|
Summary of Cambodian Networks: Function
and Form
This page considers some of the key characteristics of the
structure of the Cambodian networks studied in this paper.
The grid below offers a summary of their internal and external
structure - incorporating the functions and external environment
discussed earlier as well as more detail on the networks'
structural characteristics themselves.
The objective of this particular study was to try to identify
some patterns or relationships between function and form.
In essence, which structural characteristics may allow networks
to carry out which functions? We recognise that it is difficult
to draw global conclusions from four examples from one country.
And that, in any case, these examples respond to a particular
external environment. However, we still think it is worthwhile
to detail some relationships between form and function that
might be relevant for other networks in Cambodia and elsewhere,
in similar contexts.
The following provide an annotated list of some of the characteristics
that seem, from the networks studied, to explain a particular
ability to carry out each function.
In an unfriendly context for policy advocacy like Cambodia,
where donors and policymakers foment competition rather than
collaboration and where social and cultural institutions make
it difficult for networks to operate as such, it is not surprising
that the networks studied seem more geared towards agency
roles. Their support roles are limited to capacity building
which, as we have seen, is not significant. There is, however,
a strong emphasis on centrally commissioning research to be
used in advocacy campaigns. This is perfectly understandable
in the context in which they work - although not necessarily
desirable.
Filtering
While all networks carry out some level of filtering it seems
that those where filtering involves a larger volume and variety
of sources and types of information share good communications
skills and resources as well as some level of capacity for
evidence-based policy influencing. Access to ICT is another
possible characteristic of good filters in this context. MEDiCAM's
efforts with new members by means of email on the importance
of being involved in the network is key to its dissemination
strategy.
The size and diversity of the network might also be a factor
of influence. MEDiCAM's members do not only demand but also
produce a great deal of information, which increases the level
of filtering required from the network. Often, the skills
to filter information are there but there is not enough to
filter. Access to it is essential, and this can be achieved
by larger networks (or links to others, such as in the case
of ECPAT Cambodia's relationship with ECPAT International).
Amplifying
In many ways, amplifying functions build on top of the skills
and resources necessary for filtering; after all, it is filtered
information that the networks amplify. Better communication
strategies are therefore necessary. COSECAM and MEDiCAM are
apparently better suited to this, with clear strategies and
access to the necessary staff, resources and funding. Better
communication skills are also seen in the better amplifying
networks studied, because their membership seems to be more
heterogeneous - and therefore demanding of more specialised
information.
At least in the case of MEDiCAM, participation in the activities
of the network is high. This in itself provides opportunities
for communication and sharing of information - at a relatively
low cost (word of mouth). COSECAM (and MEDiCAM to some extent
through its decentralised structure) has a heterarchical structure
(in which particular skills are held in different parts of
the network) and hence the amplification function is decentralised
and closer to the end users.
Another characteristic, in the case of COSECAM, that seems
important is the level of relevance that the network's research
and advocacy activities has for the end users. COSECAM's research,
it appears, is demand driven and therefore has an additional
incentive to amplify its findings 'downwards'.
Convening
Convening functions are expected to require similar but more
specialised and deeper skills and resources from those necessary
for filtering and amplifying. Convening networks need to filter
and amplify information for very different types of audiences
-and must do so in a differentiated manner. It helps, therefore,
to have a heterogeneous and demanding membership. This, as
well as the level of decentralisation or heterarchy of the
network, its involvement in various stages and levels of the
policy process, and the levels of participation by its members
can be seen as incentives to acquiring the necessary convening
skills and resources.
Again, it is MEDiCAM and COSECAM that show more developed
convening functions. They show good networking, management,
logistical and fundraising skills, which are consistent with
the capacity to organise large events or manage long-term
processes of partnership building between different groups.
These organisational skills need to be complemented by excellent
communication skills and resources, clear roles and responsibilities
among the members (hence participation and governance agreements
are important) and overall secure long-term funding, since
convening functions may take more than a few years to master.
Investing/providing
All networks invest in their members by providing them with
support through capacity building. Only COSECAM seems to use
the network to distribute resources for its beneficiaries.
What seems to sets COSECAM apart from all the other networks
is its explicit demand-driven approach to its work and the
existence of decentralised sub-networks. This leads to decentralised
decision making and more command over the processes of funding
distribution. In any case, this requires strong fundraising,
management and financial skills that are not common in all
networks studied.
It is slightly surprising that more resources do not flow
from the secretariats to the members (or that this does not
show more prominently in the analysis of the networks). In
a context of low resource and capacity levels outside Phnom
Penh, it could be expected that a key role for civil society
networks would be to attend to this. Emphasis, however, seems
to be towards agency, driven from the Secretariat itself.
This is consistent with the analysis of the external environment,
in particular by the issues around lack of trust (which might
explain why there is little systematic effort to decentralise
skills, power and voice through capacity building); an aversion
to 'losing face' by asking for help; and the highly centralised
decision making structure of the public sector.
In the absence of stable financial support, membership fees
(or at least the ability to pay from some members and capacity
building users) can help a network to set up and implement
capacity building programmes. On the other hand, a strategic
use of the filtered information can be seen as a providing
function (provision of knowledge).
Community building
Surprisingly, the studies did not identify any community
building functions although, it could be said that the networks,
through their formation, have fulfilled it already. The focus
on agency roles, amplifying functions and the hierarchical
structure of the networks support the findings. It is difficult
to build a community with strongly hierarchical structures.
The more decentralised networks, on the other hand, can move
from a situation of a leadership-based network to a community-driven
one.
It also difficult to build communities in a context in which
interpersonal relations are week as in Cambodia. Lack of trust
means that rather than dedicating resources towards building
stronger relationships between the members, these are spent
in vertical solutions or strategies led by one or a few members
or the secretariat. This can also have an effect the whether
the network amplifies information out or inwardly; the distribution
of resources though investing in network members and the sharing
of information for filtering.
Facilitating
Facilitating functions are difficult to place. They are often
confused with the other functions. The main difference is
that facilitation is about helping the members carry out their
own work, where the other functions are about the network
as an entity and not about the members. Hence, the more decentralised
and the stronger and more self-sufficient the members are,
the more likely they are to develop facilitation functions.
Facilitation requires an understanding between the roles of
the network and its members (hence a clear governance agreement
and membership criteria and responsibilities).
Facilitation also requires facilitation and other specialised
skills held by the Secretariat, which can be accessed by the
members when they require them. It could help, therefore,
if the members had access to funding to pay for these specialised
services (either directly from their own donors or though
the network).
Back to Cambodia networks research
Networks study index
|
