Network Power or Power-Penetrated Network?

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

Communicative 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 practice

Planners 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.

Keywords:

• communicative planning
• economic development
• email network
• power

RESEARCH SUPPORT

This work was supported by the College of Social Science and Public Policy Collaborative Collision Seed Grant and the Committee on Faculty Research Support Grant, Florida State University.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental data for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2267534.

Notes

1 We used letters to represent individuals throughout this article. Planners are referred to as P1, P2, and P3; city commissioners as C1 to C5; CRA members as R1, R2, and R3; and the Edison Restaurant’s owner as Person E.

2 Note that the average degree centrality across all nodes in a network is mathematically equivalent to network density, another network metric that measures the connectedness of the whole network (Bott, 1957).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Li Fang

LI FANG ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Florida State University.

Yijia Wen

YIJIA WEN ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Florida State University.

Jingze Zhang

JINGZE ZHANG ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Scientific Computing at Florida State University.

Gordon Erlebacher

GORDON ERLEBACHER ([email protected]) is a professor in the Department of Scientific Computing at Florida State University.

Samuel Staley

SAMUEL STALEY ([email protected]) is the director of the DeVoe L. Moore Center at Florida State University.