How and why: partnership's unanswered questions: before undergoing a parttnership, agencies need to look at previous research to uncover the answer to whether it will work.

During the past 20 years, many park and recreation professionals and their peers in other fields have contemplated partnership, actively sought partners, been partners or observed partnership in the course of their professional or personal activities, and most have been drawn by the potential benefits derived from such bonds (Barcelona & Bocarro, 2004; Deering & Murphy, 2003; Gage, 2004; James, 1999, La Page, 1994; Uhlik, 1995, 1997).

When Steve Selin and Nancy Myers wrote their "Current Research in Parks and Recreation" for Research Update in Parks & Recreation magazine in 1994, partnership was riding a swell of interest among park and recreation researchers stirred more than a decade earlier (Field & Johnson, 1983; Golding, 1984). That wave crested with the release of a special issue of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (JPRA) (Vaske & Donnelly, 1995) and an equivalent concentration of articles in the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance (JOPERD) resulting in a total of 11 partnership manuscripts between these two journals in 1995 alone (Uhlik, 2005a). Partnership awareness in the collaborative-minded fields of business, education, and among the general public at that time, also was notable.

Thus, after at least two decades of sustained use and study, partnership remains as popular as ever among practitioners, researchers and even the public at large. Yet, despite the fact that park and recreation-oriented publications continue to print partnership articles at regular intervals, the difficulty to date has been to connect the sizable literature in a way that will reveal the general wisdom or theory that should be gained from each individual case.

This dilemma can be illustrated by comparing two JPRA calls for (partnership) papers, one from 1994, and the other in 2004. The first stipulated that "manuscripts should also incorporate the theoretical foundation used," and "strategies and techniques to avoid in forming partnerships cannot be reliably determined from these [case] studies" (Vaske & Donnelly, 1994, p. xi).

The second stated that "theoretical foundations should be integrated as a part of the research," and "studies that examine ... strategies and sustainability are needed" (Mowen & Kerstetter, 2004). A full 10 years after the inaugural challenge, the substantially similar language in the second indicates a lack of progress.

Although much of the existing partnership information has consisted of retrospective examples of successful practice (Uhlik, 2005a), enough information has accumulated--both from within and outside of parks and recreation--to draw some generalized inferences to guide best practice, with the first issue being the meaning of partnership itself.

Partnership Defined

Park and recreation partnerships have been described as a spectrum of relationships including "relatively non-binding social contracts, economic contracts and legal contracts" (La Page 1994, p. 8), and the concept of co-production between government agencies, such as park and recreation departments and external parties sharing a common self-interest, has been examined since the early 1980s (Backman, Wicks and Silverberg, 1997).

Nearly everyone has heard of partnerships or commonly substituted equivalents such as collaboration, alliance, cooperative agreement, etc. The formal concept of partnership can be traced back 600 years to the British Law Merchant (Bohlman, Dundas and Jentz, 1989), and its enduring presence reinforces the perception of partnerships as a viable scheme for providing shared benefits to stakeholders.

In addition to noting that partnership and collaboration are distinct forms of relationships, Katherine James (1999) made two other observations: 1) partnership is more likely to occur when parties are highly motivated and strongly interdependent, and 2) an authoritative convener must initiate and facilitate the process. Modifying James' (1999) definition of partnership, then, is "a dynamic arrangement between two or more parties, based on satisfying mutually recognized needs."

Although this definition falls within the traditional requirements of "two or more people joining together, pooling their money and talents and taking a risk" (Gage, 2004, p. 3), "partnership" has different meanings for different people, as previously noted by James (1999). Current researchers have come to realize that this lack of shared meaning can doom a partnership before it has begun. As Larraine Segil, Marshall Goldsmith and James Belasco (2003) have simply stated, "Partnering is an overused term" (p. xi), and the influence of context makes each partnership unique in some way from others (Timperley & Robinson, 2003).

