1
Networks In Education: An Analysis Of Selected Discourses
Sofia Branco Sousaa, Alexandra Alves Oliveirab and Helena Costa Araújob
a CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, University of Porto and
University of Aveirob CIIE - Centre for Research and Intervention in Education, University of Porto
Corresponding author: Helena C. Araújo, CIIE – Centro de Investigação e Intervenção
Educativas, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Universidade do Porto, Rua
Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
2
Networks In Education: An Analysis Of Selected Discourses
Abstract “Network” is a fashionable and current term in every field of contemporary
society and education is no exception. In this paper, the concept of network (and other
associated concepts, such as partnership and collaboration) are reviewed. Such
revision regards selected theoretical contributions and is explored in terms of the use
of the concepts in educational legal documents and in the discourses of aldermen and
educational administrative staff from Portuguese municipalities, offering a critical and
multi-layered perspective. The analysis reveals the various layers of the network
concept, often appearing vague and diffuse. It is a floating signifier disputed by
different discourses and embodied by different meanings. This, in turn, brings major
research problems linked to the use of the concept of network in education.
Keywords Networks, Education, Discourses
Introduction
This paper explores the concept of network in education. This undertaking is certainly a
challenging enterprise as the term is fashionable – a “buzz word” that needs to be analysed
and viewed in relation to the diverse contexts in which it appears to have meaning. The
Portuguese context is no exception, being one in which the word is widely used, in education
as in other fields. Thus, the term is analysed here in several discourse productions: in selected
specialised literature, in Portuguese legislation and as it is produced by aldermen and
educational administrative staff of Portuguese local authorities.
This is part of a major financed project entitled ‘Building local networking in
education? Decision makers’ discourses and strategies on school achievement and dropout’1.
This project aims to analyse the involvement of Portuguese local authorities in the promotion
of school achievement through networks constructed among different local entities. To
identify and to characterise the perspectives produced by municipalities around these issues is
the core of the project, as well as understanding the impact of those near parents’ associations,
school management and teachers.
1 The project is funded by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [The Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology] (PTDC/CPE-CED/104460/2008). The research team is composed of 13 researchers from three research centres: the Centre for Research in Education of the University of Porto (CIIE-FPCEUP), the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon (IE-UL) and the Centre for Trans-Disciplinary Studies for the Development of the University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (CETRAD-UTAD).
3
For a review of the contributions that use and extend the concept of network, it is
relevant to explore the discourses produced in different Portuguese national and local social
contexts. This is because networks in education are often read as able to contribute to the
well-being of pupils and teachers and the betterment of schools and education (see Chapman
2008; O’Brien et al. 2009; Chapman et al. 2010; Chapman and Hadfield 2010a, 2010b;
Araújo et al. forthcoming; Busher and Hodgkinson 1996; Heath, Fuller and Johnston 2009).
Here the aim is to explore s the diverse discourses produced by different entities in relation to
networks and networking. Hence, in the first part of the paper, a review of selected
contributions on the network concept is provided. More specifically, the concept of network
and some associated concepts, such as partnership and collaboration, are considered. The aim
is to shed light on what, academically, is defined as a “network”. Secondly, Portuguese legal
documents, such as the Social Network Program legislation are discussed. Thirdly, interviews
conducted with aldermen and educational administrative staff from Portuguese municipalities
are analysed. Finally, the “discursive battle” over the “true” meaning of networks in education
may become apparent.
How Is Network Used As A Concept?
In the revision of the network concept, we have selected three main theoretical contributions
based on their impact on social theory. The Network Society of Manuel Castells was selected
due to its contribution to the decrease in the ambiguity of the network concept, as Latour
(2007) argues. The Actor-Network Theory developed by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and
John Law was chosen due to its controversial and distinctive character. Social Network
Analysis, which can be traced back to authors such as Samuel Leinhardt, was selected due to
its methodological application in measuring networks. Each of the selected theoretical
contributions will be explored briefly, focusing on the network definition and its core
dynamics.
The Network Society
Although the network concept can be traced back to authors such as Leinhardt (1977),
Marsden and Lin (1982), Freeman, Romney and White (1982), Berkowitz (1982) and Burt
(1982), the term “Network Society” coined by Manuel Castells is original in terms of
identifying the use of networks as a means of understanding contemporary human experience.
4
The author talks about the way in which digital networking technologies, characteristic of the
Information Age, have strengthened social and organisational networks (Castells 2010, p.
xviii). A network can be defined, according to Castells, as a “set of interconnected nodes”,
where “a node is the point at which a curve intersects itself” (Castells 1996, p. 501). It is
argued in the conclusion of the first volume of his 1996 book, The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture, that “networks constitute the new social morphology of our
societies” (Castells 1996, p. 500), modifying the processes of production, experience, power
and culture. One can speak of different kinds of nodes depending on the type of network. To
clarify what is understood by a node, one can refer two examples given by Castells et al.
(2006). A node can be defined as a set of individuals who own a mobile phone in a society
where its use is valued and scarce (Castells et al. 2006), or as airports when referring to
professionals who often travel (Castells et al. 2006). When considering, for instance, political
networks in education, the nodes might be teachers, students and the ministry of education.
