Networks and Collaboratives

I will return to why I am doing this later. As I wrap up an online class I am teaching these posts will be less frequent.

Networks are a big deal in Public Administration, Policy, Sociology and Management studies these days. The informal, social connections among individuals and among organizations can create some interesting emergent qualities at the local, regional and network-wide scales. When speaking about collaboratives it is important to distinguish them from networks and understand how studying each can inform the other area.

Networks, as I just noted, represent a set of actors (either individuals or organizations functioning monolithically) and the connections between them. Initially the study of networks emerged as an attempt to go beyond simple two-actor relationships. A lot of research has been conducted in the field of organizational theory on inter-organizational behavior. This addressed questions regarding when and why organizations link together, share information, cooperate, or engage in joint ventures. This investigation was limited to direct connections between pairs of organizations. Beginning a few decades ago the research expanded to looking at weak links between organizations, or links created when two organizations are not tied directly to one another but are both linked to a third organization. Thus began the expansion of interorganizational research into how the overall patterns of links between actors influences individual actor behavior. In the area of public administration it was found that some network structures deliver services to the community better than others.

There are some key characteristics of networks I want to point out. First, they are informal. Networks are not built as a whole with an overarching agreement placing each actor in a specific position. The links between individual actors may be formal (like a contract) or informal (they are willing to share information with each other). The entire network structure emerges from these individual choices and actions. This leads to the second quality. The structure of a network, unlike an organization or contracted arrangement, is unintentional. There is no entity designing networks. Imagine if Zuckerberg picked your friends on facebook for you in order to maximize your social life. That isn't how it works. No one has a picture of a network in their head and then attempts to create it. If some third actors could mandate links between two other actors to influence the overall structure then this might eventually be possible. Connections between others is possible, but it requires that the third party be connected to the other two. It is like getting your significant other to connect to your friend's significant other on a social network. You can possibly make that happen through your existing connection to these people. The emergent pattern is not designed. It all happens one link at a time.

Collaboratives are very different than networks, specifically along the lines mentioned above. All actors who are involved in a collaborative share something with all the others. That is part of participating. The people involved may have other links but the collaborative brings all parties together to try and connect them all to each other. They are intentional. This group of actors are all present for a reason, and they build a structure of interaction with an end in mind. If you are on a community sports team you may be connected to each other informally through social connections. But this coming together on a team is intentional. There is a game to win. Each player may be involved for different reasons and have different levels of commitment to winning the game. There is a known, intentional connection between the actors and the roles that actors play within the group are in some way defined (formalized). The emergent pattern is designed and intended, much like building an organization or establishing a contract.

There is a lot of potential overlap in these concepts. Collaboratives could be studied as networks, focusing on specific types of links or ties between the actors involved. Individuals may be trying to build a network that benefits their position, recruiting and formalizing relationships with some intentional outcome. But conceptually they are distinct. This allows for an understanding of how informal, unintentional patterns of connectivity can result in different actors joining and engaging in a collaborative institutional arrangement. It also allows for an investigation into how intentional collaborative arrangements influence aggregate networks beyond those participating.

I am curious how network theorists imagine the application of what they research. The government can create incentives for some actors to connect with others, influencing network patterns. They cannot dictate the actual result. It is challenging enough to try and influence individual action let alone the aggregate behavior of a class of actors to a point that an intentional pattern of linked actors emerges.

Regardless, networks of actors can be a very important component of understanding collaborative institutional arrangements. I will be delving into much more of this during the upcoming semester and will follow up with what I learn.