IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pwat00/0000044.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping (mis)alignment within a collaborative network using homophily metrics

Author

Listed:
  • Kimberly Pugel
  • Amy Javernick-Will
  • Cliff Nyaga
  • Muhammed Ebrahim Mussa
  • Desta Dimtse
  • Lucia Henry
  • Karl Linden

Abstract

Collaborative approaches can overcome fragmentation by fostering consensus and connecting stakeholders who prioritize similar activities. This makes them a promising approach for complex, systemic problems such as lack of reliable, safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in low-income countries. Despite the touted ability of collaborative approaches to align priorities, there remains no comprehensive way to measure and map alignment within a network of actors. Methodological limitations have led to inconsistent guidance on if, and how much, alignment is needed around a common vision (e.g., universal, reliable access to WASH) and/or around an agreed set of activities (e.g. passing a bill to promote water scheme maintenance models). In this work, we first define alignment as the extent to which actors work with others who share priorities. We then develop and test a method that uses social network analysis and qualitative interview data to quantify and visualize alignment within a network. By investigating how alignment of two strong, well-functioning WASH collaborative approaches evolved over three years, we showed that while alignment on a common vision may be a defining aspect of collaborative approaches, some alignment around specific activities is also required. Collaborative approaches that had sub-groups of members that all prioritized the same activities and worked together were able to make significant progress on those activities, such as drafting and passing a county-wide water bill or constructing a controversial fecal sludge disposal site. Despite strong sub-group formation, networks still had an overall tendency for actors to work with actors with different prioritized activities. While this reinforces some existing knowledge about collaborative work, it also clarifies inconsistencies in theory on collaborative approaches, calls into question key aspects of network literature, and expands methodological capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Kimberly Pugel & Amy Javernick-Will & Cliff Nyaga & Muhammed Ebrahim Mussa & Desta Dimtse & Lucia Henry & Karl Linden, 2022. "Mapping (mis)alignment within a collaborative network using homophily metrics," PLOS Water, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(9), pages 1-22, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pwat00:0000044
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pwat.0000044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/water/article?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000044
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/water/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000044&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. P. Quayle & A. S. Siddiqui & S. J.M. Jones, 2006. "Modeling network growth with assortative mixing," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 617-630, April.
    2. Alberto Pepe & Marko A. Rodriguez, 2010. "Collaboration in sensor network research: an in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 687-701, September.
    3. Job Ochieng Ogada & George Okoye Krhoda & Anne Van Der Veen & Martin Marani & Pieter Richards van Oel, 2017. "Managing resources through stakeholder networks: collaborative water governance for Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 271-290, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hamid Bouabid & Hind Achachi, 2022. "Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6993-7013, December.
    2. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    3. Omweri, F.S. & Motari, YO, 2024. "Policy Networks and Relationship between Multiple Streams Approach and Implementation of Road Safety Policy Measures in Kenyan Counties," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 445-456, April.
    4. Li, Jianyu & Zhou, Jie, 2007. "Chinese character structure analysis based on complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 380(C), pages 629-638.
    5. Isidro Maya Jariego, 2024. "Using stakeholder network analysis to enhance the impact of participation in water governance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-6, December.
    6. Jing Tu, 2019. "What connections lead to good scientific performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 587-604, February.
    7. Liang Chen & Guy G. Gable & Haibo Hu, 2013. "Communication and organizational social networks: a simulation model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 460-479, December.
    8. Kathleen C. Stosch & Richard S. Quilliam & Nils Bunnefeld & David M. Oliver, 2022. "Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Francis Oremo & Richard Mulwa & Nicholas Oguge, 2019. "Knowledge, Attitude and Practice in Water Resources Management among Smallholder Irrigators in the Tsavo Sub-Catchment, Kenya," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Tolga Yuret, 2020. "Co-worker network: How closely are researchers who published in the top five economics journals related?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2301-2317, September.
    11. Li, Jianyu & Zhou, Jie & Luo, Xiaoyue & Yang, Zhanxin, 2012. "Chinese lexical networks: The structure, function and formation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(21), pages 5254-5263.
    12. Joshua Odero Aseto & Kartika Anggraeni & Marianne Isabel Magnus Melgar & Adriana Ballón-Ossio & Luca Emanuel Sander & Francesca Grossi & William Ojwang & Elizabeth Gathogo & Caroline Njiru & Nickson O, 2022. "Promotion and Uptake of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Practices among Kenyan MSMEs: Key Learnings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Yan, Erjia & Ding, Ying & Milojević, Staša & Sugimoto, Cassidy R., 2012. "Topics in dynamic research communities: An exploratory study for the field of information retrieval," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 140-153.
    14. Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    15. Julia Renner, 2020. "New Power Structures and Shifted Governance Agendas Disrupting Climate Change Adaptation Developments in Kenya and Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, April.
    16. Miloš Savić & Mirjana Ivanović & Bojana Dimić Surla, 2017. "Analysis of intra-institutional research collaboration: a case of a Serbian faculty of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 195-216, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pwat00:0000044. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: water (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/water .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.