Prospects for Local Collaboration into an Uncertain Future: Learning from Practice within Labour's Partnership Paradigm

Lindsey, Iain

doi:10.1080/03003930.2013.805690

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A fundamental issue here is the potential for community concerns to be overlooked in favour of those that are perceived as important by more powerful stakeholders as alluded to by Lindsey (2014), who highlights that power sharing takes place within a strategically selective context in which organisations pursue specific interests in a more authoritative and perhaps traditional sense. Within the context of CSNs therefore, it is apparent that establishing a diverse membership that is both sufficiently representative to achieve the network's multifarious objectives and capable of being managed effectively was a key challenge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this respect, as vehicles for collaboration between local actors, CSNs are likely to remain key local mechanisms for sharing information, co-ordinating activities and planning for local sport and physical activity programmes. Lindsey (2014) suggests that the potential role of communities in decision making processes has actually been elevated given a renewed focus on localism and the role of local actors in policy implementation. In this respect, those working within CSNs might actually be afforded increased flexibility to pursue local objectives in an evolving context where power is increasingly fragmented (Bolton et al 2008;Harris and Houlihan, 2014;Mackintosh, 2013).…”

Section: Defining Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflective of the constantly shifting nature of national sport objectives (Bloyce and Smith, 2010;Green, 2006), CSPs have since been subjected to tighter controls to ensure accountability to strict performance outcomes , Grix 2010 as is evident in the recent Creating a Sporting Habit for Life strategy (DCMS, 2012) in which a mandated partnership approach between Sport England, CSPs, schools and community sports clubs lies at the heart of a determination to increase the proportion of young people regularly playing sport. These changes have ultimately seen a weakening of CSP support for CSNs (Lindsey, 2014).…”

Section: Defining Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is likely to take place in a context that features a complex interplay of trust, resources and incentives (Harris and Houlihan, 2014). One exception to the focus on CSPs is Lindsey (2014), who adopts a decentred approach to understanding meanings that guides collaborative behaviour within a Sport and Physical Activity Alliance (SPAA, local derivatives of CSNs). Lindsey (2014) identifies that the perceptions of members, and their outcome-focussed actions, were inherently linked and characterised by self-preserving traits (Lindsey, 2014).…”

Section: Research Into Partnerships For Sport and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One exception to the focus on CSPs is Lindsey (2014), who adopts a decentred approach to understanding meanings that guides collaborative behaviour within a Sport and Physical Activity Alliance (SPAA, local derivatives of CSNs). Lindsey (2014) identifies that the perceptions of members, and their outcome-focussed actions, were inherently linked and characterised by self-preserving traits (Lindsey, 2014). Thus, it is evident that a range of internal factors are at play for example, power relations, and external factors for example, institutional values and practices, that are likely to impact the form and function of local-level partnerships within the sport and physical activity context.…”

Section: Research Into Partnerships For Sport and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks

Baker

Ansari

Crone

2016

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community sports networks were established in 2007 to coordinate local sport and physical activity promotion. Partnerships continue to be used to deliver policy. It is important to understand the relationship between the internal structure of partnerships and their outcomes. This study assesses associations between predictor variables relating to partnership structure and process and four intermediary partnership outcomes: satisfaction, synergy, commitment and effectiveness. A retrospective analysis of data was conducted on 171 surveys administered between September 2008 and March 2009 from community sports network members in England. The predictor variables explained 67% of the variance in synergy, 75% of the variance in satisfaction, 63% of the variance in commitment and 46% of the variance in effectiveness. Sustaining a positive benefits-to-costs relationship, establishing effective communication and partnership strategy, and demonstrating impact were predictive of the four intermediary partnership outcomes. Further research is warranted to help establish a detailed understanding of partnership processes and outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Into Partnerships For Sport and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Into Partnerships For Sport and Physical Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks

Baker

Ansari

Crone

2016

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Collective organisational publicness versus privateness in community sport: a national panel study of local authorities

Hodgkinson

Hughes

Leone

2020

European Sport Management Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Question: The role and merit of publicness versus privateness in community sport provision is hotly contested in the sport management field, but is there a relationship between ownership types in local authorities' community sport provision and sports participation levels?Research Methods: The study combines secondary data on sports participation with objective data on ownership types in community sport provision among local authorities in England, between 2009-15. The panel model examines whether the mix of ownership types in community sport is associated with differences in reported sports participation levels. Results and Findings:The study reveals higher collective organisational publicness in community sport is associated with lower sports participation levels among local populations.The opposite is true of higher collective privateness in local authorities' provision, where higher levels of sports participation are observed among local populations.Implications: If local authorities are to influence sports participation levels among their populations, there is a need to better understand how community sport provision should be delivered. Informed by the findings, greater privateness in local authorities' community sport provision is associated with higher sports participation levels.

show abstract

Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research

Mansfield

2016

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the dynamics of research-policy-practice (RPP) partnerships in sport. Such partnerships, involving a diverse range of groups, have emerged as a response to: (1) a contemporary political prioritisation in the use of sport for health and wellbeing and (2) a parallel requirement for robust evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A conceptual framework for understanding such RPP partnerships is proposed and discussed in relation to three overlapping characteristics; resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity. The paper concludes that understanding these three Rs of RPP partnerships is a way to demythologise the role of sport in public health and present theoretically informed analyses about processes of knowledge production, dissemination and use. It is a conceptual framework which might also further an understanding of, and make public, issues concerning the legitimation of some forms of evidence over others, and potentially maximise the impact of the co-production of knowledge about sport for public health and wellbeing.

show abstract

Prospects for Local Collaboration into an Uncertain Future: Learning from Practice within Labour's Partnership Paradigm

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks

Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks

Collective organisational publicness versus privateness in community sport: a national panel study of local authorities

Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About