Actor-Network Theory
Actor-Network Theory is usually known for the controversial argument concerning the
agency of non-humans, assuming that many relationships are both material (with things) and
semiotic (with signs and their meaning). The works of Michel Callon (1999), Bruno Latour
(1999, 2007) and John Law (1999) are based on this theoretical approach. As an anti-
essentialist movement, it does not differentiate between agency and structure, or between
micro and macro levels. The core concept of this approach is translation, also called sociology
of translation. Translation is a kind of interaction in which actors construct common
definitions and meanings in processes of re-interpretation, re-presentation and
appropriateness.
Networks can be defined as temporary formations linked through processes of
translation. The objective of Actor-Network Theory is to understand how these formations
come together and manage to hold together, considering issues of counter-networks.
The controversial aspect of Actor-Network Theory also derives from certain
statements by Bruno Latour when he contended in 1999 that there are “four difficulties [with]
Actor-Network Theory, that is the words ‘actor’, ‘network’, ‘theory’ – without forgetting the
hyphen” (Latour 1999, p. 15). The author goes on to argue that the originality of Actor-
Network Theory relies on its conception as “more a method to deploy the actor’s own world
building activities than an alternative social theory” (Latour 1999, p. 15). This is particularly
5
controversial because scholars have appropriated Actor-Network Theory as a new and
revolutionary social theory since its appearance in the 1980s. The words of Bruno Latour re-
introduce to the agenda the modest contribution (if not the lack of contribution) of Actor-
Network Theory to social paradigms.
Social Network Analysis
Although authors such as Steve Berkowitz (1982) have tried to emphasise theory and
substance when dealing with Social Network Analysis rather than treating the approach only
as a methodological tool, the most current use of Social Network Analysis is methodological.
In Samuel Leinhardt’s (1977) edited volume Social Networks: A Developing Paradigm, for
instance, Social Network Analysis was represented as a method of operationalising the
concept of structure.
In Social Network Analysis, a network is defined as a set of relationships among
interacting and interdependent units. These units are represented by two, three or more
individuals and/or organisations. Using Social Network Analysis implies an attempt to
measure the social relations established within a network. In this sense, a network can be
defined as a set of indicators or organisers (nodes) with relations (ties) between them. Usually
Social Network Analysis uses a visual representation of networks, a model or a diagram.
Social Network Analysis is used to analyse types of social dynamic, for example, issues of
centrality, the extent to which a node occupies a central position in the network with regard to
ties to other nodes, and density, the number of ties in the network divided by the maximum
possible number of ties2.
Considering the literature reviewed concerning networks, we can see that there is no
single answer to the question of what a network is. It is clear that the definition depends on
the theoretical lens. In Table 1, the three different definitions and dynamics regarding the use
of networks as a concept are summed up, based on the three theoretical contributions selected.
Table 1 Definitions and dynamics of networks
Perspectives Network Society Actor-Network Theory Social Network Analysis
Authors Manuel CastellsBruno Latour, Michel
Calloun and John LawSamuel Leinhardt
2 For further developments in Social Network Analysis, see for instance, Vardaman et al. (2012), Lamertz and Aquino (2004), and Heath, Fuller and Johnston (2009).
6
Perspectives Network Society Actor-Network Theory Social Network Analysis
Network definitionSet of interconnected
nodes
An assemblage of material
brought together
Set of indicators or
organisers with relations
to each other
DynamicsDistance between two
points
Temporary associations
and counter-networks
Social relationships within
a network
The different definitions and dynamics of networks as shown in Table 1 illustrate that
discussing the concept of network without tracing its theoretical background can be a bias
enterprise. With just those three theoretical contributions in mind, a network can be an
interconnection of nodes, an assemblage of materials (things and people) brought together, or
even a set of organisers that relate to each other. There is no single dominant discourse
relating to networks, rather a plurality of perspectives. This is amplified still further if we
consider two associated concepts of the network concept: partnership and collaboration.
Associated Concepts: Partnership And Collaboration
There are some concepts that are often associated with network, but do not correspond to the
definitions just reviewed. For instance, during interviews conducted in the ambit of the
project, we became aware that sometimes interviewees were speaking of other types of social
organisation when referring to networks. In what follows, we present the distinction between
the network concept and two associated concepts: partnership and collaboration.
Both concepts are approached as distinguishable by Carnwell and Carson (2008).
While partnership can stand for what something is (theory), collaboration relates to what one
does (practice). On the other hand, the two concepts are interconnected and present some
similarities. This is especially evident when approaching networks. As argued by Hall (1999):
(…) notions of collaboration, coordination and partnership are separate, though
closely related ideas within the emerging network paradigm. Networks refer to
the development of linkages between actors (organisations and individuals)
where linkages become more formalised towards maintaining mutual interests.
(p. 276)
7
Interestingly enough we can also perceive such interconnections in the definitions of
partnership and collaboration advanced by Carnwell and Carson (2008). The authors contend
that there are specific attributes that define what partnership and collaboration can stand for
(Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2 Defining the attributes of partnership
Partnership
Trust and confidence in accountability
Respect for specialist expertise
Joint working
Team work
Blurring of professional boundaries
Members of partnerships share the same vested interests
Appropriate governance structures
Common goals
Transparent lines of communication within and between partner agencies
Agreement about the objectives
Reciprocity
Empathy
Source: Carnwell and Carson (2008, p. 8-9).
