Map of Networks: Project Report (*)

I. PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT

A. Introduction

The Map of Networks project is a European research effort aiming to map the networks which participate in the European Social Forum and other social movements’ convergence spaces. It also aims to develop tools and to present concrete proposals concerning the improvement of these networking processes. The ‘Map of Networks’ was launched in September 2004 as part of the project ‘Useful Guide for Social Transformation in Europe: ESF and Surroundings’. The project has been carried out by the ESF Process Action Research Network in association with the European Social Forum working group on Memory and Systematization.

B. Aims and objectives

The ‘Map of Networks’ project has the following aims and objectives:

1. Map the networks participating in the ESF process and in other social movements’ convergence spaces.

2. Create a useful tool in the service of the ESF confluence process helping the self-organization of the European Social Forums themselves, as well as the creation of European and transnational networks. The project aims to generate knowledge and increase the self-consciousness of participants in the ESF process, as well as produce more focused actions and strategies for the future.

3. Experiment with ways of researching, recovering and archiving information on networks and networking processes associated with the most recent cycle of social mobilizations in Europe.

The first stage of the project has resulted in the construction of a database consisting of 98 networks that have taken part in the European Social Forum process. The database contains a wide range of information about these networks, including their contact details, origins, methods and operation, successes and problems, as well as participation in the ESF and other social movements’ convergence spaces. This database will be publicly available according to copyleft principles on the European Guide website (www.euromovements.info), fulfilling its role as a useful tool in the service of the ESF confluence process in a two-fold way. First, by aiding networks, individuals and organizations to locate other networks working in their field, to establish partnerships and to co-organize projects and campaigns. Second, by providing the co-ordination preparing the next ESF in Athens with useful information and contact details for its outreach, promotion and organizing purposes.

Serving as an accompaniment to the database, this report aims to analyze the results of the project and identify major trends and conclusions. It also aims to make recommendations concerning the improvement of our methods for gathering and analyzing information about the networks participating in the current cycle of mobilizations in Europe. This report will also be publicly available according to copyleft principles on the European Guide website.

C. Methods of data collection

The 98 networks included in the ‘Map of Networks’ database were initially identified through four major sources:

1. Personal contacts of the researchers and coordinators involved in the European Guide project.

2. The programme of the European Social Forum in London. More specifically, the online programme of plenary meetings, workshops and seminars was searched using ‘network’ and ‘coalition’ as keywords.

3. The stalls at the European Social Forum in London. Two researchers from the team visited the stalls at the European Social Forum in London and distributed leaflets about the ‘Map of Networks’ project. The leaflets were two-sided and networks were asked to fill in the back side of the leaflet which asked them for some basic information about the network.

4. The registration databases of the Florence and Paris ESFs. The retrieval and integration of the registration databases of Florence and Paris (and currently London) ESFs is also part of the European Guide project. The integrated database of the organizations that have registered for the Florence and Paris ESFs was searched according to type of organization and the ones classified as networks were singled out. However, only the ones whose description matched the network format were included, while others which seemed to operate more as federations or organizations were excluded.

We then tried to obtain more information about the identified networks using two complementary methods of data collection:

1. Survey:

The questionnaire for the survey was designed just before the London ESF in October 2004 and can be accessed online at http://www.euromovements.info . It contains a wide range of questions, most of them open, broken down into five main categories: a. ‘description and origins’ of the network, b. ‘methods and operation’, c. ‘relationship with the ESF and other convergence spaces’, and d. ‘strengths and problems of the network’. The final part of the questionnaire asks for some basic information about the respondent of the questionnaire, the confidentiality of their answers, as well as their willingness to participate in further research. If the respondents wished for their answers to remain confidential, then only their replies concerning the basic description of the network and its contact details were made publicly available on the website. Their answers were however analyzed for the purposes of this report but without attributing specific quotes or answers to specific networks.

This questionnaire was distributed to selected contacts during the European Social Forum in London in October 2004, as well as in the Extraordinary European Assembly in Paris in December 2004. However, all of the analyzed questionnaires were mainly distributed and received via email. We contacted all the networks whose email address was available and asked them to register in the ‘Map of Networks’ directory by sending us some basic information about the network. Networks were also asked to fill in the questionnaire which was sent as an attachment to the email.

