EXTENDING THE DISCUSSION ON THE DOMAIN OR FIELD LEVEL

Organising at the domain or field level is introduced first in terms of the network approach and then the literature on domains and fields is considered.

3.18.1 Cross-sector collaboration as a domain or field

Connecting to the earlier discussion on social constructionist theories at Paragraph 3.4.5.2, Gray (1989: 5-11) said that collaboration “involves building a common understanding” or

“comprehensive appreciation” of a problem domain among the stakeholders and is directed towards advancing “the collective good of the stakeholders involved” (ibid: 8). She defined stakeholders as “all individuals, groups, or organizations that are directly influenced by actions

others take to solve the problem” and “an important ingredient of collaboration is interdependence among the stakeholders”.

The view adopted by Gray in a collaborative context therefore includes multiple interdependent stakeholders who share an appreciation or interest in a problem domain and pursue that interest for the collective good. This approach therefore connects stakeholder theory with a broader agenda of inter-organisational collaboration related to social and environmental issues.

An inter-organisational domain was defined by Trist (1983) as a “field related organisational population” and he argued that “an organisational population becomes field related when it engages with a set of problems, or a societal problem area, which constitutes a domain of common concern for its members”. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) defined an organisational field as “those organisations that, in aggregate, constitute a recognised area in institutional life” so that it includes

“the totality of relevant actors”. With a focus on structure, this definition assumes that “fields only exist to the extent that they are institutionally defined”. While still widely cited, this definition does not capture the dynamic evolutionary character of collaboration described by Gray as noted above.

The definition of an organisational field by Trist (1983) provides a point of reference, in which he advocated for the domain to be the unit of analysis rather than a focal organisation. Domains engage “with a set of problems, or a societal problem area, which constitutes a domain of common concern for its members”. These problems are too complex for any single organisation to address on their own. It is Trist’s concept of a problem domain that was adopted by Gray (1989: 5) to define collaboration.

Lawrence et al. (1999) explored the case of a whale-watching community where they conceptualise the community as an organisational field that “is characterised by many different kinds of collaboration between many different kinds of organisations” and “a complex web of informal and formal collaborations”. They directed attention at the “inter-organisational problem domain” rather than at a focal organisation. Collaboration is defined as a phenomenon that

“occurs between organisations rather than at the individual or organizational level”. They claimed that to study collaboration one must focus “at the aggregate level”.

This view has already been introduced at Paragraph 3.8 in the definitions of cross-sector collaboration and at Paragraph 3.10.1.3 as a social constructionist frame as it connects well with the research interest of this study.

3.18.2 An issue field

The approach offered by Hoffman (1999) introduces a definition of an organisational field that

“forms around a central issue – such as the protection of the natural environment – rather than a central technology or market” so that fields centre around the debate and negotiation of the issue.

As defined by Hoffman, “a field is formed around issues that become important to the interests and

objectives of a specific collective of organisations” so that “issues define what the field is” and

“membership is defined through social interaction patterns”.

One of the aims of this approach is to focus on social change. The field is a community that brings together members with different perspectives and different objectives and becomes “the centre of common channels of dialogue” so that it is socially constructed. Hoffman recognised that this is a departure from the dominant view in the literature at that time, which was that the organisations in a field became homogeneous (Wooten & Hoffman, 2008) or isomorphic (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

He also noted the distinction between the organisational field and the populations, or classes of organisations, within it and he argued that the structure of the field is not only evident in tangible patterns of behaviour but also in increased interactions, information sharing, and mutual awareness of the issue. This approach describes “the social dynamics by which field-level debate forms around defining the meaning” of the issue and how the debate evolves over time.

The concept of an “issue-based field” as defined by Hoffman has relevance in the context of this research study as it not only pertains to sustainability issues but it also recognises the role of dialogue and interaction and how events are socially constructed.

Reflecting a similar view, Hardy and Phillips (1998) distinguished inter-organisational relationships from inter-organisational domains, in which organisations “perceive themselves to be connected to common issues” and they highlighted that these domains are not predefined structures but

“processes of social construction” in which meaning and order are negotiated. They also described how stakeholders have a shared vision and appreciation of the issues.

Phillips et al. (2000) explored how collaboration and institutional fields are connected, in that the field provides the “rules and resources upon which collaboration is constructed”. Ansari, Wijen and Gray (2009) described transnational commons such as oceans that are overfished, as “a specific type of institutional field”.

3.18.3 Concluding the discussion on cross-sector collaboration as an issue field

Cross-sector collaboration as multi-stakeholder collaborative activities is directed towards global issues such as sustainability that involve systemic change and require multiple sectors, organisations and other stakeholders to work together towards protecting the common good and addressing social and societal problems.

Some multi-stakeholder partnerships take the form of an autonomous central partnership organisation and there are also networks of organisations or global action networks with a central organising body.

Another form is the networks of partnerships and organisations that have no clear organising structure. Where the organisations and partnerships form around a specific social or sustainability

issue then an issue field may be evident. Hoffman defined an issue field as a collective of organisations where membership is defined by their social interactions and the field is defined by the issue.

The existing literature covers this range of alternatives both at a conceptual level and in the literature on global value chains, there are practical case study examples.

Given the different forms of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the definition that best matches this research context is the issue field. The reasons for this are as follows:

i) Sustainable seafood is the issue that connects all the stakeholders and all activities are directed towards this issue.

ii) Sustainable seafood is a societal issue rather than an objective or goal; it is a complex and wicked problem as previously described; and it is systemic.

iii) There is no visible structure but there are patterns of interaction. Hoffman’s description of the collaborative activities as “events that are socially constructed” appears to be an apt way to describe the multiple activities undertaken by the various stakeholders to work together in different ways at different times.

iv) There is no focal organisation and there is no central organising body or secretariat.

v) There are multiple organisations and multiple partnerships involved in the sustainable seafood initiatives.

vi) Stakeholders may be said to have a common appreciation of the issue, but this is not the same as having shared or common objectives that are agreed.

vii) Ansari et al. (2009) described the oceans and fish stocks as a transnational commons, which is a type of institutional field.

The sustainable seafood initiatives that formed the setting of this research are described in the balance of this dissertation as multi-stakeholder cross-sector collaboration as an issue field to distinguish it from other forms of multi-stakeholder collaboration. The acronym MsCsC or MsCsC as an issue field is used to distinguish this form of cross-sector collaboration from other multi-stakeholder forms such as MSPs and MSIs.