Table 3 Defining the attributes of collaboration
Collaboration
Trust and respect in collaborators
Joint venture
Team work
Intellectual and cooperative endeavour
Knowledge and expertise more important than role or title
Participation in planning and decision making
Non-hierarchical relationship
Sharing of expertise
Willingness to work together toward an agreed purpose
Partnership
Inter-dependency
Highly connected network
Low expectation of reciprocation
Source: Carnwell and Carson (2008, p. 8-9).
8
The resemblance between the two concepts is particularly striking regarding the focus
on “team work”, “joint venture/working” and interdisciplinarity (“blurring of professional
identities”). The differences between the two concepts lie in their explicit governance
structures, “appropriate governance structures” in partnerships, and informality (“non-
hierarchical relationship”) in collaboration.
It is also possible to identify some evident tensions between, for instance, the low
expectation of reciprocation (which is an attribute of collaboration) and the reciprocity
embraced by the partnership concept. Additionally, partnership appears simultaneously as an
attribute of collaboration and as a concept “on its own” and this is debatable.
The above discussion reinforces the idea that not only is the network concept bias,
fuzzy and fluid, but that this is also the case for associated concepts such as partnership and
collaboration. This, in turn, contributes to the growing complexity of research and practice in
the field of networks in education.
The Absence Of A Dominant Discourse On Networks On Specialised Literature: So What?
From the discussion so far, it can hardly be argued that there is an established dominant
discourse about networks. This is due, as already stressed, to the fuzziness of the concept of
network, which is invested with very different meanings depending on which theoretical lens
and/or associated concept one is using. If we consider the different perspectives, a set of
articulations3, nodal points4, and dominant discourses can be identified in each. This is
relevant to the discursive matrix that emerges from the literature in the field. The scenario
could not be more differentiated (Table 4).
Table 4 Discourse analysis regarding networks (schematic representation)
Theories Associated Concepts
PerspectivesNetwork
Society
Actor-Network
Theory
Social Network
AnalysisPartnership Collaboration
3 The concept of articulations is used in the Theory of Discourse by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) as “every practice that establishes a relation between elements such that the identity of the elements is modified” (Phillips and Jorgensen 2002, p. 28).4 A nodal point is a concept used by the Theory of Discourse by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and stands for “a privileged sign around which the other signs are ordered; the other signs acquire meaning from their relationship to the nodal point” (Phillips and Jorgensen 2002, p. 26).
9
Articulations
Nodes,
individuals,
social
relationships
Production,
experience,
power-culture
Interactions,
belonging
Linkage,
translation
Black box,
dynamic,
negotiations
Connections,
failed
connections
Networks,
counter-
networks
Relationships,
units, indicators,
organisers,
position
Accountability,ex
pertise, joint and
team work,
blurring of
professional
boundaries,
shared interests,
governance,
common goals,
transparency,
communication,
agreement,
reciprocity,
empathy
Endeavour,
knowledge,
expertise, joint and
team work,
participation, non-
hierarchical,
sharing expertise,
agreement, trust,
respect, partnership,
inter-dependency,
connection, low
expectation of
reciprocation
Nodal Points Nodes Actors Units Linkages
Dominant
Discourse
Network as a
set of nodes
Network as a
temporary
formation
Network as
measurable social
relations
What a
connection is
What a connection
does
Resuming the former argument, in the Network Society, the network focuses on nodes
interacting with individuals and social relationships. There is a triad between experience,
power and culture that allows us to talk about the dynamics of interaction and, consequently,
the issue of (non)belonging to a given network. In sum, a network is here defined
predominantly as a set of nodes.
In the case of Actor-Network Theory, the actors are the centre, linked by the process
of translation. It is as if a black box exists, allowing a dynamic ruled by negotiations. In that
black box, there is an additional tension between networks and counter-networks as well as
belonging and non-belonging. The network is, above all, a temporary formation.
In Social Network Analysis, the unit seems to be the element that organises a network.
This is due to the exclusion of the individual as a unit of analysis and the focus is on
organisers and indicators, and their specific positions in a network. Networks are
predominantly constituted of measurable social relations.
Finally, both partnership and collaboration concepts are organised around “linkages”,
but differ at their core (due to different articulations) as the former concerns what a
connection is (how it is defined), whereas the latter regards what a connection does (how it
impacts).
10
This reinforces the argument that the network concept has several layers, appearing
vague and diffuse, depending on different discourses and different meanings. The analysis
conducted allows us to maintain that those different discourses and meanings are constructed
through (and, thus, depend on) the different elements articulated. From such articulations,
different nodal points result and, in the end, different discourses about networks compete with
each other. The diversity and differentiation of the network concept in the literature in the
field is rather fruitful and stimulating since different perspectives on the same topic afford
discussion and intersections. However, together with the fact that network is a “buzz word” of
contemporary society, this can mean that there is a risk of approaching networks as a
naturalised and consensual concept with no need for further clarification, which represents a
major research problem. It is as if we all – researchers, practitioners, and policy makers –
know what we are talking about when referring to networks and further, it is as if we are
talking about the exactly same thing. The case could not be more different.