Overall, we contacted about 76 networks via email and received 17 responses, 3 providing only basic information and 14 providing both basic information and answers to our questionnaire. Therefore, the response rate to our email survey was 22%. This is about average but has the potential to increase as this project gains more recognition within the ESF process. In that respect, the ‘Map of Networks’ has recently been put under the auspices of the ESF working group on Systematization, meaning that the project is now considered integral to the activities of the group. This will strengthen its legitimacy within the ESF process and demonstrate its importance not only from a research but also from an activist perspective, as this project aims to improve the ESF networking process by making the most of the information generated by the current cycle of European mobilizations. Hopefully, this will also mark an increase in the willingness of the groups and organizations participating in the ESF to register in the ‘Map of Networks’ directory and take part in future surveys.

2. Web Research:

For the networks which did not participate in our survey, either because they did not respond to our email or because their email address was not available, additional information was obtained through their websites. The web research consisted of accessing the websites of about 50 networks, cutting and pasting the relevant information to the ‘Map of Networks’ directory.

II. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

A. Basic Information

1. Title and Self-description

The analysis of the title and self-description of the networks aimed to identify whether networks use the word ‘network’ to label themselves or their activities.

Table 1

Table 1 shows that 36 of the identified networks used the word ‘network’ in their title, while 5 named themselves ‘coalitions’, 3 ‘Associations’, and 3 ‘Movement’. Other words that were used were ‘committee’, ‘initiative’, ‘coordination’, ‘forum’, ‘collective’, ‘assembly’, ‘council’, and ‘campaign’ while 25 of the identified networks fall into the ‘other’ category (e.g. ‘Statewatch’). In addition, 14 networks were given a provisional name by the researchers who compiled the database, as their full titles were not known. Therefore, out of the 84 full titles in the database 36 include the word ‘network’ accounting for nearly 43% of the known titles.

Furthermore, the analysis of self-descriptions shows that most of the identified networks employ the word ‘network’ to describe themselves or their activities. Other words that have been used are ‘umbrella’, ‘platform’, ‘informal grouping’, ‘coalition’ and ‘co-ordination’.

It is worth noting here that the word ‘network’ is also being used by organizations, federations and groups which in terms of their organizing process cannot be included in the ‘network’ category. This indicates the extent to which the word ‘network’ has entered the vocabulary of social movements. The concept has also spread in the theory and research of social movements which are currently dominated by the paradigm of ‘social networks analysis’, applying its concepts, methods and tools to study the development of social movements.

However, the increasing use of the words ‘network’ and ‘networking’ seems to generate considerable confusion around what constitutes a ‘network’. Furthermore, confusion reigns as to whether actors engaged in a ‘networking process’ can be considered a ‘network’. For instance, while informal networking takes place between different actors both during and in between the various ESFs and similar events, few of these interactions can be named a ‘network’. In that sense, the word ‘network’ points to a more formal mode of organization, which even though lacking in the more rigid, hierarchical and well-defined attributes of federations or NGOs, it nonetheless considers itself as an organizing entity, with a group of members striving for some commonly (and perhaps quite vaguely) agreed mission and objectives.

While working on this project, it was thus imperative for us to develop some kind of definition which would help us distinguish networks from federations and other groups and develop the criteria based on which an actor would be included in the ‘Map of Networks’ directory. Our definition regarded networks as ‘a collectivity of autonomous actors/nodes connected in a non-hierarchical way or with few hierarchical structures (e.g. a secretariat or regional levels) and characterized by a low level of aggregation apart from the level of coordination needed to reach the shared concrete objective around which the network was established’.

However, it is worth noting here that this definition is still a ‘work-in-progress’ as it can be further refined and developed. In that respect, the ways the actors themselves perceive and define networks, even though their definitions might be different from ours, should be the object of further research and a task of the ‘Conceptual Dictionary’ project. This is included in the recommendations of this report presented in the final part.

Finally, a closer look at the titles and self-descriptions of the identified networks revealed a possible typology or categorization, which, although tentative and incomplete, can prove useful in further research around networks and networking processes. More specifically, we distinguished three types of networks:

1. Projects/Initiatives: Networks formed around a specific project or initiative.

2. Coalitions/Coordinations: Networks acting as coalitions/coordinations of different groups/organizations that have the same or closely related theme or type of activities. Coalitions and coordinations have varying degrees of centralization of power and hierarchical organizing structures. In some of them power is more or less distributed equally among their members, while others have an umbrella organization or co-ordinating group which manages the network.

3. Platform/Umbrella/Informal Grouping: More informal networks operating mainly as convergence spaces of the participating groups/organizations. They seem to be more horizontal in their decision-making and constitute a less cohesive form of action. Their mode of operation closely resembles the one of the ESF process.

