RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Journals

Studies were published in a range of academic journals; however, most were published in Sport Management Review (N=5), International Review for the Sociology of Sport (N=5), International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics (N=3), Sport in Society (N=2), European Sport Management Quarterly (N=2). These are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 – Journals and Number of Articles

NOTE: 1* = 1 published article per listed journal

Year of Publication

The search strategy generated 27 peer-reviewed articles for detailed review. Most studies (N = 22) were published between 2015 and 2023, with only five articles published between 2010 and 2015.

Authorship

The 27 articles have 60 authors. Banda (N=3) and Hayhurst (N=3) were the most prolific authors. Twenty-three first authors authored the 27 studies. Within SFD, there is a prevalent discourse on the Global South – Global North distribution of knowledge and power (Darnell et al., 2018; Nicholls et al., 2010; Welty Peachey et al., 2018). To explore this discourse within the 27 studies, we compared the first author’s country of university (at the time of publication) with study locations. The first authors are from universities in 10 countries in the Global North (i.e., Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United States of America). We found few differences between Global North and Global South about where the studies are conducted. Out of the 19 countries in which studies are conducted (excluding 2 with programs presented globally), a slight majority are in the Global South (N=15), while the remainder are in the Global North (N=10). To illustrate the disparity in the Global South-Global North distribution of knowledge and power, none of the studies were conducted by researchers from a university located in the Global South.

Study design

Most studies utilise qualitative methods (N = 26), with only one study using a quantitative methodology. The most prevalent study design among the qualitative studies is case studies (N = 7). The average number of participants average number of participants for studies that collected data via interviews and/or focus groups is 25. Qualitative data analysis reported ranged from coding, content analysis and thematic analysis to network analysis and critical discourse analysis.  Researchers rely on paper-based approaches to analyse data and software such as NVivo. The quantitative study used a questionnaire to collect data and analysed data through a combination of descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations followed by a stepwise regression.

Theoretical Frameworks

Fourteen (52%) studies specified theoretical frameworks, for example, Resource Dependency Theory (Ferguson et al., 2023; MacIntosh et al., 2016; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019) and Post-Development Theory (Håsselgard, 2015; Straume & Steen-Johnsen, 2012). The remaining thirteen (58%) studies either do not specify a theoretical framework or refer to a concept as distinct from a theory. These include ‘partnership dynamics as a lens of analyses’ (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022, p.6) and partnership theory (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010). The use of theories is summarised below in Table 2.

Table 2 – Theoretical Frameworks

Inter-organisational relationships 

Of the 27 studies, 24 examine partnerships and three study networks. Regarding the dynamics of IORs, 13 include collaboration and/or cooperation, 5 study conflict and/or tension, 3 include competition, and 6 explore power dynamics within IORs.

Table 3 – Summary of articles included in analysis

Thematic Findings

The thematic analysis resulted in 63 codes from which four themes were identified: (i) motivation to engage in an IOR, (ii) issues of power impacting on relationship, (iii) tension and challenges within IORs, and (iv) strategies to strengthen the funder-implementer relationship.

Theme 1: Motivation to engage in an IOR

Strong IORs are essential to sustaining SFD organisations and their initiatives (Hambrick et al., 2019; Welty Peachey et al., 2018). Funders and implementers’ motivation to engage in an IOR is influenced by the expected benefits of the collaboration, which include an increase in financial and relational capacity, enhanced image, and legitimisation of an organisation.

Increased capacity. Motivation to engage in IORs varies among stakeholders; however, increased financial capacity is most pervasive (Håsselgard & Straume, 2015; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019; Parent & Harvey, 2017; Svensson & Hambrick, 2016; Svensson & Hambrick, 2019; Svensson & Seifried, 2017). SFD organisations face human resource and structural capacity constraints (Svensson & Hambrick, 2016). International development assistance provides implementers with expertise via technical consultancies, access to a support network and implementation support to enhance service delivery (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022; Ekholm & Holmlid, 2020; Ferguson et al., 2023; Hambrick et al., 2019; Svensson & Hambrick, 2016).

