A digital world is a networked world, where the structure and flow of information can shape an issue, sometimes more than the ideas themselves. Across our daily and increasingly digital conversations, the ways that different perspectives and ideas are brought into these discussions can determine our future. These include our exposure to new voices and ways of thinking, and the potential impact and influence these new views can have on our overall perspective.
We use network mapping to understand the infrastructure that brings these issues to life, identifying the actors that are central to the issue’s narrative and how they relate to one another.
The first question we ask ourselves when we have mapped a given issue is whether or not the network it supports is strong or weak. Answering that question is integral in establishing both the overall strategy and developing supporting tactics for how clients can engage the network in a beneficial way and achieve their over-arching goal of uniting each actor within the network.
Handshake’s Definition: Strong vs Weak Networks
A strong network is one that is able to incorporate new voices and generate innovative thinking. It reflects a resilient community that is not overly reliant on a small number of gatekeepers or easily diverted to a single actor’s purposes.
A weak network is a community that is largely disconnected from one another and working in isolation. This network is easily dominated by a small set of interests, does not encourage or produce innovative thinking, and is unable to achieve transformational change because of its lack of inertia.
Each of us has been a part of both a strong and a weak network. Local religious and community groups are examples of strong networks. They are a set of connections where everyone knows each other, information is easily accessible, and members have the freedom and flexibility to quickly actualize an idea. A bureaucracy is a classic example of a weak network, purposely created to control the flow of information and prevent corruption. It also reduces innovation, discourages collaboration, and eliminates opportunities for quick action.
Building Influence and Strengthening Reputations in Networks Our clients’ objective is to understand how to develop their influence and reputation in a given community, and position themselves as a trusted broker among their peers. The pathway to do this looks very different in a strong network compared to a weak network.
In a strong network, influence is built and reputations are strengthened by tapping into an existing community of innovators and contributing to the central discussions that are most relevant within the network.
In a weak network, the infrastructure to build influence and reputation does not exist and the barriers to entry are higher. A small set of dominant actors control the narrative and prevent the organic growth of the community. Oftentimes, these networks lack additional conveners that can connect innovative voices and link multiple topics together within a given issue.
Within a weak network, our clients must envision ways of strengthening the network and acting as catalysts, establishing ways to support ideas held by the existing dominant actors while bringing new players to the table to generate innovative thinking. Through that process they become trusted brokers who can make a strong impact on their network.
Analysis: Defining Network Strength
To define the strength of a network, we look at four overarching sets of criteria that lead to an overall Network Strength Score (NSS)[1]:
Our clients’ objective is to understand how to develop their influence and reputation in a given community, and position themselves as a trusted broker among their peers. The pathway to do this looks very different in a strong network compared to a weak network.
In a strong network, influence is built and reputations are strengthened by tapping into an existing community of innovators and contributing to the central discussions that are most relevant within the network.
In a weak network, the infrastructure to build influence and reputation does not exist and the barriers to entry are higher. A small set of dominant actors control the narrative and prevent the organic growth of the community. Oftentimes, these networks lack additional conveners that can connect innovative voices and link multiple topics together within a given issue.
Within a weak network, our clients must envision ways of strengthening the network and acting as catalysts, establishing ways to support ideas held by the existing dominant actors while bringing new players to the table to generate innovative thinking. Through that process they become trusted brokers who can make a strong impact on their network.
Analysis: Defining Network Strength
To define the strength of a network, we look at four overarching sets of criteria that lead to an overall Network Strength Score (NSS)[1]:
- The network density (degree of interconnectivity)
- The degree to which innovators are isolated
- The reach and redundancy of conveners
- Network inequality
These metrics paint a clear picture of the relative strengthen of a network, telling us how collaborative and innovative the network is compared to how unequal and monopolized it is.
To illustrate this point, we have shown two networks and corresponding Network Strength Scores. You will be able to quickly see the difference between a strong network and a weak one:
TERTIARY EDUCATION FOR REFUGEESSTRENGTH SCORE 0.09
SDG 3 | HEALTH STRENGTH SCORE 2.31
[1] Handshake’s Network Strength Score is compiled by taking the ratios of strong indicators and dividing them over ratios of weak indicators. Because 99% of results fall between 0 and 3, the range in Handshake’s scoring model is between 0 and 3.
Tertiary education for refugees, as specialized as it is, is an incredibly siloed issue dominated by the UN and the World Bank. Advocates and innovators are disconnected from their larger approach. This network lacks more trusted conveners and stronger ties across issue areas. Anyone seeking to influence this issue will need to bring together existing conveners, as well as isolated communities, as a necessary first step to shaping the narrative.
The issue of global health as embodied by SDG 3, is an example of a strong and healthy network with multiple central actors who are widely connected to innovators across issue areas. This network brings together a diverse set of views around the complexity of different health challenges and their relation to one another. A strong network like this will have multiple points of entry, greater opportunity for meaningful partnerships, and a commitment to bringing innovative ideas and solutions to fruition.
In conclusion, understanding what kind of network underlays a given issue is often more important than understanding the nuances of the issue itself. If you want to make a better world, start by making a better network to support it.