Partnership Research Progressing from What to Why

The two JPRA calls for papers cited earlier (Vaske and Donnelly, 1994; Mowen and Kerstetter, 2004) indicate that researchers and practitioners, who rely on one another in their own partnership of discovery and application, have reached the point where knowing the answers to the who, what, when and where of partnership is no longer sufficient. The need to predictably apply the how (models and procedures) and why (theory) to new situations has become a pressing issue.

Past evidence of the over-reliance on case studies was noted by Selin and Myers (1994) who, in their initial partnership "Research Update" article remarked that partnership research was "dominated by descriptive case studies." More recently, all but two of the 15 partnership articles published since James' (1999) last "Research Update," present conclusions or recommendations derived from case studies rather than from theory application.

Despite the apparent lack of partnership models and theories, Selin and Myers (1994) were encouraged that "the partnership literature is expanding to include systematic research examining the dynamics of partnerships" (p. 12). The essential connections were beginning to be made, enabling James (1999) to offer insights about pre-conditions necessary for partnership development. At that juncture, however, "the aspect of partnership ... least understood by researchers is the process itself" (p. 40), and that "researchers readily acknowledge they have not found a fail-proof approach" (p. 45).

However, from an analysis of five partnership protocols or models developed and reported in the park and recreation literature (chronologically, La Page, 1994; Selin & Chavez, 1995; Decker & Mattfeld, 1995); Uhlik, 1995; and Uhlik, 2005b) the following conclusion may be drawn: all of these protocols and models reflect a sequential process already known to many park and recreation professionals as the planning cycle. That is, a) know your personal, professional and organizational philosophy, b) assess your needs and those of your partner, c) design a partnership framework, d) implement the partnership, f) evaluate the partnership and g) re-design/modify the partnership and repeat (e.g., Edginton, et al., 2001). Thus, the "how" can been described adequately (the planning cycle); but this revelation has not proved sufficient for reliable, best partnership practice because it doesn't account for the individual contexts in which partners are operating.

Another important aspect of successful partnerships involves partners' relative perception of resources. A key assumption is that individuals create and modify their own networks; the networks do not exist exclusive of their members. Relationships are embedded in a social network that affects individuals, by creating the need to work their own personal requirements into joint activity (Duck, 1993). Previously, researchers took the network structure as a given. A network doesn't exist simply because a person believes it does--a network is created only when mutual interaction has occurred, and it is maintained by continued links.

While Kim S. Uhlik (1997) reported a large discrepancy between support for partnership and its actual development, Bob Barcelona and Jason N. Bacarro (2004) noted that "respondents indicated consistency in their attitudes and behaviors" toward collaboration (p. 18). They concluded that short term, informal internships and practicums are more successful than longer term, formal partnerships because park and recreation administrators "seek to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs involved in participation" (p. 5). This generalization appears valid regardless of the particular development scheme. Knowing why informs the choice of how: whether to collaborate or to partner. Uhlik's (2005a) implementation analysis of the Step-by-Step model (Uhlik, 1995) places that idea in a theoretical context that also examines resources (Foa, Converse, Tornblom and Foa, 1993). Developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this framework draws a distinction between Foa's humanistic and mechanistic, economically centered approaches. Universalistic types of resources have a commonly recognized value, and are readily available and impersonally exchanged: money, for example. Particularistic types are often invaluable, unique and represent personal offerings between close partners: a family heirloom, for example.

Similarly, concrete resources have a finite, physical existence: the giver has less of the resource and the recipient has relatively more after the exchange. Again, money serves as an example. Symbolic resources are often intangible and infinite: the giver has the same "amount" (or perhaps even more as the recipient, as in the case of friendship or love. Uhlik (2005b) found that successful partners created a balance between lower and higher order resources, while their unsuccessful counterparts tended to focus on the universal and concrete.

Conclusion

The journey from what to why in partnership has taken in excess of two decades, and to be sure, the "why" needs a good deal more exploration. While researchers focus on the question at hand through more broad, connected studies, practitioners can refine "how" by becoming familiar with and testing the available methods, rather than reinventing what has already been learned. Only by fulfilling their partnership with each other will the best practices sought by both be achieved.

