Hi Carlos,

These are fascinating and very useful diagrams. Thank you for making them available - I will certainly make reference to them in my own work.

I was wondering how you would respond to a critique of such diagrams by Marc Edelman. He says:

"Unlike electrical engineering diagrams, which typically indicate resistance to flows, formal network organigrams imply agile and unobstructed movement of information between nodes or focal points. The network’s representation of itself erases political, historical and personal forces that might, in practice, impede the networking process." (Edelman 2003, 6)

This quote is from “When Networks Don’t Work: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Civil Society Initiatives in Central America.” Presented at 2003 Latin American Studies Association, Dallas Taxes, March 27-29, 2003b. http://136.142.158.105/Lasa2003/EdelmanMarc.pdf

While I know not all of your diagrams are organigrams, I think the quote encourages us to think about how these types of abstractions function when embedded in reality. In other words, we need to bridge the gap between positivism and ethnography.

You should also check out Analisa Riles' book, The Network Inside Out (2000), which is an anthropological study of the participation of Fijian women's groups in the Beijing women's forum.

I'm also anxious to see how you actually define all the terms you use in these charts. What exactly do you mean by human development?

Thanks for this intriguing think piece! :)

Katherine Reilly