative effect on intra-European mobility, as fewer students can move around. This is being hotly debated however.

Simon Lange: Dan is right. Though the process encourages mobility when obtaining your degree abroad, the reforms have significantly increased students' workloads, and introduced the element of time pressure. In the end, this discourages students from spending a desirable semester in Sevilla, or elsewhere.

Will alumni be likely to transfer their affinity or loyalty to a university, a country, an academic program or perhaps a host institution in their target country?

Daniel Guhr: I would ask this differently. What makes alumni more loyal in the European context? First, the presence of effective alumni relations to begin with. Second, the the impact of the international experience on the alumnus's life. Third, the brand effect. You can create a matrix that displays these factors and put in the respective values. We'll see very different dynamics emerge. In short, we should ask, "What works for the alumni?"

Simon Lange: It is likely that the European Union's goal of fostering a European identity among future professionals will succeed. For scholarship recipients, loyalty to the donating country or organization, or to the EU, is likely to be higher. ICG recently conducted a nationwide survey of alumni from all eight universities in New Zealand, and found that non-New Zealand citizen alumni felt more closely connected to New Zealand if they received a New Zealand-sponsored scholarship. We compared their affiliation levels with those of alumni who received funding from other sources, and those who received no scholarship funds.

Based on both ICG's research and my personal experience in Europe, I'd say that students who go abroad feel a strong connection to their host institution, either for an exchange or for an entire program. For example, there are two Facebook groups for Erasmus students at the Universidad de Sevilla (Spain), each with more than 1,300 members. This is anecdotal evidence, but worth looking into more systematically. 

Over what time scale will changes play out?

Daniel Guhr: Some changes are already taking place. It will three years or more before we have early examples to use as case studies. In 5 to 10 years we'll see major initiatives that will produce good results. Some will come earlier, but will likely not be well-conceived. It will be more than ten years however before mainstream European universities will see any benefits – and only if they commit to building alumni networks.

* I serve as a volunteer member of ICG's Academic Advisory Board.

Survey on Twitter in Educational Advancement

[Update: The survey is now closed. Thanks for all who participated! Watch this space for results later in February.]

One year ago today Alumni Futures published a white paper on Twitter's potential as a tool for alumni relations. We are updating that paper's findings and predictions and will publish the new white paper here during February.

As part of our research we are again conducting our short (12 question) survey to collect information on which kinds of institutions are using Twitter for which purposes. Even if you don't use Twitter (or even if you don't know what it is) please take the survey. For those who don't use Twitter there are just three survey questions. 

Click this link to complete the survey:

Brief survey on Twitter in educational advancement

Thanks for your help! 

Watch this space for the new white paper in February: Alumni Networks and Twitter –An Update.

We Should Learn About Network Science

Last week I spoke at two events in Europe. First, Illuminate Consulting Group (I'm on their academic advisory board) and the Chronicle of Higher Education teamed up to deliver a day-long seminar for senior university leaders from the UK, Australia, Canada and other countries. Imperial College London hosted the program, titled How the Global Economic Crisis is Shaping Competitiveness Ten Years Out: International Recruiting, Research and Relationships.

Second, with Illuminate's founder, Dan Guhr, I spoke at the annual meeting of the European Association for International Education (EAIE) in Madrid. I first spoke at that meeting in 2007. The topic this time was technology's role in changing international student recruiting and alumni relations.

The presentations generated thoughtful discussion and useful insights (for me, anyway). The London program was convened under the Chatham House Rule* so I won't attribute specific comments to individuals. But here's a brief general treatment of one specific idea for readers of Alumni Futures. 

It's Time We Learned About Network Science

Both meetings last week consisted of multiple presentations stitched together by a single thread: how networks behave. Many of the discussions were built almost entirely on the idea of the many networks that hold together the educational disciplines: alumni networks, student networks, academic networks, research networks, business or professional networks – and of course, social networks.

This theme occurs more and more frequently in our professions, and that's one reason I write about it here. But mostly, I think it can help us be more effective at maintaining a useful role in the lives of alumni. (I also just think it's interesting.)

But only one of the presenters I heard explicitly acknowledged that we were talking about the formal aspect of how members of networks behave, influence each other, and relate. Of course, for decades (centuries, I suppose) we have known that we belong to networks – families, companies, towns, sororities, sports teams, graduating classes, political parties, religious groups, and more. But only recently have the structure, behavior and characteristics of networks under different conditions become a systematic scientific pursuit.

The mathematics behind network science is beyond me (which won't surprise anyone familiar with my academic achievements in that field). However, there is a wealth of accessible literature that explains in understandable ways what we do know about networks, and it is past the time for fundraising and other advancement professionals to learn about the simple ideas that underpin network science. Learning about scale-free networks, power law distributions, Metcalfe's and Reed's Laws, and more has completely changed my understanding of what alumni and student networks are, and what their members can do with them.

We constantly talk about "the alumni network" but I don't think we have a very good idea what a network really is, how it works, what its potential value is, and how networks evolve. Even common sense observations seem to be beyond some (otherwise sensible) people's ability to understand. For example, people often blame the network when they don't get results – in a job search, a business deal, or a simple referral. I've heard this from people who had recently joined LinkedIn, expecting job offers to appear with no effort on their part. One speaker in London said, "Networks don't fail. Network members fail." With a few specific exceptions, I think this is generally true.

Below are links to some general resources that you can use to get started thinking about networks. If you have your own favorite sources of information on this topic, or constructive criticism of the ones I've listed, please share links or citations in the comments.

• Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi
• How to Build Your Network by Brian Uzzi (Harvard Business Review)
• Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age by Duncan Watts
• The Network Thinker – a blog about self-organizing behavior in networks

In future postings I'll mention a few other ideas I absorbed at last week's interesting meetings. And I'll also talk about what might influence the success or failure of alumni networks in particular.

