HOW MIGHT BETTER
‘NETWORK THEORY’
AID ORGANISATIONAL AND
SYSTEM REFORM EFFORTS?
Mark Hadfield, CeDARE
NETWORK THEORY
• What are the key structural characteristics of
networks that affect improvement efforts?
• What forms of social relationships engender
collective responsibility for change?
• How could better theoretical descriptions of
individual’s ‘networked’ agency add to the
discussions of the leadership of change?
WHY DO WE NEED BETTER NETWORK THEORIES
1. The ‘Patina Effect’
A range of studies have begun to reveal how the
intersections and interactions between differing forms of
networks have substantially impacted upon reform
activities.
(Coburn and Russell, 2008; Penuel et al, 2010, Spillane et
al 2010)
?
WHY DO WE NEED BETTER NETWORK THEORIES
2. The extent to which leadership is
a social or personal phenomena
Research on the leadership of reform efforts have begun
to reveal how leaders at all levels use networks to draw
down support, from the emotional to the political (Ehrich
1994: Belcher, 1996) and exert influence (Friedkin and
Slater, 1994; Spillane & Orlina, 2005; Daly and Finnigan,
2010).
?
WHY DO WE NEED BETTER NETWORK THEORIES
3. Relative importance of formal and
informal leadership structures
There are still significant gaps in understanding how
leaders utilize different types of networks in their
leadership of reform efforts.
‘Frameworks for studying leadership activity are scarce, and
those that exist tend to focus chiefly on either individual
agency or the role of macro-structure in shaping what
leaders do.’ (Spillane et al 2009 p.4)
?
WHY DO WE NEED BETTER NETWORK THEORIES
4. A number of education systems, include
England, continue to experiment with
differing forms of collaborative reform
The success of these reforms that will depend upon the
building of complex mixes of personal and organizational
networks.
?
THE DOMINANT THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS LINKING
ORGANISATIONAL AND SYSTEM REFORM WITH ‘NETWORK’ THEORY
Reforms efforts are essentially defined by the nature and
pattern of the interactions that occur within them as these
shape and define its aims, culture, and ways of working.
(Brass, 1984; Brass et al, 2004; Kilduff and Tsai, 2003).
Research needs to focus on the relational, functional and
structural characteristics of such interactions.
Influence within networks is generally seen as being based
on the manipulation, ‘conversion’ and development of
social capital (Baron et al, 2000).
THE DOMINANT THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS LINKING
ORGANISATIONAL AND SYSTEM REFORM WITH ‘NETWORK’ THEORY
Putnam’s (1995: 66) definition of "social capital" is most commonly
used, the ‘features of organizations such as networks, norms, and
social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit’.
Leaders’ agency is constructed around their positioning within
networks, their ability to challenge or define norms, and the
building of trust.
Leadership roles are defined in terms of crossing boundaries,
brokerage, and facilitation within and between different groups.
(Hargreaves, 2003; Veuglers and O’Hair, 2005; Little and Veuglers,
2005; Kubiak, 2009).
THEORETICAL CONSEQUENCES NO. 1 – A MORE EXPANSIVE ACCOUNT OF THE
AGENCY AND STRUCTURE DEBATE WITHIN THE LEADERSHIP OF CHANGE
AGENCY = LEADERSHIP
Agency is the ability to act, the ability to act routinely or to act differently, the ability, in
principle- whether or not this ability is drawn upon – to act reflexively (or prereflexively) in
relation to the external and internal structures that provide the conditions of actions.
(Stones, 2001 p.184)
STRUCTURE = LEADERSHIP
‘Structure’ refers to the various elements which individuals must contend with when
forming action, from the tangible to the intangible, from things like classroom lay-outs to
world-views and cultural dispositions. ‘Human agency’ refers to the actions of
individuals within the context of (and, in fact, through) structure. …In this view,
activity is a product of what the actor knows, believes, and does in and through
particular social, cultural, and material contexts. (Spillane et al 2009 p.10)
THEORETICAL CONSEQUENCE NO. 2
A MOVE FROM MONO-TONAL TO MULTI-TONAL ACCOUNTS
MONO
EGOTISTICAL
PROFESSIONAL
FORMAL
CROSS-DISTRICT
PERSONAL
INFORMAL
INITIATIVES
Organisational >>>
Systemic
NETWORKS
Individual >>>
THEORETICAL CONSEQUENCE NO. 2
A MOVE FROM MONO-TONAL TO MULTI-TONAL ACCOUNTS
MULTI
Individual
Organisational
Systemic
Networked Agency
Five Theoretical
& Methodological
Limitations
Five Theoretical & Methodological Limitations
1. Actual mapping of interactions in networks still tends to be
mono-tonal and pays little attention to the intersections
between networks.
