Jacob Coker-Dukowitz's List: Collaborative Research

, creates an initial disposition to participate. 

Once 
individuals  have been integrated into formal or informal networks, they find themselves in an 
interactive structure that enables them to define and redefine their interpretive frames, 
facilitates the process of identity-building and identity-strengthening, and creates or solidifies  
political consciousness towards a given protest issue

identities are created and shaped through social relations

Three Functions of Social Networks

Beyond other formally-designated weavers, developing relationships with others 
in the sector who were either natural network builders or simply grasped and 
supported the concept fairly quickly was also helpful.  Creating a formal 
advisory board – something we initially assumed would be a natural source of 
support – was not a clear win, and in fact created more pressure for the weaver
to deliver a concrete product/service rather than focus on facilitating 
connectivity.  Instead, developing a set of “go to people” whether simply as 
informal advisors or to ask them to take on more explicit network-building roles 
seemed to be a better approach.  Both weavers talked about engaging a set of 
“network guardians”
18
 for this purpose (see exhibit 9 for how maps highlighted 
key connected individuals that might play this role, based on the statistical 
metric of awareness), and began to think about how best to engage these
individuals. The belief is that doing this well will be critical to sustainability of 
network strength and resilience. 

Managing the identity crisis.  To some extent, feeling a bit of an identity crisis is 
part and parcel of the weaver role, as the weaver is a unique role in most sectors, and 
especially in the early stages the weavers had few “go to” people who understood 
what they were all about and could offer advice (or empathy).  However, keeping 
that sense of isolation from getting overwhelming was very important.  We found 
several things to be helpful, including the following

Managing the identity crisis.  To some extent, feeling a bit of an identity crisis is 
part and parcel of the weaver role, as the weaver is a unique role in most sectors, and 
especially in the early stages the weavers had few “go to” people who understood 
what they were all about and could offer advice (or empathy).  However, keeping 
that sense of isolation from getting overwhelming was very important.  We found 
several things to be helpful, including the following

In addition, it is important to recognize that every weaver will use a portfolio of 
tools, and though the primary focus is on connecting and facilitating, sometimes 
weavers may need to be more concrete, or take on a more “building”-oriented role.  
We found that building structural intermediaries was one key activity that felt more 
like “doing” than “facilitating,” but filled a void and created structural nodes that 
would play critical network roles, so doing this consciously (e.g., the GoodSports 
and EXCL examples) made great sense. 
Finally, the weavers found it helpful to recognize and accept that some players may 
not be ready to engage in the network.  Starting with low-hanging fruit and building 
up from there was a successful strategy.  Weavers did not need to convince everyone 
about the virtues of networks.  But the more connectivity they were able to nurture, 
the more momentum they gained and the easier it became to find ways to link in 
players that were harder to reach at first.

Figuring out how to make connections stick.  This is ultimately the chief task of 
weaver, and while there’s no single right answer, there are some guiding principles.  
The first is the principle of self-interest (in this case of the organization rather than 
the individual on a personal level per se).  As a general rule, people connect when 
they can see value in that connection.  Some have to see immediate value, others can 
see further out in the horizon.  The weaver’s job is to figure out what it is for each 
person or organization.  One of the reasons Networking for Outcomes worked so 
well is that it was completely in the self-interest of organizations to participate in 
order to develop logic models and a set of outcomes which they needed to 
communicate with funders and others.  In addition, the process was structured so that 
the weaver merely facilitated and connected, and the participants did the bulk of the 
work (both independently and together as a group)—building bonds among the 
group that led to a willingness and interest in working together on different issues 
over time

Finally, focusing on linking qualitative to quantitative data is important. For 
example, not all hubs are good hubs, so qualitative knowledge lets you say “this 
person is a roadblock, we need to build around them” instead of assuming that one 
section of the network is well-linked by an influential node.  The qualitative 
observations might also shed light on which nodes in the network might be ready for 
participation in broader-scale network activity, or which nodes share a history that 
will make them either highly likely or unlikely to work together in the future.  For 
the bulk of the project this linkage was made only in the heads of the weavers, or in a 
journal separate from the mapping data.  To address this, Barr’s Chief Knowledge 
and Learning Officer began work designing an interface to link the qualitative 
observation to quantitative links and nodes, simplifying data capture for weavers 
towards the end of the initial 3-year pilots, which we believe will significantly 
improve the process.

