I am currently involved in various programs which are encouraging the development of skills in forming networks, particularly between providers of training and industry clients. I find that many providers have only a rudimentary conceptual framework for understanding the nature of networks: they have not thought much about how networks function. But when I talk to these providers about the theory of networks and invite them to critique their own networks using this theory, they normally have an ‘ah ha’ response: network theory resonates with their own experiences.

I would just like to discuss one aspect of networking theory here: the concept of open or closed networks; or networks with and without closure. Imagine five people in a network: person A, B, C, D and E. In a network without closure, or an open network, person A can impact on persons B and C; but B and C are not directly connected, with one linked to D and one to E. In this open network, there are a limited number of shared norms influencing behaviour. However, in a network with closure, the parties are all interlinked and can exert influence on each other to observe agreed norms of behaviour: obligations can be imposed (see Coleman, in Lesser 2000, p.27).

Regarding the various structures of networks, Adler and Kwon (2000) distinguish between those closed networks where there are direct or dense ties or connections between members and those open networks where the ties are weak. Closed or dense networks facilitate the emergence of shared norms and encourage trust among members while open networks may involve lower levels of trust (p.98).

The scope and structure of a network may change during its life, as members seek to gain different benefits from involvement:

• For instance, early in the development of a network, joint goals can be developed and collaborative strategies agreed upon, and at this stage the structure may still be fluid.
• As the network settles into operation, decisions may need to be made about how to gain optimum value from involvement and how to handle complex issues that arise, requiring a more formal and closed structure.
• On the other hand, a long-standing network may only need a loose structure, as there are increasing levels of cooperation, requiring limited coordination and planning.

Interestingly, some theorists argue that networks with weak ties between members have significant value, allowing for the easy flow of information between members without the need for many shared norms (Adler and Kwon 2000, p.98). This is important to note, because to form closed or dense networks may be difficult within many VET settings, where there are so many different stakeholders, from enterprises, to unions, to training organisations, often separated by distance and by different work patterns.

VET practitioners may wish to consider strongly the benefits of open or loosely structured networks, where a closed network is inappropriate or not feasible. For example, research cited by Adler and Kwon (2000) suggests that, in sparse or open networks, brokers who interact with many different community members can disseminate information of value to members without imposing extensive sociability or obligations on people (p.98). The potential activities of VET practitioners as brokers or intermediaries are described by Gientzotis (2003).

Networks are categorised other than by describing them as closed or open. For instance, Fulop and Linstead (1999) provide the following categories: vertical and horizontal networks, pooled and complementary networks, product and service networks and learning networks.

I discuss these concepts further in Chapter 1 of the report Building Industry Training Networks (ANTA, 2004), available at http://reframingthefuture.net (click on Publications then click on Sub-program 4).