Achieving Sustainable Impacts European Lifelong Learning Projects

Copyright © Paul Talbot 2015. All Rights Reserved 1
Achieving Sustainable Impacts in Projects Funded under the European
Lifelong-Learning Programme (2007-2013)
Paul Talbot, M.Sc. B.A. (Hons)*
AB S T R A CT
The European Lifelong Learning Programme is amongst various policy instruments providing community
grants for projects related to the strategic policy goals of the European Union, but has been criticised for
the fact that project results are rarely mainstreamed. Not unique to European funding, many publically-
funded programmes fail to maintain long-term outputs. This study sets out to explore the factors facilitating
and inhibiting impact sustainability of European Lifelong Learning projects, looking specifically at project
sustainability from a systems perspective, using in-depth qualitative interviews with professionals currently
coordinating projects under the Lifelong Learning Programme to identify factors within the internal
organisational environment, its interaction with the external environment, and the influence of the
programmatic environment, and exposing the impact of systemic relationships between these parts.
Lacking the resources to conduct thorough iterative analysis and achieve theoretical saturation, this study
uses inductive methods to generate empirically-grounded hypotheses, drawing provisional conclusions and
implications concerning the policy and implementation of European Lifelong Learning projects, providing
a starting point for validation and verification through further qualitative and quantitative research whilst
hopefully serving to sensitise the policy and management research community, as well as project
coordinators, evaluators and funding-body officers to the importance of the topic.
*Paul Talbot is a project manager and consultant at die Berater® UnternehmehmensberatungsGmbH in
Vienna, Austria and is also the project officer of the European Prison Education Association (EPEA).
Talbot has coordinated, partnered and consulted on a range of projects in both the education and criminal
justice field, and is particularly interested in the use of European-funded projects as tools for helping
NGOs and civil-society organisations to develop capacity and work towards achieving their long-term
strategic objectives. This paper is an edited version of Talbot’s Master’s dissertation (M.Sc. Public Policy
and Management) at the University of London’s Centre for Financial and Management Studies.
Contact: p.r.talbot@live.com
1 IN T RO D U CT I O N
Lifelong learning is central to the strategic
framework for European cooperation in Education
and Training (ET2020),i
as well as to broader
international policy as a means of combating
exclusion and inequality, and promoting economic
sustainability,ii
The European Lifelong Learning
Programme (LLP)iii
is amongst various policy
instruments providing grants for “projects or
activities in relation to European Union Policies”.iv
There are few studies of the LLP, although an
Interim Programme Reportv
confirmed its
operational effectiveness and policy alignment,
but criticised project exploitation,vi
commenting
that results were rarely mainstreamed.vii
Not unique to European funding, many publically-
funded programmes fail to maintain long-term
outputs, with perhaps “as many as 40% of all new
programs [not being] sustained beyond the first
few years after termination of initial funding”.viii
Ingle (2005) argues that project effectiveness is
“measured in terms of benefits at the end of the
project funding cycle” and that projects
“frequently stop delivering the desired benefits as
soon as the money runs out”, due to “benchmarks

[being] defined in terms of effectiveness,
neglecting institutional aspects concerning the
capacity to sustain the delivery of benefits after
donor funding ends”,ix
somewhat echoing Curtis’
(2004) criticism of centralised policy objectives
being turned into instruments for implementation
by other parties, subject to output measures with
“unintended consequence[s] of preventing better
or more appropriate standards or measures, or even
different products, from emerging in response to
learning experience during the intervention”.x
Project sustainability should be central to
evaluation,xi
yet Sequira and Moharara (2012)
argue that the qualitative nature institution-
building objectives are inherently difficult to
evaluate and neglected in favour of quantifiable
financial and economic indicators,xii
whilst
Savaya et al (2008) argue that “for sustainability to
become a routine component of program
evaluation, there is a need for greater clarity about
obstacles to sustainability and their causes”.xiii
Sustainability is amongst key appraisal criteria in
the LLP, however the realisation of sustainability
has not yet been critically investigated in this
policy context. Targeted research is critical for a
better understanding of project management
processes, and their relationship to policy
realisation. Understanding what influences project
sustainability will be useful for project applicants
developing proposals, and for European decision
makers in conducting project appraisals, and may
help in understanding how funding policies can be
optimised to increase the effectiveness of such
policy instruments as the LLP.
2 LI T E R AT U RE RE V I EW
2.1 DEFINITIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
SUSTAINABILITY
Limited attention is given to impact sustainability
across the management disciplines.xiv
A project
may be sustainable “when it continues to deliver
benefits to the project beneficiaries and/or other
constituencies for an extended period after […]
financial assistance has been terminated”,xv
and
where “new ways of working and improved
outcomes become the norm.”xvi
It may include the
sustained use of facilities and infrastructure,
continuation of established services or of
approaches piloted through existing services,
utilisation by staff or beneficiaries of newly-
acquired skills, the adoption of ideas at a policy
level, the development and continuation of
partnerships and collaborations either for
continued service delivery or for the sake of
capacity building, sustained behavioural change,
or the integration of new information or
perspectives into the accepted body of knowledge
of a particular field.xvii
It is a dynamic process
within a local system in which interdependent
factors need to be balanced and is heavily
influenced by cultural, social and economic
factors.xviii
2.2 STATE OF THE LITERATURE
A limited pool of programmatic and research
literature reveals a range of relevant issues. An
extensive review by Savaya et al (2008) identifies
various factors based around (1) project design and
implementation, such as having clear
sustainability plans, securing financial resources
or developing financing plans, disseminating
evidence of success, adopting to changing
environments, having sufficiently-trained human
resources, and having ongoing evaluation; (2) the
organisational setting, such as organisational
stability and flexibility, having program
champions within the organisation, managerial
support and flexibility and integration into the
organisation; (3) the broader community, such as
having community support for the program,
political legitimation, and an appropriate socio-
economic context, and; (4) the funding body, such
as assuming responsibility and providing support
and allocating capacity-building resources to
recipient organisations.xix
The results of their own
study highlighted host-organisation leadership as a
critical factor, arguing “the heads of the host
organisations of [sustainable programs] fought
hard to keep the programs alive and understood
what was needed to do so” and that “the decisions
of the host organisation leadership […] ensured
sustenance of the surviving programs by giving
them high priority and integrating them in the
organisation’s structure”xx
but found that a number
of external factors such as competing programs,
power relations or government policiesxxi
could
threaten sustainability. Unfortunately this
literature is contextually removed from the current

