This inductive study of eight international development interventions analyzes mechanisms that enable integration of evidence in practice, a perennial challenge of learning and collaboration across occupational and organizational boundaries. We demonstrate how structural and programmatic scaffolding practices enabled actors from an array of organizations and communities of practice to collaborate and learn despite the uncertainty and complexity inherent in the international development context. These modular scaffolding practices offered temporary stabilization and support that fostered the counter-normative behaviors and mindsets required for continuous learning and adaptive coordination. Through 226 in-depth interviews with international development experts, including practitioners in eight matched interventions in India, Mexico, South Africa, and Ghana, we identified and analyzed mechanisms that explain the varying effectiveness with which evidence was integrated in each case. Our findings have implications for interorganizational innovation and collaboration under conditions of complexity and uncertainty and for dynamic interactions among individuals, their organizations, and their communities of practice when they are attempting to bring about systemic change.
BakerG.GibbonsR.MurphyK. J.2002“Relational contracts and the theory of the firm.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1): 39–84.
2.
BaldwinC. Y.ClarkK. B.2000Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BanerjeeA. V.DufloE.2011Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: Public Affairs.
4.
BechkyB. A.2003a “Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction.”American Journal of Sociology, 109(3): 720–752.
5.
BechkyB. A.2003b “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor.”Organization Science, 14(3): 312–330.
6.
BechkyB. A.ChungD. E.2018“Latitude or latent control? How occupational embeddedness and control shape emergent coordination.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3): 607–636.
7.
BennerM. J.TushmanM. L.2015“Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—‘Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited’ ten years later.”Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 497–514.
8.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP.1991“Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.”Organization Science, 2(1): 40–57.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP.2001“Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective.”Organization Science, 12(2): 198–213.
11.
BrownT.2019Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins.
12.
BrynjolfssonE.McAfeeA.2014The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company.
13.
CanalesR.2016“From ideals to institutions: Institutional entrepreneurship and the growth of Mexican small business finance.”Organization Science, 27(6): 1548–1573.
14.
CanalesR.GreenbergJ.2015“A matter of (relational) style: Loan officer consistency and exchange continuity in microfinance.”Management Science, 62(4): 1202–1224.
15.
CarlileP. R.2002“A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development.”Organization Science, 13(4): 442–455.
16.
CarlileP. R.2004“Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.”Organization Science, 15(5): 555–568.
17.
CharmazK.2006Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. New York: Russell Sage.
18.
CoaseR. H.1937“The nature of the firm.”Economica, New Series, Vol. 4: 386–405.
19.
DavisJ. P.2016“The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4): 621–661.
20.
DavisJ. P.EisenhardtK. M.2011“Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2): 159–201.
21.
DekenF.BerendsH.GemserG.LaucheK.2018“Strategizing and the initiation of interorganizational collaboration through prospective resourcing.”Academy of Management Journal, 61(5): 1920–1950.
22.
DiBenignoJ.2018“Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of U.S. Army mental health care.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3): 526–569.
23.
EisenhardtK. M.1989“Building theories from case study research.”Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.
24.
EvansJ.HuisingR.SilbeyS. S.2015“Accounting for accounts: Crafting ethnographic validity through team ethnography.” In ElsbachK. D.KramerR. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: 143–155. New York: Routledge.
25.
FaemsD.Van LooyB.DebackereK.2005“Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach.”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3): 238–250.
26.
FarajS.XiaoY.2006“Coordination in fast-response organizations.”Management Science, 52(8): 1155–1169.
27.
FayardA.-L.StiglianiI.BechkyB. A.2017“How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers’ ethos.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2): 270–303.
28.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA.Lynn-JonesS. M.MillerS. E.2005Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
GertlerP. J.MartinezS.PremandP.RawlingsL. B.VermeerschC. M.2016Impact Evaluation in Practice, 2nd ed.Washington, DC: The World Bank.
30.
GlaserB.StraussA.1999The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
31.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ.1989Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Howard-GrenvilleJ.Golden-BiddleK.IrwinJ.MaoJ.2011“Liminality as cultural process for cultural change.”Organization Science, 22(2): 522–539.
34.
KelloggK. C.2009“Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery.”American Journal of Sociology, 115(3): 657–711.
35.
KelloggK. C.2011Challenging Operations: Medical Reform and Resistance in Surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
KelloggK. C.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ.2006“Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations.”Organization Science, 17(1): 22–44.
37.
LeonardiP. M.BaileyD. E.2008“Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring.”MIS Quarterly, 32: 411–436.
38.
Lifshitz-AssafH.2018“Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4): 746–782.
MairJ.WolfM.SeelosC.2016“Scaffolding: A process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies.”Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 2021–2044.
41.
MillsC. W.1959“The sociological imagination.”Journal of American History, 46(2): 355–356.
42.
ObstfeldD.2005“Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 100–130.
43.
ObstfeldD.2012“Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done.”Organization Science, 23(6): 1571–1592.
OrlikowskiW. J.2002“Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing.”Organization Science, 13(3): 249–273.
46.
PrattM. G.LepistoD. A.DaneE.2019“The hidden side of trust: Supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(2): 398–434.
47.
PuranamP.2018The Microstructure of Organizations. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
48.
SilbeyS. S.2011“The sociological citizen: Pragmatic and relational regulation in law and organizations.”Regulation Governance, 5(1): 1–13.
49.
SorensonO.RoganM.2014“(When) do organizations have social capital?.”Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 261–280.
50.
StraussA.CorbinJ.1998Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
51.
TurcoC. J.2016The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. New York: Columbia University Press.
52.
ValentineM. A.2018“Renegotiating spheres of obligation: The role of hierarchy in organizational learning.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3): 570–606.
53.
ValentineM. A.EdmondsonA. C.2015“Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups.”Organization Science, 26(2): 405–422.
54.
WeickK. E.RobertsK. H.1993“Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.
55.
WoodD.BrunerJ. S.RossG.1976“The role of tutoring in problem solving.”Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2): 89–100.
56.
ZietsmaC.LawrenceT. B.2010“Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2): 189–221.
57.
ZuckermanE. W.2010“Speaking with one voice: A ‘Stanford school’ approach to organizational hierarchy.” In Stanford’s Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970–2000: 289–307. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
