The two articles discuss the application of network theory to humanitarian action in different ways: - The first article analyzes how membership in different types of organizations (internal/external, expressive/instrumental) impacts individuals' personal networks in terms of density and diversity. - The second article proposes a descriptive model of the humanitarian assistance sector as an interorganizational network and discusses how coordination occurs through consensus rather than hierarchy given the reluctant partnerships between organizations. It suggests building common claims and ties to strengthen the network. - While the articles differ in focus (personal networks vs. organizational networks), they both demonstrate how network theory provides insights into relationship dynamics in humanitarian contexts.

1. Network Theory in
Humanitarian Action
Nada Yehiya, Karolin Etterer, Alfonso,
Maximiliano, Rahat and Shakeb

2. INTRODUCTION
• Two very different articles in form and
substance
• Could we see any application to the
humanitarian field?
• Are they complementary?

3. Voluntary associations and social network structure

4. A model of Humanitarian assistance
coordination

5. Article 4
Voluntary Associations and Social Network Structure:
Why Organizational Location and Type Are Important
(Glanville, Jennifer L. 2004)

6. The debate
How does membership in associations influence
individual persons' social networks?

membership increases density and decreases
diversity?

membership increases diversity and bridges different
segments of society?
→ dependence on characteristics of the association?

7. The idea of the article
Associations differ in terms of their

Location:
Neighborhood vs. External organization

Type:
Expressive organization for socializing
instrumental organization for achieving
a specific goal

8. The use of network theory

Survey asking for membership in associations of
different types, characteristics of the most important
contacts of responders and if these contacts also
know each other

Statistical analysis how these personal networks
differ from statistically expected networks depending
on memebership in certain types of associations

9. The Results

Membership in internal and/or expressive
associations results in denser and less divers
networks

External organizations: no effect on density,
but increased diversity

Instrumental organizations: no effect on
density, mixed results on diversity

10. Organizational type and location and
Humanitarian Action
Social Network
(connection
between
individual)
Internal
Org.
External
Org.
Expressive
Org
Instrumental
Voluntary
association
Neighborhood
Tsunami
(Indonesia)
Mosque network
Borderless
Mental
health
Socialization
(Church /
Islam related
networks)
Achieve a
goal
UN, INGO,
IRC, CBOs,
etc
Social network Density
Relations
Diversity Density Diversity
Coordination

11. Applying the article's framework:
participatory approach and the resulting beneficiary
networks
Application of this article in humanitarian action:
- investigation how different participatory approaches promote
different networks among the participating beneficiaries
- this knowledge allows implementing a participatoryapproach,
which results in more dense or diverse a beneficiary network

12. Article 11
“Toward a Descriptive Model of
Humanitarian Assistance Coordination”
(Stephenson, Max Jr. 2006)

13.  An alternate view to conceptualize humanitarian relief coordination at
both the strategic and operating scales of analysis.
 The operating environment of humanitarian assistance is best conceived as
an interorganizational social network or regime
But the structure of actors and the strategic and operating environments -
“the setting” - does not encourage organizational coordination and may,
indeed, actively discourage it”
Organizational setting:
Reluctant Partners operating amidst Diffuse Authority
WFP – UNHCR –UNICEF –WHO >> UN OCHA (No Power over !)
UN humanitarian aid network interventions lack a single steerperson with
operative hierarchical control.

14. Elements of a descriptive network model of HA
Strategic Structure of Operating Environment + Operating Level
Factors + Boundary-Spanning Claims
Authorityinthisorganizationalcontextis
“noncentralized”
and
m
ultiorganizational.

15. Exploring humanitarian network dynamics in this way help us to chart the
similarities and differences among them and thereby, over time, possibly
develop a typology of types of network forms that recur.
Distinction between coordination
by hierarchical control (or command) & that by consensus.
A consensus approach ---- generates shared ownership, enlisting the entire
community in the humanitarian effort..
Hierarchical control - Command element provides clearer lines of authority and
accountability

16. Is coordination even possible without more centralized
authority and even if so, worth the cost?
Yes . - by building a sufficient density of common claims and formal and
informal ties to create an ongoing social network of organizational action.
Information sharing
Stakeholder learning dialogues.
Shared organizational Norms
The networks that operate in the humanitarian aid environment are
dynamic and evolutionary.
In crisis this network of humanitarian actors must create its own power to act
without the strategic supervisory claim of a single strong coordinating agent and
must develop commonly the “power to” act collectively at the operational scale.

17. Applying network theory on Humanitarian Assistance
coordination
 Number of nodes in the graph representing humanitarian stakeholders
 Number of lines representing the relations among different stakeholders
 The graph shows that humanitarian network is not an ego centric network; most of
the points (stakeholders) are interconnected, without any particular focal points.

18. Humanitarian stakeholders are reluctant partners, and
don’t operate according to hieratical authorities
Thus; Humanitarian organizations network is not
considered as a centralized social network, which
makes it
less robust and more vulnerable to threats of disruption
Building sufficient density of common claims among
humanitarian organizations could enhance network
Robustness and efficiency (slide 44)
Toward a Descriptive Model of Humanitarian Assistance Coordination-Stephenson, 2006

19.  Power over  Power to
 If the humanitarian actors’ society lacks a hierarchy of command
and control; the problems of governance shouldn’t be reduced
to who has authority over who instead governance should be
converted from commanding to creating the capacity to act and
empower to accomplish collective goals
 The article highlighted how it’s important for humanitarian
organizations’ efficiency as a network to convert NGO’s social
highly centralized power of individual actors into a power
as agents strategies (slide 45)
Toward a Descriptive Model of Humanitarian Assistance Coordination-Stephenson, 2006

20.  In emergency situations humanitarian actors must develop
together the power to act collectively; By avoiding conflicting
goals and opportunism, also by enhancing effective leadership
and organizational strategy (Stephenson, P46)
 Improving the operational capacity of each organization by
building the capacity of its employees on 3 different levels;
Individual level, group level and subordinate level
 Enhancing effective leadership, organizational strategy and
internal operational capacity reflect on how it’s important to
have multilayered analytical approach of understanding
humanitarian networks
Toward a Descriptive Model of Humanitarian Assistance Coordination-Stephenson, 2006

21.  The author suggested that a trusted stakeholder should work on
encouraging the rest of actors to tackle common challenges and
establish common claims
 ICRC: not saddled by bureaucracy as UN + operate in different
crisis + maintain Humanitarian principles
 For its structural position the author recommended ICRC;
nodes that are well connected in general have high
social capital(slide 43)
Toward a Descriptive Model of Humanitarian Assistance Coordination-Stephenson, 2006

22.  Different: One on personal and other on organizations network
 One focuses on application of network theory as a method and
the other on its application in HA
 Coordination in HA: diversity of actors: challenge is to make it
dense
 Enhancing coordination: enhanced communication,
informal/formal network
Comparison between the Two Articles

23. QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION
• How could an organization’s connectedness in
an organizational network influence its
members’ personal networks?
If I am a member in an organization that is very
well connected to other organizations might I
have a different personal network than if I were
member in an organization with few ties to
other organizations?