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: ANSWERING THE CALL

* Find and read existing research--In light of the theories discussed previously, understanding the context in which individual partnerships have evolved should lead partners to informed decision-making and more realistic expectations. Consult the extensive existing literature (now numbering in excess of 60 articles) published in JPRA especially, and also in JOPERD and Schole. The useful life of most articles is 10 years, so your literature search should extend backward to at least 1995.

* Understand that inertia will be an ever-present obstacle--Organizational constraints (inertia) such as funding (Uhlik, 1995, 1997), staffing (Selin and Chavez, 1995) and time (Uhlik, 2005b), continue to nip away at partnership development and need to be addressed. Developing and sustaining a partnership is similar to introducing a major new program into an already complex operation. People have pre-existing obligations and behaviors, and the addition of a partnership introduces another stressor.

* Distinguish between "partnership" and "collaboration"--They represent different conditions and assumptions. Sustaining partnerships requires establishing and attempting to maintain a delicate balance among potentially strong forces. "True" partnership is measurably distinct from collaboration (Barcelona and Bocarro, 2004) in the amount of attention paid to personal and organizational investment in the development process, or to estimating the degree of satisfaction or mutual benefit, especially in the near term (Selin & Chavez, 1994). Partnership requires substantially more of everything (initial investment, time, commitment, flexibility, etc.) than collaboration, raising both risk and expectations.

* The usefulness of program planning cycle-like models and protocols--They can serve as a menu from which intuitively relevant procedures can be selected. Following one of these models in combination with one or more of the theories that best fit your current situation may be a prudent course of action. However, partners should understand that only one of these templates' components has been tested outside its individual cases (Uhlik, 2005b), and just two are grounded in a generalizable theoretical framework (Selin and Chavez, 1995; Uhlik, 2005b).

* Recognize that good partnerships are made of good partners--Depending on contextual factors, not all arrangements are amenable to partnership. This somewhat circular logic may seem too obvious, but the limited partnership theory to date suggests otherwise (James, 1999; Selin and Chavez, 1994; Uhlik, 2005b). The interpretation of "goodwill" varies from case to case--from arms distance to full embrace--but the partners must share basic values and ethics at the same level and to the same degree.

* Examine the quality of your needs and resources--A crisis situation in one organization may lead it to seek partnership with another as a quick fix. That arrangement is likely to end badly. Similarly, an offer of partnership from one organization may be a veiled strategy to prey on the other's resources. A combination of "lower order" and "higher order" (Foa, Converse, Tornblom and Foa, 1993) needs or resources (e.g. the opportunity to transform patrons through innovative programming coupled with agreeing to share a recreation facility) is associated with greater partnership development success (Uhlik, 2005b). Exchange meaningful resources to fulfill authentic needs.

References

Barcelona, B., & Bacarro, J. (2004). The nature and extent of collaboration between park and recreation agencies and higher education institutions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(4), 3-24.

Bohlman, H. M., Dundas, M. J., & Jentz, G. A. (1989). The legal environment of business. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Brown, P.J., Dyer, A., & Whaley, R.S. (1973). Recreation research--so what? Journal of Leisure Research, 5(1), 16-24.

Coyler, S., Soutar, G., & Ryder, P. (2000). Organizational culture profiles in local government authority recreation services: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(2), 73-87.

Crompton, J. L. (2002). The time for kids initiative in Portland, Oregon: Challenges of effective multipartnering. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(3), 81-99.

Decker, D. J., & Mattfeld, G. F. (1995). Human dimensions of wildlife management in Colorado: A strategy for developing an agency-university partnership. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(4), 25-36.

Edginton, C., Hudson, S., & Lankford, S. (2001). Managing recreation, parks, and leisure services. Champagne, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Eisler, R. (1998). Dominator and partnership shifts. In J. Galtung, & S. Inayatullah (Eds.), Macrohistory and macrohistorians: Perspectives on individual, social, and civilizational change (pp. 141-151). London: Praeger.