2. Country of origin

Table 2

The ‘Country of Origin’ category indicates the nation-state where the network has its headquarters, co-ordinating committee, secretariat etc. It is the country noted in the network’s main address of correspondence. Information about the country of origin was available for 62 out of the 98 identified networks. Table 2 shows that most of these 62 networks (26%) are based in the UK, 16% in Belgium, 11% in France and another 11% in Italy. In this respect, and as it was expected, countries which have hosted the European Social Forum (Italy, France, UK) are more represented in the sample than others. This indicates the opportunity offered by the ESF to develop and reinforce the movement in the host country. However, the fact that our data was collected during the ESF in London might have induced some bias into our results, as the networks based in London may be over-represented in our sample. It is also worth noting that 16% of the identified networks are based in non-European countries.

3. Contact person

For the purposes of further research on the ‘Map of Networks’ project, it is worth noting that information concerning their contact person is available for 59 out of the 98 identified networks. This accounts for 60% of the networks included in our database.

4. Type of Activities

The identified networks were also categorized in terms of the types of activities they engage in. In the questionnaire, this question was open and networks were invited to label their activities themselves. However, this question seems to have generated some confusion as a few of the respondents thought that ‘activities’ corresponded to the methods and techniques used by the network to achieve its goals. Additional information about the type of activities was obtained from the networks’ websites.

Thus, information about the type of activities was available for 84 out of the 98 networks. The initial labels or categories were combined and renamed to construct a more coherent categorization. We came up with 33 categories, which is still quite a high number, so perhaps some further combining and recoding needs to take place.

Table 3

As Table 3 demonstrates, most of the identified networks belong to the categories of ‘Environment, Agriculture and Sustainable Development’ (11%), ‘Immigration’ (8%) and ‘Development’ (7%). ‘Racism’, ‘Trade’ and ‘Research’ account for 5% of the valid cases respectively, while ‘Arms and Weapons’, the ‘European Constitution’, ‘Health’, and ‘Tax and Justice’ each account for 4%. In addition, the category ‘Multiple’ ,which consists of networks with a multiple type of activities, also accounts for 4% of the valid cases.

5. Groups and Organizations

Table 4

Information about their number of members was available for 28 out of the 98 identified networks. Our database also included some general information about the membership of 3 additional networks. As it is evident in Table 4, the networks included in our directory have varying sizes as their membership ranges from 7 to 560 members. Furthermore, 50% of these 28 networks have 50 members or less. In addition, larger networks tend to operate more on the global field with their members are scattered around the world, while smaller networks tend to hold their activities on the national level.

B. Origins

1. Year of Establishment

Table 5

As it is evident in Table 5, most of the identified networks are relatively new in existence. Information about their year of establishment was available for 37 out of 98 networks, accounting for nearly 38% of the total number of identified networks. Out of these 37 networks, 9 were established between 1995 and 1999 and 13 after 2000, accounting for 27% and 39% of the valid cases respectively. For the networks established after 2000, 5 were established in 2000, 4 in 2001, 3 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 1 in 2004. Nearly half of the networks established from 2000 onwards, after the ‘Battle of Seattle’ and the outburst of the ‘movement for alternative globalization’, were a result of or were formed after a major anti-globalization meeting or European Social Forum. For instance, this is the case for the ‘Seattle to Brussels Network – Taking Action Against Corporate Globalization’ which was established in 2002 just after the WTO Seattle ministerial meeting. It is also the case for the ‘Tavolo Migranti dei Social Forum’, established in 2001 in a migrants meeting during the Genova demonstrations, as well as the ‘Forum per la democrazia constituzionale europea’ and the ‘Associazione Rete del Nuovo Municipio’, both established in 2002 as a result of the Florence ESF. Other such networks are the ‘Babels’, a network set up in September 2002 to cater for the translation needs of the Florence ESF, as well as the ‘Action Research Network’ established in 2004 by a group of researchers who came to know each other through the various ESFs and EPAs.

2. Place of Establishment

Information about the place where the network was established was available for 15 out of the 98 identified networks, accounting for a little more than 15% of the sample. Out of those 15 networks, 12 (80%) were established in the country where they have their basis or headquarters, while the remaining 3 (20%) were established in country different from their country of origin, either at an international conference or a summit.

3. Enlargement

20 out of the 98 identified networks were enlarged over the years, representing about 20% of the sample. For the remaining 78 networks accurate information about their enlargement was not available.

The networks that have been enlarged referred to the following methods and factors that led to their enlargement: partnerships with other organizations, groups or networks; publicity and talks; hard work, promotion and outreach; Internet research for new members or partners. Networks have also recruited more members by translating global actions to the local level or outreaching to the locality. Furthermore, some networks have also profited by changes in their environment and context of activity. For instance, the Network Institute for Global Democratization (NIGD), established initially in 1997 at a time when ‘global governance’ was not a well-recognized concept, became more prominent in the ensuing years as the concept of ‘global governance’ itself started to achieve more recognition.