research problem. It is focused primarily on
evaluation practice, taking a static view of
program environments, is often disproportionately
based on projects in the health-care sector, and
fails to reflect on policy processes. However, a
broader search of the literature reveals a
relationship between project sustainability, change
management and organisational systems,
providing a new approach to classifying the
literature on sustainability outside of their original
thematic and programmatic context.
2.3 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY AS A
SYSTEMS PROCESS
Emerging from the literature review were factors
that could be ‘categorised’ by their occurrence in
the operational environment; the internal
organisation, responses to the external operational
environment, impacts on the external operational
environment, or processes in the programmatic
environment, that is, policy and operations at the
level of the funding body.
Figure 1 – The literature categorised within an organisational system
Sustainability is subject to interdependent
components and some already see sustainability as
part of a local system.xxii
Organisations managing
projects, like all organisations, “exist in and relate
to environments that affect their operations”.xxiii
Sustainability is discussed at the level of
organisational change,xxiv
which may be variously
defined as transformations within an
organisation’s structure and operations, brought
about by environmental instability.xxv
This is
conceptually different from a project, which is
seen as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to
create a unique product, service or result”.xxvi
However, where Buchanen et al (2005) see
organisational change as something that either
persists or decays, as a result of various factors,
then strong correlations can be drawn with the
project concept. Both projects and organisational
change activities seek to produce outcomes that
disrupt existing systems, and require attention to
structural and systemic issues.xxvii
Pitagorsky
(2011) claims that “project managers, to be
effective, must be competent change managers”
but also sees change management as a project
activity.xxviii
This supports a systems view of project
sustainability, and whilst systems theory has
weaknesses, it serves here only as a lens through
which to categorise relevant literature. Savaya et
al (2008) argue that the factors they identified
“should be reflected in actions and processes
designed to enhance sustainability”;xxix
seeing
sustainability within a more ‘holistic’ theoretical
frameworkxxx
of systemic environmental
interactions to which these actions and processes
are exposedxxxi
provides a means for
distinguishing between sustainability factors,
forming a “context-free theoretical
framework”xxxii
through which to contextualise

the factors on a more general level, avoiding
context-driven assumptions. Meta-
ethnographiesxxxiii
or meta-synthesesxxxiv
pull
corroborating concepts together whilst
highlighting those ‘refutational’ concepts,xxxv
producing interpretations that “will not be found
in any one research report but, rather, [which are]
derived from taking all of the reports in a sample
as a whole".xxxvi
Whilst there may be limited
scope for a truly systematic review due to the
ambiguous and multifaceted nature of
sustainability as a research concept,xxxvii
this
approach provides clarity to the researcher’s
thought processes, offering structure to the
interviews, helping to avoid imposing theoretical
ideas relating to the research question.
2.4 CATEGORISATION OF
SUSTAINABILITY LITERATURE WITHIN A
SYSTEMS MODEL
There is no scope within this paper to provide a
detailed qualitative description of the constructs
identified, however they are very briefly
presented as a means of supporting the
contextualisation of project sustainability within a
systems perspective.
2.4.1 INTERNAL ORGANISATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT
Project sustainability can be affected explicitly by
activities in the internal organisational
environment. Sustainability should be central to
project strategies, influencing all aspects of the
project cycle,xxxviii
and require experienced and
effective management teamsxxxix
and mechanisms
for effective planning and task allocation.xl
The
planning and pursuit of sustainability must be
supported by meaningful commitment, not only
forced by external actors,xli
and be subject to
monitoring, evaluation,xlii
and performance
measurementxliii
against a consistent set of
sustainability indicators across a range of project
system components.xliv
2.4.2 RESPONDING TO OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Project sustainability can be affected by the
activities conducted in response to external
stimuli. Projects need certain conditions in the
environment to sustain benefits,xlv
which need to
be thoroughly explored and understood.xlvi
Involving stakeholders and project participants at
every stage of the design processxlvii
helps identify
their various roles, interests and influencesxlviii
and may help ensure that project outputs are
sufficiently meeting stakeholder demands.xlix
Projects should seek to align with policy
directionsl
within a supportive and enabling
policy and regulative environmentli
with political
sustainability and government commitment,lii
securing policy support and legitimation.liii
Factors relating to the socio-economic context
such as the strength of civil society and
empowerment of women,liv
local market
conditionslv
and the natural environmentlvi
may
affect a project’s sustainability prospects.
2.4.3 INFLUENCING OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Project sustainability can be affected by the way
project actors seek to influence behaviour or
events in the external operational environment.
Projects may be designed to leave a legacy of
outputs with mainstreaming potentiallvii
requiring
minimal further financial investment.lviii
Ensuring sufficient resources to sustain project
outcomes are seen as critical in the sustainability
process.lix
Projects with limited access to funding
resources may face problems.lx
Some project
activities will be unfeasible when no further
funding is providedlxi
and so project implementers
need to create the ability to attract further funding
from external sources.lxii
Ownership of project
outcomes by the institutional environment, and
particularly from those expected to continue
project delivery is discussed in depth;lxiii
projects
should actively seek to find an ‘institutional
home’, and transfer results to the institutional
environment.lxiv
Projects need to build the
capacity of local institutions to be able to continue
delivering project outcomeslxv
ensuring
infrastructural capacity for service deliverylxvi
and
technical maintenance,lxvii
but also need to
encourage stakeholders to independently take
advantage of project outputs, which requires
capacity at the user or beneficiary level.lxviii
Although this aspect has received relatively little
attention in the literature, it may include resilience
to adapt to change,lxix
risk management capacitylxx
and the ability to preserve natural environmental
resources.lxxi
Stakeholders need to be made aware
of project activities and outcomes though
sufficient advertising of the project and its success
or impact,lxxii
especially where stakeholders

