Competing institutional logics of information sharing in public services: Why we often seem to be talking at cross-purposes when we talk about information sharing

James Cornford

Public Money & Management, 2019, vol. 39, issue 5, 336-345

Abstract: Sharing information and data across organizational boundaries has proved hard to achieve. This is, in part, because we have framed the problem, and possible solutions, in one of three conflicting ways that draw on powerful institutional logics: design, governance and enculturation. Five strategies for addressing this conflict are presented—contingency, combination, conflict, ambiguity and synthesis. The conclusion links the problem of information sharing to the paradoxical nature of information.We often disagree about how to do information sharing because we approach the problem from one of three different points of view, each with its own logic. To resolve these disagreements we need to acknowledge different logics, understand their origins and their strengths and weaknesses. There is no single, correct way of combining perspectives and a number of alternative approaches needs to be considered.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09540962.2019.1611236 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:336-345

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RPMM20

DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2019.1611236

Access Statistics for this article

Public Money & Management is currently edited by Michaela Lavender

More articles in Public Money & Management from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().