Towards Greater Transparency Regarding Partnerships for Technology Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser.2021v12n2a413Keywords:
Cross-sector partnerships; Nonprofit-industry-academic partnerships; Technology-development partnerships; Nonprofit technology / Partenariats intersectoriels; Partenariats entre le milieu académique et le secteur sans but lucratif; Partenariats consacrés au développement technologique; Technologies d’organismes sans but lucratifAbstract
This article explores the problems and potential of funded short-term cross-sector partnerships to address technological deficits in the nonprofit sector by engaging with the partners of a concluded project. The partnership case study that forms the backbone of this article was a three-year nationally funded nonprofit-industry-academic partnership. The ob- jective of the partnership was to increase the data collection capacity of a national nonprofit organization and its affiliate centres through the development of a web-based app. This article highlights the challenges and differing experiences of nonprofit-industry-academic partnerships more generally, and technology-development partnerships more specifically.
Downloads
References
Arevian, A., O’Hora, J., Jones, F., Mango, J., Jones, L., Williams, P., Booker-Vaughns, J., Jones, A., Pulido, E., Banner-Jackson, D., & Wells, K. (2018). Participatory technology development to enhance community resilience. Ethnicity & Disease, 28(Suppl 2), 493–502. doi:10.18865/ed.28.S2.493
Austin, J.E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97. doi:10.1177/0899764000291s004
Austin, J.E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. doi:10.1177/0899764012450777
Bach-Mortensen, A.M., & Montgomery, P. (2018). What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organizations (non- profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 7(13). doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0681-1
Baines, D., Cunningham, I., Campey, J., & Shields, J. (2014). Not profiting from precarity: The work of nonprofit service delivery and the creation of precariousness. Just Labour, 22, 74–93. doi:10.25071/1705-1436.6
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662
Bourdieu, P. (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun. V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Brock, K.L. (2018). Government and community relations. In K. Steel (Ed.), Management of nonprofit and charitable organizations in Canada (4th ed.), (pp. 211–243). Toronto, ON: LexisNexis Canada Inc.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., & Stone, M.M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. (2007). Participatory design in community informatics. Design Studies, 28(3), 243–261. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.007
Clarke, A., & Crane, A. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: Systematized literature review and agenda for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 303–313. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3922-2
Gillingham, P. (2015). Electronic information systems and human services organisations: Avoiding the pitfalls of participatory design. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 651–666. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct126
Gillingham, P., & Graham, T. (2017). Big data in social welfare: The development of a critical perspective on social work’s latest “electronic turn.” Australian Social Work, 70(2), 134–147. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2015.1134606
Gray, M.L. (1999). In your face: Stories from the lives of queer youth. Philadelphia, PA: Haworth Press.
Haley, N., & Roy, E. (1999). Canadian street youth: Who are they? What are their needs? Pediatrics & Child Health, 4(6), 381–383. doi:10.1093/pch/4.6.381
Hamilton, L., & Corbett-Whittier, C. (2013). Using case study in education research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.
Hennig, S., & Vogler, R. (2016). User-centred map applications through participatory design: Experiences gained during the ‘YouthMap 5020’ project. The Cartographic Journal, 53(3), 213–229. doi: 10.1080/00087041.2016 .1148217
Hill, C., Rosehart, P., Montabello, S., MacDonald, M., Blazevich, D., & Chi, B. (2019). Teaching and learning within inter-institutional spaces: An example of a community-campus partnership in teacher education. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 37–55. doi:10.15402/esj.v5i1.67848
Ince, D., & Griffiths, A. (2011). A chronicling system for children’s social work: Learning from the ICS failure. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1497–1513. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr016
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C.A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9). doi:10.3390/socsci8090255
Kelly, K., & Caputo, T. (2011). Community: A contemporary analysis of policies, programs and practices. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Kepkiewicz, L., Levkoe, C.Z., & Brynne, A. (2018). “Community First” for whom? Reflections on the possibilities and challenges of community-campus engagement from the community food sovereignty hub. Engaged Scholar Journal, 4(2), 43–60. doi:10.15402/esj.v4i2.61747
Kidd, S.A. (2003). Street youth: Coping with interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(4), 235–259. doi:10.1023/A:1024552808179
Kim, K.K., Logan, H.C., Young, E., & Sabee, C.M. (2015). Youth-centered design and usage results of the iN Touch mobile self-management program for overweight/obesity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(1), 59–68. doi:10.1007/s00779-014-0808-x
Kindred, J., & Petrescu, C. (2015). Expectations versus reality in a university-community partnership: A case study. Voluntas, 26(3), 823–845. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9471-0
Laforest, R. (2011). Voluntary sector organizations and the state: Building new relations. Toronto, ON: UBC Press. Levkoe, C., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2018). Brokering community-campus partnerships: An analytical framework. Gateways
International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 11(1), 18–36. doi:10.5130/ijcre.v11i1.5527 Lovell, A., Anucha, U., Houwer, R., & Galley, A. (2016). Beyond measure? The state of evaluation and action in
Ontario’s youth sector. Youth Research and Evaluation eXchange (YouthREX). Toronto, ON. URL: https:// exchange.youthrex.com/report/beyond-measure-stateevaluation-and-action-ontarios-youth-sector/ [Accessed June 16, 2021].
