An exploratory study of noble cause corruption: the Wood Royal Commission New South Wales, Australia 1994-1997

Noble cause corruption occurs when a person tries to produce a just outcome through unjust methods, for example, police manipulating evidence to ensure a conviction of a known offender. Normal integrity regime initiatives are unlikely to halt noble cause corruption as its basis lies in an attempt to do good by compensating for the apparent flaws in an unjust system. This paper explored the nature of noble cause corruption using statements and evidence given by police officers in the Wood Royal Commission (1994-1997). The overall findings are that officers involved in corrupt practices suffered from a failure of leadership and from a lack of inclusion. Officers were motivated to indulge in noble cause corruption through a desire to produce convictions where they believed the system unfairly worked against their ability to do their job correctly. This perception was supported by a culture of exclusion, which depicted police as a victimised group which was stigmatised and oppressed by the judicial system and the community. To deter police from engaging in noble cause corruption, strong leadership, better equipment and long-term incentives are suggested to minimise this type of behaviour within the police organization

New citizen collectives, their democratic potential and their implications for public management

This issue-paper written by the panel-conveners introduces the panel’s topic, delineating its focus and discussing its scientific and practical relevance. It presents core concepts and ideas, aiming to provide context, direction and a common language to the panel discussions and the panelist papers. The paper discusses the rise of new citizen collectives (grass roots initiatives, community trusts, social enterprises, citizen initiatives) as new forms of civic engagement in policy fields such as energy, spatial planning, social care, community provisions and social services more generally. Under such models, citizens take the lead in dealing with common, or localized problems and public issues and are directly engaged in developing and implementing solutions and services. The emergence of citizen collectives give rise to new practical and theoretical questions concerning the meaning of these citizen collectives for local communities and government. The implications of this growing reliance of citizen collectives as vehicles for policy development and service delivery on the community sector has yet to be fully explored. In this paper, we aim to describe the rise and the forces shaping these new citizen collectives and to analyze their institutional characteristics, including to what extent they are new. Furthermore, we explore what these initiatives have to offer in terms of their democratic potential and what they mean for government and public management in particular, providing an agenda for further research into this blooming topic. The paper ends by identifying a number of issues, which if more deeply examined, will better help us to understand the functioning of citizens collectives and the challenges they face from a public management perspective. We think these issues are worthwhile for further debate during our panel and are summarized in the concluding section of this paper

An Integrated Approach to Strategic Asset Management

This paper focuses on identifying and analysing the elements of Strategic Management for infrastructure and engineering assets. These elements are contended to involve an understanding of governance, corporate policy, corporate objectives, corporate strategy and interagency collaboration and will in turn, allow the ability determine a broader and more comprehensive framework for engineering asset management, ie a ‘staged approach’ to understanding how assets are managed within organisations. While the assets themselves have often been the sole concern for good management practices, other social and contextual elements have come into the mix in order to promote strategic asset management. The development of an integrated approach to asset management is at the base of the research question. What are the considerations and implications for adopting and implementing an integrated strategic asset management (ISAM) framework? While operational matters have been given prominence, a subset of corporate governance, Asset Governance, details the policies and processes needed to acquire, utilise, maintain and account for an organisation’s assets. Asset governance stems from the organisation’s overarching corporate governance principles; as a result it defines the management context in which engineering asset management is implemented. This aspect will be examined to determine the appropriate relationship between organisational strategic management and strategic asset management to further the theoretical engagement with the maturity of strategy,policy and governance for infrastructure and engineered assets. Asset governance stems from the organisation’s overarching corporate governance principles; as a result it defines the management context in which engineering asset management is implemented. The research proceeds by a document analysis of corporate reports and policy recommendations in terms of infrastructure and engineered assets. The paper concludes that incorporating an integrated asset management framework can promote a more robust conceptualisation of public assets and how they combine to provide a comprehensive system of service outcomes

Researching inter-organisational collaboration using RO-AR

This chapter focuses on the application of Research Oriented Action Research (RO-AR) to research inter-organizational collaboration within and across the public and non-profit sectors. RO-AR is a phenomenological action research methodology developed by Colin Eden and Chris Huxham (1996, 2006) which they and others have used to research aspects of management and organizations generally and inter-organizational collaboration specifically; the latter being the focus here. To that end, this chapter draws on a program of empirical research into governing, leading and managing collaborations that has been ongoing since 1989, and which has relied primarily on RO-AR. As a program of research, it is concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge that can inform practice and which has accumulated into the still evolving theory of collaborative advantage (TCA) (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Vangen and Huxham 2014). The aim in this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to RO-AR and to explore its applicability to research on collaboration. Action Research, of which RO-AR is a particular type, was pioneered in the United States in the 1940s, most notably by Kurt Lewin (1946). Lewin argued that research for social practice needs to be concerned with ‘the study of general laws … and the diagnosis of specific situations’ (36). He pointed, among other things, to the need to design methods for recording ill-structured data and to focus on the relationship between perception and action through taking an interpretist approach to research. In a similar vein, action research aimed at understanding organizations and organizational change began at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1947. With the aim of conducting research and developing knowledge, the Tavistock Institute developed new participative approaches to organization change and development. In the years that have followed, a number of related approaches have emerged including action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985), action inquiry (Torbert 1976), action learning (Mwaluko and Ryan 2000; Revans 1982), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Cooperrider, Whitney, and Stavros 2008) and participatory action research (Argyris and Schon 1991; Whyte 1991). Given the growth in popularity of these kinds of research methods, the literature is unsurprisingly both large and somewhat confusing. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding inherent differences, these methods all involve learning from interventions in organizations with the purpose of bringing about change and advancing knowledge. A distinguishing feature between them is the relative emphasis on change (or practical transformation) and the development of more general knowledge (i.e. theory). The primary purpose of the systematic engagement with action in praxis may be the immediate development of an individual, an organization or a community (e.g. via appreciative inquiry or action learning) or it may be to inform the development of theory on the aspect of management or organizations that is being researched, as is the case with RO-AR. The validity of RO-AR, however, rests fundamentally on the intervention being useful in practice. This close relationship with practice enhances the potential of a theory ultimately developed to inform other contexts. Eden and Huxham distinguish RO-AR from other action research approaches in the following ways (2006: 388): • from organizational intervention projects that do not satisfy characteristics of rigorous research • from research within an organization that does not satisfy characteristics of action orientation • from forms of action research that do not have research output as their primary rasion d’etre. The aim of this chapter is to highlight key features of RO-AR and to show how it may be used to produce good research on collaboration. In what follows, we look at the relevance of RO-AR to research on collaboration, provide and account of the application of the method in developing the theory of collaborative advantage, along with an overview of issues pertaining to data capture and analysis. The chapter also offers a brief evaluation of the method and some thoughts on rigor and relevance for researchers who may wish to apply the methods in future research on collaboration

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved?

Background: The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods: In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results: We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion: Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next