As for the consequences of their enlargement, 3 out of the 8 networks who responded to this question did not consider this enlargement to have affected their methods and objectives. For the remaining 5, their enlargement has brought greater credibility, more engagement and new thinking. One network noted that enlargement has diversified its activities, actions and substance, while another remarked that enlargement was anyway one of its main goals and objectives since its inception.

C. Methods and Operation

1. Field of Activity

Table 6

Information about their field of activity was available for 63 out of the 98 identified networks. As it is evident in Table 6, most of these 63 networks operate on a regional level (38%), followed very closely by networks active on a global level (35%). Finally, 27% have restricted their operation on the national level, while none of the networks seems to be operating on a strictly local basis.

2. Methods and Techniques

Table 7

In terms of the methods and techniques used by the networks to achieve their goals, information was available for 31 out of the 98 identified networks, representing about 32% of the total sample. Table 7 shows that nearly all of the networks engage in ‘Information and Publicity’ about their goals and actions (94%), while 87% organize ‘Seminars and Meetings’, a figure which seems to be explained by their participation in the ESF. In addition, more than half of these 31 networks use ‘Campaigns’ (65%) and ‘Lobbying’ (58%), while ‘Appeals’ (26%), ‘Demonstrations’ (16%) and ‘Direct Action’ (13%) represent less popular methods. Finally, 39% of the valid cases noted that they were also using other methods. These were ‘Advocacy’, ‘Cyber action’, ‘Publications’, ‘Exchanges of farmers and study trips’, ‘Training’ and ‘Pledging of Votes’.

Information about the goals and mission of these networks can provide us with a tentative explanation of these figures. This information indicates that networks often act as loose groupings of different organizations whose aim is to publicize the work of its members and increase their influence. Therefore, they are mainly concerned with publicity, information, campaigning and lobbying. In that respect, however, the more ‘activist’ or controversial methods and techniques (direct action, appeals and demonstrations) are more effectively left at the will of the individual members and are not decided or taken up by the whole of the network.

It is worth noting that all of these 31 networks are using more than one method to reach their goals. As it is evident in Table 8, networks using 2 and 3 methods account for 19% of the sample each, while networks using 4 and 5 methods represent 26% of the sample each. Finally, the number of networks using more than 5 methods is considerably lower.

Table 8

3. Communication Technologies

Table 9

In terms of the communication technologies used by the identified networks, it was difficult to calculate a valid percent as the data was taken from three different sources: the contact details of the networks, their answers to the questionnaire, as well as the web research. Thus, while the answers about email, website and telephone are based on information available about the total number of the identified networks (98), for the rest of the communication technologies the number of valid cases is lower. This is because for the networks not listed as using a specific communication technology, it is not certain whether they are in fact not using this technology or whether there is simply no information available.

Table 9 shows that most of the networks are using email (84) and the telephone (62), while most of them seem to have a website (57). Furthermore, 28 networks use fax, 20 networks have email lists, and 16 publish a newsletter. Mailings and discussion groups are each used by 10 networks, while only 3 networks employ web conferencing. In addition, 8 networks are using other communication technologies. Their answers included publications, tiki wiki, books, cd roms, ppp, video, e-updates, telephone conferences, as well as telephone trees.

The networks were also re-grouped according to the number of communication technologies that they are using. This was in order to identify the most ‘communication intensive’ among them.

Table 10

As it is obvious from Table 10, more than half of the identified networks are using 3 or less than 3 communication technologies. Thus, even though the academic literature on networks suggests that networks require high levels of communication in order to survive, it seems that most of the identified networks are not very communication intensive. We further examined whether the ones using a high number of communication technologies operate mainly on the global level but we did not find any significant correlations. This is quite unexpected, as particularly the looser and more global networks tend to rely extensively on communication technologies to carry out their everyday activities and co-ordinate their members. However, it worth noting that it is too soon to draw any concrete conclusions as there are limitations to the reliability of our data because of missing information.

4. Volunteers and Professionals

In terms of the number of volunteers and professionals, as well as their roles and functions within the network, information was available for 16 out of the 98 identified networks, accounting for little more than 16% of the total sample.

Table 11

As it is evident in Table 11, most of these networks have a voluntary character, employing less 5 professionals. In terms of the roles and functions of professionals, most of the networks have a paid coordinator, while nearly all of them employ people in part-time positions. In addition, because of the small number of professionals very few of the identified networks have distinct internal departments.

