1e.xps World Journal of Management and Behavioral Studies 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 ISSN 2306-840X © IDOSI Publications, 2013 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wjmbs.2013.1.2.1201 Corresponding Author: Mupa Paul, Quality Assurance Co-Ordinator, Zimbabwe Open University, Masvingo Region, P.O. Box: 1210, Masvingo. Fax: 039264993. 36 Unmasking the Role of Collaboration and Partnerships in Open and Distance Learning Systems Kurasha Primrose, Mupa Paul and Chiome Chrispen Zimbabwe Open University Abstract: Central to successful organisations is a powerful sense of collaboration and partnerships. The study sought to unmask the role of collaboration and partnerships in Open and Distance Learning. It was prompted by noticeable challenges that ODL systems are facing in providing quality service to the customers. The study was qualitative by nature and employed the descriptive survey design. Open-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used as the main data gathering instruments. A purposive sample comprising of lecturers, stakeholders and students was made. The major findings of the study were that collaboration and partnerships play a major role in resource mobilization, capacity building, relationship building, training and development of staff, opportunity to engage in attachments in companies, improvement of educational quality, provision of suitable curricula and meeting various stakeholder demands, among others. The major recommendation is that ODL institutions should collaborate and partner with various stakeholders like business people, companies, governments, alumni and other universities. Key words: Collaboration Partnerships Open and Distance Learning systems INTRIDUCTION Partnerships are promoted in the belief that Most ODL institutions collaborate with one another significant social benefits through joint action [4]. In through COL in developing and sharing their academic addition to tackling pressing global issues, the case for programmes. Almost all institutions have links with partnerships argues that bringing together unique and regional and international associations and organisations complementary resources can benefit the various [1]. Collaboration plays a pivotal role in tackling pressing participants in the collaboration. social and environmental issues. Partnerships between For effective collaboration, a strong network system organisations are becoming one of the most visible is required. A network… is a group of organisations aspects of any organisation’s social responsibility agenda working together to solve problems or issues of mutual [2]. concern that are too large for any one organisation to Collaborative partnerships are important for ODL handle on its own [5]. The idea of networks suggests that providers in that they reduce the cost of introducing new organisations working together in a collaborative effort technologies and also improve the quality of developing would be more effective in enhancing organisational programmes. By forming appropriate partnerships with capacity and improving student learning than individual other ODL institutions, ODL institutions can secure organisations working on their own [6, 7]. external content experts and teaching support. [8] drew on research into professional learning Partnerships with professional organisations may help communities to define ‘Networked Learning Communities’ create quality programmes, recruit students and build in terms of knowledge transfer, professional learning and capacity for ODL practices. Finding creative ways to their position between central and local educational share resources and expertise will be the key issue in structures: forming partnerships with other organisations. These Networked Learning Communities are purposefully relationships engage the partners on an ongoing basis led social entities that are characterized by a commitment and are often strongly project-oriented [3]. to quality, rigour and a focus on outcomes. cooperative relationships provide the potential to achieve World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 37 They promote the dissemination of good practice, Attributes of partnership are: enhance the professional development of teachers, support capacity building in schools, mediate between Trust in partners centralised and decentralised structures and assist in Respect for partners the process of re-structuring and re-culturing Joint working educational organisational systems [9]. Teamwork Network structures are probably the most popular Eliminating boundaries way of distinguishing networks from other organisational Being an ally forms. [10] use a ‘fisherman’s net’ metaphor to describe the structure of a network of individuals. A fisherman’s Conceptual Framework: Collaboration has been defined net is based on threads which are knotted together. In a as interactions between organisations [13]. [14] refine this network of individuals the ‘threads’ that link people description further noting how interactions vary in their together and represent the ‘soft’ part of the network scope and depth. The scope of interactions can vary from structure, are the relationships, communications and trust narrow to broad and this reffects the number of partners that links people. The ‘knots’ provide the ‘harder’ part of involved in the collaboration, the more partners the the structure and are the activities that bring people in the broader the interaction. The depth of interaction ranges network together, meeting and events. The metaphor from deep interactions whereby a large number of people stresses the interaction of these two sorts of structures