critical to sustainability may be less involved in
implementation and have little exposure to the
project.lxxiii
2.4.4 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENT
Project sustainability can be affected by forces
acting within the programmatic environment,
which includes policy makers, programme
managers and project officers amongst others.
Support on a programmatic level can help to
achieve sustainability aims,lxxiv
through helping
develop sustainability plans, and develop staff
capacity.lxxv
Problems deriving from the design
and implementation of funding programmes will
impact sustainability potential. For example,
project funding periods may be too short to build
strong-enough relationships with necessary
partners,lxxvi
or long lead-times between project
application and implementation may mean initial
plans are no longer feasible due to situation
changes.lxxvii
Programmes emphasising
innovation and demanding ambitious, complex
outcomes, often on an unrealistic timescale may
inhibit sustainability.lxxviii
Sustainability forms a
more significant part of project evaluations where
it is reflected as a core value in the programme
and emphasised throughout the project delivery
cycle.lxxix
3 RE S E A R C H AP P R O A C H A N D TO O L S
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study explores factors influencing
sustainability in European LLP projects. The
Interim Evaluation of the LLP criticises project
exploitation and mainstreaming.lxxx
A review of
literature across diverse project fields revealed
factors influencing project sustainability within the
following settings:
(1) Internal Organisational Environment
(2) Responding to Operational Environments
(3) Influencing Operational Environments
(4) Programmatic Environment
These are not theoretical bases for sustainability in
the LLP, but rather ‘sensitising concepts’,lxxxi
‘constructs’lxxxii
or ‘salient factors’lxxxiii
providing
direction to data collection, serving as ‘points of
departure’ for exploring the perspectives of project
actors in this field,lxxxiv
and can be used to
formulate four initial questions, focused on the
LLP.
Q1. What are the internal organisational factors
which facilitate or inhibit project sustainability?
(Internal organisational environment)
As identified in the literature review,
organisational capacity and strategic orientation
impact the sustainability of project outcomes.
Furthermore, the ways in which people define and
measure project success may neglect sustainability
elements. Coded data emerging from the
interviews is analysed for its implications on the
relationship between project sustainability and the
organisational environment. An ‘organisational
factor’ refers to any aspect located within the
project organisation itself. A systems view of
organisations sees components such as
management, strategy, goals, structure, operations
and technology as well as organisational culture,
politics and leadership as forming the internal
environment.lxxxv
Q2. What are the processes by which individuals
and organisations respond to external
environments to promote project sustainability?
(Responding to operational environments)
The literature identifies a range of factors
associated with the way projects respond to
external environments, however given the context-
driven nature of existing work, there are few
generalizable explanations for these interactions.
This study explores how project organisations
interact with the external environment. Coded
data emerging from the interviews is analysed for
its implications on the relationship between project
sustainability and the processes involved in
responding to the external environment. Processes
may include activities responding to externally-
imposed conditions, including political, economic,
socio-cultural, technological, legal or ecological
conditions.lxxxvi

Q3. What are the processes by which individuals
and organisations create change in external
environments to promote project sustainability?
(Influencing operational environments)
Long-term project sustainability requires changes
in the operating environment. Coded data
emerging from the interviews is analysed for its
implications on the relationship between project
sustainability and the processes involved in
influencing external environments, including
those in the political, economic, socio-cultural,
technological, legal or ecological
environmentlxxxvii
as mentioned above.
Q4. How does funding programme structure itself
facilitate or inhibit project sustainability?
(Programmatic environment)
Funding-programme structures appear to influence
pro-sustainability practices. This study looks at
how the funding programme itself affects the
sustainability potential of projects. Coded data
emerging from the interviews is analysed for its
implications on the relationship between project
sustainability and the programmatic environment.
Policy content, administrative processes,
contractual obligations, the flexibility and length
of projects and the perceived degree of support
from the funding body may be amongst the topics
discussed.
3.2 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS
Grounded theory - used to make and understand
observations through a developing conceptual
framework,lxxxviii
testing and refining theoretical
concepts that it generates, and building theories
which can later be tested against further datalxxxix
-
helps gain insights into previously neglected areas.
However resource restraints make theoretical
saturation difficult to achieve in this study.
Interviews are used to generate verbal data,
although as Halcomb and Davidson (2006) reason,
“the richness and depth of these data will vary
according to the specific research design and the
research question that the investigation is seeking
to address.”xc
To fully explore the values,
meanings and beliefs of project actors is
realistically outside the practical scope of the
study,xci
and although findings are grounded in the
available data, they only reflect one round of
analysis and cannot reach irrefutable theoretical
conclusions. They can, however, provide data on
a previously neglected topic, and establish a
starting point for more detailed research; rather
than producing full grounded theory, this study
produces empirically-grounded hypotheses for
further testing.
3.2.1 THE ROLE OF THEORY
The research falls outside a purely deductive-
inductive dichotomy.xcii
Existing theory, albeit
rooted largely in grey-literature, presents a
framework for pro-sustainability practices in
project management. This theory, however, is not
appropriate to the circumstances surrounding the
current research question; the study is not
concerned with general, proscriptive sustainability
practices, but rather in the organisational factors
that influence these practices in the specific
context of the European LLP. In their study on
entrepreneurialism, Ali and Birley (1999) had
enough ‘theory’ to formulate a deductive research
design, but this had not yet been applied to the
situation being researched, compelling them to
incorporate an inductive approach into a deductive
design.xciii
Their argument is that existing research
can be used to develop constructs – rather than
variables – helping to provide focus to the
research, whilst opening up the discussion to
different themes, not previously considered,
helping establish a context for the research,
determining questions to be asked and the assisting
in the tabulation of the interview data (Ali &
Birley, 1999). In this current study theoretical
constructs identify issues deemed relevant by
researchers and practitioners in a range of
contextualised project settings (Ali & Birley,
1999), whilst the research itself explores the
relationship between these constructs and the
facilitating or inhibiting factors within
participating organisations. Blumer (1954) coined
the term ‘sensitising concepts’ to describe the
initial ideas that “sensitize you to ask particular
kinds of questions about your topic”.xciv
Charmaz
(2006) uses these concepts, derived from
background assumptions and disciplinary
perspectives as “points of departure to form
interview questions, to look at data, to listen to
interviewees, and to think analytically about the
data”.xcv
Fernandes et al (2013) take a similar
perspective in identifying an ‘initial framework of
salient factors’ from the literature on improving
and embedding project management practices, and
then conducting interviews in order to identify new

