Organizational Resistance to Participatory Approaches in Public Agencies: An Analysis of Forest Department's Resistance to Community-Based Forest Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The organizational resistance of public agencies to participatory approaches is analyzed by means of a case study involving the implementation of community-based forest management (CBFM) in India. Both exogenous and endogenous causes of resistance are identified, and a theoretical model proposed. The model consists of two dimensions of resistance to change (structural resistance and cultural resistance) and three categories of causal factors (organizational, personal, and environmental factors). The model is empirically tested using the perceptions of senior and middle management level members of the state Forest Departments (FDs) of four states in India, collected through a questionnaire survey. The empirical findings are used to suggest strengthening of public management theories on four aspects: the distinction between structural and cultural resistance; inclusion of extra-organizational processes; the distinction between individual and organizational learning; and the need to differentiate between the impacts of the legislative and executive wings on public agencies' organizational resistance. The results are used to suggest some specific measures to deal with the organizational inertia in public agencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it