247 research outputs found
Negotiation theory and application in the business environment
No full textThis chapter introduces different theoretical approaches to negotiation and provides an explanation of these differing frameworks. While the action of a negotiation centres on the background research undertaken and what happens at the negotiation table, there is a need to know what principles and assumptions are informing these activities. Theories offer a way of understanding the underlying structures, processes and relationships of negotiation. Further, negotiation theories also assist with focusing attention on the 'basis of the bargain' and provide a standpoint from which to judge offers and counter-offers during the\ud
negotiation
The two faces of competition: which is the best for the social services sector?
No full textWhat impact does competition have on the social services sector? Does it help or hinder our ability to serve the needs of Australia\u27s most vulnerable? Today’s contribution comes from Professor Robyn Keast, who is the Chair of Collaborative Research Network Policy and Planning for Regional Sustainability, and located at the Southern Cross University
Researching inter-organisational collaboration using RO-AR
No full textThis chapter focuses on the application of Research Oriented Action Research (RO-AR) to research inter-organizational collaboration within and across the public and non-profit sectors. RO-AR is a phenomenological action research methodology developed by Colin Eden and Chris Huxham (1996, 2006) which they and others have used to research aspects of management and organizations generally and inter-organizational collaboration specifically; the latter being the focus here. To that end, this chapter draws on a program of empirical research into governing, leading and managing collaborations that has been ongoing since 1989, and which has relied primarily on RO-AR. As a program of research, it is concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge that can inform practice and which has accumulated into the still evolving theory of collaborative advantage (TCA) (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Vangen and Huxham 2014). The aim in this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to RO-AR and to explore its applicability to research on collaboration.
Action Research, of which RO-AR is a particular type, was pioneered in the United States in the 1940s, most notably by Kurt Lewin (1946). Lewin argued that research for social practice needs to be concerned with ‘the study of general laws … and the diagnosis of specific situations’ (36). He pointed, among other things, to the need to design methods for recording ill-structured data and to focus on the relationship between perception and action through taking an interpretist approach to research. In a similar vein, action research aimed at understanding organizations and organizational change began at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1947. With the aim of conducting research and developing knowledge, the Tavistock Institute developed new participative approaches to organization change and development. In the years that have followed, a number of related approaches have emerged including action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985), action inquiry (Torbert 1976), action learning (Mwaluko and Ryan 2000; Revans 1982), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros 2008) and participatory action research (Argyris and Schon 1991; Whyte 1991). Given the growth in popularity of these kinds of research methods, the literature is unsurprisingly both large and somewhat confusing. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding inherent differences, these methods all involve learning from interventions in organizations with the purpose of bringing about change and advancing knowledge. A distinguishing feature between them is the relative emphasis on change (or practical transformation) and the development of more general knowledge (i.e. theory). The primary purpose of the systematic engagement with action in praxis may be the immediate development of an individual, an organization or a community (e.g. via appreciative inquiry or action learning) or it may be to inform the development of theory on the aspect of management or organizations that is being researched, as is the case with RO-AR. The validity of RO-AR, however, rests fundamentally on the intervention being useful in practice. This close relationship with practice enhances the potential of a theory ultimately developed to inform other contexts. Eden and Huxham distinguish RO-AR from other action research approaches in the following ways (2006: 388):
• from organizational intervention projects that do not satisfy characteristics of rigorous research
• from research within an organization that does not satisfy characteristics of action orientation
• from forms of action research that do not have research output as their primary rasion d’etre.
The aim of this chapter is to highlight key features of RO-AR and to show how it may be used to produce good research on collaboration. In what follows, we look at the relevance of RO-AR to research on collaboration, provide and account of the application of the method in developing the theory of collaborative advantage, along with an overview of issues pertaining to data capture and analysis. The chapter also offers a brief evaluation of the method and some thoughts on rigor and relevance for researchers who may wish to apply the methods in future research on collaboration
Juggling competing public values : resolving conflicting agendas in social procurement in Queensland
No full textOrganisations within the not-for-profit sector provide services to individuals and groups government and for-profit organisations cannot or will not consider. This response by the not-for-profit sector to market failure and government failure is a well understood contribution to society by the nonprofit sector. Over time, this response has resulted in the development of a vibrant and rich agglomeration of services and programs that operate under a myriad of philosophical stances, service orientations, client groupings and operational capacities. In Australia, these organisations and services provide social support and service assistance to many people in the community; often targeting their assistance to clients facing the most difficult of clients with complex problems.
Initially, in undertaking this role, the not-for-profit sector received limited sponsorship from government, relying on primarily on public donations to fund the delivery of services. (Lyons 2001). Over time governments assumed greater responsibility in the form of service grants to particular groups: ‘the worthy poor’. More recently, government has engaged in widespread procurement of services from the not-for-profit sector, which specify the nature of the outcomes to be achieved and, to a degree, the way in which the services will be provided. A consequence of this growing shift to a more marketised model of service contracting, often offered-up under the label of enhanced collaborative practice, has been increased competitiveness between agencies that had previously worked well together (Keast and Brown, 2006). One of the challenges which emerge from the procurement of services by government from third sector organisations is that public values such as effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and professionalism can be neglected (Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), although this is not always the case (Brown, Furneaux and Gudmundsson 2012). While some approaches to the examination of social procurement - the intentional purchasing of social outcomes (Furneaux and Barraket 2011) - assumes that public values are lost in social procurement arrangements (Bozeman 2002; Jørgensen and Bozeman 2002), alternative approach suggest such inevitability is not the case. Instead, social procurement is seen to involve a set of tensions (Brown, Potoski and Slyke 2006) or a set of trade offs (Charles et al. 2007), which must be managed, and through such management, public values can be potentially safeguarded (Bruin and Dicke 2006).
The potential trade-offs of public values in social procurement is an area in need of further research, and one which carries both theoretical and practical significance. Additionally, the juxtaposition of policies – horizontal integration and vertical efficiency – results in a complex, crowded and contested policy and practice environment (Keast et al., 2007),, with the potential for set of unintentional consequences arising from these arrangements. Further the involvement of for-profit, non-profit, and hybrid organisations such as social enterprises, adds further complexity in the number of different organisational forms engaged in service delivery on behalf of government.
To address this issue, this paper uses information gleaned from a state-wide survey of not-for-profit organisations in Queensland, Australia which included within its focus organisational size, operational scope, funding arrangements and governance/management approaches. Supplementing this information is qualitative data derived from 17 focus groups and 120 interviews conducted over ten years of study of this sector. The findings contribute to greater understanding of the practice and theory of the future provision of social services
Evaluating and extending public service logic–introduction to the special issue
No full textThis special issue of Public Management Review, Public Service Logic – Evaluation and
Development, seeks both to evaluate the current body of Public Service Logic (PSL)
knowledge and to further develop theory and tools for its practical application. Thanks
to the hard work of reviewers, each of the six articles in this special issue contributes to
those ends. Each reviewer is a noted scholar of PSL specifically, or of the broader public
administration and management field. Their expertise sets high standards for manuscripts,
which were evaluated for their contribution of knowledge to the discipline, for
their application of knowledge to practice (de Ven and Andrew 1989; Whetten 1989;
Graham, Kothari and Kreuter 2011), and for their explication of how the proposed
advances of theory explain or predict actual experiences (Bacharach 1989).
In this editorial essay, we first address the significant themes of knowledge developed
across articles, namely ecosystems, value, and user engagement. We then propose
and justify future research directions linked to the scope of PSL, the role of value in
PSL, and the application of PSL in practice
Modern network research : insights from network practitioners in addressing the knowing-doing gap
No full text- …