factors, confirm the factors identified and to
remove less important factors.xcvi
3.2.2 SAMPLING
Purposive- sequential- or theoretical sampling are
given as appropriate approaches to grounded
theoryxcvii
where the researcher “[carries] out
initial sampling, and from analysis of the results
[extends] the sample in ways guided by their
emerging theory”xcviii
or “examines particular
instances of the phenomenon of interest so that he
or she can define and elaborate on its various
manifestations”,xcix
however since this research is
concerned with European LLP project
implementation broadly, the full population of
European LLP project actors were of interest.
Using purposive sampling of all individuals who
coordinated LLP projects in 2012 and 2013, 285
potential interview participants were approached,
and offered entry into a draw to win a €50 book
voucher, and 21 individuals agreed to participate.
The sample of 3 higher-education managers, 6
project managers at private training providers, 1 at
a public training provider and 1 at an NGO, 7
university academics and 3 representatives of
independent research centres contained
individuals with a representative range of
characteristics, covering the public and private
sectors. This was the most financially- and time-
efficient method for sampling this population,c
although response bias may limit the
generalizability of the results, as considered in the
discussion of results.
3.2.3 CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEWS
Semi-structured interviews are regarded as being
“well-suited for the exploration of attitudes,
values, beliefs and motives” and can help explore
“the perceptions and opinions of respondents
regarding complex and sometimes sensitive issues
and enable probing for more information and
clarification of answers”.ci
They were conducted
through a mix of 6 individual and group
interviews, conducted by international
teleconference (5 interviews with 12 people) and
face-to-face meeting (1 interview with 2 people).
Attention was made to ensure that all questions
were as open as possible and to avoid leading
questions. An interview guide of open and non-
leading questions, initially piloted with colleagues,
and refined for use in the formal interviews, is used
to prompt respondents to discuss the processes
involved in project sustainability from various
different perspectives. The guide evolved over the
course of the interviews, helping focus the
questions and minimise non-relevant interview
data, and questioning followed Roulston’s (2010)
suggestions for delivering open questions and
responding to interviewees.cii
3.2.4 TRANSCRIPTION AND DATA ANALYSIS
Epistemological concerns dictate whether we
value transcripts “[corresponding to] the original
conversational event” or whether we prefer “re-
presentations and interpretations”.ciii
Interpretivist
researchers battle with distortions of meaning.civ
Transcriptions are “artificial constructions”,cv
emerging from interviewer perceptionscvi
and
decisions as to what information is required and
the value of its analytical contribution.cvii
The
current study involves cross-cultural and multi-
lingual groups of respondents. Welch and Piekkari
(2006) write that language is “critical to
understanding the qualitative research interview”
and that “language, symbols and discourses play [a
significant role] in shaping meaning and power in
interviews”.cviii
Tsang (1998) argues that
researchers should communicate in the
respondent’s language, enabling full expression,
good rapport and cultural understanding.cix
Resource constraints, however, require that
English be used as lingua franca in the interview
process. This presents a challenge to the
transcription of data punctuated with lexical and
grammatical inaccuracies, erroneous
pronunciation and imperfect discourse
management, but also to the analysis of data.cx
Responses may not reflect an authentic record, and
will lack “subtle nuances” that come with “being
confident enough to formulate extended and
individualised responses”.cxi
Furthermore, most
respondents were interviewed through low social-
presence telephonic media without the contextual
nuances afforded by non-verbal interaction,
further questions the value of the in verbatim
transcription, limiting the empirical potential of
the research. However, seeking to create
empirically-grounded hypotheses rather than
formal theory, this approach still enables the study
to highlight key factors, establishing the
groundwork for further investigation.

4 IN T E RV I EW RE S U LT S
Eight in-depth interviews, with 20 respondentscxii
yielded a broad range of data. Initial and focused-
coding revealed that LLP project actors perceive a
number of factors influencing sustainability.
Factors are described here in relation to the
interview data, and discussed more analytically in
the next chapter.
4.1 THE INTERNAL ORGANISATIONAL
FACTORS
Internal organisational factors were identified at
the level of the partner organisation and of the
project consortium.
4.1.1 ORGANISATIONAL PARTICIPATION
AND OWNERSHIP
Discussing allocation of work resources,
respondents experienced projects being delivered
by semi-autonomous groups, distinct from
operational management.
“The idea, main concept and much of the
idealising comes from the staff involved”1
“Public relations, marketing and
dissemination, you need professionals for
that, but we are an organisation where they
leave it to the [scientists] and that's not
good, we should do that together”2
“The organisation’s bosses learnt about the
project issues from [external
stakeholders]”3
Some statements indicate that involving the
broader organisation in the project content may
promote sustainability.
“If your organisation doesn’t support the
project, it’s just your work, not the
1
I2R04 – Assistant University Professor
2
I6R16 – Lecturer at a University of Applied Science
3
I7R17 – Consultant and project manager in higher-
education sector
4
I7R17
5
I5R11 – Project manager at a public research centre
organisation's work [...] if the organisation
supports the project, […] it’s about
supporting the ideas, sharing the ideas of the
project”4
“A degree programme doesn’t only consist
of [the project actors], you are usually 15
people […] how do you reach these
people?” 5
“[Sustainability can be improved by]
working on the dissemination structure or
policy of a project at a general company
level […] and maybe share better the
resources you have to make it more
effective”6
Problems occur when projects become reliant on
individuals and their project know-how.
“Everybody brings different skills to a
project, so if somebody is missing, the skill
is missing”7
“[Those] involved in the management and
production of the results are there, that helps
a lot because you have the know-how in
place and you can use it later on”8
“You need one person at least for
sustainability who has the contacts, who
works with the material”9
Problems occur because projects finance project
teams. Expertise develops within isolated groups,
sometimes including external-contract staff,
preventing crossover into the organisation, as
nobody outside of the project team has ownership,
or stewardship, of project results.
6
I5R12 – Independent researcher and project coordinator in
the higher-education sector
7
I4R08 – Project manager at a state-funded adult education
provider
8
I2R03 – Managing director of a private consultancy
provider
9
I3R07 – Project manager at a private education, training,
and consultancy provider

“It’s very difficult to get financing [once the
project] has ended, at a national or even a
local level, […] and time, more than
anything, needs to be paid somehow”10
“It’s difficult to implement [exploitation
after the project period] because we are
continuously involved in new projects”11
“If you don’t have a steward then it doesn’t
work […]We always have a mixed team of
internal and external people that we fund
with the project, and we can always make
sure that […] somebody from the internal
personnel becomes the steward”12
It follows that:
P1: Integrating project outputs into activities
outside of the project goals requires the
involvement of people in the day-to-day
operations of the organisation
4.1.2 GOALS AND MOTIVATIONS
Differential foci on acquiring and completing
projects, and pursuing long-term non-project goals
affect the planning, implementation and capacity
to exploit project results. Focus may lie on what
the project itself brings the organisation in money
or opportunities to complement present activities.
“My boss’s first question is ‘how much
money do we earn’“13
“You write a project based on your
competences as an institution, but from a
sustainability point of view, you have no idea
of the impact that you will have”14
Alternatively, projects may be tools to achieve
non-project objectives, such as contributing to
long-term research agendas, supporting the
10
I5R12
11
I6R15 – Project manager and consultant at an innovation
management firm
12
I8R20 – University Professor, Dean of Faculty
13
I4R08
14
I2R02 – Project manager in the higher-education sector
development of curricula, becoming competitive
on the real market, or creating resources to build
long-term capacity.
“We pursue projects with vested interests, to
improve the situation of our students and our
teachers”15
“Our intention [with our project] is to
become competitive on the real language
market”16
“There is a long-term strategy behind all
these projects, it’s not just […] to get some
extra money […] but it should be an integral
part of long-term strategy” 17
It follows that:
P2: Organisations have various motivations for
participating in projects, including project
acquisition and pursuit of non-project goals.
4.1.3 GENUINE AND ARTIFICIAL PLANNING
Project actors need to plan for sustainability in the
proposal, during and after the project, however
genuine planning and artificial planning are not
easily distinguishable. Genuine planning may
require constant long-term thinking, joining only
projects with sustainability potential, building
sustainability into product design, or including
sustainability amongst project monitoring criteria.
“If there is a way to add this dimension, then
it makes sense […] to think about, ok, what
is the goal of the project, and how can we
exploit that, or how can we use that
afterwards”18
“We’ve been looking at how we can start to
integrate concepts such as open access, free
15
I8R20
16
I4R10 – Project manager at a European NGO
17
I3R05 – University Professor at a University of Applied
Science
18
I8R19 – Managing director and proprietor of private
training, coaching and consultancy firm

use, create commons, and things that enable
some of the results to go a little further”19
“Monitoring is good for sustainability by
helping develop milestones for what is
needed for sustainability and distributing
them throughout the project”20
However this may still reflect artificial planning.
There is no accountability for sustainability
planning yet the planning itself is compulsory.
Respondents regularly discussed projects using
expressions such as ‘have to’, ‘forced to do’ and
‘expectations’.
“Why do we do these things? First of all
because it’s compulsory to report it to
Brussels”21
“[the question is] how do I fill this in
according to the expectations […] and not
so much is the idea good or not”22
Project acquisition invites pragmatic proposal
writing, based on current possibilities, and subject
to time constraints, limiting the capacity to build
sustainability systematically into the project.
“It’s very important to think about
[sustainability] when writing projects.
Sometimes you just copy and paste
something that you’ve written on
sustainability in another project proposal”23
“We try to analyse the invitations we receive
and see if it fits with our core activities and
past experiences, and especially if you are
able to involve the future end users [...] the
problem is sometimes we don't receive
enough information to do that kind of
analysis”24
19
I2R04
20
I2R04
21
22
I2R04
23
I2R02
24
I6R15
“Not everyone understands the pace […]
and we try not to involve [stakeholders]
actually in the writing process, if we want to
have an application finished by the
deadline”25
Focusing on producing outputs, project staff may
view success in terms of the original goals being
reached within the budget, and all contractual
obligations being fulfilled, with little incentive for
sustainable approaches.
“It’s important to reach objectives in the
budget and not get any bad scores for the
evaluation”26
“Nobody says ‘ok we have to do a piloting,
so let’s see where we can [develop] a
sustainable network partner’, but you only
say, ‘I’ll call some people that I know and
hopefully someone will do this damned
piloting thing”27
However where projects contribute to
organisationally-mandated plans, planning may be
more long-term and utilise broader resources.
“The possibility of transposing [academic]
activities into European projects is
something we’ve been trying to do, so if we
propose a project, we usually work on it at
least a year or a year and a half before the
proposal”28
“We have the mandate to develop knowledge
with externals […] we have a longer cycle
than [the co-respondents], because we have
a research agenda that is 4-6 years long, and
[…] we use projects to help us further our
research agenda”29
“There are long-term strategic goals of the
university, and trying to create synergy with
25
26
I3R06
27
I3R07
28
I2R04
29
I3R05