Another important step involved recognizing (and communicating) that maps evolve 
both as the network evolves and as the weaver’s awareness of connectivity in the 
network evolves.  In addition, though the data itself is objective, the process of 
collecting it (e.g., who the weavers interview and put on the map when) is subjective 
and can be misleading unless the weaver is explicit about his/her strategy and 
approach when sharing maps. 

Resolving the issue of whether to take a mass, comprehensive data collection 
approach as opposed to the snowball approach our weavers chose is difficult.  We 
generally agreed that moving towards greater comprehensiveness—even defining the 
scope of the network upfront but focusing initial mapping only on one section of the 
network—would be helpful, but would have to be done carefully.  A more radical 
approach would be to have the foundation do a large-scale mapping exercise before 
hiring the weaver, both to define and articulate the challenge and to give the weaver 
a good starting point on what connectivity existed (or didn’t).  This would not 
preclude weaver mapping, which they would have to continue to do on an ongoing 
basis, but would create a shared understanding from day one of the state of the 
network pre-weaver, and subsequent weaver activity, even if focused in small subparts of the network, would be more easily put into context.  However, such a large 
data collection process would present its own challenges in terms of defining sector 
boundaries, achieving an acceptable response rate, etc., so the difficulty of this 
process should not be underestimated.  

Using mapping tools effectively.  Effective use of mapping tools required both total 
buy-in from the weavers on the value of mapping, and sufficient support to make the 
process simple.  Support from experts such as Holley and Krebs was critical, as was 
the addition of a part-time dedicated mapping resource from Boston Beyond.  
However, commitment to jotting down data on an ongoing basis and using the maps 
to inform weaving decisions, rather than doing a big data collection crunch the week 
before a learning session and trying to make sense of it all at once, was very 
important.  To get the most out of the mapping tools, updating information needed to 
be a natural part of the day, not a once-a-quarter crunch. 

A second breakthrough was being clear that “network building” is really about 
building networks, not a single network.  It was not about one major initiative, or 
creating a concrete entity (a physical network) but rather connectivity and potential 
for action rather than making that action happen yourself.  Trying to find things to 
connect all (or a large number) of players did not work well.  Instead, we recognized 
that real bonds are formed at the micro level.  For example, a city-wide “coaches 
roundtable” was much less successful than hoped, and later initiatives addressing this 
critical issue focused instead on significantly smaller, more targeted groups of 
coaches rather than the original broad-based approach. Small steps, small 
introductions of one player to another rather than large convenings or broad-reaching 
initiatives, proved quite effective, especially in the early stages of network-building. 
Finally, we found that simple language about “making connections to help you 
XYZ” was much more effective than trying to explain network theory in official 
network language. Asking questions about who organizations work with or get 
information from is easier than saying “I’m collecting data on your network 
connections, please answer the following...”

discussion also proved helpful.

Defining and communicating what “it” is.  Barr and the weavers worked together 
to more clearly articulate the network-building theory of change and the role and 
expectations of the weavers, which proved quite helpful along the way.   Gaining 
clarity on goals and expectations – specifically in this case that the primary goal was 
to increase connectivity, and the secondary (but inter-related) goal was to see 
changes in the sector due to that connectivity—was critical.  It helped to describe 
connectivity as the underlying capacity for sector-level change and for innovative 
ideas and partnerships to emerge.  Gaining agreement on specific metrics to measure 
progress on connectivity gains, reinforcing and rewarding connecting and facilitating 
rather than project management, and having a process for periodic check-in and

