Appendix E: Network Strategies
Use this section to determine the type of network is most appropriate for achieving your goals and to help troubleshoot common external factors that may impact your network-based programming.
Which Network to Choose?
Perhaps you already know what kind of network you want to choose from the outset based on the objective of your project. But in many cases, knowing the degree of coordinated action that is reasonable to expect is hard to predict during project design. Here are a few external conditions – those that are largely outside the control of an IRI project – that might help you decide what type of network to choose. Keep in mind, none of these conditions are universal and they may change, even during the life of your project!
Action Forcing Events – is there a good answer to the question “why act now?" Political, economic, or cultural windows of opportunity may provide the sense of urgency that helps empower coordination networks and incentivizes them to compromise on issues they may have otherwise ignored in order to achieve a result within a specific timeframe.
Experience with Coordinated Action – are potential network members already familiar with coordination basics and looking to have a greater reach or influence? In spaces where network members have limited experience with coordinated action or are generally low capacity, the skill and trust-building components of support networks may be a better first step.
Tolerance for Coordinated Action – do networks have meaningful space to act? Most coordination networks are intended to “scale up” the work that many people or organizations may already be doing on their own. Accordingly, closed and closing spaces pose unique risks to coordination networks in particular. For this reason, support networks may be a lower risk choice that still comes with the benefit of bringing together groups that may not have been able to safely interact without IRI’s support.
Consensus on Goals – are potential network members aligned on what goal they want to influence? When networks are composed of groups whose priorities may be at odds – for example government officials and civic activists - they might contribute best to a support network. In contrast, more homogenous groups or those where network members agree on an external goal are well suited for coordination networks.
Supporting New or Existing Networks?
Before deciding to begin a new network, ask yourself the following questions:
Is there already a group of people working on the key issues?
How long have then been operating?
Are the right people involved or can they be recruited?
Are any groups of people with a stake in the issue the network focuses on excluded from the current group?
Is the current group open to working with you?
Use your answers to the questions above to determine whether or not you can work with an existing network. If they exist, it is often best to work with existing networks because:
Trust between members already exists
Collective identity and or branding already exists
Interest and buy-in already exists
Therefore, supporting existing networks usually results in a quicker startup time to achieve outcomes. When you start a new network, you have to build in time to recruit members and establish trust and collective identity. That said, some existing networks are inactive, dysfunctional, or unrepresentative, so sometimes it may be better to “start from scratch.” Make sure to include a needs assessment (even if it is simple) of the current landscape as part of your proposal development or startup process when feasible.
Caveat: While spending time to build trust, developing network structure and deciding on network goals is important, one tradeoff is that focusing solely on planning can lead to disengagement. Consider implementing "easy wins" early on to keep participants engaged. The network facilitator should also consistently communicate the benefits of being a part of the network to members to help prevent disengagement.
In sum, if you care most about achieving external outcomes (those that go beyond the functioning of the network itself into what it actually achieves), supporting an existing network is often best, especially when there are time constraints. Conversely, if you care most about fostering new connections, and building a sustainable outlet for engagement – and if current networks do not already do this effectively - creating a new network might be best.
Network Troubleshooting
In some cases, external factors may arise that threaten your initial project plan and network operations. When this happens, it is important to think through how this may impact your network and adjust your programming accordingly. The table below includes some of the most common external factors that impact IRI programming and some suggested considerations for the program team to think through.
Networks In Closed or Closing Spaces
Evidence shows that a major factor contributing to the willingness of individuals to join organizations, networks, and social movements is the number and strength of the social ties that connect them to others in such groups. Therefore, the willingness of individuals to join organizations, networks, and social movements may differ greatly in closing spaces because opportunities to build social ties outside of the family (such as religious institutions, clubs, interest groups, online forums and other forms of associational life) are far fewer than in open spaces. Simultaneously, it is common for government repression to spur social movements and coalitions.
However, a recent USAID study on this topic notes that “Alliances and Coalition-Building among groups in civil society, both within and across borders, can be an important strategy for maintaining civic space in the face of democratic backsliding." Multiple studies confirm that where civil society groups form alliances, they are more likely to achieve success (Risley 2015, Kingstone et al. 2013, Fisher 2014, Schilling-Vacaflor 2011, Silva 2015). As a result, network building is arguably more important but also much more difficult in closed spaces and challenging contexts. That said, even when networks can develop and thrive in such spaces, the kinds of outreach and advocacy that they can conduct is limited.
For example, in some communist and post-Soviet states, “civil society” has often been functionally defined as “dissidents” or the opposition that wishes to overthrow government – even if their actual aims are much more modest. For instance, our case study in Burma found that the political context for work on religious minority rights was extremely hostile. Those who spoke out on these issues were assumed to be criticizing the government’s actions against the Rohingya Muslims. However, though circumstances may influence the kind of expectations we have for IRI programs around civic network-building and advocacy, they do not fundamentally change the basic structures and principles networks use, even if the risk factors and tactics are different.
Last updated
