Networks - a briefing paper for the Health Foundation - Centre for ...

a similar vein, research has explored advocacy networks (Carpenter, 2007) and transnationaladvocacy networks (Sperling et al., 2001). Carpenter (2007) highlighted a lack of knowledgeabout the initial process through which advocacy v type networks identify and select issuesaround which to activate and mobilise. Advocacy Network evaluations are Janus faced: ‘Thesolution is to focus on the results that are upstream from impact – on outcomes understoodas changes in the behaviours, actions, and relationships of social actors within the advocacynetwork’s sphere of influence. For advocacy networks that wish to focus on outcomes, andnot simply on their advocacy network activities, it is vitally important to take full account of themessy, multi-level and multi-directional causality of the process and environment whenevaluating its achievements’ (Harris, 2005: n.p).2.6.1 Transnational Action NetworksWilson-Grau (2007) highlighted the complexity of articulating the impacts of advocacynetworks in international social change networks. International networks consist of clusters ofautonomous organisations and individuals in different countries or continents ‘...who share apurpose and voluntarily contribute knowledge, experience, staff time, finances and otherresources to achieve common goals’ (Wilson-Grau, 2007: p.2). Transnational ActionNetworks was conceptualised by Keck & Sikkink (1998) in reference to any type of fluid,boundless form or network of activists linked to national and international/global politicalarenas who interact in an attempt to persuade national governments to adhere to theactivists demands, and also comply with international conventions and human rightsprinciples. Keck & Sikkink’s survey of the exchanges and interactions between networkactors illustrated interesting themes, such as the boomerang pattern, where local activistsrestricted from influencing policies through their national political institutions seekinternational collaborators who can convey their concerns to international bodies (Keck andSikkink, 1998). McAdam and colleagues (1996) propose a structuring framework based onthree decades of significant global developments that seeks to elucidate a social movements’emergence, development, and subsequent outcomes (Garrett, 2006). They do so byaddressing three correlated factors: Mobilizing structures, Opportunity structures andFraming processes. Mobilizing structures relate to the means/mechanisms that enablepeople to organise and participate in communal action (included social structures and tacticalnous); social structures include both formal and informal configurations; Opportunitystructures relate to the environmental conditions that support social movements’ goaldirected activities such as ‘relative accessibility of the political system, the stable orfragmented alignments among elites, the presences of elite allies’ (Garrett, 2006: p.3).Research has noted how a grassroots innovations model can frame social movements asagents of transformation (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2010). They note three ways in whichflourishing niches can influence the establishment: ‘they can replicate, bringing aboutaggregative changes through many small initiatives; they can grow in scale and attract moreparticipants and actors; and they can translate their ideas into mainstream settings’ (p.5).Paradoxically, social movements often push against the mainstream, yet habitually becomemainstream after official recognition and power is accorded (Seitanidi and Crane, 2009).37