The Characteristics of Partnerships Addressing Complex Challenges: A Thematic Synthesis of Case Studies of Collective Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reports the findings of a thematic synthesis of 11 case studies, in which two or more individuals or groups work in partnership, purposefully utilising social capital to engage in collective action towards a positive societal and/or environmental purpose. From the synthesis, a conceptual model is offered to support understanding of the characteristics of effective partnerships that may contribute to addressing complex global problems. Approach: The methodology used is a thematic synthesis, based on Thomas and Harden’s approach to synthesising multiple case studies in the field of medical research. We adapted their method to the formation of general social theory. Findings: The conceptual model posits the presence of six characteristics of partnership, which occur in different combinations and to differing extents as mediated by the context, that contribute to a partnership’s capacity to exchange social capital in order to address complex problems. Originality/Value: As society faces an increasingly complex set of global challenges, and as patterns of human behaviour become more individualistic, it will be increasingly important for the concept of partnerships to inform how organisations contribute positively to social outcomes. The conceptual model for the characteristics of partnerships in addressing complex challenges is a means to generate new understanding of this topic, and from which new organisational practices may develop.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".