CONSEQUENCE
RESPONSE
We
also
to re-conceptualize
theways
‘multiplexity’
and
There
need
is aneed
to
failure
move
toaway
fullyfrom,
capture
regarding
the
leaders
in which
as ‘gap-fillers’
leaders
structural
plurality
oftheir
leaders’
network.
One
approach
would
be
drawn1992,
(Burt,
on and
2005)
utilise
or
‘integrators’
membership
(Lawrence
of
different
and Lorsch,
networks
1967).
to
treat
the
of leaders’
networking
- their
within
We
need
reform
lesstotality
static
efforts.
and
more ‘playful’
notions
of networked
individuals’
landscapes
- asnetworks.
structurally
akin more
to that
of ato‘social
system’
agency within
Acting
akin
organisational
(Giddens
1984) that
‘sit’ between
broader
‘entrepreneurs’
(Bartlett
and Dibben,
2002)social
who structures
consciouslyand
use
individuals’
collective
agency.
the intersections
between
their different networks to prompt
transitions and changes.
Five Theoretical & Methodological Limitations
2. The popularity of social capital theories and SNA leads to
greater emphasis on the spatial nature of interactions and the
not their temporal development.
CONSEQUENCE
RESPONSE
We require
Network
analyses
more theoretical
are insufficiently
insightsdynamic
into network
being merely
building and
structural ‘snap
transitions
in individuals’
shots’ thatmembership
fail to give an
of adequate
networks, in order to
understanding
develop
our understanding
of the fragility
ofand
howtemporary
to recruit and
nature
mobilise
of much
networking.
network
members. Possible alternative perspectives include
new social movement theory (Passy 2003; Klandermans, 2004)
which focuses on transitions between networks and the
development of activists.
Five Theoretical & Methodological Limitations
3. Functional analyses of network interactions tend to be restricted to
mapping exchanges of various forms of capital (information, support)
rather than focussing on qualitatively more complex processes such
as consensus building or joint practice development.
RESPONSE
CONSEQUENCE
Requires a change in root metaphor, away from treating ‘networking’ as a
There
aregame
relatively
few differentiated
accounts
of it as a generative
zero sum
of exchanges
and a move towards
seeing
and development
multi-layered phenomena
that iscultures,
capable ofprinciples
resulting in
culturally
the
of partnership
and
rules new
patterns
of activitywhich
within could
the network.
Thisdevelopment
move would beofinmore
line with
within networks
guide the
models
ofinteractions.
multi-level learning organisations (Hannah and Leaster, 2009)
complex
and practice-based, situated forms of knowledge that arise from collective
learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Stoll et al. 2005), as well as Engstrom’s
(2001) notion of expansive learning.
Five Theoretical & Methodological Limitations
4. Leaders’ agency tends to described by reference to their network
position and access to existing cultural capital, their ability to develop
new relationships based on trust and reciprocity, and the
manipulation of existing cultural norms.
RESPONSE
CONSEQUENCE
There is a need to recognise that individuals have the ability to use a
We
upofwith
over-socialized
accounts
of leadership,
and
wideend
range
structural
resources to
bring about
change and influence
other
within
thatorare
overly deterministic
others.individuals,
This range would
benetworks
from ‘deeper’
embodied
structures,
and simplistically
discuss
theto
impact
of social
tiesstructures,
and
based
on emotion and
identity,
‘broader’
or social
based
on cultural norms, social needs and affiliations, (Bourdieu, 1994).
exchanges.
Leaders within their own social systems have the capacity to draw in
resources, from the moral and symbolic to the political and cognitive,
from one network to another.
Five Theoretical & Methodological Limitations
5. Networks tend to be treated as benign forms, when considered along
side more bureaucratic structures. The wide spread use of Putnam’s
definition of social capital has also tended to restrict the exploration of
power relationships and underplayed the role of symbolic capital.
RESPONSE
CONSEQUENCE
There needs to much greater emphasis on how individuals’ within
There is very little tradition of studying the negative impact of
networks are able to disrupt existing assumptions, critically assess
networks
in education
andand
research
has‘homophily’
left unexamined
what
existing norms
and practices,
deal with
(Brass et
al,
could
described
as ‘structural
violence’
at silencing
2004). be
A possible
alternative
perspective
is 3rdaimed
generation
activity
and
excluding
others
and
maintaining
distributions
of
theory
(Engestrom,
1996)
and
the study ofunequal
contradictions,
as
power.
historically accumulating structural tensions, between different
networks of activity systems.