Enhancing image and legitimisation of organisation. Engaging in IORs with funders has two advantages for SFD organisations. First, it provides SFD organisations with financial resources, and second, it supports their legitimacy and status, consequently impacting their ability to secure additional funding (Svensson et al., 2018). For example, partnering with high-performance sports organisations legitimises the SFD agenda through its association with the sport (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010). Funders also share this motivation. For example, in a recent study, Latino et al. (2022) show that extractive industries engage in corporate social responsibility IORs and use this relationship to enhance the industry’s reputation and mitigate opposition to extractive operations.

Theme 2: Issues of power impacting on IOR

Issues of power impacting the IOR between the funder and implementer included the Global North – Global South power dynamic, the unbalanced power relationship between funder and implementer, funder influence and impact, and suppressing local voices and disregarding local contexts.

Global North – Global South power dynamic. A prominent theme in the literature is the impact of power dynamics associated with the Global North – Global South development. As the Global North is generally more resource-rich, Global North actors have more authority over project goals and content and over which outcomes are recognised as successful. This dominance perpetuates colonial ideas and the dominance of the Global North over the Global South (Nicholls et al., 2010). As a result, projects implemented in SFD are characterised by ‘donor-driven priorities and top-down approaches’ suppressing the voices, experience, and knowledge of local, Global South implementing organisations (Darnell et al., 2018; Lindsey & Banda, 2011; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019; Reis et al., 2016; Schreiner et al., 2022).

The complexity of bridging the local and global within SFD is manifested within the rhetoric of IORs between funders and implementers. Within this development discourse, Global South actors are often presented as poverty-stricken and in need of saving, whereas Global North actors are positioned as the ‘benevolent, educated development worker’ (Nicholls et al., 2010, p.250; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019). SFD narratives are predominantly based on the perspectives of actors from the Global North, with voices from the South markedly absent (Latino et al., 2022; Lindsey & Banda, 2011). Dominant actors from the Global North leave little opportunity for actors in the Global South to exert influence (Reis et al., 2016; Schreiner et al., 2022). Welty Peachey et al. (2018) found that power relation issues were more pronounced for SFD organisations in low to middle-income countries than in North America or Europe. The funding partnership reinforces a neo-colonial agenda and resource dependency (Welty Peachey et al., 2018).

Only one study offers a counterargument (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022). In studying multinational SFD IORs in Bahrain, AlKhalifa and Collison (2022) illustrate that Global South countries can acquire local (i.e., non-Global North) funding, thereby shifting the power towards organisations in the Global South.

Unbalanced power relationship between funder and implementer. Even though the relationship between funding and implementing organisations is no longer described within the context of donor-recipient roles, the IOR remains structured through this relationship (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022; Hasselgård & Straume, 2015; Reis et al., 2016; Svensson & Hambrick, 2019). While partnership assumes equality between the organisations involved, this is not always true. Resource dependency, including financial dependency, between partners results in asymmetrical IORs (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Latino et al., 2022). This unbalanced power relationship can position the less powerful partner as passive and as a recipient of not only financial resources but also ideas, information, and influence (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Latino et al., 2022; Morgan & Baker, 2021; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019; Parent & Harvey, 2017). The following quote is taken from a Director of an NGO and illustrates the point above: ‘So there are times when I think we have a funding relationship, where it’s hard for our funders to treat us as equals, and that doesn’t come naturally.’  (Welty Peachey et al., 2018, p.169).

Funder influence and impact. Organisations enter IORs with divergent expectations regarding reciprocity, involvement and impact (Holmes et al., 2015, p. 40). As the more powerful partner, the funder’s influence is prominent in program development and implementation (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022).  However, this is only negative if the top-down influence of funding limits the actions of the implementing organisation and forces them to follow the funder’s agenda (Ferguson et al., 2023).

Suppressing local voices and disregarding local contexts. A consistent sub-theme in the literature is the invalidation and suppression of the knowledge and experience of implementing organisations. Funders take a critical stance on local program implementation and decisions made by implementing organisations. The perceived inability of funders to value the relevant experience and expert position of implementing organisations highlights the power differential inherent within the relationship (Hasselgård & Straume, 2015). Nicholls et al. (2010) argue that the lack of co-creation of knowledge and the enactment of donor-driven priorities have subjugated the knowledge and experience of implementing organisations. Alternative knowledge and experience are devalued because of hegemonic assumptions privileging scientific Northern knowledge: ‘If Southern partners are not considered to have valuable contributions to make to the partnership process, then it merely perpetuates the cycle of domination of the donor/recipient relationship instead of a partnership approach’ (Nicholls et al., 2010, p.256).

