EGLIS S.A; MEDI SISTEM SRL; TECNON SRL; POGGI RAUL JORGE LEON

in social struggles (and activism) are often ignored, rendered invisible, or overwritten with accounts by professionalised or academic experts.” (Choudry and Kapoor, 2010:2)

Using the theories of organisational knowledge and the Network Society, I bring the various elements of my conceptual framework together in constructing the campaigner as a stakeholder and social actor in NGO production and dissemination of knowledge about global poverty. The conceptualisation of NGOs as agency acting to accomplish a set objective further construct their campaigners as actors that can generate similar frames necessary to activate public deliberation. Using the Foucauldian model to understanding NGO campaigners construct the “campaigner” as operating in an environment of power imbalance where NGOs as their rallying point set the agenda of what, when and how the conflict issue is defined. I therefore, conceive of NGO campaigners not only as the initial target of campaign message disseminated to the public, but also as stakeholders whose ability to multiply a narrative will depend on how they internalise knowledge on the conflict issue.

Campaigning can be considered as an endeavour that blurs the distinction between agency and structure, in the way it is used by NGOs as a platform for framing and comunicating conflict issues, as well as a strategy for mobilising the public. In my conceptualisation of campaigning, I do not include its interpretation as the public appeal messages NGOs communicate to solicit donations for charity causes such as the Syrian humanitarian crisis or natural disasters. I limit my use of campaigning to infer the information communicated to create public awareness, activate public deliberation, and mobilise public action in challenging social conditions perceived as unjust. Although the Network Society concept of communication power acknowledges the unequal access potential actors have to ICT, it accounts for the opportunities marginalised actors have to engage in what Fraser (1992:123) called “counterdiacourse”, and to organise themselves in counterpublic arenas. Such arenas provide a venue for counterdiscourse that enable the filtering-in of the perspectives of marginalised groups into mainstream discourse.

74 Accordingly, the mainstreaming of counterdiscourse can be facilitated by less bureaucratised society groups such as student-led campaign organisations when they engage in collaborative campaigns with the more institutionalised INGOs. Lang (2013:70) described such organisations as “SMO/NGO hybrids that INGOs sometimes outsource certain kinds of publicness” that may conflict with their insider status and institutional leverage. The analysis of power in critical constructivism is also important for understanding how particular discourses of development come to dominate others and how certain forms and sources of knowledge are privileged.

The discussions on NGOs as an associational form of civil society that assume the role of sub publics support my proposition of campaigners as NGO “issue publics” that are mobilised or persuaded to take actions that support the advocacy initiatives of the organisation. Lang (2013:11) used the terms “subpublic” and “issue public” interchangeably to imply the role NGOs assume as proxy for the public sphere. However, I apply the terms differently to denote a dualism in which ‘subpublic’ refers to NGOs in their assumed role as proxy publics, and ‘issue public’ in refering to their campaigners who take prescribed actions. I therefore use the concept of “issue publics” to refer to NGO campaigners who are the immediate target audience and potential multipliers of knowledge on the issue. The notion of campaigners as “issue public” gains more currency with the advent of online campaigning and the adoption of web- based forms of communication as the frequent means by which NGOs disseminate their message (Harrison, 2006; Marshall, 2010). However, both terms relate to a communication and networking process by which various actors use similar frames in defining a conflict issue (Bennett et al., 2013), and to take actions aimed at accomplishing a common objective.

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1994; 1995) SECI knowledge creation framework contributes to understanding the potential role of NGO campaigners as actors in the knowledge creation process. With NGOs, the four processes of knowledge creation analysed in the SECI framework can be conceived of as also occurring outside the organisation where campaigners are not organised around membership structure. Organisational knowledge theory emphasise the centrality of the involvement of social actors that collaborate as stakeholders in producing knowledge aimed at a common objective. The involvement of NGO campaigners in the knowledge creation process will therefore depend on the opportunities the organisation provides the campaigner to be involved in framing the campaign issue. The Network Society concepts of informationalism and communication power contributes in constructing campaigners as autonomous social actors in the digital information age that have power to retrieve and disseminate knowledge, as well as to engage in counterdiscourse.

