Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 443–458 | Cite as

‘Who’s in the Network?’ When Stakeholders Influence Data Analysis

  • Christina PrellEmail author
  • Klaus Hubacek
  • Claire Quinn
  • Mark Reed
Original Paper


Environmental applications of social network analysis (SNA) are just beginning to emerge, and so far have focussed on understanding the characteristics of social networks that increase the likelihood of collective action and successful natural resource management. We move beyond this discussion to demonstrate how knowledge gained from analysing the social networks of stakeholders can be harnessed for selecting stakeholders, and further, how these analyses can be influenced by the expressed wishes and concerns of stakeholders. Although we began our SNA using concepts derived from the resource-management literature, stakeholder involvement in the interpretation of the results led to the use of SNA techniques that had not previously been applied in the context of resource management. We thus re-analysed our data and modified our selection of research participants. Re-analysis led to the selection of research participants who (1) had unique positions in the network, thus occupying non-redundant communication roles in the network, (2) came from different stakeholder categories and (3) were relatively well-connected to others and tended to broker across different segments of the network. By combining insights from researchers and stakeholders in this way, it was possible to use SNA in an innovative and sensitive way to better meet the needs of the stakeholders and the research project.


Social network analysis Social learning Peak District National Park Resource management Participatory approaches 


  1. Alexander D (1999) Planning as learning: sustainability and the education of citizen activists. Environments 27:79–87Google Scholar
  2. Bodin O, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11.
  3. Brass DJ (1992) Power in organizations: a social network perspective. In: Moore G, Whitt JA (eds) Research in politics and society. JAI, Greenwich, pp 295–323Google Scholar
  4. Burt R (1976) Positions in networks. Soc Forces 55:93–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt R (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Adm Sci Q 42:339–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt R (2001) Structure holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin KCN, Burt R (eds) Social capital: theory and research. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt R (2005) Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers R, Pacey A, Thrupp LA (1989) Farmer first. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research Intermediate Technology Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman JS (1993) The design of organizations and the right to act. Sociol Forum 8:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crona B, Bodin O (2006) What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for comanagement. Ecol Soc 11.
  12. Cross RL, Parker A (2004) The hidden power of social networks: understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach Praeger. Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  14. Davidson-Hunt I (2006) Adaptive learning networks: developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Hum Ecol 34:593–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diduck A (1999) Critical education in resource and environmental management: learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. J Environ Manage 57:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dougill AJ, Reed MS, Fraser EDG, Hubacek K, Prell C, Stagl ST, Stringer LC, Holden J (2006) Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. J Agric Econ 57:259–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks. Soc Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedkin NE (1998) A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Friere P, Ramos MB (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson SC (1967) Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika 2:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keen M, Mahanty S (2006) Learning in sustainable natural resource management: challenges and opportunities in the pacific. Soc Nat Resour 19:497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  24. Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organisations. In: Nohria N, Eccles RC (eds) Networks and organisations: structure, form and action.. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp 216–239Google Scholar
  25. Leeuwis C, Pyburn R (2002) Social learning for rural resource management. In: Leeuwis C, Pyburn R (eds) Wheelbarrows full of frogs. social learning in rural resource management. Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Aasen, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  26. Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mark NP (2003) Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches. Am Sociol Rev 68:319–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newman L, Dale A (2004) Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecol Soc 10.
  29. Newman L, Dale A (2007) Homophily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks. Environ Dev Sustain 9:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Office for National Statistics (2003) Census 2001: CD supplement to the national report for England and Wales and key statistics for local authorities in England and Wales office for National Statistics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Community Appl Soc Psycol 14:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pea RD (1993) Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities—conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educ Psycol 28:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peak District National Park (2004) State of the park report (update)Google Scholar
  34. Prell C (2003) Community networking and social capital: early investigations. J Comput Mediat Commun 8.
  35. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Natur Resour (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  36. Raffles H (2002) Intimate knowledge. Int Soc Sci J 173:25–35Google Scholar
  37. Reason P, Bradbury H (2001) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry & practice. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruef M, Aldrich HE, Carter NM (2004) The structure of founding teams: homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S entrepreneurs. Am Sociol Rev 69:317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schneider M, Scholz J, Lubell M, Mindruta D, Edwardsen M (2003) Building consensual institutions: networks and the national estuary program. Am J Pol Sci 47:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schusler TM, Decker DJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 15:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott J (2000) Social network analysis: a handbook Newbury Park. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Skvoretz J, Fararo TJ, Agneessens F (2004) Advances in biased net theory: definitions, derivations, and estimations. Soc Netw 26:113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tompkins E, Adger W (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9:10Google Scholar
  44. Valente TW, Davis R (1999) Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 566:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wasserman S, Faust F (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Wellman B, Gulia M (1999) Virtual communities as communities: net surfers don’t ride alone. In: Smith MA, Kollock P (eds) Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, New York, pp 167–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Prell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Klaus Hubacek
    • 2
  • Claire Quinn
    • 2
  • Mark Reed
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations