In this paper I elaborate on the design and dimensions of interorganisational collaborations particularly when the purpose of connecting is the co-creation of knowledge for impact. I extend recent accounts of co-creating knowledge and explain why co-creation is integral to the “common good” logic especially when the focus of partnering for impact embraces the marked improvements in action that constitutes the impact of collaboration. I then elaborate on “partnering for impact” as a collaborative design and explicate the axiology that this mode of co-creation calls for, marked by a fresh perspective on inclusiveness founded on isotimia and philotimia. I illustrate the manifestation of these dimensions in the GNOSIS approach of co-creating impact through the embeddedness of “re-search” as a common practice. I conclude by inviting greater reflexivity in the relationship between science and society when partnering for impact is intended to co-create a just, resilient and flourishing society.
AdlerN.ShaniA. B.StyhreA. (2004). Collaborative research in organizations: Foundations for learning, change, and theoretical development. Sage.
3.
AguinisH.ShapiroD. L.AntonacopoulouE. P.CummingsT. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralistic conceptualisation. Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal. Exemplary Contribution, 13(4), 623–639.
4.
AHRC (2008). AHRC economic impact reporting framework. Arts and Humanities Research Council.
5.
AkrivouK.SisonA. J. G. (2016). The challenges of capitalism for virtue ethics and the common good: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
6.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2009). Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Management Learning, 40(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609336708
7.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2014). Tensions and extensions in knowledge integration and dis-integration: Rethinking the man-agement of knowledge. In ÖrtenbladA. R. (Ed.), Handbook of research on knowledge management (pp. 406–423). Edward Elgar Publishing.
8.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2016). Rediscovering Paideia and the meaning of a scholarly career. Journal of Management Education, 40(6), 711–721.
9.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2017). The capacity for phronesis: Cultivating competence, character and conscience for impactful research. In BartunekJ.McKenzieJ. (Eds.), Academic practitioner research partnerships: Development, complexities and opportunities (pp. 160–178). Routledge.
10.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2018). Energising critique in action and in learning. The GNOSIS 4R framework. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 15(2), 102–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2018.1460580
11.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2022). Putting love first: Redefining managing, organizing and the future of work. In PirsonM. (Ed.), Love and organization: Lessons of love for human dignity, leadership and motivation (pp. 182–209). Routledge.
12.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2010a). Beyond co-production: Practice-relevant scholarship as a foundation for delivering impact through powerful ideas. Public Money and Management, Special Issue – The Politics of Co-Production Research, 30(4), 219–225.
13.
AntonacopoulouE. P.DehlinE.ZundelM. (2011). The challenge of delivering impact: Making waves through the ODC scholarship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Special Issue - ‘Bridging the Scholar-Practitioner Divide, 47(1), 33–52.
14.
AntonacopoulouE. P.GeorgiadouA. (2021). Leading through social distancing: The future of work, corporations and leadership from home. Gender Work and Organisation Journal, 28, 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12533
15.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2010d). Making waves: Moments when ideas are set free. In A.CarlsenJ.Dutton (Eds.), Generativity in qualitative research (pp. 158–161). CBS Press.
16.
AntonacopoulouE. P.MéricJ. (2004). A critique of Stake-holder theory: Management science or a sophisticated ideology of control ?Corporate Governance, Special Issues on Stakeholder Theory, European Perspectives, 5(2), 22–33.
17.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2010b). Advancing practice-relevant scholarship: Delivering impact. In C.CassellW. J.Lee (Eds.), Management research: Challenges and controversies (pp. 314–334). Routledge.
18.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2010c). Global research: Transcending boundaries by learning to collaborate and learning from collaboration. In C.CassellW. J.Lee (Eds.), Management research: Challenges and controversies (pp. 86–104). Routledge.
19.
AntonacopoulouE. P.MoldjordC.SteiroT.StokkelandC. (2019). The new learning organisation: PART I – institutional reflexivity, high agility organising and learning leadership. The Learning Organisation Journal. Invited Contribution, 26(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-10-2018-0159
20.
