DIFFERENT THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COLLABORATION

The current literature on collaboration includes different theoretical approaches. Some of the literature adopts a macro or institutional perspective and deals with issues of power (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983), governance (Powell, 1990), corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1999), social justice (Cornelius & Wallace, 2010), and collective action (Ostrom, 1998). Other literature focuses on micro interactions and theories of social order and social action (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983;

Gray, 1989).

There are theories that direct attention at the meso level of the organisation and deal with stakeholder relationships (Freeman et al., 2010), relationships of exchange (Cook, 1977), and resource dependence (Galaskiewicz, 1985; Hillman, Withers & Collins, 2009). Other theories take focus on the micro level of individual decision making and these include transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1979) or agency theory (Smith-Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). Yet other theories focus attention on networks (Provan, Fish & Sydow, 2007; Brass, Galaskiewicz, Grieve &

Tsai, 2004; Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

3.4.1 Seeking a theoretical understanding of collaboration in a multi-stakeholder context From the various macro, meso and micro theoretical perspectives, those concerned with multiple sectors and a multi-stakeholder context were explored further so that the theoretical background is directed towards the needs of the research questions and the research setting.

These included stakeholder theory, collection action theories, and various network theories. In addition, two other approaches were considered that question theory based on rational individual choice.

3.4.2 Stakeholder theory

Stakeholder theory explores the broader responsibilities of organisations and is widely acknowledged in the literature and practice of business management. However, it may be challenged on the basis that as a collective endeavour, it nonetheless derives a view from a focal organisation and therefore may hold a limited or parochial view.

According to Freeman et al. (2010: 4-5), stakeholder theory was developed to counter the dominant assumptions of stability, control and equilibrium in modern 20^th century economics. It aimed to address the challenge of understanding business in an environment of turbulence and offer an alternative approach to value creation and trade. Freeman et al. made reference to the theories of Eric Trist and also mentioned Russell Ackoff as early research that influenced the development of stakeholder theory. They recognised the possibility that “an increased interest in understanding how capitalism, ethics, sustainability and social responsibility can be forged into new ways of thinking about business”.

The concept of a stakeholder was used frequently by Gray (1989: 14; 1984) who referenced the work of Freeman in relation to collaboration. These theoretical positions therefore appear to be related. Further, stakeholder theory focuses on relationship building and this relational view of collaboration is an alternative perspective to those dealing with formal structures and agreements.

Indeed, Gray and Stites identified stakeholder theory as one of three theoretical frameworks that is today most commonly used to understand partnerships and collaboration (Gray & Stites, 2013).

Stakeholder theory also addresses issues of value creation and Freeman et al. (2004) said that it

“encourages managers to articulate the shared sense of the value they create, and what brings its core stakeholders together”.

3.4.2.1 Key insights from stakeholder theory

The conclusion on stakeholder theories is that they are relevant to a multi-stakeholder environment and to the process of value creation but may tend towards the context of a focal firm or entity and its dyadic relationships with its stakeholders. Stakeholder theories may or may not involve cross-sectoral interactions.

3.4.3 Collective action theories

Collective action theories derive from the common assumption that the individual is the source of change. These theories are directed at how action at the micro level can effect change at a social level. There is a range of work that may be categorised as collective action. Those that appear to relate to the research interest are discussed briefly below.

3.4.3.1 The collective action view

Astley and Van de Ven (1983) defined a “collective-action view” as related to a community or population of organisations with a “voluntaristic orientation” meaning that “individuals and their created institutions are autonomous, proactive, self-directing agents; individuals are seen as the basic unit of analysis and source of change in organizational life”. This is a distinctly Weberian view of social change and is also reflected in other work by Van de Ven (1976), which is recognised as foundational in the IOR literature. It differs from the deterministic view derived from the philosophy of Durkheim “that focuses not on individuals, but on the structural properties of the context within which action unfolds” (Astley & Van de Ven, 1983). They described the collective-action view as “guided and constructed by collective purpose”.