MOVING BEYOND THE CHALLENGES 
Through the course of our work, we learned a lot about how to overcome these 
challenges.  Despite the cliché, recognizing and accepting that tensions existed was half 
the battle, and finding concrete ways around them comprised the other half.  Though we 
are still in learning mode, we believe that several key success factors helped combat each 
of the challenges described above:

! Managing the “identity crisis.”  The weavers articulated a sense of identity crisis in 
terms of working in such a unique role with few peers, especially in the learning 
mode of a pilot role.  Though support and oversight came from both Barr Foundation 
staff and staff at Boston After School and Beyond (the nonprofit intermediary where 
the weavers were officially employed and housed), their roles were unique enough 
that they didn’t fit into the core of either organization. And though they spent their 
time talking with organizations in their respective sectors, their roles and their 
intermediary status at times made them feel a bit isolated from the providers they 
were trying to support.  Most clearly, however, weavers yearned for more of a peer 
group or other form of support in thinking through their roles and strategies.   

Figuring out how to make connections form and stick, and how to get network 
members to engage in the process.  One of the biggest struggles that weavers had 
was figuring out the right incentives to engage nonprofit leaders in network-related 
activities, given numerous competing demands on their time and a general 
unfamiliarity with the network concept and potential benefits. A specific piece of the 
challenge involved weavers getting beyond the mental roadblock that providers are 
strapped for time and money, that network activities are a burden, and that therefore 
you have to give them something (i.e., the promise of funding) before you can 
engage them in the network or ask for data.  A related challenge was that weavers 
felt both self-imposed and network-imposed pressure to “deliver” concrete 
outcomes, or prove their value to the network, though the primary focus of weaving 
was supposed to be on connecting and facilitating, not owning or implementing 
projects.

concerns about whether or not the maps reflected a full-enough snapshot of the 
sector to be meaningful to larger audiences.  Finally, like all data analysis, you have 
to be careful about interpretation and extrapolation from the maps, and to balance the 
statistical network metrics with the qualitative stories that underlie those metrics.  At 
times it felt like the weavers had a set of stories from their work and a set of data to 
interpret, but each became much more meaningful when linked together.

Defining and communicating what “it” is.  The Foundation was hesitant to overstructure or over-define the role of the weaver, because part of the purpose of the 
investment was to break new ground and learn while doing.  That said, the openendedness of the weaver role, the emphasis on facilitation rather than project 
management, and the somewhat abstract goals of “connectivity” and “emergence” 
combined to create several challenges.  These included communicating well enough 
about the goals to help the weavers define their goals and workplans, and getting the 
language right to enable weavers to talk to the field.  Weavers found that program 
providers in their respective sectors were quick to look for concrete deliverables or 
support coming from the weavers, and figuring out how to describe and even justify 
their jobs as weavers – to say with a straight face “My job is to make connections, 
not to ‘do’ anything” was a bit of a struggle. 

4. Challenges and Lessons Learned 
The process of getting to those successes, however, was not an easy one.  The early days 
(years) of these pilots revealed several major challenges, which can be grouped into the 
following:

Defining and communicating what “it” is.  The Foundation was hesitant to overstructure or over-define the role of the weaver, because part of the purpose of the 
investment was to break new ground and learn while doing.  That said, the openendedness of the weaver role, the emphasis on facilitation rather than project 
management, and the somewhat abstract goals of “connectivity” and “emergence” 
combined to create several challenges.  These included communicating well enough 
about the goals to help the weavers define their goals and workplans, and getting the 
language right to enable weavers to talk to the field.  Weavers found that program 
providers in their respective sectors were quick to look for concrete deliverables or 
support coming from the weavers, and figuring out how to describe and even justify 
their jobs as weavers – to say with a straight face “My job is to make connections, 
not to ‘do’ anything” was a bit of a struggle.