Conflict: The Missing Ingredient for Sustainability in Complex Partnerships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Lack of literature directly addressing conflict and conflict resolution in collaborative partnerships: This claim on page 4 is inaccurate. See the following examples of cross-sector partnership literature that explicitly address conflict issues: Crosby & Bryson (2007) A Leadership Framework for Cross-sector Collaboration, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500090519; Babiak & Thibault (2009) Challenges in Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships, https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640083160;  Gray & Purdy (2013) 'Conflict in Cross-Sector Partnerships' in Social Partnerships and Responsible Business (eds. Seitanidi & Crane) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315867175; 
Vogel et al (2021) Cross-sector partnerships- Mapping the field and advancing an institutional approach,  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12283; 

2. Confusing use of partnership terminology: I found the different terms used to describe partnerships confusing. On page 3, you say: The term CSP will be used interchangeably in this article with “partnership” and “complex partnership”. But you also use the terms 'collaborative partnership",  'collaborative partnership projects", "multi-stakeholder partnership", "multi-sector partnership" and multi-stakeholder collaboration". I would suggest a more consistent use of terminology for complex partnerships throughout given that this is the focus of the paper and that it features in the title.

3. Clarify use of the term stakeholder: In some cases, stakeholder appears to be referring to partner organisations and in other cases external actors. For example, see page 2 "Collaboration between organizations and/or stakeholders...". Does this mean that stakeholders are only individuals and not organizations? Later there is refence to "project stakeholders" on page 11. Also see: p. 21 "mutual accountability of TOPS members (to each other, to the broader partnership, and to external stakeholders)." For a useful distinction between internal and external stakeholders in partnerships, see: Stott (2009) Stakeholder Engagement in Partnerships: Who are the ‘stakeholders’ and how do we ‘engage’ with them?: http://www.bpdws.org/web/d/doc_245.pdf?statsHandlerDone=1.

4. Historical timeframes inconsistent or inaccurate: In one place refers to the past decade, in another past two decades, however cross-sector partnerships addressing wicked problems date back at least three decades with many examples emerging in the 1990s. For example (i) the Forest Stewardship Council (1993): https://us.fsc.org/en-us/who-we-are/our-history,  (ii) Marine Stewardship Council (1997): https://www.msc.org/about-the-msc/our-history, (iii) Ethical Trading Initiative (1998): https://history.ethicaltrade.org/, (iv) Fair Labor Association (1999): https://www.fairlabor.org/about-us/annual-public-reports/. Some useful references that explore the emergence of cross-sector partnerships in the 1990s, see: Murphy & Bendell (1999) Partners in Time? https://www.unrisd.org/en/library/publications/partners-in-time-business-ngos-and-sustainable-development. See also: Murphy & Coleman (2000) Thinking Partners https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781351282727-27/thinking-partners-business-ngos-partnership-concept-jem-bendell

5. Collective to Stop Exploitation through Awareness (CSEA): Suggest including a table or figure summarising the fictionalised names of the participating organizations, their purpose and their roles/contributions to CESA. Also some of the acronyms should be changed to avoid confusion with existing organizations (EU could be cobfused with European Union) or types of organizations (INGO is an acronymn often used for International NGOs). Also Orbis is an international NGO so better to rename as something generic to avoid possible confusion.

6. Inappropriate & Inconsisitent Referencing: I found the repetition of various references with different bracketed numbers confusing. The Sustainability referencing guidelines indicate that each reference be allocated a unique number that is repeated throughout when being cited. Also some direct quotes are missing page numbers. And others are inccurately cited such as refererence [69] which is supposed to be referring to a framework developed in 2022 by Weber & colleagues but instead is indicated as a 1994 book by Giddens. Even reference [70] is not obviously Weber (2022) but rather Scholz et al (2014). I suggest that the References list be very carefully checked for errors & ommisions, and also reformatted to avoid needless repetition (i.e., with a single number associated with each reference).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. I have responded to each of your critiques below.

1. You are correct. After reviewing the references you suggested, I continued to review the extant literature on my own, and changed the paragraph to more accurately reflect my argument which is not that conflict per se has been neglected, but that conflict avoidance (or rather, conflict as a positive condition of CSPs) has been underexplored. I changed the paragraph to the following, which I hope addresses your concerns.
   1. Despite research which underscores “the difficulty of leveraging the diverse knowledge and skills of members from different industry sectors” ^[[i]^{] (p.196)}, comparatively few studies directly address the role of conflict in doing so.[ii] [iii] Extant research has framed conflict as a condition standing in the way of partnership and studied its causal conditions including power asymmetry[iv], communication breakdowns[v], environmental conditions3, the role of leadership^[30], governance capability[vi], and methods of conflict resolution (mediation, negotiation).[vii] Many studies of CSPs depart from a theoretical framework that focuses on “dynamics in the institutional field that shapes the context in which partnerships unfold”^[81](p.1) rather than focusing on interpersonal dynamics that can shape and transform institutional fields themselves. In 2021, Vogel and colleagues argued that microlevel interactions “where the involved partners enact different sectoral scripts and resolve emergent tensions and conflicts, still awaits further exploration”. [viii] As described above, one such microlevel interaction is overt conflict to move from individual perspectives to one shared understanding
2. Thank you for this observation. I have removed the miscellaneous terminology and replaced the terms with CSP, leaving the few instances of "complex partnership" and "partnership" as they were.
3. I clarified the definition of "stakeholder" using the resource you suggested, substituted "actor" for stakeholder in places where it was appropriate, and omitted other instances where the term did not align with the definition adopted. 
4. I opted for "three decades" in the two places where previously I had written "a decade" and "two decades". I was familiar with two of the sources you suggested, and aware of a great many more in the ecological literature, especially from those who have focused on adaptive management, and social-ecological resilience. Again, I appreciate the observation and the important of being consistent.
5. I included a Table summarizing the fictionalized names, roles, and contributions. I also changed the acronyms of almost all participating organizations with the exception of the District Attorney (DA) and WMF, named generically after the moniker "Wealth Management Foundation".
6. I also updated the referencing format to adhere to the correct guidelines.