the topic you’re working on and the longer-
term goals of the university, you are
supported longer” 30
It follows that:
P3: projects are successful in terms of contractual
obligations even with artificial plans
And
P4: focusing on non-project goals encourages
genuine organisational planning, whereas
focusing purely on project goals permits
artificial, pragmatic planning
CONSORTIUM-LEVEL FACTORS
Commitment from- and ownership by partners is
important. Relations between partners are seen as
critical in impacting feelings of ownership.
“If you have problems with the consortium,
or partners are not interested in the project,
you will not reach sustainability”31
“The partnership wasn’t nice, there was
fighting from beginning to end, and I think
that has a huge impact on sustainability”32
“There can’t be much expected from the
sustainability of these results because people
are so unhappy with their ownership for
them […] We [try to] resolve conflict and
make sure they are actually working on
something they consider valuable for them
now, at the moment, but also for the
future”33
Sustainability should be taken seriously by
partners, through regular discussion and planning.
Official agreements and business plans can be
30
I3R05
31
I7R18 – Departmental Head in the higher-education sector
32
I3R05
33
I5R11
drawn-up, promoting enthusiasm for sustaining
results, and facilitating practical planning.
“you have to talk about it right from the start
with your partners and get back to the
question regularly, at each meeting we talk
about sustainability, what we can do, how
we can adapt our plans for the future”34
“part of the challenge was to develop a
business model, how to market it […]
pricing strategy and willingness to pay, and
find out, do a small market study”35
“As a [subject specialist] I had no idea
about business plans, it was a nightmare at
the beginning, but it helps, it helps having a
structure”36
Although consortium-level commitment is
important, organisational motivations are still
critical. One respondent saw personal idealism
and belief in the project as the source of their
commitment, yet as owner of their company they
were also a corporate decision-maker.
“I’m really convinced that we have done a
good job, it’s a good course and people love
it when then come to the course”
[…]
“I am willing to put in a lot of time and effort
to get these courses running […] as a self-
employed trainer and coach, I need to put
time aside for organising those courses, that
I’m not getting paid for” 37
It follows, therefore, that:
P5: Sustainability is promoted by consortium-
level ownership, but it is still insufficient without
organisational ownership.
34
I7R18
35
I8R20
36
I6R14 – Director and project manager of an independent
cultural research institute
37
I8R19

This section shows that organisational factors
impacting sustainability include the organisational
motivation for participating, and the way this
affects planning and resource distribution, as well
as the commitment and ownership at a consortium
level.
4.2 RESPONDING TO THE OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT
Factors here included responding to real needs
through sufficient analysis and understanding, and
involvement of externals in planning and
implementation, contributing to the creation of
valuable outputs that can be sufficiently and
sustainably utilised by target groups.
4.2.1 RESPONDING TO REAL NEEDS AND
CONTEXTS
Projects must analyse and address real – and
changing - needs and demands of target groups, the
market, and public policy. Producing good results
that cannot be used in practice discourages
sustainability.
“You have to be sure that your project
answers to a real need, a real demand”38
“The things your produce in the project,
maybe the world isn’t ready for them yet, or
maybe the world will never be ready”39
“You need to be aware of what already
exists on the market, because there are some
competitors of course that are offering
something that is similar”40
“Sometimes at the time of application, the
subject you are promoting is well
recognised, but sometimes there can be a
change in context, and then the project
becomes not so important for the
institution”41
38
I2R02
39
I3R05
40
I6R15
41
I7R18
42
I2R02
43
I2R05
They must also respond to the context and
behaviour of stakeholder groups, understanding
behaviour patterns and what to expect from
externals.
“Public institutions […] have an incredibly
complicated bureaucracy to deal with, so for
sure we have to take care and keep in mind
their structure”42
“We find that some organisations are not
able to deal with new learning styles [and
don’t] have the structures to lend
sustainability to what we have developed”43
“You need to know all that everything that
goes on in the organisation […] and
somehow to work together with them”44
Projects may benefit from responding to direct
input, involving externals in the development,
planning and implementation of the project.
“[potential end-users] actually contribute to
new ideas; […] raising project ideas”45
“In focus groups we design the products […]
we make them much more clear and concrete
with the help of the stakeholders”46
“Involve end-users from the very beginning,
and if possible in the partnership itself”47
“Early identification of who are the end-
users and stakeholders […] Try to involve
them in designing the application. It's very
important to understand the real needs and
real expectations”48
It follows that:
P6: Sustainability benefits from a detailed- and
comprehensive-as-possible understanding of real
44
I7R17
45
I1R01
46
I2R03
47
I2R02
48
I6R15

