Network Power or Power-Penetrated Network?

Problem, research strategy, and findingsCommunicative planners have long recognized the importance of communication networks for planning outcomes. However, the description of such networks has remained largely static, portraying a network as either positive (collaborative) or negative (power penetrated), which limits the understanding of communication patterns and power dynamics throughout the planning process. An incomplete understanding of complex communication patterns also hinders the ability of planners to mediate between stakeholders in the communication process to achieve beneficial outcomes. Using social network analysis, we filled this research gap by analyzing an entire collection of email exchanges involving key decision makers on an economic development project in Tallahassee (FL) for 6 years. We conclude that this actual communication network fell short of the ideal set by planners: a collaborative network with diverse and interdependent actors engaged in authentic dialogue. Importantly, the actual pattern swayed further away from this ideal when confronted with major financial decisions, suggesting that the weight of certain decisions alters communication networks. We also found that city commissioners were the most engaged actors, indicating that political power established through the electoral process played a more significant role in the communication network. Planners, on the contrary, played a limited bridging role.Takeaway for practicePlanners must pay closer attention to the communication network and dynamics in the planning and policy implementation process and more effectively play the role of a critical friend to help form truly collaborative networks. The use of social network analysis can help reveal the structure of the network and the position of key actors in real time and guide the deliberate actions of planners. In addition, institutional procedures, such as email transparency, are needed to alleviate the informational power imbalance.