Thank you again for providing such thorough and helpful feedback, and especially for pointing me towards resources of which I was not previously aware. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article aims “to shine a spotlight on conflict” in complex collaborative human trafficking prevention: its necessity, the impacts of its presence/absence, and the undermining impacts of conflict avoidance. For the understanding of the author’s mindset and message, two statements in her conclusions are of special importance: “A normative shift is required, from viewing conflict as a problem to viewing conflict as a method of problem-solving” and “conflict management should receive greater attention in the study and practice of cross-sector partnerships”.

Prof. Carpenter mentions a UN estimation about “human trafficking worldwide, making it the second largest criminal economy in the world” (p. 21). It would be convenient to add which criminal economy is the first largest one in the world, drugs trafficking, knowing that for scholars and well-informed readers it could sound too obvious. Also, the source of this UN estimation is highly required, being an updated UN report the most suitable one.

Wicked problems (note 28) is a very interesting concept that requires at least one of the following proposed actions. Adding another more recent source and/or explaining that it was coined for Agrobusiness (if it is really the case) and the author has picked it for a wider range of involved economic activities.

“(t)he central importance of a facilitator. This role goes by various names” (p. 20). Would not it be more accurate to switch the term “facilitator” with that of “mediator”, as the latter seems to fit better as a wider concept (see “The Mediating Roles” in notes 52 and 53), or at least more frequently and globally used.

The prejudices towards the term “conflict” are very well clarified, but they can merge since the very beginning of the reading, just confronting the title. Therefore, as the explanation arrives a bit late in the study, maybe the title should contain a softer term (disagreement) or an adjective (constructive conflict). I am aware of the difficulty aroused by this advice, because the main thesis of the study is indeed a claim that could be roughly illustrated by this bumper sticker: “Be disturbed: do not avoid conflict when solving a conflict”.

The research is relevant and interesting, because it collects data of a specific case, based on a solid conceptual frame, that supports the importance of acknowledging conflict instead of avoiding it, both by facilitators and involved entities in preventing human trafficking issues.

The paper is well written, the text is clear and easy to read. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, addressing the main question posed. The topic could be considered original in the sense of concretion, giving a precise report of specific results in a case study focused on human trafficking in a well determined territory. The limitations related to the subjects (individuals) and other factors of the research are sufficiently explained, thus justifying a warm welcome of this scientific findings in Social Sciences. The author has managed to show the need of conflict in a way that could contribute to make its use as morally binding for decision makers. It would also restore the social effectiveness of Scholastic dialectical reasoning.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful critiques and commentary on my manuscript. I have taken them to heart. Specifically,

1. I have modified the language regarding the estimate of human trafficking worldwide. I have cited the most recent UN report to provide an estimate, and also provided the context that drug trafficking remains the most lucrative underground economy. (Your point is also well taken; by my estimates, in San Diego County, the drug economy dwarfs the sex trafficking economy - 4.6 billion to 810 million.)
2. There is so much more than I have room for regarding "wicked problems". I almost removed the term, after considering your remarks and reflecting on the long history of the term (my understanding is that is coined by an urban planner named Rittel in the 1950s). I settled for a clarifying paragraph which did, as you requested, provide an additional citation. But more importantly (I hope), it now provides a brief explanation of what makes wicked problems "wicked" at all. 

   1. "Wicked problems are complex socio-cultural dilemmas, each one a symptom of another problem, which involve “a large number of interrelated factors that are connected to each other through a convoluted network of feedback loops”.^{[6] (p.10)} Wicked problems involve many different stakeholder groups with strongly held and conflicting beliefs about what ‘the problem’ is, but each of whom controls resources that are critical to positive progress.

      Collaboration between organizations and/or stakeholders has therefore grown in practice over the past three decades ....
3. I chose to keep the term facilitator, because the skillsets are different. Mediators tend to work with a fairly well defined set of issues, whereas facilitators work to help people articulate - from among a contested set of ideas - what those issues might be, and help them reflect on group dynamics that stymie constructive conversation. I did not explain this in the manuscript, because it seemed tangential to the flow.  If you think I should, I would be happy to take another look.
4. I appreciated your reference to scholastic dialectical reasoning. Indeed, that is precisely the model of dialogue that research suggests is most effective. I considered briefly including a sentence or two in the conclusion, but reconsidered as the insight and connection was yours and not mine.
5. Finally, I really appreciated your comment about conflict "coming late" in the article. I really struggled with this during the writing process. I know that the early emphasis is on human trafficking as a complex problem, the work of interorganizational partnerships as a result (for it and other 'wicked problems'), and their underperformance. There is a single sentence which ties underperformance to conflict avoidance, and so I considered replacing "Conflict" with "Conflict Avoidance" in the title. Ultimately I decided against it. If you feel strongly about this, I am certainly willing to revisit that decision.

Thank you again for your thoughtful and thorough feedback on this article. I appreciated the guidance very much, and the piece is stronger for it. 

Kind regards,

Ami