Partnering for Impact: A Grand Challenge and Design for Co-Creating a Just,Resilient and Flourishing Society

Abstract

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.

Keywords

impact partnerships grand challenges co-creation isotimia philotimia flourishing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AACSB (2012). Impact of Research. A Guide for Business Schools. Available at https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/publications/research-reports/impact-of-research-exploratory-study.ashx?la=en

Adler

Shani

A. B.

Styhre

(2004). Collaborative research in organizations: Foundations for learning, change, and theoretical development. Sage.

Aguinis

Shapiro

D. L.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Cummings

T. G.

(2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralistic conceptualisation. Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal. Exemplary Contribution, 13(4), 623–639.

AHRC (2008). AHRC economic impact reporting framework. Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Akrivou

Sison

A. J. G.

(2016). The challenges of capitalism for virtue ethics and the common good: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Antonacopoulou

E. 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

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2014). Tensions and extensions in knowledge integration and dis-integration: Rethinking the man-agement of knowledge. In Örtenblad

A. R.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on knowledge management (pp. 406–423). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2016). Rediscovering Paideia and the meaning of a scholarly career. Journal of Management Education, 40(6), 711–721.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2017). The capacity for phronesis: Cultivating competence, character and conscience for impactful research. In Bartunek

McKenzie

(Eds.), Academic practitioner research partnerships: Development, complexities and opportunities (pp. 160–178). Routledge.

10.

Antonacopoulou

E. 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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2022). Putting love first: Redefining managing, organizing and the future of work. In Pirson

(Ed.), Love and organization: Lessons of love for human dignity, leadership and motivation (pp. 182–209). Routledge.

12.

Antonacopoulou

E. 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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Dehlin

Zundel

(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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Georgiadou

(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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2010d). Making waves: Moments when ideas are set free. In A.

Carlsen

Dutton

(Eds.), Generativity in qualitative research (pp. 158–161). CBS Press.

16.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Méric

(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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2010b). Advancing practice-relevant scholarship: Delivering impact. In C.

Cassell

W. J.

Lee

(Eds.), Management research: Challenges and controversies (pp. 314–334). Routledge.

18.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

(2010c). Global research: Transcending boundaries by learning to collaborate and learning from collaboration. In C.

Cassell

W. J.

Lee

(Eds.), Management research: Challenges and controversies (pp. 86–104). Routledge.

19.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Moldjord

Steiro

Stokkeland

(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.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Moldjord

Steiro

Stokkeland

(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.

Arneson

(2009). Axiology. In Littlejohn

Foss

(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of communication theory (pp. 70–74). Sage Publications, Inc.

22.

Austin

J. E.

Seitanidi

M. 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.

Bartunek

J. 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.

Beck

T. E.

Plowman

D. 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.

Bollier

(2011). The growth of the commons paradigm. In Hess

Ostrom

(Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 27–40). The MIT Press.

27.

Bollier

Helfrich

(2014). The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Levellers Press.

28.

Bruce

Lyall

Tait

Williams

(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.

Bruhn

J. 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-Levin

Emerson

(2011). Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference. Jossey-Bass.

31.

Caffentzis

(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.

Castañer

Oliveira

(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.

Ciabuschi

Baraldi

Lindahl

(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.

Cloutier

Langley

(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.

Cohen

(2018). On impact: The impact revolution. Park Communications.

36.

Corvellec

(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.

Crossan

Mazutis

Seijts

Gandz

(2013). Developing leadership character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024a

38.

Cunliffe

A. L.

Scaratti

(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.

Davies

Nutley

Walter

(2005). Assessing the impact of social science research: Conceptual, methodological and practical issues. Research Unit for Research Utilization, University of St. Andrews.

40.

Davis

A. L.

Allen

Shepler

Resick

Lee

Marinucci

Taylor

J. 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.

Doh

J. P.

Tashman

Benischke

M. 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

42.

Ferraro

Etzion

Gehman

(2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

43.

