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: hcgaraujo@mail.telepac.pt

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.