Cross-sector partnerships (XSPs) are an important part of today's organizational landscape and a favored strategy for addressing complex social problems. However, a discrepancy exists between the popularity and prevalence of XSPs and evidence of their ability to produce value with respect to the problems they address. We therefore offer a framework for increasing and assessing XSP value based on an alternative conception of organizational constitution rooted in communication theory. Our central argument is that the overall value of XSPs is not merely in connecting interested parties but, rather, in their ability to act-to substantially influence the people and issues within their problem domain. This ability, we argue, comes from the constitution of organizational forms that are distinct from their members and that display collective agency-the capacity to influence a host of relevant outcomes beyond what individual organizations could do on their own. Our primary contributions are developing a framework for understanding XSP constitution in terms of communication processes and explaining how XSP value can be increased and assessed through communication practices. Addressing complex social issues such as poverty, crime, economic development, and public health cannot be managed by any single entity; increasingly, such problems require collaboration across multiple organizations (Selsky & Parker, 2005). These cross-sector partnerships (XSPs)-involving businesses, government, and civil society groups-make up a unique form of social organization. XSPs are multilateral collectives that engage in mutual problem solving, information sharing, and resource allocation

This study reconceptualizes collective identity from a communication perspective using a constitutive model of communication as a theoretical framework. A longitudinal case study is used to explain the complications and inaction of a social services interorganizational collaboration as a lack of collective identity, also tracing the emergence of a new collective identity. Collective identity is theorized as an authoritative text that emerges through communicative practice and is drawn on for certain strategic ends. A communicative model of organizational constitution—based on the ‘Montreal School’ theory of coorientation—shows how textual representations of situated conversations can gain authority through abstraction and reification, providing a mechanism to organize and direct the voluntary actions of diverse stakeholders. Implications for theory and research are discussed.

Hazard research has made significant strides over the last several decades, answering critical questions surrounding vulnerability and recovery. Recently, resilience has come to the forefront of scholarly debates and practitioner strategies, yet there remain challenges implementing resilience in practice, the result of a complex web of research that spreads across numerous fields of study. As a result, there is a need to analyze and reflect on the current state of resilience literature. We reviewed 241 journal articles from the Web of Science and Engineering Village databases from 1990 to 2015 to analyze research trends in geographic location of studies, methods employed, units of analysis, and resilience dimensions studied, as well as correlations between each of these categories. The majority of the studies analyzed were conducted in North America, used quantitative methods, focused on infrastructure and community units of analysis, and studied governance, infrastructure and economic dimensions of resilience. This analysis points to the need to: (1) conduct studies in developing country contexts and compare these contexts with developed nations; (2) employ mixed-methods for additional depth to quantitative studies; (3) connect units of analysis, such as infrastructure and community; and (4) expand on the measurement and study of environmental and social dimensions of resilience.

This study explores the performative aspects of organizational rituals to explain their agentic capacity and understand how rituals participate in the accomplishment of organizational action. We develop an alternative framework of organizational rituals based on insights from communication theory and the literature on the communicative constitution of organization/ ing (CCO) and demonstrate how rituals "make present" abstract representations of organizational power and value in ways that convey authority and bear down upon the activities and decisions of organizational members. This can be understood through a logic of "attribution and appropriation" that both constitutes rituals as actants and enables them to possess the actions of their participants. This represents a departure from previous research on organizational rituals but can also enhance our understanding of rituals, agency, and symbolic action in organizationsespecially in terms of exploring sources of action and agency beyond human intentionality.