Introduction

Within the already established field of education and organizational learning, concepts such as collaboration (Hargreaves & O’connor, 2018) and learning communities are not new when exploring practices in groups. Similarly, social network research, is an already explored pathway in several types of knowledge fields and with a variety of different purposes. Social networks explore relationships, their dynamic, and structure through stringent analyzes and data visualizations, and can be a powerful perspective on complex relational data sets (Borgatti, 2005). Presumably, relational data of this nature will only become increasingly more relevant in an increasingly changing world with complex environmental challenges. Science education plays a pivotal role in motivating children and young people to involve themselves as active agents to help think of possible solutions and pathways for the future generations. This paper discusses how knowledge emergence takes place collaboratively and across existing, collaborative practices. The discussion therefore centers around how specific inter-institutional groups of teacher educators are enacted, and together, form a professional learning network, and how the concept of social networks can help understand organizations and development of knowledge practices. The paper will present empirical results from a mixed methods-social network analysis of science teacher educators (STE), participating in the widespread initiative of NAFA (the Danish Academy of Science Education) (NAFA, 2020) across science education faculty in Denmark during these years.

Theoretical framework

Teacher educators are important actors in this equation as they are constantly navigating overlapping spheres; while teaching content knowledge (CK) to pre-service teacher students, they are also teaching them how to teach, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), while navigating their own teaching practice (Shulman, 1987). From an epistemological stance, and specifically in Schön terminology (2017), this is a type of first order-knowledge, technical knowledge, and a second order-knowledge, reflection-in-action, where practitioners think about their thinking and adapt in the moment accordingly. Studies about collaboration argue that factors to support development of teaching practices or the emergence of new knowledge, such as in a professional learning community (PLC) (e.g. Stoll et al., 2006) are crucial. While a PLC is a constructive collaborative setting for teachers and educators (ibid.) within the same contextual frame between teachers within the same contextual and educational frame, newer research suggests that a more nuanced understanding of what professional collaboration across educational institutions looks like and how it is enacted. A networked (Prenger et al., 2019) perspective on the relational dynamics and structures in an organizational education context can help to visualize and illuminate, how continuity (Carpenter et al., 2022), change (Liou & Daly, 2023), and organizational routines (Kiær & Albrecthsen, 2024), to foster a collaborative collective intelligence (Senge, 1990). A professional learning network (PLN) is according to Brown & Poortman (2018) bounded as any group of professional collaborating with other professionals outside of their everyday practice (Poortman et al., 2022). This requires intentionality and awareness of how collaboration is best enacted under these circumstances, or a collaborative network literacy (Brinks & Balslev, 2025).

Case description:

The STEs in this study are employed at Denmark’s six University Colleges, representing the entire population of this group. All participate in NAFA’s seven-year intervention, which emphasizes not only scientific knowledge but also the methods behind its discovery and its societal relevance (ibid., p. 4). Autonomous development of practices. in intra-institutinal, local PLCs, as well as inter-institutional, national PLCs, is centrally coordinated by NAFA. Its core assumption is that knowledge is built through peer interaction, aiming to establish a national network of science practitioners and faculty who challenge and enrich each other’s expertise.

To address the research question in this paper, social network analysis (SNA) serves as both a theoretical framework for understanding the ontology and epistemology of social networks and a methodological approach for analyzing empirical data. SNA is more than just a research method and methodology; it offers a perspective on the dynamics of professional relationships, ties between nodes (actors), while also providing a tool for mapping and visualizing relational data within a specific context. This study adopts a mixed-methods approach (Bellotti, 2021), integrating both quantitative and qualitative empirical data to construct sociograms (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). The primary data source is a survey administered in 2024 and 2025 to the population of STEs in Danish teacher education programs (70), which are based at university colleges across Denmark. Additionally, qualitative data – including program documents, interviews, and observations – inform the analysis. The sociograms form the basis for SNA, applying centrality and density measures (ibid.). Furthermore, the SNA visualizes key roles within the networks, identifying central and peripheral actors, knowledge brokers, and boundaries between groups. While SNA is a useful tool to visualize patterns of relational dynamics and structures, it is a highly contextual perspective which must for that reason equivalently be understood within a given frame. This can potentially effect reliability, as studies can be difficult to replicate. Simultaneously, a high reliability is not in itself important in this context, partly due to the small sample size (population size in this case) and partly since the case of NAFA is highly contextual, and results must therefore be translated to other contexts with that in mind. As the empirical data stem from a longitudinal study, the SNAs will expectantly have a high validity. The empirical data collected in the PhD project is an integrated part of the longitudinal research project LAVIN (Longitudinal Study of NAFA as a Knowledge Ecology) (Svabo et al., 2022). This paper presents preliminary findings, as the second survey is scheduled for spring 2025. More detailed results will be explored further at the conference.