Furnari

(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.

Gehman

Treviño

Garud

(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.

George

Howard-Grenville

Joshi

(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.

Gibson

(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

47.

Godwin

L. N.

(2016). Appreciative inquiry: Three decades of generative impact. AI Practitioner, 15(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-26-7-3

48.

Gray

Purdy

(2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.

49.

Hallett

Ventresca

(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.

Hart

S. 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.

Hussain

(2018). Why should we care about competition? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(5), 570–585.

52.

Järvenpää

S. L.

Välikangas

(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.

Khanagha

Ansari

Paroutis

Oviedo

(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

54.

Kieser

Leiner

(2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x

55.

Kieser

Leiner

(2011). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611411923

56.

Knight

Pettigrew

A. M.

(2007a). Process and Performance in International Collaborative Research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia.

57.

Knight

Pettigrew

A. 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.

Leah

Laszlo

(2022). Creating positive impact: The power of greater purpose and consciousness of connectedness. Engaged Management Review, 5(1), 9–19.

59.

Markides

C. C.

(2021). Organizing for the new normal: Prepare your company for the journey of continuous disruption. Kogan Page.

60.

Massey

(2005). For space. Sage.

61.

Mayer

(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.

McIntyre

(1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Duckworth.

63.

Mintzberg

(2015). Rebalancing society: Radical renewal beyond left, right, and center. Berrett-Koehler.

64.

Mithani

M. 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.

Mohrman

S. A.

Pasmore

W. A.

Shani

A. B.

Stymne

Adler

(2008). Toward building a collaborative research community. In Shani

A. B.

Mohrman

S. A.

Pasmore

W. A.

Stymne

Adler

(Eds.), Handbook of collaborative research community (pp. 615–634). Sage.

66.

Nhat Hanh

(2015). How to love. Parallaro Press.

67.

Oliveira

Lumineau

(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.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Peterson

Civil

(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-2o Accessed 18 October 2021

70.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press.

71.

Polman

Winston

(2021). Net positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take. Harvard Business Review Press.

72.

Pryko

Dӧrfler

Eden

(2019). Communities of practice in landscapes of practice’. Management Learning, 50(4), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854

73.

Qin

Lancaster

Allen

(1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10<893::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-X

74.

Raelin

J. A.

(2020). Toward a methodology for studying leadership-as-practice. Leadership, 16(4), 480–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715019882831

75.

Reed

M. S.

(2018). The research impact handbook. Fast Track Impact Ltd.

76.

Romme

A. G. L.

Avenier

M.-J.

Denyer

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Pandza

Starkey

Worren

(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

77.

Shani

A. B.

Adler

Mohrman

S. A.

Pasmore

W. A.

Stymne

(2008). Handbook of collaborative management research. Thousand Oaks.

78.

Shani

A. B.

Coghlan

(2021). Action research in business and management: A reflective review. Action Research, 19(3), 518–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319852147

79.

Sharma

Bansal

(2020). Cocreating rigorous and relevant knowledge. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 386–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0487

80.

Shotter

(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.

Soh

W. G.

Antonacopoulou

E. P.

Grigg

Bento

(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.

Tedmanson

Essers

Dey

Verduyn

(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.

Uzzi

Amaral

L. A. N.

Reed-Tsochas

(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.

Välikangas

Järvenpää

S. L.

(2021). How collaborative networks fail, with the implications for participants learning. In Todt

Backmann

Weiss

(Eds.), Work life after failure?: How employees bounce back, learn and recover from work-related setbacks (pp. 173–190). Emerald Publishing.

85.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.

86.

Wickert

Post

Doh

J. P.

Prescott

J. E.

Prencipe

(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.

Williams

Whiteman

(2021). A call for deep engagement for impact: Addressing the planetary emergency. Strategic Organisation, 19(3), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270211011703

88.

Zimmerman

M. J.

Bradley

(2019). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic value. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab. Stanford University. Available online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/>