View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Certain words in participant responses could potentially identify the organisations
involved. For example, there were mention of organisational names, the type of sport,
peoples’ names, team names and sponsors. To assure that these organisations would be
provided confidentiality anything that could identify them was replaced with an appropriate
alias. Where an alias has been used this is shown in [square brackets]. This chapter begins
with the findings from the NSO. Firstly, the relationship between the two organisations in
presented. It then branches off to explore the determinants of learning: intent, transparency
and receptivity.
4.2 Relationship
It was an important part of this research to explore the nature of the relationship that
existed between the case study organisations. Sometimes it had been a negative one:
It would appear that historically the relationship hasn’t been that great. Prior to
[PSF6] coming on board, it was almost at a stage where there was no
communication between the two organisations. That’s changed quite a bit in the last
eighteen months from what I’m told. (NSO1, personal communication, April 18,
2008)
Of those participants interviewed, two were involved with the organisation when the
PSF was established. That may call into question their view as they are basing their
opinions on hearsay. However that did not affect the overall response that all participants
made in relation to this theme. Wanting to understand why there had been a negative
relationship, NSO1 offered, it was “probably a combination of personnel and suspicion”
(personal communication, April 18, 2008).
NSO4 has been involved in the organisation for a lengthy period, and was able to
recall events where a senior member of the NSO had a heated verbal exchange with another
senior member of the PSF (personal communication, 23 April, 2008). This apparently had
52