facilitate and hinder resilience. Networks with high degrees of closure, or ties among all the actors within the network, may build trust and strengthen social capital (Hirschi 2010; Wasserman and Faust 1994). These linkages among groups can enhance network
communication. Thus, the more ties among actors, especially diverse actors, the more the network may be able to respond adaptively and capitalize on opportunities. Network density and triad composition are important to the efficient use of capital, as information and other resources can generally flow more easily across denser networks than sparse ones (Tortoriello 2015). In this manner, denser networks may be more able to mobilize and respond to opportunities and therefore potentially be more resilient. However, the
64
more ties among actors, the more homogeneous they become and the more heterogeneity is lost (Burt 1997; Granovetter 1973). This heterogeneity is key for adaptive, creative responses in collaborations, allowing for flexibility of approach (Vangen and Huxham 2012) and its absence may contribute to rigidity, especially in the long-term.
Heterogeneity in resilience is important not just for the sharing of novel ideas and
approaches, but also as a safeguard against uncertainty (Gallopin 2006; Smit and Wandel 2006). Increased network density suggests less potential available for collaborative growth within the network, as a higher proportion of the possible linkages have already been realized. This increase in structure may detract from the resilience capacity of the network, as formalized linkages may contribute to network rigidity (i.e., less flexible pathways for adaptive change) and conservation (i.e., the culling of perceived redundant ties) (Walker and Salt 2006). The relatively open, heterogeneous structures of the NPS National Heritage Area networks examined by Laven et al. (2010) suggest that these networks’ looser structures are beneficial to coping with the unpredictable and dynamic environments they inhabit but also may inhibit network effectiveness. Hirschi's 2010 investigation of park-based collaboratives in Switzerland noted the more positive effects of greater cohesion yet still acknowledges this tension; a network’s adaptability hangs in the balance of these structures.
Examining the role of brokers more precisely may lend nuance to understanding this threshold. Brokers, or the middle agent in a triad, hold the ability to facilitate a range of bonds (ties within their group) and bridges (ties to other groups) (Stovel and Shaw 2012). Their ability to connect different types and scales of collaborators for the
65
al. 2010). For example, a collection of green spaces in Stockholm lacking mid-scale managers to transcend geographical differences could have more effectual and inclusive governance processes if scale-crossing brokers were able to navigate these differences (Ernstson et al. 2010). Although brokerage is defined at the actor-tie level (Totterdell, Holman, and Hukin 2008), summations of brokers at the group level has provided insight in other contexts (Long, Cunningham, and Braithwaite 2013; Stovel and Shaw 2012). Manring (2007) contends that net-brokers are groups that may facilitate, coordinate, and promote entrepreneurism, among other capacities, relationships within a network and Stovel and Shaw (2012) promote brokers as the group central to shaping social integration processes.
Brokers may be defined in multiple ways. Simply, they are intermediaries who span gaps in social structures to connect otherwise unconnected actors (Burt 1997; Stovel and Shaw 2012). Although measures of transitivity and tie directionality within a triad can identify brokers indirectly (Aviv, Erlich, and Ravid 2005; Faust 2010; Laven et al. 2010; Scott 2013; Spiro, Acton, and Butts 2013), brokers as a collection of actors require a more explicit focus (Everett and Valente 2016; Stovel and Shaw 2012). Gould and Fernandez (1989) offer a typology of the five possible types of positions brokers can have based on group membership (Table 4), known as G&F brokerage roles. Given the
categorization of actors into groups by a particular attribute (e.g., organization, zip code, supervisory status), G&F brokerage roles can identify the prevalence of brokers
facilitating within-group (Coordinator), between-group (Gatekeeper, Representative, and Consultant/Itinerant), and among-group (Liaison) relationships. G&F brokerage roles have been examined in contexts as diverse as motivations for building relationships
66
across Jewish-, Arab-, and Druze-Israeli communities (Kalish 2008); the influence of the European Commission on multi-scale governance interactions (Borras 2007); and comic book industry publishing relationships (Boari and Riboldazzi 2014), yet it appears to have drawn less focus in natural resource or park management. Inherent in these studies’ findings is that brokers have a crucial role in facilitating innovation and connections among network actors and groups. Thus, they may be crucial vehicles for the
identification of common audiences and common relevance goals to enhance network resilience.
Despite the connections between brokerage and resilience, few studies have examined this linkage. More often, investigations center on binary group membership and the presence of dyads within or between groups (e.g., (Harrison, Montgomery, and Bliss 2016) rather than broker and triad composition. A few notable and current examples suggest fruitful lines of further inquiry. Brokerage and resilience has been explored in dairy farmer networks in Malawi (Chindime, Kibwika, and Chagunda 2016),
groundwater citizen science networks in New England (Thornton and Leahy 2012), government-NGO-locals communications regarding rainfall monitoring in Niger (Boyd et al. 2013), and power distribution in climate policy networks in Indonesia (Moeliono et al. 2014). These investigations, however, all center on individual brokers, rather than
brokers as a fluid group with various and overlapping functions (e.g., a group facilitating network flexibility and innovation pathways by assuming a Coordinator role at times and Gatekeeper or Liaison at others).
67