Implementing Networks
Use this section for advice on how to select network members, the kinds of activities networks can conduct, and how to adapt based on challenges and opportunities that arise in your program.
Network Structure and Engagement
Network approaches often rely on a key assumption – that network members will work together to achieve common goals. In fact, we know that getting actors to work together, even when they have common interests, is difficult even in the best circumstances. This difficulty stems from the collective action problem (for more information, see here). Implementing a DRG project that supports networks requires a number of strategic decisions to help mitigate collective action problems so your network can achieve results. A big part of success involves adapting to the preferred structure and engagement network that members are most comfortable with and best supports your (or your network’s) objective.
Structure: The degree to which the network has systems in place to communicate, make decisions, and take action
Engagement: The degree to which network members are engaged in its mission and work together cohesively
Below is a simple description of different kinds of networks based on how they function:
Once you are implementing a project with a network, you will probably be able to tell which quadrant it tends toward, but this is also something that you can influence via programmatic decisions. There are pros and cons to nearly all combinations of structure and engagement quadrants, with the exception of low structure/low engagement, which often suggests an “artificial” network that is not conducive to outcome achievement.
Below we summarize some of the pros and cons for different types of network structures, as well as guidance on programmatic decisions to help build or support a network effectively.
Findings from EDGE case studies suggest that network purpose and structure are linked, in that the specificity and technical complexity of a network’s goal may correlate with the rigidity of the structure necessary to achieve it. In one example, coalitions were working towards a relatively specific but technically complex goal - influencing a state level law and the policies around its implementation. In this case, clear roles and responsibilities were key because of time sensitivity of their goal and the fact that many tasks were not suited to all coalition members. In a different case, however, networks had a less specific and technically complex goal of creating space to operate independently and advocate for human rights in their respective sectors. As a result, these networks were able to achieve their goals, despite having a less formal hierarchy. In both cases, evidence suggests that clearly articulated and agreed-upon strategies for consensus-building and decision-making are the most important aspects of network structure, rather than traditional hierarchies.
Note 1: Network Function in Closed or Closing Spaces
Network building is arguably more important but also much more difficult in closed spaces and other contexts where coordinated action is repressed (for more on this, see here). That said, even when networks can develop and thrive in such spaces, the kinds of outreach and advocacy they can conduct may be limited, both by government repression and the viewpoints and capacities of network members. While our leverage over the former is limited, the latter is something we can account for in our programming approach. For example, consider asking network members directly how comfortable the feel coordinating, communicating, and making decisions. In a recent evaluation of network building in Cuba, we found that network members were intrinsically skeptical of decision-making structures that are viewed as too top-down or “authoritarian.” Such organizational governance was seen as undemocratic because decision-making power is not equitable across the organization. These network members craved clarity and some degree of structure, but not hierarchy. For this reason, consider supporting structures that spread power out more evenly across the group, such as federated systems. Keep in mind that while you may start with an “unstructured” network, it may be possible to switch structures over time as trust is developed among members.
Network Facilitator
Network facilitators are crucial for network success and sustainability. For networks that intend to conduct advocacy, it is important for the network facilitator to be seen as a recognized actor on the advocacy topic, have a history of working with others and be committed to the network and its goal(s). These characteristics encourage the participation of individuals and organizations that may not otherwise work together, help build trust among network members and contribute to external legitimacy of the network. The skills and commitment of the network facilitator often determines the sustainability of the network.
Make sure the network is prepared for the transition away from the support of the implementing/funding agency and/or network facilitator. A lack of preparation can severely impact the network's sustainability beyond the program. It is important to select facilitators that intend to continue working with the network after the project ends. If this is not possible, focus on developing the skills of the network members so they are able to take on facilitation once the program ends. Refer to the Networks and Sustainability section here for more information.
When selecting a network facilitator, consider the following:
Note 2: Facilitators in Closed and Closing Spaces
It is clear that facilitators play an important role and can contribute to or impede network successes. There are benefits to both in and out of country facilitators in closed or closing spaces as summarized below:
Regardless of physical location, being trusted by network members appears to be the most important quality of a facilitator working in a closed or closing space and the most difficult to find. When evaluating high risk networks, it is important to point out the depth of the word trust. Network members need to not only trust that they will not be betrayed to the government, but also that people are operating discretely and with intention towards a worthy collective purpose. This means that in order for IRI to successfully serve as a facilitating organization, they would have to find a way to gain people’s trust on this level.