* At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, "participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed." The point is "to encourage openness and the sharing of information" at the meeting. Most people use the plural "Rules," but there's only the one rule.

Photo from the EAIE meeting in Madrid by Andy Shaindlin, all rights reserved.

Alumni Achievement Metrics and University Rankings

What makes a college or university "great"?

We all debate endlessly university rankings or "league tables." And a recent e-mail exchange with colleagues from US and UK institutions started me thinking about how we determine an institution's quality. 

We readily refer to "elite" universities and if asked to list, say, the top 25 schools around the globe most of our lists would overlap significantly, if not completely. You and I might disagree about whether a particular school should be in the top 5 or not, but I bet we'd agree on 20 of the names we'd list in our top 25.

But how do we "know" which schools are great? Along with whatever appears on the cover of US News or Times Higher Education, some combination of faculty notoriety, research output (including technology transfer), and admissions competitiveness play a large part. 

And then of course there is the graduates' success. But while we can read the annual rankings, and measure research output, patents and citations, how do we assess alumni success? 

Dan Guhr of Illuminate Consulting Group has mentioned to me that he sees alumni outcomes as a likely (if not inevitable) component of university ranking systems in the future. Any metrics around this would have to provide a quantitative (or rank ordered) proxy for categories such as

• alumni achievement
• alumni influence
• alumni network value 

We can probably propose arbitrary benchmarks for these kinds of categories in the form of ranges and ratios. For example, if "PhD completion" is an achievement metric, then we can measure the approximate fraction of our alumni who have completed a PhD within some finite period after we granted their bachelor's degree. This is just an example off the top of my head.

One survey that has started down this road is the Professional Ranking of World Universities (PRWU), established by Mines Paris Tech (also known as the École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris). They've selected a single criterion for ranking the "professional effectiveness" of institutions: the number of alumni from a single school who are CEO (or equivalent) at the "500 leading worldwide companies" as measured by annual revenue. 

They also quickly acknowledge the limitations of this specific model, but claim it is the only practical one that they can currently apply. The authors further admit that there is no way to measure, say, successful entrepreneurship among alumni:

The creation of companies by graduates could also be a relevant criterion to be taken into account but, once again, the data on an international level do not exist, and achievements (companies actually created) are difficult to compare.

This single criterion for business is no more flawed than the Jiaotong University Shanghai rankings', [link opens two windows] which award points for alumni receiving the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal. But saying "our survey is equally flawed, but in a new and different way" is hardly a defense of a system such as the PRWU. (A flaw of the Shanghai ranking is that they consider the total number of prizes won by a school's alumni – without accounting for the size of the alumni population. At tiny Caltech the chances that a particular grad has won a Nobel are about 1:1300; what's the ratio at other research institutions?)

So an obvious problem with the overall approach of using alumni achievement is that it will be extremely difficult to assess the prevalence of a particular outcome for an institution with poor data about its alumni. In the long run, however, this could exert pressure on institutions to invest in improved data collection, internal data sharing and data maintenance.

The email exchange that started me thinking about alumni achievement as a ranking criterion did indeed move on to a discussion of internal data processes and the lack of will that many staff members exhibit when presented with a chance to reveal meaningful truths about alumni by sharing and analyzing data. Perhaps that will provide me with a topic for a future blog post.

Do you think alumni outcomes can and should be measured as a proxy for institutional success? What should we measure, and how?

Also: Wikipedia article about rankings with links to a number of such schemes and outlets

Image of university rankings from Flickr user Mathieu Thouvenin via Creative Commons.

White Paper Available: Activating Alumni Networks with Twitter

[Updated 30 January, 2009 with link to comparison of Twitter directories.]

[Updated 2 June, 2009 with link to updated research on Twitter users and usage patterns.]

I am pleased to announce the publication of a free white paper on using the "micro-blogging" service Twitter to activate alumni networks. My colleague Elizabeth Allen and I have tried to capture a snapshot of Twitter, and explore its potential for higher education advancement.

About the White Paper
The main purposes of the white paper are to inform readers about what Twitter is, and suggest ways it might enhance relationship-building and alumni interaction. We did not intend to list the "right" and "wrong" ways to use Twitter, but we do share our opinions on what uses might prove effective. 

Twitter's development, role and uses are evolving so quickly that any description will soon be out of date. So we offer a look at Twitter's current status, with the hope that this serves as a departure point for your own efforts and ideas.

Don't know what Twitter is? Haven't used it? No problem; the first sections of the white paper give a crash course in what Twitter does and how it's used. The next section asks, What is Twitter's Potential for Alumni Relations?

And if you've been sitting back, wondering what to do with Twitter, we've included a short list of simple ideas to serve as a way to get started. We'll update this list periodically and I'll post new information on the blog, as warranted.

We close with links to potentially useful resources, including the names of other web-based communication platforms that you might want to explore.

Finally, we have included an Appendix with results of our recent informal survey on Twitter usage in higher ed. Our survey showed, among other things, that

• 20% of respondents had either never heard of Twitter or had heard of it but didn't know what it was;
• more than one-third of respondents are currently using Twitter; and
• about one-third know what it is, but haven't tried it. 

Which category are you in? I hope you'll leave your comments about the white paper, and about Twitter on the Alumni Futures web site.

Click the link below to download the white paper:

White Paper: Activating Alumni Networks with Twitter  [2.2mb PDF]

Note: Fans of Alumni Futures on Facebook always get a sneak peek at white papers before others. After we sent out a link to the white paper on Friday, we received our first reviews – appropriately enough, via Twitter:

 

And the folks at MrTweet sent a thumbs up as well: