Comments on: Latest in “aid net-oric”?

By: rick davies

rick davies — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:39:55 +0000

1. There are two alternative views of networks (amongst many others): (a) networks can be seen as an alternative organisational structure to hierarchies, (b) networks can be seen as a way of viewing all kinds of structures. In the latter case, which I find most useful, hierarchies can be seen as a sparsely connected type of network, whereas teams can be seen as a densely connected type of network. They have their respective strengths and weaknesses, which have been extensively researched over the years.
2. Re your question: “Is there a shared understanding of what networks are, and their implications for the aid system? Or is this just the latest in a long line of “aid net-oric”?” The best way to make (and observe) progress here is through empirical research and evaluation activity, on the specific nature of different network structures, and their causes and consquences (including the attributes of the actors involved <- Doug's value concerns).

By: bramalingam

bramalingam — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:18:57 +0000

Doug,

Thanks for the response – fantastic. I fully concur with your points, especially when you write “if emergence and complexity are to be authentically worked with then we need facilitative leadership, open and equalising communication systems and sufficient investment in collaborative learning and thinking processes”.

A more recent Aid on the Edge post quotes Cynthia Kurtz, co-developer of Cynefin, on exactly this issue:

“Emergence requires presence. It requires awareness, negotiation, the building and verification of trust, the mending of fences when they need to be mended and the removal of barriers when they obstruct. Most people do emergence well, but rarely without effort. If it is without effort, it is more likely to involve following instructions, not participating in emergence.”

Click here for the full post: http://aidontheedge.info/2010/08/06/complexity-crises-and-moving-beyond-recipes/

Ben

By: Doug Reeler

Doug Reeler — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:19:04 +0000

Network and complexity thinking are all very interesting in that they reflect more accurately (than logical matrices) the wider structural relationships, dynamics and flows of human process – but if described and worked with in isolation from cultural, principle- and value-laden relationships and processes, inside and between people ie the invisible world of fear, doubt, crisis, love, courage, trust, greed etc. then they are still shallow and instrumentalist. This is where the real work happens – not in new ways to plot and plan.

The way we plan, monitor and evaluate must be part of our practice, as supportive processes. Logical Frameworks have become our practice and I fear that the same will happen with new frameworks that are introduced.

What makes any social-living-system work is not how cleverly it is conceived and mapped but how wisely and mutually it is understood and valued, enabling those who have and take leadership to see and work with what is there and what is possible, and with each other. If emergence and complexity are to be authentically worked with then we need facilitative leadership, open and equalising communication systems and sufficient investment in collaborative learning and thinking processes (conversations actually). A sufficient level of trust and trustworthiness needs to be cultivated. Then networks will emerge and self-organise in healthy and more open ways (they do already, but get obstructed by instrumentalists!)

Most importantly we need to understand the time and culture of marginalised communities, supporting their initiatives and helping them to understand and grow networks that they find empowering.