Powerful Stakeholders and Interorganizational Collaboration-The Case of HIV/AIDS Epidemic in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the transaction cost and resource-based view theory, the success of an interorganizational collaboration is explained by the alignment of the governance structure selected to coordinate initiatives, the task being transacted and the competencies required to deliver on the task and to govern the interorganizational collaboration. We argue that interorganizational collaboration while popular among for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, the presence of powerful collaborating organizations forces the focal organization to adopt best practices and governance structures that could prove costly in the long run. Powerful collaborating organizations could create a misalignment in task, governance structure and the organization’s competencies. These findings were revealed based on an in-depth case study (more than 50 in- depth interviews with professionals representing more than 30 national and international organizations) of the condom social marketing campaign adopted by the Government of India in its fight against HIV/AIDS. Our analysis indicates that the misalignment could be attributed to the institutional pressures of powerful stakeholders who (a) induced the focal organization to define the transaction according to the HIV/AIDS practices and strategy of the dominant World Health Organization and (b) suggested a governance structure welcoming the participation of local and regional stakeholders even though the Government of India did not have the proper governance competencies to maintain alignment. Consequently, although we observed some degree of effectiveness, we also discovered inefficient interorganizational relationships resulting from opportunistic behaviors among partner organizations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".