Advocacy Networks Through a Multidisciplinary Lens: Implications for Research Agendas

Abstract

Advocacy networks are coalitions of movements and organizations that in recent years have gained unprecedented levels of influence through their soft power strategies. They have become key political actors in local, national and international arenas. Research on their performance and role within today's information society has been developed by academics from different disciplines. Some of these analyses, however, seem to portray them as a new actor within an alreadyexisting structure. This article argues that the network structure of these associations requires for a multifaceted and multidisciplinary approach in order to better understand how they are changing the political and social landscape. In order to achieve this purpose, this article is divided in two parts: the first one offers an overview of existing literature on the subject from different disciplines and at different scales, while the second part puts forward a framework to consider all relevant spheres of these networks for better analyses. As will be noted in the literature review, most of the case studies have been carried out from a clear disciplinary focus with its own set of categories and focus on preferred dynamics. This approach reduces the density of the networks by portraying them as other already-known institutions. One example of this is that of scales of action, usually defined as local, national, international or transnational. By focusing solely on the arena of direct influence, other interactions that may be central to the network are thus ignored or minimized. In order to disentangle such misrepresentations, it is suggested here to consider five dimensions of analysis in the study of advocacy networks: (1) scales of action and interaction, (2) cultural contexts and legacies, (3) network logic, (4) discourse production and contestation and (5) institutional ecosystem. By considering the implications of all five of them, it is proposed here, accounts may yield more comprehensive analyses of how these webs of civil society groups are transforming the political landscape.Résumé Les réseaux de défense d'intérêts sont des coalitions de mouvements et des organisations qui au cours des dernières années se sont dotés de niveaux d'influence sans précédent grâce à leurs stratégies de soft power. Ils sont devenus des acteurs politiques clés dans les arènes locales, nationales et internationales. Des chercheurs issus de différentes disciplines ont étudié leurs performances ainsi que leur rôle au sein de la société de l'information contemporaine. Certaines de ces analyses semblent cependant les décrire comme un nouvel acteur au sein d'une structure d'ores et déjà existante. Cet article allègue que la structure de réseau de ces associations exige une approche pluridisciplinaire aux facettes multiples afin de mieux comprendre la manière dont elles transforment le paysage politique et social. Dans cet objectif, cet article comporte deux parties : la première est une présentation des publications existantes sur le sujet issues de différentes discipl...

Challenging the ‘care penalty’: The Queensland pay equity campaign for community services workers

“…Campaigning requires interest group participation, partnership arrangements, bringing issues to wider publics (Onyx et al, 2010: 56) and using network-based tactics to disseminate information (Acosta, 2012;Keck and Sikkink, 1998) via coalition-building. Jill Lang expressed one of the key tensions: 'We're not advocates; sorry, we are advocates, but we're not necessarily adversarial' (interview, Lang).…”

“…Some are theoretical: for instance, can network theory and/or theories of organisations as 'systems of relations' (Acosta, 2012;Diani, 2012) …”

Duos and Duels in Field Evolution: How Governments and Interorganizational Networks Relate

“…Advocacy networks are those in which actors ‘collaborate on a particular issue and use informational and symbolic resources to influence power holders’ (Kraemer et al, 2013, p. 825). It includes activities such as ‘lobbying, hypermedia campaigns and marches’ (Acosta, 2012, p. 159). As a more apparently neutral actor than a clearly statist Government, the network can help to generate consensus around responses to a field evolution.…”

Innovations in Public and Non-profit Sector Organizations in China

“…Another new development is the participation of international NGOs as insiders in shaping public policies and in formulating solutions in partnerships with governments and businesses. Keck and Sikkink (; see also Acosta, ) showed how international NGOs can leverage concessions from governments by applying indirect pressure on governments at the international level in alliance with other organizations. For example, in the environmental field, a transnational advocacy group such as Greenpeace will coordinate its efforts with other groups to put both direct and indirect pressures on governments and businesses to change their environmental policies and practices.…”