1. Welcome/Overview

2. Introducing the case

In the following chapter you will be introduced to a case/artefact which consists of a picture of the social network/partnerships of an asset-based project. The picture will be followed by a description of the different relations and ties in the network and the various types of "exchanges" between them. 

First, you will read the case and study the picture of the network and then you will analyse the network and partnerships to address a set of critical questions about the content of the case. The case is based on the project "Building Bridges" which is an asset-based project that seeks to "build bridges" between a prison/prisoners and the community by harnessing resources in the prisoners and the community, or to be precise, the educational system. 

You will be asked to consider how the composition of the network and partnerships work in your own professional practice. 

Then you will consider how a Slovenian asset-based project, focusing on youth, works in terms of network and partnership. 

3. The artefact

The Case

The network and the dynamics of the relations in the project Building Bridges

The actors in the specific case is: Project Manager- Linda K. M. (L), Government (G), Study Board at the university (SB), Prison and Probation Service (PP), Prison Director (PD), Prison Guards (PG), Students from prison (SP), Students from University (SU), External Teachers (ET)[1]

Description of network and relations between entities based on interviews in the case study

Building Bridges was started by Linda Kjær Minke, who teaches a course in Criminology at the University of Southern Denmark. The project is inspired by the American Inside out approach and the primary function of the project is to teach both inside students (prisoners) and outside students (university students) together within the prison.

Linda is the only person responsible for managing the project and has spent a lot of time and resources on establishing the project and securing its continuance. As mentioned by her in the interview, it can be quite difficult to get the Study Board to approve the course, especially since the course takes more of her time and thus is more expensive to offer. As illustrated on Network 2, information and ideas go both ways in the tie between Linda and the Study Board, but the Study Board is in a position to decide for themselves if they want to approve the course and they are obligated to take financial circumstances into consideration. This is also illustrated by the green dotted line from the Study Board (University) to the project leader which express that approval of the course lasts only one semester at the time.

In Network 2, it is also illustrated that there is an enclave of students involved in the project (often around 15 but in terms of space and simplicity they figure as three entities). The resources exchanged between the students is both emotions and symbols and although this is definitely not generalisable, the group can in some degree be characterised as being homogenic. It is also illustrated that they exchange resources with both the external teacher and the inside students, because they all participate in the lectures, but it is quite essential to stress, as illustrated on Network 1, that they are not connected to anyone else in the network outside the project and thus the exchanges is only occurring during lectures and is not sustained outside those settings. This is also emphasised through the dotted lines on Network 2. As expressed by both university students and project leader (Linda), they often have a quite close connection and the project leader has individual conversations with each student before enrollment. Furthermore, the university students are linked to the students inside the prison. This relation is described as being filled with skepticism and prejudices before participating in the course, but quickly these relations change character and with respects, understanding and approval flowing reciprocally. So the purple dotted line on Network 2, illustrates the initial state of the relation.

As emphasized by several dotted lines, the connection between the inside students and the project, both teachers and other students, is quite weak. Due to the strict rules about communication between prisoners and the outside, the communication is basically during lectures or otherwise quite sporadic. This is, for instance, a hindrance to effective group work between inside and outside students, and also for providing the inside students with necessary feedback from the teacher.

In the bottom to the right of Network 2, you will see the external teacher. External teachers are an essential part of the course since they compose a variety of professions e.g. employees from Prison and Probation Service or high profile university professors, which is essential in challenging some of the prejudices and lack of understanding that might exist between for instance prisoners and representatives of the police. Again, the dotted purple line represents only some of those relations and it represents the initial stage of that relation. Moreover, the illustration points to the fact that the relation between the project and the external teachers is not completely stable. First of all the funding from the university is not a long-term agreement but a short-term agreement that the project leader must negotiate each semester. Secondly, you can see that a lot of resources flow reciprocally between the project leader and the external teachers, which is due to the fact that they often know each other personally, but they do not work in the same area of the country and communication is often through emails. Obviously, their connection to the project is not long-term, since the funding of the project is not.      