Is There A Dominant Discourse On Social Networks And Partnerships In Portuguese
Legal Documents?
In the Portuguese legal documents reviewed, the expression “network” is linked to social
network and this in turn relates to the Social Network Program. The social network program
is analysed here in relation to three legal documents: (1) Ministers’ Council Resolution no.
197/97 (PCM 1997), (2) Normative Dispatch no. 8/2002 (MTS 2002), and (3) Decree-Law
no. 115/2006 (MTSS 2006).
It is important to stress that the three legal documents have different purposes. The
Ministers’ Council Resolution was established to introduce the social network as a legal
framework in the Portuguese context, considered here as Stage I of the legal framework,
whereas the Normative Dispatch is intended to support and operationalise the social network
program, here Stage II. The Decree-Law, established nine years after the first legal document
concerning the social network, intends to update and harmonise the social network as a “final
version” of the social network, here viewed as Stage III of the legal framework regarding
social networks.
The aim of the analysis is twofold: (1) to identify the concept of network as it is being
crystallised by Portuguese legislation; (2) to trace certain characteristics of the same concept
related to the concepts considered in the first section of the paper.
11
Stage I: Origins
The Portuguese legal documents on social networks have their origin in Ministers’ Council
Resolution (PCM 1997). In this document, one can find the main discursive matrix that
constitutes the foundation of the “social network” programme (Programa Rede Social) as it is
perceived by Portuguese legislation.
According to this, there is in Portugal a strong articulation between a “secular and
fruitful tradition” and a “wider solidarity”, which includes institutions and social action
groups and initiatives. It is stated that the “vital strength” of the social policy rests in, and is
preceded by, a “wide range of solidarity networks”. The recognition of the value of those
“solidarity networks” is assumed as the first step of this specific social policy. “Solidarity”
and “social protection” thus emerge as nodal points of the legal discourse regarding networks.
The “social network” is defined as:
[a] forum of articulation and congregation of efforts, of free adhesion for
municipalities and public or private non-profit entities that wish to participate.
The social network shall assume an active attitude to reach out to the various
entities that operate in the social realm, motivating their participation. (PCM
1997, p. 6253)
With this definition, which we have called Definition 1, elements such as
“articulations”, “congregation”, “efforts”, “free will”, “non-profit”, “active attitude” and
“participation” are articulated in order to achieve a concept of network related to “solidarity”
and “social protection” without ‘the creation of new agencies and a significant increase in
expenses’. The “social network” emerges in this discourse as a contribution to a greater
awareness of social problems and as an attempt at their resolution.
Additionally, there is an articulation within the issue of poverty eradication. This
document introduces the element of poverty eradication as part of the social network
definition, introducing what we have called Definition 2:
The set of the different forms of mutual help are termed social network, as well as
non-profit private entities and public agencies that work in the realm of social action,
and articulate between them and with the Government, their acting aiming to eradicate
12
or attenuate poverty and social exclusion, and to promote social development. (PCM
1997, p. 6253)
The goal of the social network is therefore articulated as “poverty eradication” and
“social development”. Regarding the level of network action, there is a clear focus on the
local: “It is desirable that the network develops from local to national scope, fostering
performances as integrated as possible” (PCM 1997, p. 6253). According to this, actions in
the social network are ruled by principles (Fig. 1). Such principles can be helpful in
comprehending some additional elements of the network concept as it is constructed in the
legal document.
Fig. 1 Principles of social network action (PCM 1997)
Considering the initial formulation of this Portuguese legal document, it is possible to
argue that the social network discourse was initially directed at groups affected by poverty
and social exclusion. It was constructed based on problem-solving situations and intended for
application at the local level. Having in mind all these principles and the arguments thus far,
one can contend that this concept is fixed around six nodal points: “solidarity”, “social
protection”, “poverty eradication”, “social development”, “local” and “problem solving”.
Therefore, it is our argument that this legal document is an attempt to establish the
network concept as a form of solving social problems, more specifically poverty and social
exclusion, privileging the local level.
Stage II: Operationalization
13
The second document that is the focus of this analysis – Normative Dispatch (MTS 2002) –
defines the Support Program related to the implementation of the social network. This allows
us to understand the nature of the social network implicit in the Portuguese legislation. In
what follows, two major dimensions of the Support Program are analysed: (1) “features” and
(2) “main goals”.
In terms of the “features” of the Support Program, some of the nodal points identified
in Stage I are reinforced. For instance, one can clearly discern the emphasis on the social,
through “social protection” and “social development” – “it’s an active measure of social
policy” (MTS 2002, p. 1086) –, the focus on “local” action – “focusing on strategic planning
of local social intervention” (MTS 2002, p. 1086) –, and the centrality of “poverty
eradication” – “aimed at greater efficiency in poverty eradication” (MTS 2002, p. 1086). To
“poverty eradication” are added two elements, also mentioned in Stage I but with a minor
emphasis: “social exclusion eradication” and “social development promotion”. On the other
hand, “solidarity” and “problem solving” – two nodal points identified previously – seem to
lose their importance in this legal document.
