Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine governance in the New Zealand outdoor activity sector. We conducted 35 interviews with key personnel from organisations with responsibility for national co-ordination, education, and membership services. Using Brandsen and Pestoff’s (Public Manag Rev 8(4):493–501, 2006) co-processes framework, we describe and analyse governance of the outdoor sector. In so doing, we provide insight into the challenges facing this complex sector with regard to funding and stakeholder relationships, programme delivery, and personality conflicts. We also contribute by highlighting some of the shortcomings of the co-processes model, and offer constructively critical insights for its development.
Résumé
Cette recherche a pour objet d’étudier la gouvernance dans le secteur des activités de loisir en extérieur, en Nouvelle-Zélande. Nous avons conduit trente-cinq entrevues avec des membres du personnel clé d’organisations exerçant des responsabilités quant aux services nationaux en matière de coordination, d’éducation et d’adhésion. Nous fondant sur le cadre de Brandsen et Pestoff (2006) sur les co-processus, nous proposons une description et une analyse de la gouvernance du secteur des loisirs en extérieur. Ce faisant, nous mettons en lumière les difficultés auxquelles est confronté ce secteur complexe pour ce qui a trait au financement et aux relations avec les parties prenantes, à la mise en œuvre de programme ainsi qu’aux conflits de personnalités. Notre contribution permet également de mettre en exergue certaines des limitations du modèle de co-processus, et propose des réflexions issues d’une critique constructive pour son développement.
Zusammenfassung
Zweck dieser Forschung war es, die Führungstruktur im neuseeländischen Outdoor-Sektor zu untersuchen. Wir führten 35 Befragungen von Schlüsselmitarbeitern in Organisationen durch, die für die landesweiten Koordinations-, Bildungs- und Mitgliederdienstleistungen verantwortlich waren. Unter Verwendung des von Brandsen und Pestoff (2006)) entwickelten Regelwerks zu Co-Prozessen beschreiben und analysieren wir die Führungsstruktur im Outdoor-Sektor und bieten so Einblicke in die Herausforderungen, denen dieser komplexe Sektor in den Bereichen Finanzierung, Stakeholder-Beziehungen, Programmdurchführung und Persönlichkeitskonflikte begegnet. Des Weiteren stellen wir einige Schwächen des Co-Prozess-Modells heraus und liefern konstruktiv-kritische Einblicke für dessen weitere Entwicklung.
Resumen
El propósito de la presente investigación es examinar la gobernanza en el sector de actividades al aire libre de Nueva Zelanda. Realizamos treinta y cinco entrevistas a personal clave de organizaciones con responsabilidad en servicios de coordinación, educación y afiliación nacionales. Utilizando el marco de coprocesos de Brandsen y Pestoff (2006), describimos y analizamos la gobernanza del sector de servicios al aire libre. Al hacerlo, proporcionamos percepciones de los retos a los que se enfrenta este complejo sector con respecto a relaciones de financiación y partes interesadas, entrega de programas y conflictos de personalidad. También contribuimos destacando algunas de las deficiencias del modelo de coprocesos, y ofrecemos percepciones constructivamente críticas para su desarrollo.
摘要
本研究的目的是检查新西兰户外活动领域的管理。我们采访了负责国家协调、教育和会员服务组织的35位关键管理人员。使用Brandsen and Pestoff (2006) 的共同流程框架,我们介绍和分析了户外领域的管理。为此,我们提供了这一复杂领域在融资和利益相关者关系、计划交付和个性冲突方面所面临挑战的内幕。我们还强调了共同流程模式的一些缺点,并为其发展提供具有建设性的关键内幕。
ملخص
كان الغرض من هذا البحث دراسة الحكم في نيوزيلندا في قطاع النشاط في الخارج. نحن أجرينا خمسة وثلاثين مقابلة مع موظفين رئيسيين من منظمات لديهم مسؤولية التنسيق الوطني٬ التعليم٬ وخدمات العضوية. بإستخدام (Brandsen) و((Pestoff’s 2006) في إطار إجراءات العمل التعاوني ، نحن نصف ونحلل الحكم في قطاع النشاط في الخارج. للقيام بذلك، نحن نقدم نظرة ثاقبة للتحديات التي تواجه هذا القطاع المعقد فيما يتعلق بعلاقات التمويل وأصحاب المصلحة، إنجاز البرامج، وصراعات شخصية. نساهم أيضا˝عن طريق تسليط الضوء على بعض أوجه القصورفي نموذج إجراءات العمل التعاوني ، وتقديم رؤى حاسمة بناءة لتنميتها.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Funding of over $1m per year is provided by Sport New Zealand (Sport NZ) to outdoor recreation organisations. Prior to 2012 this organisation was known as Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC). References prior to 2012 will refer to SPARC.