If we move over to the blue circles that illustrates the ties to and between the people in the prison system, it is clear that the relation between inside students and the prison guards is quite complex. Most often their relation is one characterised by opposition and a general negative attitude towards each other. Obviously, it is also a relation that is characterised by a great deal of formality and a unidirectional flow of orders. This is what the unidirectional yellow line on Network 2 express, which means that information obviously also flow from prisoners to guards but the relation is generally characterised by the domination by the prison guards. Concerning the relation between the project leader and the prison guards, this is also a quite troublesome relation. Bringing so many outsiders into the prison means a lot of extra work with searching the visitors and moving prisoners around. This is also due to the very strict security procedures of the prison that the guards are obligated and expected to be concerned about. Therefore, some guards might oppose the existence of the project. Although, the project leader describes that she has quite a good connection with one of the guards who work as a gatekeeper and promote the projects to the other guards. She maintains this relation through emails occasionally. Generally, the aims and the goals of the project and some of the prison employees seems to differ a lot.

As highlighted by Network 2, the relations between the project leader and the Prison and Probation Service and the Prison director works in quite a similar way. Although both symbols and emotions flow both ways, these relations are very much characterised by the fact that these stakeholders are essential in order for the project to proceed. As it was also the case with the external teachers, we see that the amount of emotional resources flowing reciprocally does not resemble the usual formal relation between two institution professionals, but again this is because they are a part of the project leaders pre-existing network. The project leader emphasised that it is impossible to get access if you do not know anyone on the inside or have a highly renown project. As illustrated by the green dotted line, the project is highly reliant on the Prison and Probation Service for them to pay for the inside students to attend the course, since they can not afford it themselves. As with the funding from the university, this is also a short-term resource without any permanent long-time flow of economic resources.      

Project Manager- Linda K. M. (L), Government (G), Study Board at the university (SB), Prison and Probation Service (PP), Prison Director (PD), Prison Guards (PG), Students from prison (SP), Students from University (SU), External Teachers (ET)[1]

3.1. Activities

Activity 1: Analyse the network of your own professional context. Include considerations about the concepts mentioned below. Include only the aspects that you consider relevant for the context you describe. When finished you should add a picture of your network drawing in the individual or group wiki. 

Number of ties: Considers the number of ties, both actual and potential ties, that can be generated should be considered. This might be helpful in terms of considering other ways of structuring the network. 

Directedness: Marks the way that different resources flow between the entities in the network. Helps you visualise the different flows in the network. Arrows can be used to exemplify this.

Reciprocity: Describes a way to mark identical flows between entities in the network. This can be marked by using different colors for the exchanges between positions in the network.

Transivity: Describes the connectedness of positive or negative flows that might be transferred to other ties in the network (e.g. negative exchanges between prison guards and prisoners might be transferred to other parts of the network).

Density: Describes the degree of connectedness. The more the actual number of ties the greater is the density of the network.

Strength of the ties: Describes the number of resources that flow between the positions in the network. A high amount of resources exchanged represent a strong tie and few sporadic exchanges represent a weak tie. This can be marked by thin and thick lines between positions.

Bridges: Bridges are places in the network where one point connects several other points. This means that bridges connect parts on the network that are otherwise not connected (e.g. on the simple network drawing it is clear that the project leader links many otherwise not connected parts of the network, so without her they are actually different/separate networks).

Brokerage: Brokers are the positions in the network that are the only entity that makes sure that resources flow from one part to another part of the network. So some networks become highly dependent on some positions for the flow of resources in the network. 

Centrality: Can, for instance, be understood as the number of ties between which a position falls. Some points in a network might be mediating a lot of the resources, so the centrality of that network would be high. (e.g. the project leader in the example provided exemplifies such a position and there is a very high amount of centrality in that network which makes it vulnerable)  

Equivalence: This term describes the amount of equivalence between different positions in the network. When two positions are in the same relation to each other they are considered equivalent. 

Resources exchanged: Considers the different resources exchanged in the network. Resources might be both the flow of information, money, goods, services, influence, emotions, deference, prestige or just any force or resource that binds the different actors to each other. 

Social Capital: The concept of social capital encompass various aspects that has been debated in many academic and political circles. In regard to applicability and relevance, the two aspects below has been chosen for the learner. 

Strong and weak ties: Concept developed by Granovetter where strong ties are typically found in ethnic minority groups or religious groups. Weak ties are more random and sporadic. Strong ties in some part of a network might counteract the collaboration in the network and have excluding effects. In some situations such as when seeking a job, weak ties might be very beneficial and in family relations, strong ties might be more important. 

