Citizenship Education (CE) has gained prominence in addressing democratic challenges arising from global inequality, climate change, migration, and pandemics. CE is widely considered an essential tool for equipping learners to meet these challenges (Kolleck 2022). It can be broadly defined as a concept that summarises all educational processes aimed at preparing individuals for their role as citizens, ensuring their access to rights and responsibilities, and promoting active participation in democratic societies (Osler & Starkey 2006). Although traditionally regarded as the domain of nation-states, the CE field has opened up to alternative actors, with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) emerging as significant contributors, leading to claims of an 'NGOisation' of CE (Ribeiro et al. 2016).

Education processes are no longer limited to national contexts but cross borders and involve diverse stakeholders, including practitioners, governments, intergovernmental organizations, businesses, and NGOs (DeMars 2005; Lubienski et al. 2022). NGOs are evolving as key players shaping educational content, practice, and governance. With their adaptability and flexibility, NGOs have become significant contributors to public education systems (Martens 2002). The ongoing globalization of education has led to the emergence of transnational NGO networks that transcend national boundaries by connecting diverse stakeholders (Menashy 2016). These networks are ascribed potential in addressing current challenges in education governance and implementation, particularly in areas such as CE. The increasing engagement of NGOs in transnational networks underscores their commitment to enhancing communication and collaboration, essential qualities for effective action in the globalized era. Transnational NGO networks in education serve various purposes, exhibiting different degrees of formality that range from unofficial partnerships to legally established coalitions (Goodwin 2009). As it has been argued that the form of a network should follow its functions, the structure of a network appears to be closely linked to specific functional needs (Hearn & Mendizabal 2011). However, despite the rising presence of transnational NGO networks as potentially impactful players in the CE field, there is a lack of understanding of their organisational structures as collective actors and a research gap on their roles and functions.

In order to address these gaps, this article conducts an analysis of a qualitative data set consisting of a series of semi-structured expert interviews with key NGO representatives from a selected group of five transnational NGO networks working on CE in Europe. It aims to answer the central questions: (1) What functions and roles do transnational NGO networks carry out in the field of CE in Europe?, (2) How are these functions and roles accomplished by networks through different organisational structures?, and (3) How do the structural characteristics of a network relate to its effective fulfilment of functions and roles?

The Network Functions Approach (NFA) serves as the study's analytical framework, focusing on the functions and roles of transnational NGO networks rather than just their organizational structures (Hearn & Mendizabal 2011). Through this lens, light can be shed on the dualistic nature between forms and functions as well as the networks’ potential to act as effective educational players or changemakers in the transnational sphere (Macpherson 2016). The NFA synthesizes five core functions: Knowledge management, amplification and advocacy, community building, convening, and resource mobilisation. These functions are essential for understanding the network's agency and support roles in effecting change and facilitating members' actions. The NFA offers a robust yet adaptable framework for the systematic analysis and comparison of these networks by providing categories to assess their formal shapes and actions. This article aims to contribute to the understanding of how transnational NGO networks operate, and the findings should inform future research, policy and strategic planning for transnational NGO networks working in CE.

To determine relevant transnational NGO networks, the research utilized purposeful sampling, wherein cases were chosen based on pre-established criteria until saturation was attained (Patton 2015). The selection criteria for the networks encompassed the following: (1) involvement in transnational activities across Europe and beyond national boundaries, (2) thematic alignment with CE initiatives, (3) active participation in CE discourse during the selection period, and (4) a predominantly NGO membership. The resultant sample consisted of five networks that boast a diverse membership comprising a range of organisations differing in size, degree of formalisation, geographical location, and funding across Europe and beyond. This diversity facilitated a nuanced evaluation of this relatively small yet heterogeneous cohort of NGO networks. The qualitative data set encompasses 23 problem-centred expert interviews that were conducted in the fall of 2021. This approach combines the insights derived from experts' network-specific knowledge and its internal structure, along with the personal opinions, conceptions, and experiences of the interviewees regarding CE as a transnational issue. The questions focused on the experts' perceptions of CE and the advantages and drawbacks of their respective networks’ actions for the member organisations. The chosen experts, recruited through snowball sampling, were those in qualifying positions to possess specific procedural and interpretive knowledge of the research topic. Qualitative content analysis, as delineated by Mayring (2014), was the primary method used to identify patterns and regularities within the extensive corpus of document and interview data under scrutiny during the data analysis. This analytical approach entails the systematic reduction, classification, and structuring of the content while offering a clear and replicable process that allows for adaption to the research context. During the coding process, two sets of deductively built categories are applied to the texts. Five categories that encompass the functions outlined in the NFA (Hearn & Mendizabal 2011) are complemented by four categories that centre around main structural characteristics of the networks. The latter include organisational arrangements, membership, governance, and funding. This study takes on a comparative perspective by contrasting the networks based on their attributes and actions through structuring quantitative content analysis. This method enables the classification and description of data by identifying patterns, themes, and typical features. It allows for an in-depth exploration of meanings and interpretations embedded in the data, contributing to a richer understanding of the phenomena under investigation. The interpretation process is segmented and involves several researchers to ensure intersubjective validation of coding reliability.

