“Learning partners”: overcoming the collective action dilemma of inter-organisational knowledge generation and sharing?

Buffardi, Anne L.; Harvey, Blane; Pasanen, Tiina

doi:10.1080/09614524.2018.1550052

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearly there is a 'sweet spot' or balance in the relationships between learning partners and the contexts in which they are working and this is likely to require ongoing work throughout a cycle of engagement which to an extent should remain equivocal. One of the practices that we believe supports this has been likened to a 'therapist's therapist' model of learning, where LP practitioners ought to be part of their own cycles of reflective learning (Buffardi et al 2019;Hesselgreaves et al 2021).…”

Section: Stewardship Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

“…is not yet widespread (Buffardi et al 2019;Hesselgreaves et al 2021), and research literature on 'learning partnerships' occupies a relatively small part of the much wider field of action-oriented research methods (French and Hawkins 2020). The concept of an LP is closely linked with existing approaches like the embedded researcher (Mickan and Coates 2022) or researcher in residence (Vindrola-Padros et al 2019), in bringing closer connection between academics and practitioners than is present in traditional social research, although LPs can be a more flexible approach than these methodologies (Hesselgreaves et al 2021).…”

Section: Roots Of a Learning Partner Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are associated barriers to taking a coordinative approach. Action research and cross-organisational collaboration are time and resource-consuming processes for both researchers and other participants (Badham and Sense 2006;Buffardi et al 2019). Resourcing an LP to do coordinative work can also be problematic, rewarding funders and larger organisations rather than smaller groups or less senior officials where support with learning may be more needed, particularly in times of fiscal restraint and budget cuts.…”

Section: Coordinative Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As well as having time and resources to be able to take part, practitioners also need to be motivated to participate in research, and personal motivations and bias will come into play with impact on levels of engagement (Buffardi et al 2019). Furthermore, the quality of action-oriented research may continue to be seen as being inferior to scientific-objectivist research, and approached with caution due to the open-ended nature of projects (Bennett and Brunner 2022).…”

Section: Coordinative Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Harnessing Complexity for Better Outcomes in Public and Non-profit Services

FRENCH¹,

HESSELGREAVES²,

WILSON³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Stewardship Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Roots Of a Learning Partner Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coordinative Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coordinative Capabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Harnessing Complexity for Better Outcomes in Public and Non-profit Services

FRENCH¹,

HESSELGREAVES²,

WILSON³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, both functions may be effectively combined [59]. This process could be supported by a learning partner that supports the generation, access and use of knowledge among PPPD partners for a longer period of time, with the aim of improving the outcomes of the collaboration and developing and sharing lessons that are learned [68].…”

Section: Practical Application: Navigating the Governance Tension For Impact Understanding And Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Governance Tensions to Enhance the Impact of Partnerships with the Private Sector for the SDGs

Pfisterer¹,

Tulder²

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Partnering with the private sector is a key modality in development cooperation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their increasing importance, such Public-Private Partnerships for Development (PPPD) experience major challenges in defining, assessing and reporting on their actual impact. This paper explores why, and how this can be improved. We engage in a qualitative synthesis review of academic, gray literature and evaluation reports of public-private programs of development agencies. We identify challenges, tensions and contradictions that affect a proper understanding and assessment of the impacts of such partnerships. The analysis shows that the main challenge in understanding and assessing impacts is the double governance logic that emerges in PPPD monitoring and evaluation (M&E). While M&E functions as an accountability and risk mitigation approach, it should also support collaborative characteristics of PPPDs such as trust and power-sharing, in order to enhance impactful PPPDs. Enhancing the impact of PPPDs for the SDGs requires bridging the divide between (a) result-based, upward accountability monitoring and evaluation approaches and (b) emerging learning, participatory and complexity-based approaches. The paper provides suggestions on how to navigate these governance tensions by using a paradoxical lens.

show abstract

Motivational Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing in Steel Industry Supply Chain: A Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Method Analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge sharing creates a collaborative environment which contributes to creation of flexibility and meeting demands in supply chain. It guarantees the access of members to external knowledge and overall supply chain improvement in competitive environment. The steel industry as the second “key” and “strategic” industry after oil and petrochemical industry in Iran as one of the important countries in middle-east and due to its importance for development but also due to the characteristics of its cost accounting system is selected as case study. Regarding to, this study aimed to design a comprehensive list containing all knowledge sharing (KS) motivational factors for steel industries supply chain. Thus, a mixed method of qualitative (a three-phase Delphi method) and quantitative (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory-DEMATEL) has been adopted. At first stage, the 33 motivational factors of KS were identified through literature review. Then using Delphi method, respondents were provided with the findings from the literature to shortlist and merge the factors based on steel industry supply chain features. Due to different theoretical and practical standpoints of views about KS motivators in steel industry supply chain, 30 respondents (experts) participated. The final factors extracted via Delphi method was 15. Then, DEMATEL method was used to find interdependence among factors. At the end, cost accounting system for each factor were asked from knowledge management departments in steel supply chain. The results indicated that majority of the costs in steel industry supply chain is spent in decreasing power and sense of ownership of knowledge, improving culture and expectations, and improving personal contact and interaction, team culture, rewards, strategic thinking, and individual management of time, respectively. Whereas, the results of DEMATEL technique indicated that team culture, power, and sense of ownership of knowledge; personal contact and interaction; trust; culture; and expectations are the 5th high ranking factors. Although there are plenty of techniques used for improving team culture such as community of practice, after action review, Knowledge caf’e, it is not so dominant in cost accounting system. Hopefully, departments consider power and sense of ownership of knowledge more carefully. Managers in steel supply chain pay more attention to cultural issues by having educational courses. Strategic thinking is not among the highest-ranking factors, but there are costs spent for it in steel supply chain which should be pondered upon it.

show abstract

“Learning partners”: overcoming the collective action dilemma of inter-organisational knowledge generation and sharing?

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Harnessing Complexity for Better Outcomes in Public and Non-profit Services

Harnessing Complexity for Better Outcomes in Public and Non-profit Services

Navigating Governance Tensions to Enhance the Impact of Partnerships with the Private Sector for the SDGs

Motivational Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing in Steel Industry Supply Chain: A Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Method Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About