At the end of each interview, we would like to generate a printout of the sociogram screen to give participants as well as store digitally for our study records. Is this functionality possible?
At present, the software does not support exportable sociograms or network visualizations. Taking a screenshot of the stage and printing that way/saving the file for your study records might be your best option. You might also consider importing Network Canvas data into a tool specifically designed for network data visualization (e.g., Gephi)
You may have already explored the Narrative interface which allows you to visualize a participant’s network in different ways by toggling on or off a variety of ‘presets’ (alter attributes, alter-alter ties, etc.). This could be another interesting visual for participants, but again would require the same workaround of utilizing the built in screenshot function of your operating system.
Hello - I was wondering if this is still the case or whether printing the sociogram is now possible? I can do the workaround but was just wondering.
HI Alison!
We stopped developing new features for the desktop software when the grant ended in 2022. We only have the immediate resources for bug fixes for now.
It would be relatively easy to implement this feature if you wanted to sponsor the development. Alternatively, since all the software is open source, you could have a go at adding it yourself. If either option interests you, please feel free to email me at joshua@northwestern.edu.
Hi Joshua - this relates to something our team has been thinking about for a while. Do you all have a fee schedule that you use? Are there standard costs involved with something like this? Something like an x hours of development = x? Or is it on a case-by-case basis?
Hey @AaronGuest - its basically a case-by-case basis.
For something like this, we would talk about the requirements and make a proposal based on an estimate of the hours involved. Then, depending on the scope, we might do a sub contract between institutions (we are mostly employed by Northwestern University and the University of Oxford), a contract with our not-for-profit, or an arrangement with an individual developer directly (usually me). Small stuff like this is usually best with the latter option.
As a recent example, a researcher paid to have the min/max alters on the name generator feature, and I implemented that myself on my own time for around $1,500.
You can also hire your own developer(s) to implement things, but you obviously have to weigh up any hourly cost savings vs them having to work out how the software works, first. I will always try to answer questions from external developers to help them where I can, but it will only ever be as my time allows.
Always happy to chat on a zoom call or via email about any of this.
Hi Joshua -
That is helpful to know. In one of our last grants we included funding for development cost for a variety of different things - which could include this if we receive. It. It is good to know there are variety of options.
One additional question: With these edits and changes, do they get shared? Or placed in a repository of some sort? I am just wondering if we add something, can it be shared/made available for others?
Thank you @AaronGuest and @Joshua for your responses. It’s great to hear that there is interest and potentially that this might be developed. Please do keep me posted. I don’t have funding to develop it but am interested. Thank you!
Absolutely! As the lead developer (and author of much of this software), I am 100% committed to the software being free and open-source. All the code for these apps is publicly available on our GitHub page and is licensed in such a way that it will always remain free. It is a key principle of this project, and a personal principle of mine.
As for if something that you paid to have developed would be included in the main releases, that depends on (1) if you would allow it (we can’t control code you own), and (2) if, as a community, we feel that the feature is implemented well and generalisable enough to be useful (so, not something coded poorly, or only suitable for one specific study, as this would defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do).
We would obviously strongly prefer that all enhancements be merged in and made public for all users, and would be very reluctant to take on the work ourselves if this were this not the case.