Additionally, in the Normative Dispatch (MTS 2002), three nodal points seem to emerge
from the analysis: “partnership” – “propels an extended partnership work” (MTS 2002, p.
1086) –, “diversity” – “comprises social actors of different nature and areas of intervention”
(MTS 2002, p. 1086) –, and “nonprofit” – “public and non-profit entities” (MTS 2002, p.
1086).
With respect to the main goals of the Support Program, they mainly reinforce the
focus on “partnership” and the “local” level:
to develop an effective and dynamic partnership that combines the social
intervention of various local actors; to promote an integrated and systematic
planning of social development, enhancing synergies, skills and resources at a
local level. (MTS 2002, p. 1086)
Hence, one can maintain that the network concept is fixed around eight nodal points:
“social protection”, “social development promotion”, “social exclusion eradication”, “poverty
eradication”, “local”, “partnership”, “diversity” and “nonprofit”. It is our argument that
Normative Dispatch (MTS 2002) is an attempt to establish the network concept
predominantly in terms of partnership work.
14
Stage III: Final Version
The third document (MTSS 2006) was elaborated based on the argument of a “real need” for
a “legal instrument” in order to allow harmonisation, both in working models as well as in
process planning. It “establishes the principles, purposes and aims of the social network, as
well as the establishment, functioning and competence of its organs” (MTSS 2006, p. 4276).
The focus here is only on the principles, purposes and goals as they relate to the network
concept when compared to the issues of constitution, operation and skills.
According to this legal document, the social network is considered a partnership,
articulated – “updated” as stated in the legal document – with the promotion of gender
equality in mind. There is also the introduction of articulations between “poverty”/ “social
exclusion” and specific groups such as the elderly, the disabled and migrant populations. The
focus on the local dimension mentioned in previous legal documents is amplified with the
reference to several national plans5.
Among those national plans, there is a strong focus on the National Action Plan for
Social Inclusion (PNAI). The PNAI is articulated within the purposes of the social network:
“the social network is the best instrument to operationalise PNAI, being the forum that
gathers the different partnerships and social policies that aim to promote social and local
development” (MTSS 2006, p. 4276). The European Union (EU) is linked with both PNAI
and the social network, reinforcing the introduction of gender as a strong element of the social
network definition: “Seeking to instate the European Union guidelines, already adopted in
PNAI, this decree-law is innovative in introducing gender as a determining factor of local
development” (MTSS 2006, p. 4276). Additionally, the social network is linked with the
National Plan for Equality (PNI). From this results a growing focus on gender issues: “close
coordination with PNI, which reflects the need for thinking that Portuguese society is
composed of men and women regardless of a social group’s belonging, is essential” (MTSS
2006, p. 4276).
Moreover, the social network is presented as integrated with a “new kind of
partnership” between public and private entities. It is based on precepts such as equality
between partners, respect for identity, sharing, participation and collaboration. Its purposes
are based upon agreement on objectives, coordination of actions undertaken by several local
5 E.g. The National Action Plan for Social Inclusion (PNAI); the National Action Plan for Employment (PNE); the National Health Plan (PNS); the National Plan for Equality (PNI); the National Plan Against Domestic Violence (PNCVD).
15
agents and optimisation of endogenous and exogenous resources in the territory.
“Partnership” and “problem solving” emerge as nodal points of the social network:
The social network is assumed as a model of organisation and partnerships’
work that brings greater effectiveness and efficiency in social responses and
swiftness in solving concrete problems of citizens and families. (MTSS 2006,
p. 4276)
Linkages between “poverty eradication” and the “promotion of inclusion and social
cohesion” are identified, as well as between “social development” and “planning”. In the
same line of argumentation as that in Stage I, the actions in the social network are ruled by
principles (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Principles of social network action (MTSS 2006)
Such principles can be helpful in grasping certain additional elements of the network
concept as it is constructed in the document. The six principles are guided by a local focus
(principles of subsidiarity and integration), the centrality of partnerships, cooperation and
sharing of responsibilities (principle of articulation), an emphasis on disadvantaged
populations (principle of participation), a need for change in interventions (principle of
innovation), and the promotion of equality between men and women (principle of gender
equality).
Bearing in mind all these principles and the arguments thus far, one can determine that
the network concept, as it is established by this legal document, is established around seven
nodal points: “social protection”, “social development promotion”, “local”, “partnership”,
“problem solving”, “disadvantaged populations” and “gender equality”.
16
Comparative Mapping
Three of the nodal points identified (“social protection”, “social development” and “local”)
are common to the three documents analysed. “Partnership” is present in Stage II and in Stage
III. “Problem solving” is common to Stage II and Stage III. “Poverty eradication” is present in
Stage I and Stage II, but missing from what we have called the final version of the Portuguese
legislation on social networks. The nodal point “disadvantaged populations” seems to replace
“poverty and social exclusion eradication” in Stage III. “Gender equality” emerges as the
most original nodal point in Stage III, not being based on the previous legal documents.