75 The diagram in fig.3 shows the relationship between organisational knowledge theory and the Network Society, the two core elements of my conceptual framework, and how they interact with, and are integrated in the constructivist approach to knowledge. Figure 3: Constructivist model of actionable knowledge

As illustrated in Figure 3, organisational knowledge provides the theoretical foundation for the type of knowledge that is produced, and the dynamics of its generation, conversion and application in achieving organisational goals. The Network Society, on the other hand, explains the social arena of knowledge, the diverse venues and actors involved in its production. The double arrow represents reflexivity in the way the concepts interact and the possibility to be involved from different locations outside the organisation. Constructivism provides, therefore, an epistemological grounding that explains the binaries in the expansion of potential knowledge producers proposed in Gibbons et al.’s (1994) Mode2 knowledge production.

Although my conceptualisation of NGO campaigners makes no distinction in the way it is applied to both membership and non-membership organisations, it does not ignore the distinctive modes of communication the two categories of organisations adopt for interacting with their campaigners. The emphasis in this characterisation is their role as NGO issue publics and the initial target of NGO campaign messages. Within the context of critical constructivism therefore, public modes of communication provokes debate that increase deliberation in the public sphere. Organisational knowledge and the Network Society provided the theoretical pillars to explore the notion of knowledge- based information and its diffused arenas of production. Gibbon et al.’s (1994) concept of Mode2 knowledge production provided a practical way of understanding the social context of knowledge production in Network Society that result to mediated sites for knowledge construction. Such collaborative sites is evident in highly visible public campaigns such as MPH and the recent “IF” campaigns in which NGOs used the social media to integrate communication with their campaigners. However, the challenge is the extent to which campaigners are involved in identifying the campaign issue, and

76 how modes of communication NGOs adopt contribute to extending frames that can increase public understanding. Table 1 below summarises the theoretical traditions and the implications for the conceptual framework. It shows how critical constructivism and the Network Society has methodological implications in generating theoretical explanations from the data.

Table 1: Inventory of theoretical trajectories of the conceptual framework Framework Ontological Manifestations Strands/influences Theoretical traditions Conceptualization of knowledge Epistemology Constructivism reality as constructed Interpretive Critical constructivism (Kincheloe) Constructivism (Vygotsky) Polanyi experience tacit knowledge Process, applied knowledge Interpreted information, contexts. Mutuality between knower, the known & process of knowing. Theories & conceptual framework Network Society, Practicing Organizational knowledge Qualitative research, Castells, Gibbons et al. Nonaka and Takeuchi Mode2 knowledge production Critical reflection Self- Interrogating Knowledge pluralism Informational knowledge Problem-based knowledge, negotiated meaning, knowledge produced in application

Note This table (1) illustrates the relationships between Critical constructivism, the Network Society and organisational knowledge in the conceptualization of knowledge as a socially constructed process.

The spray diagram in Figure 4 below provides a way of conceptualising the relationships between the theories and concepts discussed in this section, and the implications for practice.

Figure 4: Spider Diagram on diffused knowledge production

77 The spray diagram provides a visual tool for making the connection between the different concepts applied, their logic, and the spatial way the various theoretical elements converge and interact.

Rather than show any linear pattern, it serves as a mind map that attempts to show the relationships and the dynamics of a diffused knowledge process that show coherence between the literature, theories and conceptual framework. The diagram highlights critical constructivism as the central logic from which other related dynamics derive. The diagram also depicts the landscape for the methodological elements of the study as a cohesive whole. It serves as a useful tool for reflexivity in undertaking the cross- case analysis as well as a way of making sense of the theoretical propositions proffered later in the discussion and analysis of data.