Malenfant, J., Nichols, N., & Schwan, K. (2019). Chasing funding to “eat our own tail”: The invisible emotional work of making social change. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research (ANSERJ), 10(2), 40–54. doi:10.29173/cjnser.2019v10n2a307
Mandell, N., & King, K. (2014). Emotional labour and feeling rules in academic and community research partnerships. In R. Berman (Ed.), Corridor talk: Canadian feminist scholars share stories of research partnerships (pp. 7–16). Toronto, ON: INANNA Publications and Education Inc.
McNutt, J.G., Guo, C., Goldkind, L., & An, S.H. (2018). Technology in nonprofit organizations and voluntary action. Leiden, NL: Brill Research Perspectives. doi:10.1163/9789004378124
Meurer, J, Muller, C., Simone, C., Wagner, I., & Volker, W. (2018). Designing for sustainability: Key issues of ICT projects for aging at home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 27(3), 495–537. doi:10.1007/s10606-018-9317-1
Mody, E.H., Wang, C., Hoyt, J., & Ferguson, K.M. (2020). Data-driven service delivery: Using population and coalition data to reengage opportunity youth in career and educational pathways. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(4), 384–409. doi:10.1080/15228835.2020.1820424
Morgan, D.L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. doi:10.1177 /1077800413513733
Munro, E. (2005). What tools do we need to improve identification of child abuse? Child Abuse Review, 14, 374–88. doi:10.1002/car.921
Nolas, S.M. (2014). Exploring young people’s and youth workers’ experiences of spaces of “youth development”: Creating cultures of participation. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 26–42. doi:10.1080/13676261.2013.793789
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage handbook of action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Roose, R., Roets, G., Schiettecat, T., Pannecoucke, B., Piessens, A., Van Gils, J., Op de Beeck, H., Vandenhole, W., Driessens, K., Desair, K., Hermans, K., Van Robaeys, B., Vandenbroeck, M., & Vandekinderen, C. (2016). Social work research as a practice of transparency. European Journal of Social Work, 19(6), 1021–1034. doi:10.1080 /13691457.2015.1051950
Russell, E., Lloyd-Houldey, A., Memon, A., & Yarker, J. (2018). Factors influencing update and use of a new health information app for young people. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 36(4), 222–240. doi:10.1080 /15228835.2018.1536911
Schwartz, K., Weaver, L., Pei, N., & Kingston Miller, A. (2016). Community-campus partnerships, collective impact, and poverty reduction. Community Development, 47(2), 167–180. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1128955
Seymour, K., Bull, M., Homel, R., & Wright, P. (2017). Making the most of youth development: Evidence-based programs and the role of young people in research. Queensland Review, 24(1), 147–162. doi:10.1017/qre.2017.17
Shields, R., & Sharkey, A. (2008). Abject citizenship — rethinking exclusion and inclusion: Participation, criminality and community at a small town youth centre. Children’s Geographies, 6(3), 239–256. doi:10.1080/14733280802183973
Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). (2020). Partnership grants-stage 1. URL: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/partnership_grants_stage1-subventions_partenariat _etape1-eng.aspx [November 18, 2020].
Tregeagle, S., & Darcy, M. (2008). Child welfare and information and community technology: Today’s challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1481–1498. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm048
Unertl, K., Schaefbauer, C., Campbell, T., Senteio, C., Siek, K., Bakken, S., & Veinot, T. (2016). Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 23(1), 60–73. doi:10.1093/jamia /ocv094
Van Tulder, R., Seitanidi, M.M., Crane, A., & Brammer, S. (2016). Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2756-4
Vestergaard, A., Murphy, L., Morsing, M., & Langevang, T. (2020). Cross-sector partnerships as capitalisms new development agents: Reconceiving impact as empowerment. Business & Society, 59(7), 1339–1376. doi:10.1177/00076 50319845327
Voakes, L. (1992). Street youth: Small towns and cities. Canadian Criminal Justice Association: Justice Report, 6(2), 51–58.
Voakes, L. (2001). Town youth participation strategies project: Apply participatory action research in small town Canada [Master’s thesis]. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Research Virtual Environment.
Voakes, L. (2003). Listening to the experts. New Directions for Evaluation, 2003(98), 25–32. doi:10.1002/ev.82
Wilson, T., Todd, S., Occhiuto, K., & Garrod, J.Z. (2019). Social workers as double agents: Critical inquiry, social work education, and the youth question. Social Work Education, 39(1), 85–96. doi:10.1080/02615479.2019.1653273
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Katherine Occhiuto , Sarah L. Todd, Tina E. Wilson, J.Z. Garrod
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research / Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l'économie sociale [thereafter CJNSER] will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, and that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication.
The journal takes the stance that the publication of scholarly research is meant to disseminate knowledge and, in a not-for-profit regime, benefits neither publisher nor author financially. It sees itself as having an obligation to its authors and to society to make content available online now that the technology allows for such a possibility. In keeping with this principle, the journal will publish all of its issues online.
Authors who publish in CJNSER agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
[Content published between 2010 and 2019-10 was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 CA) License. Content published between 2019-10 to 2023-12 was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. Content published after 2023-12 is licensed under the Creative Commons 4.0 International (CC BY) License.]