The typology of Astley and Van de Ven (ibid) serves as a high-level overview of organisation theory and identifies four different perspectives with their underlying assumptions. The voluntaristic view is noted as being aligned with the idea of learning from key individuals and their experience of the research phenomenon of cross-sector collaboration.

3.4.3.2 Negotiated order theory

Negotiated order theory was proposed by Trist (1983) as a basis for a theory of collaboration and discussed further by Gray (1989: 227), who argued for “a more dynamic, process oriented theory of how organizations interact” and presented negotiated order theory as the basis for a theoretical approach to collaboration.

“Negotiated order refers to a social context in which relationships are negotiated and renegotiated”

(Gray, 1989: 228) in which “individuals in organisations play an active, self-conscious role in the shaping of the social order” (Day & Day, 1977). The theory focuses on social processes and “the fluid, continuously emerging qualities of the organisation, the changing web of interactions” (Day &

Day, 1977). Organisations are viewed as “complex and highly fragile social constructions of reality”. Gray said that negotiated order requires “joint appreciation” as defined by Vickers (1968:

137) which means that there is “a sense of positively correlated fate” that allows the stakeholders to agree on how to “regulate future interactions” and “correlate their activities”.

According to Gray (1989: 230), collaborations involve strategies that are “collectively constructed by the stakeholders” through “dynamic negotiations” which typify their “imprecise, emergent, exploratory, developmental character”. She explained that while organisation theory typically focuses on individual organisations, negotiated order theory is applied at the domain level; it

recognises the complex and turbulent environment that causes higher levels of interdependence amongst stakeholders.

Negotiation as defined by Gray (1989: 25) refers to the “conversational interactions among collaborating parties as they try to define a problem, agree on recommendations, or design action steps”. This approach therefore connects the idea of individuals as source of change in organisational life (from the voluntaristic view above), with the subject of collaboration.

While Gray described the aims and concept of negotiated order theory, there is a paucity of examples in the published literature, with the exception of a study conducted by Nathan and Mitroff (1991). In this case, they applied negotiated order theory in an inter-organisational context in which three food manufacturers engaged in a cooperative strategy to develop a crisis management response related to food tampering. The study highlighted the interdependence of organisations in a field and how the stakeholders developed a shared understanding of the issues. It demonstrated that negotiated order could be applied in a business context.

3.4.3.3 Key insights from collective action theories

Both of these theoretical views contain key assumptions that the researcher considered to be useful to inform this research study. Of particular note is the role of individuals as the source of change and the process of negotiation and conversational interactions that is at the core of negotiated order theory. Organisation is viewed as a dynamic process of social construction, rather than as fixed systems or structures; the focus of organising is on the interactions and interdependence of stakeholders.

3.4.4 Network theories

Given the research setting, network theories also offered a theoretical background to inform the research study. There is a variety of network theories that deal with inter-organisational relationships. By their nature, these suggest a multi-stakeholder context. However, theoretical approaches vary and some of the main themes in the literature are introduced here as they pertain to the subject of collaboration.

i) Social network theory: Brass et al. (2004) highlighted that in the network perspective the focus is “on relations rather than attributes, on structured patterns of interaction rather than isolated individual actors”. At the inter-organisational level, they focused on the formation of networks according to the motives and conditions that facilitate cooperation.

ii) Social network analysis: The use of social network analysis methods is described as an approach that connects “social theory and application with formal mathematical, statistical and computing methodology” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994: 3-11). Social network analysis involves the development and testing of models, using both descriptive and statistical analyses of multi-relational systems, often using specially designed computer programmes.

iii) Networks in the organisational literature: Borgatti and Foster (2003) explained that networks may be classified in terms of structural mechanisms or in terms of connectionist mechanisms. These reflect the debate in organisation theory between structure and agency.

iv) Whole networks: Provan et al. (2007) highlighted the difference between research-focused on egocentric (actor level) networks and collective or network level theories. With network level analysis, the focus is “on explaining properties and characteristics of the network as a whole” and “the key consideration is outcomes at the network level rather than for the individual organizations”. According to Provan et al., the literature on the network level of organising is under-represented in the literature. They used the term “whole networks” to describe this network level, but their definition of the unit of analysis bears some similarities with the idea of a domain as described above under negotiated order theory.

v) Actor-network theory: Actor-network theory is a specific approach that recognises “the important role of material objects as actors along with human beings” (Gray & Stites, 2013).