Field, D. R., & Johnson, D. R. (1983). The interactive process of applied research: A partnership between scientists and park resource managers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1(4), 18-27.

Foa, U. G., Converse, J., Jr., Tornblom, K. Y., & Foa, E. B. (1993). Resource theory. Explorations and applications. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Glover, T. D. (1999). Municipal park and recreation agencies unite! A single case analysis of an inter-municipal partnership. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(1), 73-99.

Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Resources, 30(10), 911-936.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaboration: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Golding, L.A. (1984). Partnerships for the fit. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 55(9), 51-53.

Henderson, K.A. (1994). Theory application and development in recreation, parks, and leisure research. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(1), 51-64.

Henderson, K.A., Presley, J., & Bialeschki, M.D. (2004). Theory in recreation and leisure: Reflections from the editors. Leisure Sciences, 26(4), 411-425.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1997). Love and satisfaction. In R. J. Sternberg, & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 56-78). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hendricks, J., & Burdge, R.J. (1972). Communications: The nature of leisure research--a reflection and comment. Journal of Leisure Research, 4(3), 215-217.

Jackson, E.L. (2004). Individual and institutional concentration of leisure research in North America. Leisure Sciences, 26(4), 323-348.

James, K. (1999, May). Understanding successful partnerships and collaborations. Parks & Recreation, 34(5), 38-46.

Jordan, D.J., & Roland, M. (1999). An examination of differences between academics and practitioners in frequency of reading research and attitudes toward research. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 166-170.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970/1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kunstler, R. (2002). An individual approach to service-learning: Partnerships to enhance the relevance of education to practice. Schole, 17, 37-51.

LaPage, W.F. (1994). Partnerships for parks: A handbook for building and guiding park partnerships. Tallahasse: National Association of State Park Directors.

LaPage, W.F., Vaske J., & Donnelly, M.P. (1995). Case studies of partnerships in action. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(2), 61-74.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Mowen, A.J., & Everett, P.B. (2000). Six questions to ask when screening corporate partners. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(4), 1-16.

Mowen, A.J., & Kerstetter, D. (2004). Call for papers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

Powel, L., & Sable, J. (2001). Professional preparation of allied health practitioners and special educators using a collobarative transdisciplinary approach. Schole; A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 16, 33-48.

Riddick, C.C., DeShriver, M., & Weissinger, E. (1984). A methodological review of research in Journal of Leisure Research from 1978-1982. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(4), 311-321.

Samdahl, D.M., & Kelly, J.J. (1999). Speaking only to ourselves? Citation analysis of Journal of Leisure Research and Leisure Sciences. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 171-180.

Segil, L. Goldsmith, M., & Belasco, J. (2003). Partnering: the new face of leadership. New York: AMACOM The American Management Association.

Selin, S., & Myers, N. (1994, November). Current research in parks and recreation. Park & Recreation, 29, 12-16.

Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195.

Uhlik, K.S. (2005a). Abnormal science: The inhibitng effect of leisure research behavior on theory and partnership development. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Unlik, K.S. (2005b). An analysis of the Step-by-Step model of partnership development. Unpublished manuscript.

Uhlik, K.S. (1995). Partnership, step by step: A practical model of partnership formation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(4), 13-24.

Uhlik, K.S. (1997). Promise and practice: The dichotomous nature of partnership between parks and recreation and higher education in northeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, 97(5), 103-106.

Van Doren, C.S., & Heit, M.J. (1973). Where it's at: A content analysis and appraisal of the Journal of Leisure Research. Journal of Leisure Research, 5(1), 67-73.

Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (1994). Call for papers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(4), ix.

Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P. & LaPage, W.F. (1995). Partnerships for the 21st century: A return to democracy. Journal of Park and recreation Administration, 13(4), x-xi.

Kim S. Uhlik, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Exercise, Leisure and Sport at Kent State University in Ohio. He has been associated with programming for the park and recreation departments in the city of Kent and Ravenna since the late 1980s, and currently serves as president of the Streetsboro Visitors & Convention Bureau board of trustees. He can be contacted at [e-mail], or [phone].