This post contains the content of a X/Twitter thread that I posted to spruik the publication of my first solo-authored journal publication. ‘The Loci of Power and Connection (LOPAC): a framework for exploring the democratic relationships of civil society organisations’ (CSOs)
The article is available free online here
The twitter thread is here. Or keep reading below.
I’m excited to share my first solo-authored academic publication – ‘The Loci of Power and Connection (LOPAC): a framework for exploring the democratic relationships of civil society organisations’ (CSOs). Open Access with ‘Interest Groups @IGA_Journal thanks to @UTSManagement https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-024-00209-7
TL;DR: LOPAC is a tool for understanding what CSOs do, by considering the nature of the connection between the CSO and community members (transactional vs. relational) and the amount of control or hierarchy in the relationship (centralised vs. decentralised)
Look, here’s a nice diagram you can find in the article, that’s going straight into a slidedeck.
LOPAC centres on the premise that the activities CSOs conduct (advocacy, service delivery, capacity building, research, etc.) can be done in different ways, and these choices have consequences. It resonates with CSOs being ‘transmission belts’ between people and the state.
‘Bare Essentials’ (transactional + decentralised) are some of the basic things CSOs do: websites, social media platforms, producing annual reports. All well and good, but on their own ‘unlikely to address systemic barriers that people face.’
‘Crowd Control’ (transactional + centralised) are ‘some of the most common and public forms of CSO activity’, large scale service delivery, microdonations, e-petitions, even mobilising mass protests.
‘Honeycomb’ (relational + decentralised) ‘are the fertile breeding grounds for the trust, relationships and social capital that are regarded as essential to CSO democratic activity.’ Make honey / scrape honey = Build power / wield power 🐝🍯🦸♀️
‘Closed Door’ (relational + centralised) ‘can be extremely important for negotiating and procuring democratic outcomes’. Leaders summits, lobbying, etc. But an overreliance on these can severely undermine democratic legitimacy.
From a normative ‘We <3 Democracy’ perspective, we might say that Honeycomb activities build social capital, trust and collective power, while Crowd Control activities channel that power into encouraging institutional decision-makers to be better.
In broad historical terms, CSOs have shifted from volunteer member infused Honeycomb activities towards professionalised metric oriented Crowd Control ones, with various potential consequences.
I’m indebted to various scholars whose ideas informed the framework, but in particular Sherry Arnstein, Kay Lawson, @darren_halpin and @hahriehan. And of course thanks to the reviewers and editors at @IGA_Journal
Thanks also to my PhD supervisors for supporting the development of these ideas over the last few years @anika_gauja @mds49 and @amyconleywright. And also the peers and colleagues I tested these ideas on, esp @auspsa @poppoliticsaus @plvhayman @bspiesbutcher, Anita Tang of @ausprogress and @AmandaTatts.
Finally, this framework is the main theoretical contribution from my forthcoming PhD thesis, so I’m super excited to take it on the road and see how it might be useful for other scholars and people across civil society. Thanks for reading and check it out here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-024-00209-7