Comparative mapping (Table 5) allows us to assert, on the one hand, what elements
are at stake in the Portuguese social network legislation and, on the other hand, those elements
that win and lose in the discursive struggle about what can constitute a social network.
Table 5 Discourse analysis of legal documents of the Portuguese social network program (schematic
representation)
17
Legal
documents
PCM 1997 MTS 2002 MTSS 2006
Origins Operationalisation Final version
Stage I Stage II Stage III
Articulations
Secular and fruitful
tradition, widen solidarity
Articulations,
congregation, efforts, free
will, nonprofit, active
participation, participation
Poverty eradication, social
development
Social protection, social
development
Poverty eradication, social
exclusion
Eradication, social
development
Promotion
Partnership, social
intervention
Partnership, gender equality
Poverty/social exclusion,
specific groups
Local, national plans
EU, PNAI, gender
PNI, gender, municipalities
Partnership, equality,
respect, sharing,
participation, collaboration,
goals agreement,
coordination, resources
rationalization
Poverty eradication,
promotion of inclusion and
social cohesion
Social development,
planning
Nodal Points Social protection Social protection Social protection
Social development
promotion
Social development
promotion
Social development
promotion
Local Local Local
Partnership Partnership
Problem solving Problem solving
Poverty eradication Poverty eradication
Disadvantaged populations
Solidarity
Social exclusion eradication
Diversity
18
Legal
documents
PCM 1997 MTS 2002 MTSS 2006
Free of charge
Gender equality
Dominant
discourse
Network concept as a
form of solving social
problems, more
specifically poverty and
social exclusion, and
privileging the local level
Network concept as
operationalized through
partnerships
Network concept directed at
disadvantaged populations,
constructed on the basis of
partnerships, having as its
main purposes the solution
of problems at the local
level, and guided by the
main principles of gender
equality, social development
promotion and social
protection
Therefore, it is not surprising that the way in which social network action is
undertaken (or operationalised) is clearly centralised in Stage II of the process through
“partnerships” and that such centrality is reinforced in Stage III. In the first stage of the legal
framework, partnership is only mentioned as an element of social network, but never as a
nodal point. This means that “partnerships” emerge, in the crystallised form of the network
concept, as the privileged way of acting in a social network. Partners can be viewed as dots
that constitute the units or the organisers of a social network. The aim of the social network
emerges in Stage I and is crystallised in Stage III. Problem solving seems to be the purpose of
the constitution and action of a social network. Identification of the causes of problems, their
manifestations and ways of solving them is, then, another organiser of the discourse around
social networks.
In the third stage of the process, the social network seems to be guided towards
disadvantaged populations. This element replaces more specific phenomena, such as poverty
eradication (mentioned in both the first and second stages) and social exclusion eradication
(within Normative Dispatch in the second stage). This is not the same as saying that the
phenomena of poverty and social exclusion are excluded from the social network definition in
its more crystallised form. Rather, they lose their centrality as nodal points, being replaced by
a wider nodal point: disadvantaged populations.
19
The focus of the social network definition is found in three elements that are
crystallised in the third stage and that remain constant in Stage I and Stage II (see Table 5).
These are social protection, social development promotion and local. The fact that these three
elements emerge as nodal points in the three legal documents means that their centrality is
assured and confirmed. From the nodal points that emerge in only one of the three legal
documents (see Table 3), the one which emerges in Stage III is the closest to the social
network crystallisation. Gender equality emerges linked with partnership, the EU and the
PNAI6.
Arguably, it is fair to say that the analysis of the Portuguese legislation linked to the
“social network program” reveals that there are two main contributions expressed in the
legislation that also relate to the literature reviewed in the first section of this paper, namely
the concept of partnership and the idea of a social network.
The Discourse Concerning Networks Crystallised In Interviewees’ Statements
Focusing on several layers of the network concept, we analysed interviews conducted with
aldermen (AV) and educational administrative staff (AT) from Portuguese municipalities. The
aldermen are in charge of the educational department and govern the political orientations of
the Town Hall in relation to education. The educational administrative staff advises the
aldermen and is in charge of implementing the actions defined by the Town Hall. The
excerpts from the interviews were selected based on explicit references to networks made by
the interviewees. The interview protocol was based on four dimensions that guide the entire
project: perspectives of achievement, underachievement and disengagement; political
guidelines for education; educational intervention; and networking in education. All the
interviewees were approached first by email and then by phone to introduce the project and its
aims and the collaboration that would be expected from them. The 15 interviewees worked in
nine different Portuguese councils with diverse characteristics. The councils are
geographically situated in the North and Centre of Portugal.
When referring to “networks”, more specifically “working in a network”, the
interviewees expressed quite diverse definitions and views. At least 34 different signs related
to “working in a network” were identified (see Fig. 3).
6 See previous footnote.
20
Fig. 3 Word cloud regarding the frequency of elements articulated with “working in a network” in the discourse
of the interviewees
When developing the word cloud, the frequency of the different elements was
considered. We excluded elements that were only mentioned once and considered all those
that were mentioned more than once. The more frequent elements articulated with “working
in a network” were “partnership”, “articulation”, “practice”, “creation”, “sharing”,
“collaboration”, “leadership”, “consultation” and “solution”. In what follows, the focus is on
the analysis of those elements, supported by excerpts from the interviews as examples of the
connections made with “working in a network”.