from the collaborating organisations interact to shallow because it is this interaction that gives the ‘net’ attains its interactions which describe limited interactions. These structural strength. The leaders of organisational limited interactions frequently only involve the managers networks therefore have to ensure that they develop both of each organisation. types of structures to hold people in the network and [15] note that to achieve collaborative success, allow them to work the net effectively. communication is a key factor. However often there is lack Organisational networks also require structures that of time for more informal communication and this limits the interact with and between, the internal structures that integration of staff working on a shared initiative [16]. organise what happens within individual organisations. Thus time needs to be set aside for informal networking These structures, such as network conferences, before the collaboration starts in earnest [17]. cross-organisational meetings and intervisitations provide The attributes of collaboration include that ‘two or the means to develop the ‘soft’ aspects of the network more individuals must be involved in a joint venture, structure that bring people together, the professional typically one of an intellectual nature in which relationships, while at the same time creating the ‘hard’ participants willingly participate in planning and decision structures, the knots which provide the opportunity for making’ [18]. It is further argued that individuals consider joint working and effective collaboration. themselves to be members of a team working towards a Our argument is, in common with research on common goal, sharing their expertise and responsibility communities of practice [11] and professional learning for the outcome. Fundamentally, the relationship between communities [12], that effective collaborative learning collaborators is non-hierarchical and shared power is occurs when four key processes are in place and are based on knowledge and expertise, rather than role or title effectively intermeshed both vertically and horizontally [19]. within and between organisations and institutions: The defining attributes of collaboration can therefore Leadership Co-ordination and administration Intellectual and co-operative endeavor Joint learning and practice development Knowledge and expertise more important than role or Knowledge and practice transfer title A partnership is a shared commitment, where all Teamworking partners have a right and an obligation to participate and Participation in planning and decision making will be affected equally by the benefits and disadvantages Non-hierarchical relationship arising from the partnership. Sharing of expertise be summarized as follows: Joint venture World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 38 Willingness to work together towards an agreed Encounter: Some ad hoc inter-agency contact, but lowly purpose connected networks, divergent organizational goals and Trust and respect in collaborators perceived rivalry and stereotyping. Highly connected network Low expectation of reciprocation Communication: Joint working, but marginal to The involvement of the public is central to working of information as it applies to users whose needs cross collaboratively [20]. The public gives the institutions boundaries, some joint training, a nominated person is support. This could be moral support, financial support, responsible for liaison, expectation of reciprocation. social support and good word of mouth. One of the most widely recognised types of Collaboration: Joint working is central to mainstream collaboration is partnerships [21]. Partnerships can be activities. Trust and respect in partners means that they defined as a pooling or sharing of resources among two are willing to participate in formal, structured joint working or more stakeholders to solve a problem or create an including joint assessments, planning, service delivery opportunity that neither can address individually [22]. and commissioning. There is a highly connected network In this way partnerships when operating effectively, and low expectation of reciprocation. can provide a synergy whereby the whole is greater than the sum of its parts [23]. [24] indicate that when this Integration: No longer see their separate identify as occurs each partner gains from the additional resources, significant and may be willing to consider creation of sharing ideas, knowledge and finance that the other unitary organisation [32]. partners bring, which is argued add value for each participating member. It requires that all parties believe Theoretical Framework: Systems Theory by Peter that through working together they can achieve Senge: Senge championed the systems framework. A something greater than if they work alone. systems framework refers to a set of interrelated and However it should be noted that the formation of interdependent parts arranged in a manner that produces public partnerships and inter-agency working have a unified whole [33]. It is a discipline for seeing the whole. particular terms of reference in that partnerships are Senge emphasizes system dynamics paradigm. In this created from the outside, generally the product of central concept he argues that things are interconnected in government initiatives and this in itself can create confiict complex patterns that can be captured into a model [25]. without loss of relevance. Systemic thinking is the Power relations play a key role in building conceptual cornerstone of Peter Senge’s approach. partnerships for their needs to be a balance of power Systems theory’s ability to