Latour (1996) explained that “actors are not conceived as fixed entities” so that actor-network theory is about associations and connections of entities and the actor-network is the trajectory or movement.

3.4.4.1 Key insights from network theories

The literature on networks focuses on relationships and interactions. Social network analysis is a very specialised and formal statistical analysis of multiple relationships but is a key source of network concepts and understanding of network structures. In the organisational literature, network theories adopt relational and systemic approaches with some directed towards structural explanations and others directed towards agency and change. The literature on whole networks focuses on outcomes at the network level. Actor network theory introduces the idea of nonhuman agency that operates together with human agency. The concepts that align with the research context here are those that focus on the whole system and the relational view that is directed at connections and interactions.

3.4.5 Approaches that question rational individual choice

There are theoretical approaches to collaboration that are based on economic theories such as the resource-based view or transaction cost economics (Gray & Stites, 2013) and these apply the logic of rational individual choice. Two approaches that question this assumption are now considered.

These are Ostrom’s alternative behaviourist theory of collective action and Hardy and Phillips’

social constructionist perspective.

3.4.5.1 Ostrom: Dilemmas of a common resource pool

Ostrom’s (1998) work has potential relevance to this study as her focus was on the sustainability of complex social ecological systems (Ostrom, 2009) and on specific situations where there is a

common resource pool. It is a theory located within institutional theory but it draws from a behaviourist approach and has specific focus on decision making where there is a dilemma between individual interests and the common good.

Her work challenges conventional theories of collective action (Ostrom, 2010) and the logic that

“resource users will never self-organise to maintain their resources and that governments must impose solutions” (Ostrom, 2009). She argued that conventional collective action theory assumes that decisions are made independently by individuals but “outcomes jointly affect everyone involved” and that the rational choice of each individual is to put self-interest ahead of collective interests and to maximise short-term material benefits (op cit.).

Ostrom argued that groups facing collective action problems do cooperate and that theory of collective action needs to be updated to recognise the importance of context and contextual factors. The theoretical framework identifies a “common set of potentially relevant variables” and factors and shows how these may be organised to increase the probability that users will engage in collective action to self-organise (Ostrom, 2009).

However Ostrom’s focus is on the governance of the scarce resource rather than on the collaborative interactions. The underlying principle that people can form self-organising collectives is nevertheless instructive.

3.4.5.2 A social constructionist approach to collaboration

Hardy and Phillips (1998) questioned some of the key assumptions underlying studies of inter-organisational collaboration and they theorised an inter-inter-organisational domain as “a process of social construction that enables stakeholders to communicate, to be identified and legitimated”.

They contended that much of the research fails to recognise that “collaboration is only one of several possible strategies of engagement” in the inter-organisational domain. They explored four strategies involving different forms of cooperation (collaboration or compliance) and conflict (contention or contestation).

Hardy and Phillips concluded that inter-organisational domains involve more complex dynamics of authority, control and legitimacy. They compared formal authority and discursive legitimacy. The former is the “recognised, legitimate right to make a decision” and the latter is the ability of an organisation “to influence the process of social construction that forms the domain” regardless of whether they possess formal authority or have control over critical resources. Control of critical or scarce resources is regarded as source of power and may be concentrated or dispersed, creating different levels of dependency between organisations.

Given the focus on learning from individual lived experience, it is the social constructionist literature that offers a dynamic and complex perspective on the subject of collaborative relationships.