needs and contexts in the external operating
environment
This section shows that sustainability is promoted
by ensuring alignment between project outputs and
real external needs by way of comprehensive
analysis and stakeholder input.
4.3 INFLUENCING THE OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT
Factors here included the provision of quality and
accessible outputs that add value both to target
groups and delivering organisations, effective
communication and interaction with external
actors and the promotion of positive cognitive and
emotional responses in the external environment,
including encouraging external participation and
exploitation.
4.3.1 PRODUCING OUTPUTS
Taking into consideration P6
, the outward delivery
of outputs into the external environment which
meet given needs is essential, and increases
chances of real interest from target groups.
“We have now [after two years] people
asking ‘oh could you send us some material
because the topic is so interesting, and the
training fits very well’”49
“We found out that lots of practitioners like
it very much, also in different countries, and
they’ve been inviting our project members to
present and conduct workshops”50
However beyond responding to needs, products
should demonstrate sufficient market-quality.
“[sustainability doesn’t work] if it really
isn’t there, the product for the market, it
hasn’t reached that stage that the market
demands”51
“[one thing] for bad sustainability, is to
have a bad product”52
49
I3R07
50
I5R11
51
I3R06
52
I3R07
Furthermore, some respondents speculated on the
role that quality plays for organisations when
deciding to mainstream products.
“[there are organisations who think] if it
doesn’t look good, or it doesn’t meet the
standard, we will not promote it, because we
cannot associate our brand name with this
product”53
“I think [a partner who didn’t sustain the
outputs] thought that the quality which they
were contributing to was not high enough”
54
Where ‘market-ready’ means being having
sufficient quality and benefits to viably target
potential end-users on a competitive market, it
follows that:
P7: Delivering market-ready products increases
the potential for sustainability
Additionally, take-up of the product on the market
is enhanced by broadening potential target group
applicability, for example by increasing
accessibility or adaptability.
“If we ask our partners in Portugal to
translate these things into Portuguese […]
they are available to everyone in Portugal
[and] a side effect is that people in Brazil
can also use them”55
“Courses [are] usually designed to a special
target group, but can also be adopted to
other target groups very often”56
It follows that:
P8: Broadening target-group applicability
increases the potential for sustainability
53
I3R06
54
I4R09 – Senior lecturer at a University of Applied Science
55
I5R11
56
I8R19

4.3.2 COMMUNICATION WITH AND
PARTICIPATION OF EXTERNALS
Project actors need to communicate information to
externals. Respondents placed emphasis on the
process of publicity.
“If you don’t make good publicity, so people
simply are not aware of it”57
“Establish contacts with as more as possible
stakeholders […] in order to reach really the
audience”58
“It’s important that the networks know
about the things they can use for example,
the products that we have done or the
services”59
Value is attached to methods which enable
interaction with, and feedback from potential end-
users, whether it is one-to-one interaction, group
interaction, or social-media interaction.
“Because we are a small settlement, it’s easy
to keep personal contacts”60
“Small focus groups […] seem to be very
interesting in receiving very direct opinions
about what is being developed”61
“[With Facebook] it’s easy for people to
respond, they are used to it, and if you can
sustain a reasonable response to social
media […] I think you can strengthen the
impact of your project for quite a while”62
This reiterates the value of external participation.
“I think that the basic concept […] co-
creating the actual project proposal, not just
sending out "do you want to participate in
this" with a complete proposal, but actually
57
I1R01
58
I4R10
59
I4R09
60
I1R01
61
I2R04
62
I2R03
developing the project proposal from the
beginning”63
“The direct involvement of stakeholders [...]
is very important, […] we always try to
involve as many as we can in [training]
activities”64
It follows that:
P9: Systematic and interactive communication of
project content and outputs promotes
sustainability
4.3.3 PROMPTING EXTERNAL RESPONSES
Independent action and response by externals
should be encouraged. Externals should feel
motivated to engage as a participant, feeling a
personal value or benefit in the project, although
this may require preparatory work.
“They have to see the project it really for
them, so they are not just used as an excuse
to have a project and to run something for
two years”65
“We have made [an external stakeholder]
care about the project, not just about the
product […] she also got interested on how
we are growing, and she got passionate
about it”66
“Sometimes […] people are not ready to
receive new approaches, if the context is not
prepared […] then you cannot really sustain
your excellent result”67
It follows, therefore, that:
63
I3R05
64
I6R14
65
I1R01
66
I3R06
67
I6R13 – Project manager at an independent educational
research institute

P10: Encouraging individual connections to the
project and its outputs within external
environment promotes sustainability
Externals can exploit project goals in pursuit of
their own objectives, occurring when project goals
closely match those of external bodies.
“[The municipality] asks us to have some
presentations to channel it in their everyday
for the benefit of the local people”68
“Get a powerful institution who adopts your
product and you don’t need to worry about
sustainability”69
“We have […] an action, very much linked
to the goals of the project, to impact on the
schools, and educational centres of our
region, with the same goals of our project,
[…] it’s the way the make this live longer, at
least nationally”70
It follows that:
P11: Meeting external goals and objectives can
encourage external organisational ownership of
project results
This section shows the importance of the outputs
themselves, and of the systematic and effective
communication and interaction with external
actors. It also underscores the role of ownership
by external actors.
4.4 THE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENT
The operational activities of the funding body
affects the practicability of sustainability, whilst
an artificial market for grant funding and the
evolution of an abstract ‘project community’
affects how people perceive themselves as actors
68
I1R01
69
I2R03
70
I5R12
71
I2R03
within the programmatic environment, influencing
their approach to sustainability.
4.4.1 FUNDING BODY POLICY AND
DISCOURSE
Project actors are overwhelmed by bureaucratic
requirements and expectations of the funding body
at the proposal and close-down stages, leading
them to view sustainability as a bureaucratic
necessity, rather than a valuable opportunity.
“Coordinators are not encouraged to do
their best about exploitation, they are
encouraged to look at these deadly details of
their financial paper and bureaucratic
regulations and in the end they get
discouraged”71
“[During the] next 25% of our time, we will
still do some things that we think are good,
but we will spend the most time on satisfying
the reviewer”72
“Most organisations are seeing it as a must
and not as an opportunity, so maybe there
are ways to create it as a chance and to
promote it like this”73
Time at the end of the project is crucial to
sustainability work, yet resources are perceived to
be restrained by bureaucratic reporting demands.
“Sometimes the process of convincing the
end users of the benefits of the product or
results is too time consuming, and most of
the time you are just able to do that after the
project ends”74
“Exploitation often comes at the end once
you know what the real results are”75
Accepting P3
, that artificial planning facilitates
bureaucratically-successful projects, it follows
that:
72
I6R16
73
I4R08
74
I6R15
75
I6R16