comprehend and address the between organisations so that all are seen as having an whole and examine the interrelationship between the parts important role [26]. However it is argued that partnerships provides for Peter Senge, both the incentive and the are infrequently made of equals and the stronger party means to integrate the disciplines. Three things need can prosper at the expense of the weaker partner. In public noting here. First, systems theory looks to connections private partnerships (PPP) the role of each partner is and to the whole. In this respect it allows people to look based on public sector organisation acting as the beyond the immediate context and to appreciate the purchaser, the client and the private sector partner impact of their actions upon others. To this extent it holds adopting the role of the supplier [27]. Furthermore [28] the possibility of achieving a more holistic understanding. state that the person who is “perceived” to hold the purse Second, while the building blocks of systems theory are strings can be “perceived” to hold the power. Without a relatively simple, they can build into a rather more clear social anchor partnerships are more likely to be sophisticated model than are current in many subject to the buffeting that any change in structure, organisations. Senge argues that one of the key problems policy and personnel may bring [29, 30]. Therefore there with much that is written about and done in the name of needs to be a shared need and will for the partnership to management, is that rather simplistic frameworks are survive [31]. applied to what are complex systems. When we add these Characteristics of Collaboration on the parts, to begin to see the whole and to appreciate Isolation: Absence of joint activity with no organisation as a dynamic process. Thus, the argument communication at all between agencies. runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more organizational goals. Frequent interactions and sharing two points together it is possible to move beyond a focus World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 39 appropriate action. Third, system thinking, according to Instrumentation: The open-ended questionnaire and Senge, allows us to realize the significance of feedback semi-structured interview were used as the main data mechanisms in organisations. Systems thinking is a gathering instruments. framework for seeing interrelationships and repeated events rather than things. It is seeing patterns of change Open-Ended Questionnaire: It is argued that rather than static snapeshots. It embodies the idea that questionnaires and surveys can be used to gather either the interrelationships among parts relative to a common quantitative or qualitative data [40]. purpose of a system are what is important. He concludes Open ended questionnaires gave respondents an that the system’s viewpoint is generally oriented towards opportunity to elaborate on issues asked. Open-ended the long-term view. That is why delays and feedback questions provide a response format that gives loops are so important. In the short term, you can often respondents the freedom to provide answers which they ignore them; they are inconsequential. They only come care to make. The researcher then has to make sense of all back to haunt you in the long run [34]. The systems the responses given, construct appropriate categories and theory considers many different perspectives such as then code the categories so that the data can be analysed. quality assurance considerations. Quality factors such as Open-ended questions are the most important questions reliability, availability, expandability, testability, among on the survey by offering important and unpredictable others, are considered. This framework was seen as a insights into human behaviour [41]. It is suggested that relevant aspect for coming up with collaborations and open-ended questions allow for more detailed expression partnerships in ODL systems. of respondents’ views [42]; [43] and that qualitative MATERIALS AND METHODS aggregated statistical data. This research was grounded in the qualitative Semi-Structured Interview: [44] say that the semi- paradigm. The use of a qualitative approach to research structured interview has the advantage of being studies relies on the data production methods that are reasonably objective “while still permitting a more fiexible and sensitive to the social context that such data thorough understanding of the respondent’s is derived from, without losing any of the standardization opinions and reasons behind them would be or structure and on data analysis methods that possible using the mailed questionnaire.” They further presuppose the understanding of the complexity that is argue that the semi-structured interview is generally entailed onto the details [35]. most appropriate for interview studies in education. Research Design: The research employed the descriptive depth and often permits gathering valuable data that survey design. It is argued in educational research that could not be successfully obtained by any other descriptive survey is a method of research that describes approach [45]. what we see over and beyond [36]. [46] state that in the semi-structured interview the Thus the researchers chose this method as it allowed researcher introduces the topic and thereafter guides the respondents to say exactly what they conceived of as the discussion by asking specific questions. [47] say that role of collaboration and partnerships in ODL programmes although an interview guide is employed this type of [37]. interview gives the interviewer considerable latitude to Sampling Procedure: Purposive