AntonacopoulouE. P.MoldjordC.SteiroT.StokkelandC. (2020). The new learning organisation: PART II – lessons from the royal Norwegian air force academy. The Learning Organisation Journal. Invited Contribution, 27(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-10-2018-0160
21.
ArnesonP. (2009). Axiology. In LittlejohnS.FossK. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of communication theory (pp. 70–74). Sage Publications, Inc.
22.
AustinJ. E.SeitanidiM. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between non-profits and businesses. Part 1. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
23.
BartunekJ. M. (2007). Academic–practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28165912
24.
BeckT. E.PlowmanD. A. (2014). Temporary, emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected circumstances: A study of the Columbia space shuttle response effort. Organization Science, 25(4), 1234–1252. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0888
25.
BERR (2007). Measuring Economic Impacts of Investment in the Research Base and Innovation, Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Framework.
26.
BollierD. (2011). The growth of the commons paradigm. In HessC.OstromE. (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 27–40). The MIT Press.
27.
BollierD.HelfrichS. (2014). The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Levellers Press.
28.
BruceA.LyallC.TaitJ.WilliamsR. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Futures, 36(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003
29.
BruhnJ. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary research: A philosophy, art form, artifact or antidote?Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02911166
30.
Bugg-LevinA.EmersonJ. (2011). Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference. Jossey-Bass.
31.
CaffentzisG. (2010). The future of 'the commons’: Neoliberalism's 'Plan b' or the original disaccumulation of capital?New Formations, 69(69), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.3898/NEWF.69.01.2010
32.
CastañerX.OliveiraN. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565
33.
CiabuschiF.BaraldiE.LindahlO. (2020). Joining forces to prevent the antibiotic resistance doomsday scenario: The rise of international multisectoral partnerships as a new governance model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(4), 458–479. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0018
34.
CloutierC.LangleyA. (2017). Negotiating the moral aspects of purpose in single and cross-sectoral collaborations. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2680-7
35.
CohenR. (2018). On impact: The impact revolution. Park Communications.
36.
CorvellecH. (2010). Organizational risk as it derives from what managers value: A practice-based approach to risk assessment. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(3), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2010.00611.x
37.
CrossanM.MazutisD.SeijtsG.GandzJ. (2013). Developing leadership character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024a
38.
CunliffeA. L.ScarattiG. (2017). Embedding impact in engaged research: Developing socially useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12204
39.
DaviesH.NutleyS.WalterI. (2005). Assessing the impact of social science research: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. Research Unit for Research Utilization, University of St. Andrews.
40.
DavisA. L.AllenJ.SheplerL.ResickC.LeeJ.MarinucciR.TaylorJ. A. (2020). Moving FOCUS – the fire service organizational culture of safety survey – from research to practice. Journal of Safety Research, 74, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.06.011
41.
DohJ. P.TashmanP.BenischkeM. H. (2018). Adapting the grand environment challenges through collective entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0056
FurnariS. (2014). Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 39, 439–462. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0045
44.
GehmanJ.TreviñoL.GarudR. (2013). Values work: A process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 84–112. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0628
45.
GeorgeG.Howard-GrenvilleJ.JoshiA. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
46.
GibsonC. (2022). Investing in Communities: Forging New ground in Corporate Community Co-Development through Relational and Psychological Pathways. Academy of Management Journal. (forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1664
GrayB.PurdyJ. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
49.
HallettT.VentrescaM. (2006) Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s ‘patterns of industrial bureaucracy”. Theory and Society, 35, 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9003-z
50.
HartS. L. (1971). Axiology – theory of values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 32(1), 29–41. Available online at: Axiology--Theory of Values on JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2105883
51.
HussainW. (2018). Why should we care about competition?Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(5), 570–585.
52.