In addition to trust, research suggests the following qualities are important for facilitators:
Experience working in a similar industry or towards a similar end goal.
Dedicated time to adequately engage with the network.
Ability to provide global perspectives.
Ability to provide out of country exposure.
Network Goals
Agreeing on the goal of the network is a crucial first step. While program staff will have a goal for convening the network, it is important the network members themselves understand why they are convening and what they are trying to achieve together. This ensures that network members understand both how they contribute to the collective goal and how this goal aligns with their own personal objectives for participating in the program. Generally, coordination networks need more specific goals to help keep group tasks focused. Support networks, with their more personalized approach, often have less distinct goals. Either way, if the network members don’t understand why they are a network (i.e., their goal as a group) then it may be difficult to secure and sustain buy-in.
How aligned should network members be on their goal?
When supporting a network, you can find members who already agree on a goal, but are not currently coordinating, or you can determine relevant voices on an issue and use the network to build consensus on the goal. This choice will depend on the external environment. Are there already people working on this issue that just need to coordinate? Or do you need to convince people to dedicate time and resources to this issue? Perhaps people are working on the issue but in need of specialized skill sets or different perspectives. Understanding network alignment early on in your project will help determine what progress looks like and what you can expect to achieve during the life of your project because building consensus on a network goal will require more time before higher level results can be achieved.
One thing we have learned from evaluations of IRI programs is that agreement on a goal is not the same thing as agreement on an exact set of policy preferences. In one anti-corruption network, the actors involved all had different opinions of what ideal anti-corruption legislation would look like. The goal they agreed on, however, was that they were willing to build consensus with each other in order to present a united front to the government to advocate for reform. In this case, understanding how they would resolve conflict and build consensus was more important to the success of the network than the specific aspects of anti-corruption policy they wanted to change
Beyond the pre-existing consensus on the goal, the type and specificity of the goal will also help determine who needs to be included in the network. For example, in the anticorruption example cited above, the network needed a variety of knowledge and skill sets to achieve their goal, including legal expertise, communication and press experience, and relationships with government.
For a further breakdown regarding the pros and cons of these aspects, see below.
Network Membership
Another set of tradeoffs you should consider when implementing your program is how you will select members of the network. The goal of the network will help determine who should be in the network based on the skills, knowledge, expertise, perspectives, connections or other resources you will need to achieve the goal. While member selection is obviously important for newly created networks, it also applies to pre-existing networks. For pre-existing networks, you should consider what skills or perspectives are missing that will help the network achieve its goal. Does the network need more legal expertise? Private sector clout? Religious leaders’ perspectives? Is its purpose to build consensus among a single, relatively homogenous group or introduce new viewpoints, connections, and resources?
Who should be in a network?
Beyond identifying the individuals or organizations that will help the network achieve its goal, there are other common choices for member selection. Do you want to work with elite, high-profile leaders or lower-profile, grassroots actors, or both? What about government officials or political party members? Depending on the goal of the network, the extent to which it is elite, grassroots, or some combination of the two will likely have major implications on the priorities and tactics of the network, as well as the willingness of members to participate in certain activities. Remember, just because a person or group is not in the network your program is supporting does not mean the network cannot work with them. For example, one evaluation we conducted found that connections and frequent communication with elected officials was important to the network’s success, but the elected officials were not part of the network – they didn’t attend network meetings, have a say in decision-making or have input on the network’s tactics.
How should network members be selected?
Perhaps counterintuitively, small networks may be more likely to achieve their goals than large groups. Fewer group members decrease organizational costs; small groups tend to be more homogenous in terms of interests and identities; and they make communication between members easier. This is particularly true for coordination networks. For more on how networks coordinate to achieve collective goals, click here.
Following this logic, large groups that federate (i.e., break themselves down into smaller administrative units) may have a higher capacity for collective action than large amorphous organizations. Similarly, “privileged” groups, those with a small number of members with a disproportionate interest and capacity to provide the public goods, may have a higher capacity for collective action than “latent” groups, those with large numbers of free riders and no privileged providers. For more on how networks resolve collective action problems, click here.