The findings indicate that transnational NGO networks in CE perform multiple functions whilst possessing distinct organisational structures. Convening and amplification are identified as the most prominent functions across all networks, with a focus on interpersonal networking and event-based multi-stakeholder cooperation. The majority of networks has a support role, expressed through a variety of means to facilitate the collective endeavours of their members. The results also highlight notable differences in the structural characteristics of the networks, as well as recurring features. While there are clear variations in the degree of formality of organisational arrangements, membership and governance strategies, all networks face common challenges, including securing sustainable funding and addressing asymmetries between partners. Specific aspects such as the dominance of networks by a single organisation and the unclear boundaries of membership are identified as key areas of internal tension. The discussion of how to manage the hierarchy and power asymmetry inherent in networks, as well as the fluidity of membership, highlights the need for all organisations involved in such alliances to openly reflect on their own positions (Faul 2016, Kolleck 2019, Laumann et al. 1983, Provan & Kenis 2007). It is evident that there are many possible organisational structures and operational pathways for networks to fulfil their intended functions and provide a valuable option for NGO engagement. Although a number of structural characteristics appear to be more closely associated with specific functions and roles than others, it remains difficult to establish clear causal relationships between a network forms and functions. This may be attributed to the constantly changing external environment, which is reflected in the dynamic nature of networks themselves. It is argued that NGO networks thus need to maintain their core qualities of flexibility and adaptability while becoming aware of the advantages or drawbacks of evolving towards more or less formality.

DeMars, W. E. (2005) NGOs and transnational networks: Wild cards in world politics. Pluto Press, London, Ann Arbor, MI. Faul, M. V. (2016) Networks and Power: Why Networks are Hierarchical Not Flat and What Can Be Done About It. Global Policy 7 (2), 185–197. Kolleck, N. (2019) The power of third sector organizations in public education. Journal of Educational Administration 57 (4), 411–425. Kolleck, N. (2022) Politische Bildung und Demokratie: Eine Einführung in Anwendungsfelder, Akteure und internationale Ansätze. Verlag Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen. Goodwin, M. (2009) Which Networks Matter in Education Governance? A Reply to Ball's ‘New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education’. Political Studies 57 (3), 680–687. Hearn, S. & Mendizabal, E. (2011) Not everything that connects is a network. Overseas Development Institute, London. Laumann, E. O., Mardsen, P. V. & Prensky, D. (1983) The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In: Burt, R. S. & Minor, M. J. (eds.) Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction, 1. print. SAGE, Beverly Hills, pp. 18–34 Lubienski, C., Yemini, M. & Maxwell, C. (eds.) (2022) The rise of external actors in education: Shifting boundaries globally and locally, 1st. Policy Press. Macpherson, I. (2016) An Analysis of Power in Transnational Advocacy Networks in Education. In: Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B. & Verger, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Global Education Policy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 401–418. Martens, K. (2002) Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13 (3), 271–285. Mayring, P. (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution, Klagenfurt. Menashy, F. (2016) Understanding the roles of non-state actors in global governance: evidence from the Global Partnership for Education. Journal of Education Policy 31 (1), 98–118. Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2006) Education for democratic citizenship: a review of research, policy and practice 1995–2005 1. Research Papers in Education 21 (4), 433–466. Patton, M. Q. (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice, Fourth edition. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Provan, K. G. & Kenis, P. (2007) Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (2), 229–252 Ribeiro, A. B., Caetano, A. & Menezes, I. (2016) Citizenship education, educational policies and NGOs. British Educational Research Journal 42 (4), 646–664.