sampling was employed shape the content of the interview. to select information-rich cases to participate in the study. A purposive sample comprising of lecturers, stakeholders Procedure: The questionnaires were distributed to the and students was made. [38] argues that “the logic and sampled lecturers at the beginning of weekend school power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information tutorials and were collected at the end of the sessions. - rich cases for study in-depth”. This study focused on This was done in order to give respondents enough time respondents who had knowledge and lived experiences of to answer the questions in full. Permission to administer higher education to include universities colleges and who the questionnaire was sought from the responsible were willing to take part in the investigation [39]. authorities. information on the respondents is far more helpful than It provides a desirable combination of objectivity and pursue a range of topics and offer the subject a chance to World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 40 Data Analysis: Data was analyzed using qualitative Training and Development of Staff: Respondents felt that content analysis. To ensure accurate interpretations and collaborations and partnerships help ODL institutions to analyses, the researchers examined responses from the train and develop staff in various fields. They had this to open ended questionnaire to come up with the main say: themes. Overriding themes were generated. Content was analysed following the research questions. The upcoming ODL institutions need basic training RESULTS monitoring and evaluation, ODL pedagogy, module Resource Mobilization: Respondents were of the view Tutors and all the staff need this kind of training. that collaborations and partnerships help in mobilization of resources in ODL institutions. The ‘‘win-win’’ potential Opportunity to Engage in Attachments in Companies: of partnership draws extensively on effciency arguments - It was noted in this research that collaborations and maintaining that organisations working in partnership can partnerships carry many benefits for ODL systems. In line access broader networks, combine complimentary with these findings, literature points to benefits as well. resources and expertise and share good practice in order Benefits for collaborations include: to accomplish specific tasks. These synergistic benefits constitute what [48] terms ‘‘collaborative advantage’’, or Obtaining a competitive advantage; what [49] call ‘‘partnership alchemy’’, outcomes not Building trust in communities; possible if organisations work independently. Managing external perceptions by enhancing public Capacity Building: ODL organisations look to business Increasing attractiveness to prospective employees; organisations to provide money, goods, services or and expertise towards meeting organisation needs that might Improving stakeholder relations [51, 52]. otherwise go unfunded. For all of the respondents in this study, a prime reason for working with business partners For most organisations, the need to access funds and is to access resources. In addition to monetary resources, technical resources can be a strong driver for engaging ODL organisations wish to tap into a range of business collaboratively with business organisations [53]. This is capabilities, including access to business networks, the case with ODL institutions which need to tap and technology and expertise. This is evidenced by one practice ICT in companies. respondent who had this to say: It’s the added value stuff we get, the leveraging we quality improvement, respondents had this to say: get rather than the monetary amount. It’s their staff supporting us on an annual events, it’s the fact that we This whole thing hinges on quality improvement. get the support of their agencies, they can swing deals, Benchmarks and standards are set and these meet so for a small organisation like us it’s the contacts that international demands. In any case, institutions that put they have that we can use and that’s of value and that’s themselves in a glass ceiling and fail to collaborate limit what you get out of a partnership. their chances of accreditation on comparative basis. Relationship Building: Partnerships with several Organisations may also view partnerships as ways to organisations might be interpreted as ways for become more important institutional actors [54] or to institutions to build strategic relationships with key influence social change [55]. Organisations need wide stakeholders such as government, customers and the support to accomplish their advocacy goals and deliver public at large and position themselves as good service quality services to clients. Partnering with various providers [50] of university education. Developing organisations has the potential for organisations to partnership relationships with other organisations is seen influence leaders’ thinking on social issues, garner wide as one response to meet pressures from internal and political support and obtain greater visibility for their external stakeholders. programmes [56, 57]. in Quality Assurance systems, course development, writing, administration of examinations and the like. reputation; Improvement of Educational Quality: On the issue of World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 41 Provision of Suitable Curricula: It is ideal that ODL REFERENCES institutions provide relevant curricula to students. Respondents highlighted that through collaborations and 1. Jung, I., 2005. Innovative and Good Practices of partnerships, a relevant curricula can be offered, that Open and Distance Learning in Asia and the which meets international standards and make products Pacific.UNESCO, Tokyo, Japan. marketable on the world market. 