References to partnership when discussing “working in a network” appear both in the
discourse of four aldermen and five educational administrative staff from Portuguese
municipalities. Working in partnership emerges as a synonym for “working in a network”:
Networking is working in partnership, knowing the needs of each other and
working together, having support. (AT3)
We need to create here a specific dynamic, and motivate people to work in
partnership, to network. (AV1)
For one council (both in the discourse of the alderman and the educational
administrative staff) although “partnership” is still articulated with “working in a network”,
the link is articulated as differentiation. The reference to “partnership” is made to differentiate
it from “working in a network”:
21
Networking is not exactly working with partnerships. (AV10)
“Working in a network” is related to articulation in the discourse of five educational
administrative staff and two aldermen from Portuguese municipalities. This predominance in
the discourse of educational administrative staff might allow us to infer that “articulation”
could be a characteristic of “working in a network” related to fieldwork in education:
How will we boost this? Who will do this role? Who will do that? All this is
worked out in articulation. (AT1)
I think we always try to articulate, I think so. (AT8)
The same can be argued regarding the articulations between “working in a network”
and the elements of “practice”, “creation”, “sharing” and “collaboration” more frequent in the
discourse of educational administrative staff. Practice was mentioned by four educational
administrative staff and one alderman:
Networking has to be done in the field and in practice, not just in meetings, and
not just on paper. (AT6)
These are partnerships, very practical networks. (AT5)
Creation was mentioned by two educational administrative staff and one alderman:
Networking is, say, creating something. (AT10)
It is creating in the local community a set of dynamic participations and
interventions in the local education system, in the sense of an improvement.
(AT2)
Sharing was mentioned by three educational administrative staff and two aldermen:
22
Because I noticed that when I came here, no one really wanted to share
information, share strategies: ‘But why do that? Why talk about this?’ Whereas
now... (AT1)
Collaboration was mentioned by two educational administrative staff and one alderman:
So everything is done in close collaboration with all the live forces (smile) of
the land... (AT5)
Networking is working in partnership. We know the needs of each other and
collaborate. (AT3)
Both leadership and solution were mainly articulated in terms of “working in a network” by
aldermen. “Leadership” was mentioned by two aldermen:
Basically, there has to be someone that works like a kneecap, who makes all
those who compose rotate (...) This, at least, is the notion (...) There must
always be someone to take the lead, to function as that mechanism. (AV1)
We are very active, very interventive. We are very attentive and nurturing, and
that’s true, we are (...) the great developers of networking (...). I often liken the
Town Hall, the management body, to an octopus. (AV9)
Solution was mentioned by two aldermen:
A culture of networking, which is a work of shared construction of reflexions
and solutions for problems... (AV10)
I'm not sure what you mean by networking because if it is to solve the
education problems we have solved, one way or another, with more or less
difficulty, we solved them within our powers. (AV3)
“Working in a network” emerges linked with consultation in the discourse of one educational
administrative staff member and one alderman on two different councils:
23
Because it is a thing articulated in consultation with all educational actors,
and it is really all. We are REALLY all here, those from all the forces
inside… involved. (AV6)
We always try to reach a consensual decision. We cannot always achieve consensus
but at least we tried it that way. It is always through dialogue and consultation we
work. (AT3)
Considering the nine elements identified in the discourse of the interviewees, one
might ask where they come from. Interestingly enough, we can see a predominance of the
influence of the legal discourse analysed in section 2 of this paper when it comes to tracing
the “origin” of the discourse of the interviewees regarding networks in education. Of the nine
elements, only three – “consultation”, “practice” and “leadership” – have no match either to
the discourses in the literature in the field reviewed or to the legal discourses concerning the
Portuguese social network. All the other six have a clear match with the legal discourse about
the Portuguese social network – “partnership”, “articulation”, “creation”, “sharing”,
“collaboration” and “solution”. In addition, three of these – “partnership”, “sharing” and
“collaboration” – have an additional match to the literature reviewed.
Conclusion
It is not always clear what we are talking about when considering networks, either in the
selected literature in the field reviewed or in the discourse of the politicians interviewed, or
even in Portuguese legal documents. In this paper, the most common discourses regarding
networks in terms of the literature and Portuguese legislation were identified, enabling us to
stress a plurality of perspectives. The analysis of the interviews traces back to the most
significant articulations for Portuguese aldermen and educational administrative staff. Most of
the elements crystallised in the interviewees can be traced back to Portuguese legal documents
relating to “social networks”, with a particular emphasis on “partnership”.
“Partnerships” emerge as the privileged way of acting in a social network and partners
can be seen as constituting the units or the organisers of a social network. As organisers, they
sometimes also constitute partnerships and networks as sites of struggle. The discourses about
partnerships tend to be represented as linked with neoliberal regimes, or in contrast as
24
horizontally localised (Seddon, Billet and Clemans 2005). Townsend (2013) even propose
that educational networks can be reconsidered from a social movements’ perspective.
