Forming networks is one of the buzz concepts in VET at the moment. But beyond the buzz, are networks always a positive phenomenon? We need to be honest about the positives and negatives of networks, but is VET capable of a dispassionate critique of networks? A problem in my beloved VET, in which I have worked for 30 years, is the sector’s historical tendency to be atheoretical, to shun analysis, to hope and pray that the big things in VET life (e.g. provider organizations, industry, teaching, learning) are simple. On the other hand, there are some aspects of VET culture that are attractive and ennobling, such as the genuine desire by the majority of VET practitioners to collaborate to improve services to students.

So I read with considerable interest a brutally frank article in yesterday’s The Australian (Wednesday 11 August 2004) about networks in the university sector, which illustrates some chilling aspects of university culture and the potential negatives of networks. If we think there are some downsides to VET culture, read on for some insights into university culture.

The article was written by John Gava, a senior lecturer in law at my original alma mater, the University of Adelaide. His article was entitled ‘Networks hinder the pursuit of truth’ and he asked some key questions: ‘But does networking threaten the basic goals of academic life? Should academics network?’ Some key points he made are as follows:

Networking threatens honesty in several ways. To establish a network one has to be willing to compromise one’s beliefs in order to attract friends and avoid scaring them away. This might involve being all things to all people, a wonderful skill in a politician or market player but hardly a sound academic attribute.

To establish and maintain a network one must compromise with and help the members of one’s network.

He points out the group pressure in networks to suppress one’s individuality:

In a more subtle way, networking operates as an internal censor, ensuring that one’s opinions and decisions will accord with the needs of the network.

Finally, Gava sees networks as contrary to the core identity of the pure academic:

A true intellectual has to be prepared to disagree with, indeed offend, the closest of colleagues. The objects of a network will always work against one’s intellectual conscience.

Besides alarming VET practitioners about the fiercely individual and competitive ethos of a university, Gava has bravely and correctly reminded us that networks do have limitations; they do require compromises; and they can threaten truth.

In the literature on networking, Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.70) note the potential limitations of networks, which can become like rigid clans – elitist, insular, idiosyncratic, corrupt or destructive. Networks can also develop ‘groupthink’ and ossify. Networks can breed unthinking loyalty and unquestioned shared beliefs. On the other hand, warm and fuzzy networks prevent people from asking tough questions.

There is some hope for networks in VET. Cohen and Prusak (2001, p.72) believe that the key to developing and sustaining networks is maintaining trust. VET practitioners often pride themselves on their capacity to trust, and this characteristic can militate against the negatives of networking described by Gava. But we need to be ever mindful of the limitations of networks. Gava's honesty is to be commended.