2. Kanter, R., 1999. From spare change to real change. Meeting Various Stakeholder Demands: It was noted 3. Googins, B. and S. Rochlin, 2000. Creating the that collaborations help by ODL institutions to engage partnership society: understanding the rhetoric and with stakeholders. An inclusive stakeholder approach to reality of cross-sector partnerships. Business and community involvement requires organisations to Society Review, 105(1): 127-44. consider the interests of stakeholders and stakeholder 4. Austin, J., 2000. The Collaboration Challenge. engagement [58]. One way of understanding the motives Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. driving partnership activities is to assess the attention 5. Mandell, M., 1999. The impact of collaborative ODL systems pay to particular stakeholders. In this study efforts: changing the face of public policy through many references were made by respondents to networks and network structure, Policy Studies partnership initiatives providing opportunities to address Review Spring, 16: 14-17. the needs of employees, customers, students and 6. Wohlstetter, P. and A.K. Smith, 2000. A different communities. approach to systemic reform: network structures in Reputation Building: Respondents were of the feeling 7. Wohlstetter, P., C.L. Malloy, D. Chau and that collaborations and partnerships help in reputation J. Polhemus, 2003. Improving schools through building. Enhancing reputation is a key motivation for networks: A new approach to urban school reform. forming partnerships, as one respondent explained: Educational Policy, 17(4): 399-430. I think reputation amongst our customers that’s models for managing schools and systems. In quite a large one. In particular, some ODL organisations Schooling for tomorrow. Paris: OECD. have previously had quite a bad reputation and 9. OECD, 2003. Networks of innovation: Towards new partnerships really work on bringing that up and that models for managing schools and systems. In is one way that’s helping that. Schooling for tomorrow. Paris: OECD. Building an image of a good corporate ODL H. Gould, S. Joss, M. Marwaha-Diedrich, A. Laura De institution with external constituencies, including La Torre and C. Vouhé, 2002. Participation, government, customers and employees, can be one Relationships and Dynamics Change: New Thinking important reason why organisations engage with other On Evaluating The Work of International Networks. local and international organisations [59, 60]. Partnerships Working Paper No. 121 ISSN 1474-3280. are viewed as ways to enhance an organisation’s Development Planning Unit University College, credibility [61, 62]. London. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS as a social system. Systems Thinker. The major recommendations are that ODL institutions communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. should collaborate and partner with various stakeholders London/New York: Open University Press/McGraw like business people, companies, governments, alumni Hill. and other universities. This has great benefits in terms of 13. Huxham, C., 1996. Creating Collaborative Advantage, reputation building of the institution, meeting the various Sage, London. stakeholder demands provision of suitable curricula, 14. Hardy, C., N. Phillips and T.B Lawrence, 2003. training and development of staff, resource mobilization, Resources, knowledge and influence: the relationship building and quality improvement, among organizational effects of interorganizational others. collaboration”, J. Management Studies, 40(2): 321-47. Harvard Business Review, 77(3): 122-32. Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7): 508-515. 8. OECD, 2003. Networks of innovation: Towards new 10. Church, M., M. Bitel, K. Armstrong, P. Fernando, 11. Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning 12. Stoll, L. and K.S. Louis, 2007. Professional learning World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 42 15. Huxham, C. and S.Vangen, 1996. Working together: 28. Huxham, C. and S. Vangen, 1996. Working together: key themes in the management of relationships key themes in the management of relationships between public and non-profit organizations. The between public and non-profit organizations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(7): 5-17. 9(7): 5-17. 16. Maddock, S., 2002. Making modernization work: 29. Maddock, S. and G. Morgan, 1998. Barriers to new narratives, change strategies and people transformation: beyond bureaucracy and the market management in the public sector. The International conditions for collaboration in health and social care. Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(1): 13-43. The International Journal of Public Sector 17. Lloyd, R. and C. Howat, 2004. Mid-term evaluation Management, 11(4): 234-51. of the UK/GB EQUAL Community Initiative 30. Greasley, K., P.J. Watson and S. Patel, 2008. 2000-2006. Department for Work and Pensions, The formation of public-public partnerships: A case London. study examination of collaboration on a “back to 18. Henneman, E.A., J.L. Lee and J.I. Cohen, 1995. work” initiative. International Journal of Public Sector Collaboration: a concept analysis, Journal of Management 21(3): 305-313. Advanced Nursing, 21: 103-9. 31. Lowdness, V. and C. Skelcher, 1998. The dynamic of 19. Henneman, E.A., J.L. Lee and J.I. Cohen, 1995. multi-organizational partnership: an analysis of Collaboration: a concept analysis, Journal of changing modes of governance. Public Advanced Nursing, 21: 103-9. Administration, 76: 313-33. 