JärvenpääS. L.VälikangasL. (2021). Towards Temporally Complex Collaboration in an interorganizational research network. Strategic Organisation – Special Issue: Temporal Work – The Strategic Organization of Time. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211042934
53.
KhanaghaS.AnsariS.ParoutisS.OviedoL. (2022). Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and Fog computing. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3147
KieserA.LeinerL. (2011). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611411923
56.
KnightL.PettigrewA. M. (2007a). Process and Performance in International Collaborative Research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia.
57.
KnightL.PettigrewA. M. (2007b). Towards Explaining process and performance in the co-production of knowledge: A comparative analysis of collaborative research projects. Working paper, School of Management, University of Bath.
58.
LeahJ.LaszloC. (2022). Creating positive impact: The power of greater purpose and consciousness of connectedness. Engaged Management Review, 5(1), 9–19.
59.
MarkidesC. C. (2021). Organizing for the new normal: Prepare your company for the journey of continuous disruption. Kogan Page.
60.
MasseyD. (2005). For space. Sage.
61.
MayerC. (2021). The future of the corporation and the economics of purpose. Journal of Management Studies, 58(3), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12660
62.
McIntyreA. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Duckworth.
MithaniM. A. (2020). Adaptation in the face of the new normal. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(4), 508–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0054
65.
MohrmanS. A.PasmoreW. A.ShaniA. B.StymneB.AdlerN. (2008). Toward building a collaborative research community. In ShaniA. B.MohrmanS. A.PasmoreW. A.StymneB.AdlerN. (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative research community (pp. 615–634). Sage.
66.
Nhat HanhT. (2015). How to love. Parallaro Press.
67.
OliveiraN.LumineauF. (2019). The dark side of interorganizational relationships: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 45(1), 231–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318804027
68.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
69.
PetersonA.CivilD. (2021). Civic Virtue, Community and the Common Good. Virtue Insight, Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t725yci-2oAccessed 18 October 2021
70.
PetersonC.SeligmanM. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.
71.
PolmanP.WinstonA. (2021). Net positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take. Harvard Business Review Press.
72.
PrykoI.DӧrflerV.EdenC. (2019). Communities of practice in landscapes of practice’. Management Learning, 50(4), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854
ReedM. S. (2018). The research impact handbook. Fast Track Impact Ltd.
76.
RommeA. G. L.AvenierM.-J.DenyerD.HodgkinsonG. P.PandzaK.StarkeyK.WorrenN. (2015). Towards common ground and trading zones in management research and practice. British Journal of Management, 26, 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12110
ShaniA. B.CoghlanD. (2021). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 19(3), 518–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319852147
79.
SharmaG.BansalP. (2020). Cocreating rigorous and relevant knowledge. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 386–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0487
80.
ShotterJ. (2010). Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing “beginnings” for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109340347
81.
SohW. G.AntonacopoulouE. P.GriggC.BentoR. (2022). Embedding a ‘Reflexive Mindset’: Lessons from Reconfiguring the Internal Auditing Function. Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal. (forthcoming)https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.61
82.
TedmansonD.EssersC.DeyP.VerduynK. (2015). An uncommon wealth. Transforming the commons with purpose, for people and not for profit!. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(4), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615579791
83.
UzziB.AmaralL. A. N.Reed-TsochasF. (2007). Small-world networks and management science research: A review. European Management Review, 4(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500078
84.
VälikangasL.JärvenpääS. L. (2021). How collaborative networks fail, with the implications for participants learning. In TodtG.BackmannJ.WeissM. (Eds.), Work life after failure?: How employees bounce back, learn and recover from work-related setbacks (pp. 173–190). Emerald Publishing.
85.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.
86.
WickertC.PostC.DohJ. P.PrescottJ. E.PrencipeA. (2021). Management research that makes a difference: Broadening the meaning of impact. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12666
87.
WilliamsA.WhitemanG. (2021). A call for deep engagement for impact: Addressing the planetary emergency. Strategic Organisation, 19(3), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211011703
