Some projects are best served by engaging in partnerships. There can be many reasons for partnering, but primarily it is because the need or problem requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders. In some cases, a funder may look at organizational capacity and question whether staff has the experience and skills to carry out the project successfully. Other grants, depending on the nature of the RFP description, will specify partnerships. And some projects are simply too complex and wide ranging to even consider within a single organization.
It is important to understand that the time to reach out to potential partners about opportunities to apply for grant funding is when a need is first identified at an organization. Those who reach out to brand new “partners” because they must in order to submit a proposal may find it doesn’t work once the project is implemented. The barriers to successful partnerships can vary from lack of communication to hidden agendas.
Please review the Partnerships: Framework for Working Together Guidebook PDF and consider the potential barriers that can impact the success of a partnership.
For this Discussion, based on your own project idea, consider the potential barriers that could impact the success of your prospective grant partner.
Post a 2- to 3-minute “Vlog” (video blog) reflecting on the following about barriers to successful partnerships:
What barrier(s) could impact the success of your funding partnership?
How will you work to overcome the barrier(s)?
Provide an explanation of the importance of building a relationship between funder and grantee. Describe key elements of this relationship, providing a rationale for your thinking.
Describe why the grant funder/RFP’s criteria are important and how they can influence the outcomes of the funding process.
Address both a Memorandum of Understanding and Letters of Agreement that would be necessary.
References:
Gitlin, L. N., & Lyons, K. J. (2014). Successful grant writing: Strategies for health and human service professionals (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Chapter 14, “Understanding the Process of Collaboration,” pp. 199–212
Chapter 15, “Forming a Collaborative Team,” pp. 213–226
s regarding environmental issues as a threat but this do by a referent object in a specific social, political, linguistic structure. (Stritzel, 2007) The vague conceptualisation of the specific referent object as mentioned by the Copenhagen School – need the post-structural position created by the second generation of securitisation scholars where they stress the importance of the role the audience play along with setting the socio-political environment. (Salter, 2008) The purpose of this essay was to assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of the securitisation theory. After discussing the concept of the securitisation theory as conceptualised by the Copenhagen School, the essay went on to discuss how the theory was developed by second generation of securitization scholars by focusing on “what conditions the social content and meaning of security produced threats.” (Balzacq, 2010) The essay then went on to discuss the stance the Aberystwyth School had on the voice of the audience and finally, the idea of environmental securitisation was discussed. It can be argued that security may not be a negative practice, which as discussed above involves the use of hard power but instead the emancipation from the “relative objectivism” affecting both traditional stance on security and the Copenhagen School work. Therefore, it can be said that the concept of security can be revised to provide a unified position on security. In regard to the securitisation of environmental degradation, environmental issues can be tackled rather than those issues being exploited politically. This essay has provided a range of strength and weaknesses to the Securitisation theory.