Suchergebnisse

Purpose This paper enhances our understanding of how national culture impacts manufacturing performance (assembly speed, consistency between teams, etc.) during a production process move. The authors also investigate the efficacy of co-location as a strategy to enhance knowledge transfer from one organization to another.Design/methodology/approach To study the impact of national culture on production process moves, the authors develop and employ a team-based behavioral experiment within and between an individualist society (the United States) and a collectivist one (China). The authors also examine the impact of co-location on knowledge transfer effectiveness within and between these two unique cultures.Findings Interestingly, co-location has little impact on the performance of US recipient teams. Without co-location, Chinese recipient team performance lags significantly behind the US teams. However, firms can overcome these knowledge transfer challenges by co-locating source and recipient team members. These results suggest that firms should assess the national cultural context when considering co-location to manage their production move. There are contexts where co-location may be incredibly useful to facilitate an effective knowledge transfer (e.g. collectivist cultures like China) and contexts where this approach may not be as valuable (e.g. individualistic cultures such as the United States).Originality/valueThis research contributes to the academic literature in several ways. First, while past research demonstrates that national culture can be an essential barrier to information and knowledge sharing, this paper extends these findings showing that co-location may effectively overcome this barrier. After the authors offer and test the merits of co-location, they also establish the boundary conditions of this approach by showing that the effect of co-location on knowledge transfer is contingent on the cultural context. This contribution enhances our understanding of the relationship between national culture and knowledge sharing and has implications for managers developing approaches to transfer knowledge between cultures. Second, the authors develop and execute a novel cross-country experimental design. While cross-country experiments have been done before (e.g. Ozer et al. 2014, Kuwabara et al. 2007, etc.), it is still rare to see such experiments due to them being "technically difficult and costly" (Ozer et al. 2014, p. 2437). This research not only offer insights into how teams of people from individualist and collectivist societies send, receive and comprehend production knowledge. It also documents how these teams convert this knowledge into production results.

Abstract As one of the major causes of climate change, there is an urgent need for a fundamental transformation of the food system. Calls for greater sustainability underscore the importance of integrating civil society and the local knowledge of citizens in this transformation process. One increasingly relevant organisation that can actively engage a plurality of actors from across civil society is the Food Policy Council (FPC). In this paper, we explore the potential role of FPCs in sustainability politics to create an alternative food system, with a focus on the co-production of knowledge for policy-making. We propose that the co-production of knowledge requires knowledge inclusion, exchange and transmission, and we focus on the challenges that can arise for FPCs. Our paper shows that bottom-up emerging FPCs constitute a new form of alternative food organisation that can integrate and support the critical capacity of civil society in food system transformation, but also face potential struggles in the co-production of knowledge for sustainable food policy-making. The paper further highlights that co-producing knowledge in and for sustainability transformation is fundamentally a political process, with politics broadly conceived. It not only has relevance for the institutions of formal politics, but emerges in and is intrinsically linked to the grassroots collective action of contentious and prefigurative politics in civil society. FPCs (re)politicise food by combining these various kinds of sustainability politics, which constitutes their transformative potential.

Abstract
As one of the major causes of climate change, there is an urgent need for a fundamental transformation of the food system. Calls for greater sustainability underscore the importance of integrating civil society and the local knowledge of citizens in this transformation process. One increasingly relevant organisation that can actively engage a plurality of actors from across civil society is the Food Policy Council (FPC). In this paper, we explore the potential role of FPCs in sustainability politics to create an alternative food system, with a focus on the co-production of knowledge for policy-making. We propose that the co-production of knowledge requires knowledge inclusion, exchange and transmission, and we focus on the challenges that can arise for FPCs. Our paper shows that bottom-up emerging FPCs constitute a new form of alternative food organisation that can integrate and support the critical capacity of civil society in food system transformation, but also face potential struggles in the co-production of knowledge for sustainable food policy-making. The paper further highlights that co-producing knowledge in and for sustainability transformation is fundamentally a political process, with politics broadly conceived. It not only has relevance for the institutions of formal politics, but emerges in and is intrinsically linked to the grassroots collective action of contentious and prefigurative politics in civil society. FPCs (re)politicise food by combining these various kinds of sustainability politics, which constitutes their transformative potential.

AbstractClimate change requires action at multiple levels of government. We focus on the potential for climate change policy creation among small rural governments in the USA. We argue that co‐production of scientific knowledge and policy is a communicative approach that encompasses local knowledge flowing up from rural governments as well as expertise and power (to coordinate and ensure compliance) flowing down from higher level authority. Using environmental examples related to land use policy, natural gas hydro‐fracturing, and watershed protection, we demonstrate the importance of knowledge flows, power, and coordination in policy creation. Co‐production of knowledge and policy requires respect for local knowledge and a broader framing of issues to include both environmental and economic perspectives. While we see potential for local action, we caution that polycentric approaches lead to externality problems that require multilevel governance to ensure coordination and compliance.

Over the past decade, co-production and co-creation have become central buzzwords throughout society. The terms engender a funda-mental participatory ethos, entailing an increasing involvement in decision-making processes of a variety of people across diverse con-texts, who should be given a voice in a wide range of practices to a higher degree than previously done. To a large extent, this participatory wave thus creates new challenges and dilemmas for employees in contemporary organizations. For instance, many public employees (frontline workers) experience challenges regarding translating (and/or enacting) co-creative/co-productive policy objectives into (in) their practices. A central obstacle seems to be the fact that exist-ing organizational frameworks and conditions are often rooted in contradictory management paradigms and reified institutionalized practices, complicating participatory aspirations and processes in various ways. In different ways, the contributions in this issue critically address and discuss a variety of challenges related to co-production and co-creation in contemporary society.

Service user involvement is evolving from participation to co-production, where children, young people and families are active in the design and delivery so support is responsive to needs and fit for purpose

This article examines how and why regulatory influences tend to embed within the practices of co-production. Informed by empirical data derived from semi-structured interviews conducted with a sample of experts in co-production, the analysis seeks to illuminate some of the 'soft' and 'interactive' forms of regulatory work that are performed. In so doing, the discussion provides a 'lightly' critical reading of co-production and draws in Erving Goffman's hitherto neglected use of the concept of regulation. Framed by this work, a distinction is drawn between the regulation of co-production and regulation by co-production. The analysis contributes to a growing literature on some of the subtle and sophisticated ways in which regulation is being conducted in contemporary societies and how these contribute to the governance of social order more generally.

In this article, I begin with the position that knowledge production and reproduction is partial and situated. Through an examination of academic research on and teaching of religion in Singapore, I demonstrate how scholarly interventions at once re-present and conceal religion as experienced and lived. I posit that the partiality of such interventions is due to the influential official narrative about religion in Singapore, so that what is studied and taught reflects certain dimensions of religious life and religious-secular relations that dominate official discourse. In particular, through academic writing (and to a lesser extent, teaching), religion in Singapore is constructed as a particular mosaic of social, cultural, and political life, socially relevant, culturally rich, spatially manifested, transnationally linked, politically delicate, and historically steeped. Drawing from this reflection on Singapore, I emphasize the need to recognize the geography, sociology, and politics of knowledge (re)production, and to decenter the notion that there is an emerging "Asian religious studies."