Difference between revisions of "NGO Networking"
(→History of Networks) |
(→History of Networks) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
In an interview with program assistant, Andrea Bertone of the Woodrow Wilson Center on March 2, 2000, Ann Hudock who worked for the Association for Rural Development (ARD) says that “ARD was subject to outside control and donors were driving the process” (Bertone). | In an interview with program assistant, Andrea Bertone of the Woodrow Wilson Center on March 2, 2000, Ann Hudock who worked for the Association for Rural Development (ARD) says that “ARD was subject to outside control and donors were driving the process” (Bertone). | ||
| − | Despite some of the difficulties that have historically surfaced with NGO partnerships, Goyder claims the reasons behind networking and partnering have genuine value when the partnership is based on a commitment to developing national organizations and not merely on funding. He believes that successful collaboration “requires joint strategic planning and agreement on objectives and indicators by which progress is measured. Once a relationship is established, problems can be openly acknowledged and addressed before they become overwhelming. There is much scope for learning by both sides” (Goyder). Agreeing with Goyder, strategic planning is crucial. The concepts and rationale that support the benefits for networks and partnerships remain valid and putting the theories into practice have been as positive as it has been challenging coming into the twenty-first century with the breadth of NGO variety expanding. | + | Despite some of the difficulties that have historically surfaced with NGO partnerships, Goyder claims the reasons behind networking and partnering have genuine value when the partnership is based on a commitment to developing national organizations and not merely on funding. He believes that successful collaboration “requires joint [[NGO Strategic Planning|strategic planning]] and agreement on objectives and indicators by which progress is measured. Once a relationship is established, problems can be openly acknowledged and addressed before they become overwhelming. There is much scope for learning by both sides” (Goyder). Agreeing with Goyder, strategic planning is crucial. The concepts and rationale that support the benefits for networks and partnerships remain valid and putting the theories into practice have been as positive as it has been challenging coming into the twenty-first century with the breadth of NGO variety expanding. |
==Types of NGO Networks== | ==Types of NGO Networks== | ||
Revision as of 08:44, 12 August 2008
“NGOs work in a society as institutions in their own right and through negotiation with other institutional actors to achieve their interests. Their success in working in society depends to a great extent on their ability to influence others in their environments…”(Doh and Teegan 217)
Optimally, networks have the potential to benefit Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the areas of organizational development, performance, and advocacy. Likewise, the means for education and partnership multiply when NGOs connect with other NGOs or organizations. The Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance study, “NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World,” cites key characteristics shared by most networks and diverse approaches to NGO networking. In analyzing these characteristics and the way that networks function, a brief history of network ideology and NGO networking since the 1980’s, when such partnering practices became more common, provides background to the topic. NGO networks operate in many different areas of society and the circumstances from which they form are likewise varied. It is understood that as the challenges and benefits of NGO networking are negotiated, the present and future of NGO networks will remain a learning process that means continuing to evolve as engines of change.
