Cross‐sector partnerships: Mapping the field and advancing an institutional approach
Cross‐sector partnerships: Mapping the field and advancing an institutional approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ijmr.12283
复制
发表时间：
2021-12
影响因子：
8.1
通讯作者：
Rick Vogel;Markus Göbel;Marit Grewe‐Salfeld;Barbara Herbert;Yuka Matsuo;Christiana Weber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rick Vogel;Markus Göbel;Marit Grewe‐Salfeld;Barbara Herbert;Yuka Matsuo;Christiana Weber
跨部门伙伴关系（CSP）解决经济，社会和环境问题仍然是管理研究和超越的一个充满活力的话题。然而，与通过结构和治理驱动合作优势的外生因素相比，存在于企业、政府和非营利部门合作伙伴之间互动的微观层面上的不同制度逻辑之间的合作内生问题却很少受到关注。对成功因素的关注往往导致对社区服务提供者解决问题能力的偏见，而忽视了跨部门成功合作的巨大障碍。本研究针对这一缺点，并提取了一个机构的方法，从文献的综合评价结合文献计量学方法与定性审查的CSP。一个文献计量图显示了文献是如何被分成几个集群的，每个集群都针对一种特定类型的CSP，但与其他集群没有太多的交流。对集群的放大提供了一个更微妙的画面，说明迄今为止制度理论是如何应用于CSP的。我们建立在这些拼图的碎片，并将它们组装成一个初步的框架，该框架解释了CSP中的机构间冲突以及对这些冲突的行为者层面的反应。我们的框架引入了一个新的分析平台，促进了多层次的研究，将微观层面的个体参与者重新纳入，并将其与宏观层面的机构框架联系起来。
Cross‐sector partnerships (CSPs) addressing economic, social, and environmental issues continue to be a vibrant topic in management research and beyond. However, compared to the exogenous factors that drive collaborative advantage through structures and governance, the endogenous problems of collaborating across different institutional logics, residing at the micro‐level of interactions among partners from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors, have received scant attention. The preoccupation with success factors often leads to a bias toward the problem‐solving capacities of CSPs at the neglect of the considerable barriers to successful collaboration across sectors. This study addresses this shortcoming and extracts an institutional approach of CSPs from an integrative review of the literature combining bibliometric methods with qualitative reviewing. A bibliometric map shows how the literature is divided into several clusters, each addressing a specific type of CSP but not engaging much in exchange with other clusters. Zooming in on the clusters provides a more nuanced picture of how institutional theory has hitherto been applied to CSPs. We build on these pieces of the puzzle and assemble them into a preliminary framework that accounts for inter‐institutional conflicts in CSPs and actor‐level responses to these conflicts. Our framework introduces a new analytical platform that facilitates multi‐level research, bringing the micro‐level of individual actors back in and connecting it with institutional frames at the macro‐level.