Theme 3: Tensions within funder–implementer IORs

IORs carry both benefits and costs to funders and implementing organisations. As previously mentioned, tensions arise when unequal power relations make one partner more dependent on the other partner for resources (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; MacIntosh et al., 2016). Sources of tension within the relationship can come from funder expectations, short-term funding, the misalignment of organisational logic, and the non-validation of implementer knowledge and experience (Holmes et al., 2015; MacIntosh et al., 2016; Morgan & Baker, 2021; Raw et al., 2022b).

Funder expectations. SFD programs are impacted by the demands of varied funding streams (Holmes et al., 2015). Funding authority is exerted through auditing and reporting requirements, which can add strain to the work of a small implementing team. Constant reporting requirements, from implementors to funders, i.e., through targets, bring tension into the relationship, especially if the implementing organisation does not see the value in fulfilling the requirements (MacIntosh et al., 2016; Morgan & Baker, 2021; Raw et al., 2022a).

Tension through short-term funding. Addressing social development issues requires long-term investment and continued support. Short-term funding cycles associated with SFD initiatives can create tensions within the relationship and challenge achieving long-term sustainable outcomes (Lindsey, 2017). This can impact the stability of the IOR, especially if there is uncertainty about the continuity of funding and support (Lindsey, 2017; Córdova Paredes et al., 2019; Raw et al., 2022a).

Misalignment of organisational logics. Competing logics are reflected in differences in cultural values, goals, target populations, and approaches to program delivery within each organisation (Hasselgård & Straume, 2015; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Raw et al., 2022a; Raw et al., 2022b). Competing logics can be submerged (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010) and can result in tension within the relationship (Holmes et al., 2015; Keane et al., 2021; Raw et al., 2022a; Schreiner et al., 2022).

Non-validation of partner’s knowledge and experience. Whilst on the surface, IORs may appear to be positive, tension may exist within the relationship because of a perceived lack of agency and ownership over local programming (Ferguson et al., 2023; Holmes et al., 2015).

Theme 4: Strategies to create value within the funder-implementer IOR

SFD organisations utilise a variety of strategies to strengthen IORs and, in so doing, address challenges and barriers inherent in these relationships. Strategies include aligning organisational logics, collaboration, communication, addressing power imbalances, and legitimising local knowledge and experience.

Aligning organisational logics. For IORs to be effective, there should be a shared understanding of goals, values, and approaches amongst the organisations involved (Ferguson et al., 2023). When partners can redefine boundaries, roles, and functions and work together to find creative solutions, the partnership is strengthened (Hermens et al., 2019; Keane et al., 2021). Clarity must be found by aligning the organisational logics to create value for both organisations (AlKhalifa & Collison, 2022; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Morgan & Baker, 2021).

Collaboration, communication and addressing power imbalances. Shared leadership and a bottom-up approach where power is shared within the relationship are critical to building trust in relationships (Lindsey & Banda, 2011; Raw et al., 2022b). The active involvement of partners in two-way communication facilitates a sense of shared ownership, allowing for critical debate and a willingness to listen and understand the other organisation (Banda & Gultresa, 2015; Holmes et al., 2015; Morgan & Baker, 2021, p.728). In a recent study, AlKhalifa and Collison (2022) show that trust can be built through pre-event or pre-partnership workshops.

Legitimising local knowledge and experience. In their 2015 study, Håsselgard and Straume (2015) find that implementing SFD organisations must find ways to bridge local knowledge and practices with that of the external partner. An alternative strategy to bridge knowledge is the co-production of knowledge and strengthening of local agencies (Nicholls et al., 2010; Reis et al., 2016). They encourage implementers to actively pursue more significant influence with the support of those currently in positions of power to disrupt hegemonic practices and enhance the co-production of knowledge, thereby legitimising local knowledge. Input is needed from actors in the Global South, thereby acknowledging the context, experience, and knowledge of implementing organisations (Banda & Gultresa, 2015; Hasselgård & Straume, 2015; Holmes et al., 2015; Nicholls et al., 2010).