Alliance-building for equity and justice: An inter-organizational perspective

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Krista A. Haapanen , Brian D. Christens , Daniel G. Cooper , Jordan Jurinsky
{"title":"Alliance-building for equity and justice: An inter-organizational perspective","authors":"Krista A. Haapanen ,&nbsp;Brian D. Christens ,&nbsp;Daniel G. Cooper ,&nbsp;Jordan Jurinsky","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cultivating alliances between specific sectors or fields with unrealized synergies is a promising strategy for systems change. Social network analysis is a useful tool for assessing whether such alliances build relationships between these previously disparate organizations. Two waves of valued network data were collected from the members (N = 25) of a justice system reform coalition composed of two types of community-based organizations: those involved in restorative justice practice and those involved in grassroots community organizing. Social network homophily analyses were employed to characterize the impact of alliance participation on relationships over time across three domains: working together, doing impactful work together, and sharing a philosophy about justice system reform. Results indicate marked increases in the prevalence of relationships between restorative justice and community organizing organizations across all domains, with the greatest increases occurring in perceptions of shared philosophy. Network structures at each time point differed by relational domain and organization type. Findings suggest that the alliance strengthened relationships between restorative justice and community organizing organizations, particularly in perceptions of shared philosophy, but that the magnitude of these changes varied depending on pre-existing interorganizational relationships and organization type. Findings challenge the idea that close working relationships between diverse members is critical to coalition effectiveness, pointing instead to the value of ambidextrous networks and alignment in members’ philosophy and vision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718923001593","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cultivating alliances between specific sectors or fields with unrealized synergies is a promising strategy for systems change. Social network analysis is a useful tool for assessing whether such alliances build relationships between these previously disparate organizations. Two waves of valued network data were collected from the members (N = 25) of a justice system reform coalition composed of two types of community-based organizations: those involved in restorative justice practice and those involved in grassroots community organizing. Social network homophily analyses were employed to characterize the impact of alliance participation on relationships over time across three domains: working together, doing impactful work together, and sharing a philosophy about justice system reform. Results indicate marked increases in the prevalence of relationships between restorative justice and community organizing organizations across all domains, with the greatest increases occurring in perceptions of shared philosophy. Network structures at each time point differed by relational domain and organization type. Findings suggest that the alliance strengthened relationships between restorative justice and community organizing organizations, particularly in perceptions of shared philosophy, but that the magnitude of these changes varied depending on pre-existing interorganizational relationships and organization type. Findings challenge the idea that close working relationships between diverse members is critical to coalition effectiveness, pointing instead to the value of ambidextrous networks and alignment in members’ philosophy and vision.

建立公平正义联盟:组织间视角。
在没有实现协同效应的特定部门或领域之间建立联盟是一种很有前途的制度变革战略。社交网络分析是一个有用的工具,用于评估这种联盟是否在这些以前完全不同的组织之间建立关系。从司法系统改革联盟的成员(N=25)那里收集了两波有价值的网络数据,该联盟由两类社区组织组成:参与恢复性司法实践的组织和参与基层社区组织的组织。社交网络同质性分析被用来描述联盟参与对三个领域关系的影响:合作、共同开展有影响力的工作和分享司法系统改革的哲学。结果表明,恢复性司法和社区组织之间的关系在所有领域都显著增加,其中对共同哲学的看法增加最多。每个时间点的网络结构因关系域和组织类型而异。研究结果表明,该联盟加强了恢复性司法和社区组织之间的关系,特别是在对共同哲学的看法方面,但这些变化的幅度因先前存在的组织间关系和组织类型而异。研究结果对不同成员之间密切的工作关系对联盟有效性至关重要的观点提出了质疑,相反,它指出了双向网络的价值以及成员哲学和愿景的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信