20. Coulson, A., 2005. A plague on all your partnerships: 32. Hudson, B., M. Exworthy and S. Peckham, 1998. theory and practice in regeneration. International The Integration of Localised and Collaborative Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2): 151-63. Purchasing: a Review of the Literature and 21. Huxham, C. and S. Vangen, 1996. Working together: Framework for Analysis. Nuffeld Institute for Health, key themes in the management of relationships University of Leeds/Institute for Health Policy between public and non-profit organizations. The Studies, University of Southampton. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33. Robbins, S.P. and M. Coulter, 2005. Management 9(7): 5-17. 8 Ed. New Delhi, Prentice-Hall. 22. Selin, S. and D. Chavez, 1995. Developing an 34. Smith, E.A., 2001. The role of tacit and explicit evolutionary tourism partnership model. Annals of knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Tourism Research, 22(4): 260-73. Management Volume 5. Number 4. pp. 311±321 # 23. Wilson, L.A. and E. Boyle, 2004. The role of MCB University Press. ISSN 1367-3270. partnerships in the delivery of local government 35. Mason, D. and D.J. Pauleen, 2003. Perceptions of museum services: a case study from Northern knowledge management: a qualitative analysis. Ireland. The International Journal of Public Sector Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4): 38-48. Management, 17(6): 513-33. 36. Babbie, E., 1997. The practice of social research. 24. Balloch, S. and M. Taylor, 2001. Partnership New York, NY: Wadsworth. Working: Policy and Practice, The Policy Press, 37. Strauss, A.I. and J. Corbin, 1990. Basics of qualitative Bristol. research procedures for developing grounded 25. Diamond, J., 2002. Strategies to resolve conflict in theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. partnerships: reflections on UK urban regeneration. 38. Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and The International Journal of Public Sector research methods 2 ed. Newbury Parkl, CA. Sage. Management, 15(4): 296-306. 39. Flick, U., E. Kardorff and I. Steinke, 2004. A 26. Bramwell, B. and A. Sharman, 1999. Collaboration in companion to qualitative research. London: Sage. local tourism policy making. Annals of Tourism 40. Best, J.W. and J.V. Kahn, 1993. Research in Research, 26(2): 392-415. Education. 7 Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 27. Hebson, G., D. Grimshaw and M. Marchington, 2003. 41. Burton, D., 2000. Research Training for Social PPPs and the changing public sector ethos: Sciences. London, SAGE. case-study evidence from the health and local 42. Sander, P. and K. Stevenson, 1999. Do numbers authority sectors. Work, Employment and Society, speak louder than words?. New Academic, 17(3): 481-501. 8(1): 19-22. th nd th World J. Manage. & Behav. Stud., 1 (2): 36-43, 2013 43 43. Fung, Y. and R. Carr, 2000. Face-to-face tutorials in a 54. Teegen, H. and J. Doh, 2003. “Conclusion: distance learning system: meeting student needs. globalization and the future of NGO influence’’, Open Learning, 15(1): 35-46. In: J. Doh and J. Teegen, (Eds), Globalization and 44. Borg, W.R. and M.D. Gall, 1989. Education and NGOs, Praeger, London, pp: 203-21. Research: An Introduction. 5 Ed. New York: 55. Fabig, H. and R. Boele, 1999. The changing nature ofth Longman. NGO activity in a globalising world. IDS Bulletin, 45. C.A.C.C. Module, 1999. Research Methods and 30(3): 58-67. Techniques. Harare: C.A.C.C (PVT) Ltd. 56. Moore, M., 2000. Managing for value: organizational 46. Cohen, L. and L. Manion, 1994. Research methods in strategy in for-profit, nonprofit and governmental education. London: Routledge. organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector 47. Bogdan, R.C. and S.K. Biklen, 1992. Qualitative Quarterly, 29(1): 183-204. Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory 57. Parker, R., 2003. ‘‘Prospects for NGO collaboration and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. with multinational enterprises’’, In: J.P. Doh and H. 48. Huxham, C., 1996. Creating Collaborative Advantage, Teegen, (Eds), Globalization and NGOs, Praeger, Sage, London. London, pp: 81-107. 49. Nelson, J. and S. Zadek, 2000. Partnership Alchemy: 58. Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston, 1995. The New Social Partnerships in Europe. The Copenhagen stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, Centre, Copenhagen. evidence and implications. Academy of Management 50. Lee, L., 2011. Business-community partnerships: Review, 20: 65-91. Understanding the Nature of Partnership, 59. Hess, D., N. Rogovsky and T. Dunfee, 2002. The next 11(1): 29-40. wave of corporate community involvement. California 51. Warner, M., 2004. “Building-blocks for partnerships” Management Review, 44(3): 110-25. In: M. Warner and R. Sullivan, (Eds), Putting 60. Porter, M.E. and M.R. Kramer, 2002. The competitive Partnerships to Work, Greenleaf Publishing, advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Shefffeld, pp: 24-35. Business Review, 80(12): 56-68. 52. Porter, M.E. and M.R. Kramer, 2002. The competitive 61. Lee, L., 2011. Business-community partnerships: advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Understanding the Nature of Partnership, Business Review, 80(120): 56-68. 11(1): 29-40. 53. Froelich, K., 1999. Diversification of revenue 62. Chapman, C. and M. Fullan, 2007. Collaboration and strategies: evolving resource dependence in partnership for equitable improvement: Towards a nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary networked learning system. School Leadership and Sector Quarterly, 28(3): 246-68. Management, 27(3): 205-211.