Bridging and Bonding: Putnam uses these concepts to describe different types of network relations. Bonding represents connections or networking within homogeneous groups and Bridging represents networking between more heterogeneous groups. Putnam considers the last one as essential for the social cohesion and solidarity in a community/society. Putnam empahsises that trust is an important aspect of bridging. 

Activity 2: Analyse and discuss the partnerships in relation to aspects of social and human capital in your own professional context. For instance, you could consider whether new or existing partnerships could promote the cultural capital of relevant actors by reflecting on the relation between social and human capital and the possibilities for establishing or rethinking the existing actor's social capital. In asset-based approaches the goals of established cultural capital should preferably be formulated by the individual actors themselves, but could also be related to project aims or goals.     

Description of human and social capital: An essential point for Coleman is the connections between social and human capital. In a simplified way, social capital can be understood for instance as an asset in the social relations/network of persons and projects. In that regard, it can become a valuable resource that can be used to achieve goals. Human capital can be understood, as for instance, in education, knowledge about arts, behavioural norms etc. In relation to these two concepts, Coleman emphasises that cultural capital e.g. education is not worth much if the necessary social capital is not available e.g. parents investing time in helping their children with homework.   

4. The context of the artefact

The project “Building Bridges” is located in Denmark and its aim is to mix outside law students with inside students (prisoners). By doing that the project seeks to assess the resources, skills, and experience available among prisoners and law students. With the inside/out connection, the project attempts to create synergies among the students practical and theoretical knowledge on Criminal Justice matters such as causes of crime, law, the legal system, imprisonment and crime preventive strategies. Moreover, it is the mission to inspire and motivate prisoners to take an education. These co-productive goals also contain an effort to challenge the preconceptions that the students and the prisoners might have of each other. In that way, it seeks to generate synergetic partnerships that transcend the capacities of the individual and the community per se.  

5. Critical questions

Answer the following critical questions and record your answers in your Individual wiki. Use the information you have read about the Building Bridges project to help you think about and answer the following questions:

• How might analysing the social network and partnerships help you/your organisation?
• What does the social network of your professional practice look like?
• What characterises the different exchanges in that network?
• How is social capital relevant in your partnerships?
• What characteristics are important for the relations between different entities in the network of your professional practice?
• What could be done to overcome some of the challenges in Building Bridges?
• How might reflections upon partnerships and network influence the sustainability of the project?
• What kind of social and human capital is relevant concerning the target group of your professional practice?

Click the link to complete your Individual Wiki

Individual Wiki

                          Comment

6. Comparing International practice/academic perspectives

Compare the answers you gave in your Individual wiki and the reflections recorded in the Group wiki, firstly to the answers given by the project manager from Building Bridges to the same critical and reflective questions. Secondly, compare your answers  to other international perspectives provided below:

Click the link to complete your Group Wiki

Group Wiki

                          Comment

7. Sharing implications of partnerships and network

               Click the link to complete your Group Wiki

Group Wiki

                          Comment

8. Bringing it all together

               Click the link to complete your Group Wiki

Group Wiki

                          Comment

9. Summary

In the previous sections, you have learned about how different aspects of partnership and network influence your professional practice in a community, and on an organisational and individual level. You have explored the partnerships of the asset-based project Building Bridges in Denmark and how their partnership model illustrated both strengths and weaknesses that influenced the professional practice. Additionally, you have learned about how concepts of social and human capital can be beneficial when understanding the partnerships of professional practice in an asset-based context. Furthermore, you have learned about the different aspects of partnerships and networking in a European context. Finally, you have learned to think critically about partnerships and reflect upon partnerships and social/human capital in your own professional context.      

We would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to complete the quick one-minute feedback questionnaire and our learner experience and satisfaction survey by clicking on the links below. Thank you.

Quick one minute feedback

Learner Experience and Satisfaction Survey

You can find out more about how our course was developed and you can leave feedback, post comments and ask questions by visiting our website by clicking on the word patch wall link.

Word-patch-wall

10. References

Asset-based community participation:

Social capital and social networks:

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.

Coleman, James  1988.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, 95-120

Lazega. E. 1997. Network analysis and qualitative research. A method of contextualization. In Gale Miller and Robert Dingwall (eds.) Context and Method in Qualitative Research.  Sage. London

Putnam, Robert . 2000. Bowling alone: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks. 15-26

Turner, Jonathan H.  2013. Contemporary Sociological Theory. Sage, London. Page  627-638.