| LDR | | 00000nam u2200205 4500 |
| 001 | | 000000431525 |
| 005 | | 20200224102218 |
| 008 | | 200131s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d |
| 020 | |
▼a 9781085632072 |
| 035 | |
▼a (MiAaPQ)AAI13904515 |
| 040 | |
▼a MiAaPQ
▼c MiAaPQ
▼d 247004 |
| 082 | 0 |
▼a 658 |
| 100 | 1 |
▼a Lawlor, Jennifer. |
| 245 | 10 |
▼a I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means: Problem Definitions and Collaborative Relationships in Coalitions. |
| 260 | |
▼a [S.l.]:
▼b Michigan State University.,
▼c 2019. |
| 260 | 1 |
▼a Ann Arbor:
▼b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,
▼c 2019. |
| 300 | |
▼a 179 p. |
| 500 | |
▼a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-03, Section: A. |
| 500 | |
▼a Advisor: Neal, Zachary P. |
| 502 | 1 |
▼a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2019. |
| 506 | |
▼a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors. |
| 520 | |
▼a Community psychologists frequently engage with coalitions in the study of community life. There is still little agreement on the way these organizations should be defined within the field and how they can support change. In my second chapter, I systematically review the literature within community psychology to define coalitions. I identify three types of coordination that they primarily engage in: knowledge coordination, negotiated coordination, and action coordination. Problem definition is one issue that arises in knowledge coordination among coalition members. Problem definitions can be understood as mental models and captured through using fuzzy cognitive maps. The way each individual defines the problem the group works on is often tied to collaborative behavior among coalition members. This brought me to two research questions: (1) In what ways are mental models similar or different within a coalition? (2) To what extent does mental model structure and content predict collaboration within a coalition? To address these questions, I interviewed members of a coalition to capture their mental models and surveyed them to capture their collaborative ties and demographics. To answer my first question, I assessed participants' mental models in terms of their content, structure, and function. Participants varied across each of these, but converged on a few key concepts. These findings suggest that mental modeling processes can identify differences among participants that might be used to support further dialogue among coalition members about the problem they work on. To answer my second research question, I employed an exponential random graph model using mental model similarity to predict collaborative network ties. Mental model similarity did not predict collaboration, but length of time participants have been in the coalition did emerge as a significant predictor of collaboration. These findings suggest a need for future research to assess predictors of collaboration in greater depth. I conclude with a summative discussion of the findings from each of my research questions, discussing implications for coalition practice, methods for studying them, and theories regarding coalitions. |
| 590 | |
▼a School code: 0128. |
| 650 | 4 |
▼a Organizational behavior. |
| 690 | |
▼a 0703 |
| 710 | 20 |
▼a Michigan State University.
▼b Psychology - Doctor of Philosophy. |
| 773 | 0 |
▼t Dissertations Abstracts International
▼g 81-03A. |
| 773 | |
▼t Dissertation Abstract International |
| 790 | |
▼a 0128 |
| 791 | |
▼a Ph.D. |
| 792 | |
▼a 2019 |
| 793 | |
▼a English |
| 856 | 40 |
▼u http://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T15492544
▼n KERIS
▼z 이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다. |
| 980 | |
▼a 202002
▼f 2020 |
| 990 | |
▼a ***1008102 |
| 991 | |
▼a E-BOOK |