Interorganizational networks are a key type of system that is emerging to meet requirements into the 21st century. This article analyzes the responses of 96 conference participants to determine what role a multiorganizational network may assume in community economic/social development. Participants identify embodying and maintaining vision, serving as a forum, promoting changes in attitudes and perceptions, and communication as key network functions. Results suggest several unique aspects of the network role in leading and supporting community economic and social development. Findings also demonstrate the capacity of relatively uninitiated participants to understand and describe crucial, yet subtle, aspects of networks. Such understanding is essential for building and managing networks hat can support broad-based development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackoff, R R.
(1974). Redesigning the future. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Aldrich, H.
, & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization sets, action-sets, and networks: Making the most of simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organization design (VoL 1, pp. 385-408). New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Ashby, W. R.
(1956). Introduction to cybernetics. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Bolman, L. G.
, & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Brown, L. D.
(1987, April). Development partnerships: Problem-solving at institutional interfaces. Paper presented at the American Society for Public Administration national meeting, Boston.
6.
Chisholm, R F.
(1995). Action research to support network development; Learnings from practice and theory. Position paper presented at Quality in Human Inquiry Conference, March 14-17, University of Bath, U.K.
7.
Chishohm, R F.,
& Elden, MI (1993). Features of emerging action research. In M Elden & R F. Chisholm (Eds.), Special issue on action research. Human Relations, 46(2), 275-297.
8.
Chisholm, R F.
, Lichtenstein, G. A., & Tam, W. W. (1995). Developing a rural economic incubator network: An action research approach. Working paper, Center for Quality of Working Life, School of Public Affairs, Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg.
9.
Elden, ML
, & Chishohm, R. F. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research. In M Elden & R. F. Chisholm (Eds.), Special issue on action research. Human Relations, 46(2), 121-142.
10.
Emery, F. E.
, & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32.
11.
Emery, MI,
& Emery, F. E. (1978). Searching. In J. W. Sutherland (Ed.), Management handbook of public administration (pp. 257-301). New YorkVan Nostrand Reinhold.
12.
Engelstad, P. H.
, & Gustavsen, B. (1993). Swedish network development for implementing national worker form strategy. In M: Elden & R. F. Chisholm (Eds.), Special issue on action research. Human Relations, 46(2), 219-248.
13.
Finsrud, H.
(1995). How about a dialogue? Communication perspective meets socioecological perspective. In O. Eikeland and H. D. Finsrud (Eds.) Research in action. Oslo: Work Research Institute.
14.
Gerlach, L. P.
, & Palmer, G. B. (1981). Adaptation through evolving interdependence. In P. D. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organization design (Vol. 1, pp. 323-381). New York. Oxford University Press.
15.
Jay, E. J.
(1964). The concept of "field" and "network" in anthropological research. Man, 64, 137-139.
16.
Lawrence, P. R.
, & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organization and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
17.
Lewin, K.
(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
18.
McLuhan, Mi
(1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New YorkSignet.
19.
Pasmore, W.
, & Friedlander, F. (1982). An action research program for increasing employee involvement in problem-solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 343-362.
20.
Powell, W. W.
(1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. MI Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295-336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
21.
Qvale, T. U.
(1994, August). From the first to the fifth generation: The changing context and roles of work life centres. A review of 25 years of action research programmes in Norway. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Dallas, Texas.
22.
Rittel, H.W.J.
, & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
23.
Sherif, MI
(1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of inter group conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton Min.
24.
Susman, G. I.
, & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
25.
Trist, E. L.
(1983). Referent organizations and the development of interorganizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269-284.
26.
Trist E. L.
(1986). Quality of working life and community development: Some reflections on the Jamestown experience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(3), 223-238.
27.
Weisbord, M. R.
(1993). Discovering common ground. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