Recruitment Tactics
Below are a few recruitment tactics that can be utilized when supporting or creating a network. Before selecting a tactic, think through your program context and determine which of the following tactics is most likely to be effective. Keep in mind the contextual factors that may impact the effectiveness of each of these recruitment tactics.
Self-selection: Often, programs recruit members by issuing a call for participation, asking potential members to apply or volunteer for the network program. In this approach, the onus is on potential participants to initiate their own involvement.
Benefits: Applicants/volunteers may join with a “built-in” level of commitment, capacity, and reliability. Furthermore, application processes can further screen members for necessary skills, resources, knowledge, or experiences.
Cons: May reduce program impact if participants come in with the skills or experience, or capacity to produce outcomes that the program is intended to affect. For example, calls for applications for a professional development network may attract participants that are already highly skilled. A request for proposals (RFP) for potential advocacy coalition facilitators might draw applications from high capacity organizations that may already be doing the things the program wants to foster.
Skill-based recruitment: Depending on the network goal, it may be necessary to recruit members with a specific set of skills (i.e. accountants, lawyers, teachers). Specialized positions may include lawyers, accountants, health care workers, teachers, etc. Basically, anybody with special training that is directly relevant to the network’s mission.
Benefits: They can contribute specialized skills or guidance to assist the network in successfully achieving their goal.
Cons: The required skills may be difficult to recruit for and also, depending on the context, highly skilled people may be reluctant to participate in a network.
See Appendix A for an example.
Snowball recruitment: When network members recruit additional people based on their personal and or professional networks.
Benefits: There is a certain level of pre-established/assumed trust between members so this may decrease the lag time between recruiting members and achieving results (especially in closed and closing spaces). You can also gain access to people in ‘hidden’ groups who may have otherwise remained anonymous.
Cons: Snowball sampling is a form of convenience sampling, not all people are given the opportunity to join.
Incentive based recruitment: Have a clear mission and explain how members will benefit from participating in network activities.
Provide material goods or experiences in exchange for taking an action to advance group goals (e.g. donating money, signing a petition, volunteering for an event). Examples could include small gifts like branded t-shirts, backpacks, or water bottles or free access to group experiences like travel or excursions.
Use “social pressure” – individuals might be more likely to take action if they know their behavior is being observed by their peers. This approach could include providing a history of individual responses to calls-to-action (CTAs) or recruitment pitches that reference high levels of participation among one’s peer group.
Benefits: Incentives decrease the costs to individuals of participating in group action.
Costs: There is potential for blowback, depending on the nature of the incentive. Providing gifts or experiences in some circumstances might be perceived or characterized, especially by political opponents, as “bribing” participants. Social pressure carries significant risk of blowback if participants perceive their privacy has been violated.
Grafting: Integrate the program with networks, organizations, or institutions that already exist in the community. Examples may include partnering with local religious institutions to mobilize citizens around issue advocacy or partnering with a Ministry of Education to develop leadership networks.
Benefits: Existing institutions may have already developed mechanisms to solve free-rider problems. Churches, for example, can induce group participation in ways that development programs might not. Existing institutions may also be working at scale. A Ministry of Education, for example, can facilitate communication or recruitment with hundreds or thousands of schools throughout a country.
Cons: Existing institutions have their own goals and agendas. Partnering with existing organizations may limit possible program activities. Furthermore, existing organizations may use mechanisms, with which the program may not want to be associated, like bribery or coercion to induce participation.
Note 3: Membership Recruitment in Closed or Closing Spaces
Based on programming thus far, it appears that the trust-building and expectations-setting phase in closed and closing spaces is significantly longer for “from-scratch” networks, meaning that the lag between network creation and significant outcomes is much longer. In one scenario, the networks that were willing to publicly advocate (as intended) were pre-existing networks, while the newly formed networks either failed or operated as support networks. Therefore, for short term programs, IRI should work with existing networks. In cases where program staff want to start new networks, they need to ensure there is enough time to establish trust among network members before attempting any activities. When possible, recruiting through a snowballing method may help speed up the trust-building process since an existing member can vouch for them.
For more network strategies and considerations about which type of network may be most appropriate, click here.
Last updated
