Examining partnerships in amateur sport : the case of a Canadian national sport centre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study explored the dynamics, challenges, and complexities encountered in forming, managing, and evaluating the interorganizational relationships of a nonprofit organization and its partners in the public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors. Using a partnership process model developed from various theoretical frameworks (Kouwenhoven, 1993; Oliver, 1990; Provan & Milward, 2001; Wood & Gray, 1991), this study examined three phases of partnership relationships (i.e., formation, management, and evaluation) to gain a better understanding of the interactions among partnering organizations in Canadian sport. Qualitative research methods were employed to investigate partnerships of one National Sport Centre (NSC). Data were collected from three sources: 28 interviews, 110 organizational documents, and attendance at three organizational meetings. Interviews, relevant document passages, and field notes were transcribed and analyzed using Atlas.ti, a qualitative analysis software program. Results indicated that environmental and organizational conditions facilitated the formation of partnerships. Interdependence among organizations, presence of a broker, presence of a network, and convergence of objectives were evident. Specific reasons for partnership formation included efficiency, stability, necessity, legitimacy, reciprocity, and asymmetry. Partnership management structures and processes were central to interactions between organizations. Partners struggled to find a balance between pressures to compete and pressures to collaborate. Power imbalances, political dynamics, and control issues primarily related to resource concerns existed, and in some cases weakened the bonds among partners. Some partnerships were formalized, while others were loosely structured and primarily based on mutual trust, previous history, and personal interest. Ambiguities regarding roles and responsibilities, and 'representativeness' influenced how partners interacted and contributed to challenges in managing partnerships. Allocating resources was a prime concern for the organizations. Several levels of analysis for outcome evaluation existed. At the community level, the performance of NSC athletes at international competitions' was a key measure of success. At the network level, effective coordination of programs and services contributing to improved performances of athletes was perceived as an important measure of effectiveness. Finally at the organizational level, factors including ability to attract and retain partners, ability to remain economically viable through resource acquisition, and achieving legitimacy were all viewed as criteria to evaluate partnership effectiveness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».