According to Seddon, Billet and Clemans (2005), understanding the concept in an either/or
manner might not be the best way in which to discuss partnerships and networks. Indeed, they
assert that, “Like schools, partnerships are sites of struggles. They cannot be dismissed as
simple neo-liberal policy instruments” (Seddon, Billet and Clemans 2005, p. 582).
As already underlined, the concept of network has emerged as vague and diffuse
through its different layers. It might be called a “floating signifier”, meaning a sign that is
disputed in different discourses embodied by different meanings. Hence, there is no
consensual concept of network in education. There are multiple concepts interacting with each
other, constituting a “discursive battle” over the true meaning of networks in education. This,
in our perspective, has major implications for both researchers and policy makers. The
awareness of the fuzziness and the bias of the network concept in education can be helpful in
avoiding approaching networks as if everybody knows what is being talked about. As
Antcliff, Saundry and Stuart (2012) argue, networks are more dynamic and complex than
existing research and theory implies. Using network as a core concept in any theoretical
and/or methodological framework implies, from our perspective, a set of discussions related
to its definition, main characteristics and limits. Due to its presence in every field of the
contemporary world, it is not possible simply to abandon the concept of networks when
discussing the social world. Neither can we treat it as a single and consensual concept. It is
necessary to establish a link between the two situations, still using the network concept but in
a contextualised and framed manner.
References
Antcliff, V., Saundry, R., & Stuart, M. (2012). Networks and social capital in the UK
television industry: The weakness of weak ties. Human Relations, 60(2), 371–393.
Araújo, H. C., Sousa, F., Loureiro, A., & Costa, I. (Forthcoming). Building local networking
in education? Decision-makers discourses on school achievement and dropout in
Portugal. In Cultures of educational policy: International issues of policy-outcome
relationships. Strasbourg: Analytics.
Berkowitz, S. D. (1982). An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Butterworths.
Burt, R. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure,
perception and action. New York: Academic Press.
25
Busher, H., & Hodgkindon, K. (1996). Co-operation and tension between autonomous
schools: A study of inter-school networking. Educational Review, 48(1), 55-64.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-Network Theory: The market test. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.),
Actor Network Theory and after (pp. 181–195). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Carnwell, R., & Carson, A. (2008). The concepts of partnership and collaboration. In R.
Carnwell & J. Buchanan (Eds.), Effective practice in health, social care and criminal
justice: A partnership approach (pp. 3–21). London: Open University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. I). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2010). Preface. In M. Castells (Ed.), The information age: Economy, society and
culture (pp. xvii-xxxvi). Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M., Qiu, J. L., Fernandez-Ardeval, M., & Say, A. (2006). Mobile communication
and society: A global perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging
circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 403–420.
Chapman, C., & Hadfield, M. (2010a). Supporting the middle tier to engage with school-
based networks: Change strategies for influencing and cohering. Journal of
Educational Change, 11, 221–240.
Chapman, C., & Hadfield, M. (2010b). Realising the potential of school-based networks.
Educational Research, 52(3), 309–323.
Chapman, C., Lindsay, G., Muijs, D., Harris, A., Arneck, E., & Goodall, J. (2010).
Governance, leadership and management in federations of schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy
and Practice, 21(1), 53–74.
Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & White, D. R. (Eds.). (1982). Research methods in social
network analysis. Irvine: School of Social Sciences.
Hall, C. M. (1999). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3-4), 274–289.
Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2009). Chasing shadows: Defining network boundaries
in qualitative social network analysis. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 645-661.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical
democratic politics. London: Verso.
26
Lamertz, K., & Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, social status and perceptual similarities of
workplace victimisation: A social network analysis of stratification. Human Relations,
57(7), 795-822.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law and J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory
and after (pp. 15-25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law and J. Hassard
(Eds.), Actor Network Theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.
Leinhardt, S. (Ed.). (1977). Social networks: A developing paradigm. New York: Academic
Press.
Marsden, P. V., & Lin, N. (Eds.). (1982). Social structure and network analysis. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
O’Brien, M., Atkinson, A., Burton, D., Campbell, A., Qualter, A., & Varga-Atkins, T. (2009).
Social inclusion and learning networks: A “wider notion of learning” or taking things
in a different direction?. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 57–75.
Phillips, L. J., & Jorgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London:
Sage.
Seddon, T., Billet, S., & Clemans, A. (2005). Navigating social partnerships: Central
agencies-local networks. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 567–584.
Townsend, A. (2013). Rethinking networks in education: Case studies of organisational
development networks in Neoliberal contexts. Interchange, 43, 343-362.
Vardaman, J. M., Amis, J. M., Dyson, B. P., & Wright, P. M. (2012). Interpreting change as
controllable: The role of network centrality as self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65(7),
835–859.
Legal documents
Presidência do Conselho de Ministros (PCM). (1997). Resolução do Conselho de Ministros
[Ministers’ Council Resolution] no. 197/97. Diário da República: I Série-B, 267,
6253-6255.
Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade (MTS). (2002). Despacho Normativo [Normative
Dispatch] no. 8/2002. Diário da República: I Série-B, 36, 1086-1090.
Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social (MTSS). (2006). Decreto-Lei [Decree-Law]
no. 115/2006. Diário da República: I Série-A, 114, 4276-4282.