Networked Local Knowledge
Organisations are increasingly seeking the perspectives of local communities affected by their plans and actions to help ensure positive outcomes. Here’s why considering networks is vital to these efforts.
Not everyone in a local community shares the same opinion. People have different interests and perspectives, some of which may conflict. A common problem I’ve observed is that organisations often treat the views of the most well-connected individuals as representative of the entire community, resulting in a skewed picture of what local people actually think and want. They also frequently overlook the need to build trust ties, which is essential for gathering perspectives that are free from (self) censorship and re-framing.
A network is the set of connections between people that allow them to share information and work together, spanning social, physical, spatial, and virtual dimensions. Below are three reasons why understanding networks is essential for developing a 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 overview of local perspectives.
Networks often reflect and reinforce historical power imbalances. For example, roads and IT infrastructure were frequently built to connect centres of influence. Those with good road access or reliable internet are easier to reach, and their perspectives therefore tend to be overrepresented in datasets.
Some groups are only loosely connected to centres of influence. They depend on a few individuals who link them up (so-called “network brokers”) to alert organisations to their existence. However, these brokers can fail to do so, whether intentionally or not. Moreover, brokers influence what information is shared by and with these groups, giving them the ability to impose their own perspectives. As a result, poorly connected groups are often under- or misrepresented in datasets.
Networks shape who regularly share ideas and resources and thereby build mutual trust and understanding. Organisations sometimes attempt to gather local perspectives without first establishing connections with the community. However, when two networks are only weakly linked, trust and understanding are often low, leading both sides to assume bad faith. This can result in perspectives being censored, withheld, or reframed.
For a discussion of point 3 in a humanitarian conflict situation, see
Mulder, F. (2020). Governing the humanitarian knowledge commons. Politics and Governance, 8(4), 407-420.
