9-Nov+Issue+Meeting

Nov. 9 Webinar: Defining Our Domain ("network impact")

 * Overview**:During this webmeeting, we focused on defining our 'domain' (the areas that the CoP wants to learn about), sharing live cases, and reviewing our learning trajectory.


 * Presentation Material:**


 * Conversation highlights**:

After watching an excerpt from Nicholas Christakis’ TED talk on [|'The Hidden Influence of Social Networks],' we commented on **network issues that were “top of mind”**. Ideas focused around the varying strength of network connection, structure, and size of networks:
 * **Evaluation**:
 * What are the results? How to capture results in a way that can be clearly shared with others who are not involved in that network.
 * When do we know it's not working? When are we investing resources without the return?
 * Several others touched upon questions of **how to connect / support disconnected networks**:
 * How to make best use of existing networks that are not connected? They may function in the same sphere, but not know how to connect with each other.
 * In the wake of the election, thinking about the oceans as a bipartisan issue. Looking ahead, I am wondering how to build a new political party, a democratic equivalent of the Tea Party. A new progressive movement. Looking at environmental, ocean, and related issues - how will these new networks that are forming shape the politics around environment, and how can we shape these networks? What might this mean for our traditional and new allies?
 * Health and Health Care have become one-sided. We are trying to fight against this and remain neutral. How to expand our network, and talk in a way that makes sense to everyone. Different groups working on different issues which intersect: Quality work is regionally focused; Coverage work focuses on state-level implementation. Trying to open these networks to each other.
 * Other top of mind ideas involved appropriate **staffing, structure, and incentives**:
 * Where and/or how we should be involved in staffing?
 * How much structure to provide early on. Attended a CoP meeting in India. Half the group wanted to start an organization, the other half questioned the necessity of this much investment early on (creating by laws, membership etc. versus investing energy in building the CoP).
 * We are supporting a project to help build greater connection between residents in neighborhoods via incentives. How sustained will these connections be over time? What experiences have others had in incentivizing long lasting connections between individuals?

We also reflected on **successful past community of practice experiences**, and the qualities that we'd like to bring into our CoP. Responses focused on providing staffing, infrastructure support, and different methods to keep people engaged:
 * Providing significant staffing support. National Network of Casey Fellows has supported one dedicated individual, and also offered a mini-grants program for fellows to apply for funding to do work on the ground.
 * Challenge: As membership grows, how to build greater connections beyond infrequent in-person convenings.
 * Ensuring the infrastructure is in place to enable people to act on ideas.
 * Actually testing things out. Pilot new tools. Even if they don’t work, they can serve as an additional mechanism to keep people engaged.
 * Focusing the majority of the conversation of developing tangible solutions to detailed problems can keep people invested in virtual conversations.
 * How to keep people engaged virtually, on-line: The ‘magic’ happens when groups are together, face-to-face, and dissipates soon after. Need something to remind us to keep engaging.
 * Requiring homework, so that everyone comes to the table having invested and with common ground.

Finally, we explored why we're embracing network approaches, To launch this dialogue, we looked at archtypal theories of change for network approaches including:
 * 1) Networks for connectivity. Greater connectivity leads to more effective individual and collective work, and therefore better field-level outcomes.
 * 2) Networks for field-level impact. Building and supporting action-oriented networks can drive progress toward targeted outcomes.
 * 3) Networks for movement building. Networks are a vehicle for grass roots engagement and for connecting a range of activities and actors working toward a shared vision of longer-term transformation.
 * 4) Networks as an enabling infrastructure for social change. Networks are an important lever for social change. Increased network effectiveness helps build capacity for social change.
 * 5) Networks as a way of working. Use of social media and embracing web 2.0 principles (e.g. decentralization, transparency) make it possible to tap networks inside and outside of an organization, resulting in better information flows, access to expertise, and field-level impact.

We then commented on current network projects and their underlying theories of change using this model. Responses included:
 * Dimension 5, "networks as a way of working," was most commonly cited (by five of the participants)
 * The other four dimensions, networks for "connectivity,"field-level impact," " movement building," and "enabling infrastructure for social change" were all equally cited (each by three participants), with most commentary focusing on "networks for connectivity":
 * Running a large program which requires many technical assistance providers. We have helped build a network to improve their effectiveness, minimize the burden on the communities in which they work, etc.
 * Networks as an important safety net for communities
 * Building a national talent pipeline of people of color for the social sector
 * Movement building [is most important] for our foundation, but for me most important is a way of working and field level impact. Look at ClimateWorks (a global network of nonprofits, foundations, etc.). They are aiming for field level impact, but also connectivity, enabling infrastructure, building the movement.
 * Two, three, and four [are most important] to the foundation. Five to me personally.