{"id":1661,"date":"2014-07-16T09:15:57","date_gmt":"2014-07-16T09:15:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lamagnetica.com\/museumnext-2014-through-the-prism-of-social-network-analysis\/"},"modified":"2023-01-23T10:58:35","modified_gmt":"2023-01-23T10:58:35","slug":"museumnext-2014-through-the-prism-of-social-network-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lamagnetica.com\/es\/blog\/museumnext-2014-through-the-prism-of-social-network-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Museumnext 2014 through the prism of Social Network Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Museum Next\u2019s Conference was held from June the 18th<\/sup> until June the 20th<\/sup>. Participants from all over Europe joined to exchange ideas on museum\u2019s innovation and technology, and we were able to follow this activity on Twitter.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

On June the 4th<\/sup> we started to monitor the hashtag #museumnext<\/strong> \u2013in order to analyse the movement that the conference was creating on Twitter\u2013 and we published a post in our blog<\/a> with the results prior to the beginning of the conference.<\/p>\n

So, now that the conference is over, we are going to analyse, using Social Network Analysis, the underlying relationships that have taken place on the #museumnext Twitter talk.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have collected a total of 7.359 tweets<\/strong> from 1.437 different users<\/strong>. Of all these tweets, over 85%<\/strong> have been published between June the 18th<\/sup> and June the 20th<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\"distribution-of-collected-tweets-per-day\"<\/a>\n

Every user has published an average of 5.12 tweets using the #museumnext hashtag.<\/p>\n

In order to represent the relationship between these users we have focused on mentions and retweets (RTs) on the collected tweets. We have created a graph where every node is a user that has done or has received a mention in at least one of the collected tweets, and every arrow indicates a mention or a retweet from one\u00a0user to another.<\/p>\n\"graph-museumnext-general\"<\/a>\n

This graph is formed by 1,604 users and 6,202 unique mentions and retweets between them (over 10,000 total). You can download the high-resolution image here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In this case, more than 97% of users are in the giant component<\/strong> \u2013which means that only 3% of users are not connected to the main component in the graph. We focus on the main component that includes all influential users and their conversations.<\/p>\n

MuseumNext and Museums and the Web<\/h2>\n

In order to help us understand MuseumNext\u2019s results (June), we are going to compare them with the ones from Museums and the Web (April) and Museums and the Web Europe (February). We do not intend to establish a ranking or saying which conference has had the greatest impact, but the comparison between conferences helps us showing their differences and similarities, and helps to make sense of some of the variables that otherwise may seem a bit too abstract.<\/p>\n\"conferences-table-comparison\"<\/a>\n

Museums and the Web<\/a> has had the biggest figures in terms of users and tweets. And the two European conferences have had very similar results: around 7,500 tweets by 1,400 users.<\/p>\n

The average distance is very similar in all three cases. 3.2-3.4 is quite a low average distance for graphs containing 1,400 to 2,280 users. That points out to the fact that all three conferences have done a very good job when bringing the museum community together. The diameter (maximum distance between two users) is also quite low.<\/p>\n

The similarities indicate a common behaviour within the museums\u2019 community, where there are no real competitors, and where collaboration and open discussions of museum\u2019s experiences are possible. When we analyse conferences about other sectors where competition is tougher, results are very different.<\/p>\n

But there also some differences worth noting:<\/p>\n