Participation, relationships and dynamic change: new thinking on evaluating the work of international networks

This paper reviews central issues concerning the use of networks in the field of international development. Formal networks today have become a preferred organisational form for cooperation on a range of issues, and there are many advantages to a networked structure - not least the network's capacity to challenge and change unequal power relations. The authors therefore begin by stating that: 'If we are to find our way to counteracting the negative effects of economic liberalisation and globalisation, especially on the marginal and under-represented on the world stage, we need a greater understanding of how to build and sustain powerful networks based on the values of dignity in development for all.'

They continue by discussing problems and solutions for networks based on the four Ds used by Chambers in his participatory approach to development: diversity, dynamism, democracy and decentralisation. The paper then draws on several case studies and illustrative examples to highlight topics such as network relationships, trust, structure, and participation. They argue that trust grows as network members work together. They also argue that networks will benefit from evaluation of these various relationships and processes, and suggest a number of angles that can be used when evaluating networks:

• Contributions Assessment can be used to see where the resources lie in the network and whether the network processes have facilitated circulation of these resources.
  
• Channels of Participation mapping can help the network to understand how and where the members are interacting with the network, and what their priorities are.
  
• Monitoring Networking at the Edges will highlight how much 'networking' is being stimulated by the secretariat function and helps to assess the level of independent exchange that is going on.

A two-page checklist for networks is provided, with suggested evaluation questions covering the issues raised above. The authors then show why networked linking and coordinating can bring much added value to advocacy work, and summarise the reasons as follows:

• The improved quality and sophistication of joint analysis that underpins the advocacy.
  
• The extended reach to key actors in key contexts through which that improved analysis can be channelled.
  
• The capacity to act simultaneously, with shared ideas, in many places at once.
  
• The space for competing views to be discussed and consensus positions achieved.
  
• The opportunity for those with few other avenues to powerful decision-makers to gain access through the networked relationships.