In terms of the number and role of volunteers, information was available for only 8 out of the 98 networks. As it is evident in Table 12, 3 of these networks have between 1 – 10 volunteers, 4 have 21 – 30 and one has more than 30. This is the case for the Babels who currently have 800 volunteers registered in their database.

It is worth noting here that some of the identified networks operate only on a volunteer basis. For instance, this is the case for the ‘Babels’, the ‘Tavolo Migranti dei Social Forum’, and the ‘Forum per la Democrazia Constituzionale Europea’. It is possibly not a coincidence that all of these three networks were formed as a result of the ESF or in order to provide their services to the SF process.

5. Organizing and Decision-Making

Overall, information about their organizing and decision-making processes was available for 26 out of the 98 identified networks, representing about 26% of the total sample. Both loose and tight processes of organizing were identified, with half of the networks (13) adhering to tighter and more well-defined processes and structures, while the other half maintained a looser form of decision-making.

Networks with tighter structures tend to be governed by a committee, which is either elected by their members in a general assembly or composed by representatives of the member organizations. In these networks the committee seems to be invested with more responsibilities about the decision-making and activities of the network. In addition, some of these networks employ directors or paid coordinators to carry out the everyday organizing work. Everyday activities are also undertaken by a nation-specific Secretariat, operated by both professionals and volunteers. Furthermore, networks with tighter structures have membership systems with more clearly defined criteria and processes for inclusion. Some of them also tend to have a tree-like structure with national or local groups reporting to regional or international coordinators.

On the other hand, networks with looser structures operate more as platforms or meeting spaces for the participating groups and organizations. Membership is loosely defined, for instance through registering support for a petition or a statement of purpose. Some of these networks have committees or boards, but their responsibilities are limited as they exist mainly to ensure that information is spread evenly in the network and that meetings and assemblies are properly organized. Furthermore, networks with looser structures tend to favor more horizontal decision-making processes and operate more by consensus. Some of them rely extensively on face-to-face meetings and a more oral logic of co-ordination, while others employ diverse communication technologies and especially web and email. In that respect, two of the looser networks cite e-meetings as one of their prime tools of decision-making. In addition, networks with looser structures can also be organized as a co-ordination of different working groups, defined according to specific themes or regions with open membership. These working groups tend to meet not only in meetings organized specifically by the network but also at the back of other meetings, conferences or events such as the European Social Forum.

For tighter networks, the problems of their internal organizing processes include: the lack of room for improvisation, the amount of time taken up by the ‘nitty gritty of running an organization’, the lack of resources, as well as the need to transform these processes as the number of their members grows.

Looser networks, on the other hand, consider the following as problems of their organizing processes: the time-consuming nature of consensus or horizontal decision-making that slows their response to urgent needs, the disproportionate prominence of a few groups or individuals in decision-making, the need to meet, the problems specific to an oral logic, the high cost and the amount of energy needed to co-ordinate a large network on a looser basis, as well as the high cost of the required communication technologies. Some of them also note the lack of a decision-making body to co-ordinate meetings. For the networks operating mainly online, major problems are the lack of face-to-face communication which fosters better cooperation, as well as the time-consuming nature of online meetings.

However, looser structures seem to ensure the diversity of the network and afford its members with the freedom to pursue their own campaigns and techniques. It is also a more flexible and adaptable structure. Finally, for the networks which are using e-meetings extensively the fact that they can unite groups and individuals on an international level with a relatively low cost seems to be one of the main advantages of this loose structure.

D. Participation in the ESF and other social movements’ convergence spaces

1. Participation in the ESF

Table 13

Information concerning the networks’ participation in the European Social Forum was available for 38 out of the 98 identified networks. As it is evident in Table 13, 42% of these 38 networks have participated in the Florence 2002 ESF, 45% in the Paris 2003 ESF and 58% in the London 2004 ESF. Thus, contrary to the declining numbers of participation in the ESFs (as 60,000 people have reportedly attended the Florence ESF, while numbers for Paris and London were 40,000 and 20,000 respectively), it seems that the number of networks participating in the ESF is increasing. However, it is still too early to draw any conclusions as our data may be biased. This is because our data was gathered during the London ESF and they possibly tend to over-represent networks which have participated in London.

Furthermore, out of these 38 networks, 6 have participated in all three ESFs, 4 in two ESFs (only Paris and Florence), while the remaining 28 in just one ESF (5 just in Florence, 6 only in Paris and 16 only in London).

2. Reasons for participating in the ESF