The empirical data which inform the SNAs in this discussion, collectively provide visualizations of how knowledge is created and how it emerges intra-institutionally as well as intra-institutionally. SNA findings from surveys and qualitative data illustrate that the intra-institutional, the local PLCs, have strong ties between the actors, with STE from the same university colleges. Not surprisingly, the inter-institutional ties, the national PLCs, indicate weaker ties. Within institutions, educators frequently collaborate, while inter-institutional engagement relies on key individuals acting as knowledge brokers. Centrality analysis highlights a few highly connected STE who significantly influence knowledge flow and innovation, suggesting that strategic support for these individuals could enhance development of teaching practices. NAFA provides the structure, resources, and opportunities for PLCs, but inter-institutional collaboration requires more effort. The PLCs are collectively enacted more like networked PLCs or a PLN, and strengthening weak ties between institutions could enhance NAFA’s overall chance of lasting impact as well as collaborative and cultural embeddedness in existing practices. These initial findings validate SNA as a valuable tool for visualizing collaborative networks in science teacher education. The implications of this research underscore the transformative potential of PLNs in bridging institutional silos, cultivating professional agency, and advancing the collective capacity of educators to adjust to demands on science education. This paper contributes to understanding implications of enactment in complex organizational education initiatives such as NAFA, by highlighting strategies for developing inter-institutional collaboration to improve practices such as PLNs. It underscores the importance of understanding collaboration as a relational, second-order type of knowledge, or a collaborative literacy (Brinks & Balslev, 2025), and invites policymakers, educators, and researchers to consider how such networks can be leveraged to foster innovation in teacher science education. Further analysis in 2025 will expand on these insights and compare them with 2024 data. Research implications are discussed.

Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008 Brinks, T. M., & Balslev, G. M. (2025). Collaborative Network Literacy in Science Education Leadership: A Case Study of the Danish Academy of Science Education (NAFA). In G. Cakmakci & M. F. Tasar (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education Research: Connecting Science Education with Cultural Heritage (ESERA 2023). Springer. Brown, C., & Poortman, C. L. (2018). Networks for learning: effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement. In 2018 (1st ed.). Routledge. Carpenter, J. P., Krutka, D. G., & Trust, T. (2022). Continuity and change in educators’ professional learning networks. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09411-1 Hargreaves, A., & O’connor, M. T. (2018). Leading collaborative professionalism. Kiær, K., & Albrecthsen, T. R. S. (2024). Dynamiske rutiner: hvordan forandringer får fodfæste i organisationer. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Liou, Y.-Hwa., & Daly, A. J. (2023). The Relational Leader: Catalyzing Social Networks for Educational Change. Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/relational-leader-9781350336445/ NAFA. (2020). Naturfagsakademi NAFA: Et nationalt program for kvalificering af naturfagsundervisning i Danmark. Poortman, C. L., Brown, C., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). Professional learning networks: a conceptual model and research opportunities. Educational Research, 64(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1985398 Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2019). The Effects of Networked Professional Learning Communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117753574 Schön, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, 1–374. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473/REFLECTIVE-PRACTITIONER-DONALD-SCH Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art of Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching:Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/HAER.57.1.J463W79R56455411 Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 Svabo, C., Albrechtsen, T. R. S., Kiær, K., & Brinks, T. M. (2022). Længdestudie af videnøkologier i NAFA: projektbeskrivelse.