Throughout the research we refer to Chair and CEO even though in some of the organisations in this study these roles have different titles. We have chosen to do this to reduce confusion and to make some individuals less identifiable, though we do recognise the difference in title may represent some differences in scope of responsibility.
References
Bode, I. (2006). Co-governance within the networks and the non-profit–for-profit divide. A cross cultural perspective on the evolution of domiciliary elderly care. Public Management Review, 8(4), 551–556.
Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. An introduction. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493–501.
Brandsen, T., & Van Hout, E. (2006). Co-management in public service networks: The organizational effects. Public Management Review, 84, 537–549.
Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Young, P. (2005). Building the capacity of the voluntary nonprofit sector: Challenges of theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 869–885.
Cribb, J. (2006). Being accountable. Voluntary organisations, government agencies and contracted social services in New Zealand. Wellington: University of Victoria.
Davies, C. (2007). Grounding governance in dialogue? Discourse, practice and the potential for a new public sector organizational form in Britain. Public Administration, 85(1), 47–66.
Eagles, P. F. J. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas. Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 231–248.
Eicher, J. P. (1997). Post-heroic leadership: Managing the virtual organization. Performance Improvement, 36(2), 5–10.
Evans, B., Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). Structuring neo-liberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging new modes of control and the marketisation of service delivery. Policy and Society, 24(1), 73–97.
Farazmand, A. (2009). Building administrative capacity for the age of rapid globalization: A modest prescription for the twenty-first century. Public Administration Review, November/December, pp. 1007–1020.
Groeneveld, M. (2009). European sport governance, citizens and the state. Public Management Review, 114, 421–440.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larner, W., & Craig, D. (2005). After neoliberalism? Community activism and local partnerships in Aotearo/New Zealand. Antipode, 37(3), 402–424.
Martin, G. P. (2011). The third sector, user involvement and public service reform: A case study in the co-governance of health service provision. Public Administration, 89(3), 909–932.
Oakes, L. S., & Young, J. J. (2008). Accountability re-examined: Evidence from Hull House. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(6), 765–790.
O’Brien, M., Sanders, J., & Tennant, M. (2009). The New Zealand non-profit sector and government policy. Wellington: Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector.
Olssen, E. (1995). Towards a new society. In G. W. Rice (Ed.), The Oxford history of New Zealand (2nd ed., pp. 254–284). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Outdoors New Zealand. (2012). Outdoor sector forum planning day. Wellington: Outdoors New Zealand.
Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking about government. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Shaw, S., & Allen, J. B. (2006). “We actually trust the community”: Examining the dynamics of a nonprofit funding relationship in New Zealand. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 211–220.
Sport and Recreation New Zealand. (2008). Creating a healthy state for outdoor recreation in New Zealand. Discussion document, Sport and Recreation New Zealand, Wellington.
Sport and Recreation New Zealand. (2009). Outdoor recreation strategy 2009–2015. Wellington: Sport and Recreation New Zealand.
Tennant, M., O’Brien, M., & Sanders, J. (2008). The history of the non-profit sector in New Zealand. Wellington: Office for the Community and Volunteer Sector.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Sport New Zealand’s funding of this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaw, S., Zink, R. & Lynch, P. Keeping People ‘In the Tent’: Governance in the New Zealand Outdoor Activity Sector. Voluntas 25, 1539–1558 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9425-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9425-y