P12: The funding body is perceived as exercising
bureaucratic processes which inhibit genuine
planning by pressurising project actors towards
the realisation of contractual obligations
This premise notwithstanding, the emphasis on
sustainability within funding-body discourse is
perceived as increasing.
“The EC [is trying to] fund more and more
projects which they expect to have a serious
impact, and I think they’re putting more
attention on the issue”76
“A couple of years ago, if you were […]
using social media, you were thought to be a
genius. Now you really have to come up with
good ideas and sustainability has, I think,
because a major criteria”77
However there is a perceived lack of know-how
and limited support structures within the funding
body, and disaccord between this lack of support
and the expectations placed upon project actors.
“I always have the impression that this is
something on their list what they have to tell,
but they are happily surprised if somebody
has a kind of sustainability in their project
[…] they are like “can you tell us how to do
this sustainability, because we have no clue
about it”78
“It was extremely unfair to analyse projects
by this criteria, because the [funding body]
hasn’t set a standard […] and you don’t
have specialists capable of offering a help-
desk”79
“Lifelong learning is such a vast sector and
they cannot know everything. Maybe they
don't know what happens in [each specific
subject area] so sometimes the judgement
and the comments are quite superficial”80
76
I5R11
77
I4R09
78
I3R07
79
I3R06
Incompatibility within the funding policy, such as
innovation over sustainability or open-access over
marketization are perceived as confusing and
counter-productive:
“That project was not funded because it
wasn’t considered innovative [but] it’s not
about being innovative, it’s about being
sustainable”81
“On the one hand they said all products will
have reach a wide audience free of charge.
At the same time they said, to be sustained,
they allow you to make financeable courses
[…] but you never know what was in-
between the two”82
It follows therefore, that:
P13: funding body policies are perceived as
incompatible with sustainability
and
P14: the funding body is perceived as holding
unrealistic expectations of project actors
4.4.2 THE EUROPEAN PROJECT WORLD
The European LLP (possibly along with other
funding programmes) has established a closed-off
economic and professional domain with its own
identity distinct from both the private and public
sector. Respondents’ views suggested an artificial
market for project funding, where projects may
exist to support other projects, whilst some
produce material that is only, or mainly,
sustainable through grant funding.
“There is this handbook [about exploitation]
which is done in another European-funded
project”83
“You take the grant but then you work what
with what you have developed afterwards,
80
I6R14
81
I5R11
82
I1R01
83
I4R09

like we have developed two in-service
courses [LLP funded courses] and we had
run the first one for about six years”84
Sustainability outside of this domain is valued
however EU funding may itself exist as a symptom
of market failure, necessarily financing public-
value goods.
“If the services or products are compatible
on the real market, not on the artificial
market of project ideas and proposals, it
means the project is extremely successful
and sustainable”85
“Either they are funded publically or you
are not going to be able to get funding for
them”86
This leads us to argue that:
P15: projects are funded through an artificial
grant-funding market not based on private
consumer preferences but on public-value policy
objectives
and
P16: structures are present whereby projects can
exist to serve the needs of others within an
artificial grant-funding market
Within this artificial market project actors may
identify themselves professionally in terms of
European projects, communities and networks
because they work primarily within this domain,
and may be part of various projects implemented
through different partnerships.
“We write projects, more than one or two, as
much as possible for each call for
proposal”87
84
I8R19
85
I4R10
86
I5R11
87
I3R06
88
I8R19
“If you work with organisations for a long
time, like you have done the 2nd or 3rd or
whatever project, now something special
develops between those partners”88
Events organised in the framework of the funding
programme tend to target project actors as a
distinct group, rather than as part of wider thematic
networks.
“The EU values [dissemination
conferences] as very important, so we have
to do these things, but I don't think they are
very efficient [...] we were thousands of
people talking for 10 minutes presenting our
projects, and I don't remember any of
them”89
“You have dissemination events for
teaching, for vocational education, for
research and so on [attended by] project
coordinators and project members, and
people from [the EU]. I think they could also
invite some [thematic] networks […] in my
subject there are lots of technological
platforms, but they are never invited to these
events”90
It may be that this strengthens the organisational
goal of project participation, rather than focusing
on complementing non-project goals (P2
),
somewhat supported in the idea that projects self-
perpetuate, and can result in the generation of new
projects.
“Strengthening of the networks created
during the project […] to further develop the
results obtained in the projects, or possibly
discuss new ideas and collaboration”91
“We have two projects where the
sustainability works really well. They are
both in [the same field] because we have
created not only one project but also a
follow-up project”92
89
I6R14
90
I7R18
91
I2R04
92
I3R07

Accepting this, then:
P17: an artificial grant-funding market provides a
framework for organisations to establish
standard operational activities
However, respondents also identified intangible
capacity-building impacts from projects.
“Working on LLP projects and initiatives,
we increased our competence and our
awareness of sustaining the results of the
projects. The very real impact […] is to
make people working together from Europe.
Now if I make a phone call to Ireland or
Finland, there is someone that is on the line
[who knows me]”.93
“These people who are employed to carry
out the project together with us become
experts, and they can build up something for
the future […so] sustainability in terms of
personnel development […]it’s very
important to have a staff development
strategy”94
It follows, then, that:
P18: the LLP provided intangible long-term
impacts on project actors’ own staff and
organisational capacity
This section shows that funding body policies are
perceived as damaging to sustainability potential,
both in how they approach sustainability on a
practical level, and in how they allow the
perpetuation of non-sustainable projects through
an artificial grant-funding market, although the
LLP may serve as a general capacity building tool
for individual project actors and organisations.
5 DI S C U S S I O N
5.1 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The data shows project actors’ perceptions of
factors influencing sustainability, whilst revealing
other systemic processes, demonstrating how
issues interlink, exposing deeper concerns.
P2
indicates different motivations for project
participation – acquisition of projects and pursuit
of non-project goals - P3
shows projects can be
contractually successful even when planning is
artificial, and P4
links these premises suggesting a
direct positive relationship between using projects
to achieve broader organisational goals and
genuine pro-sustainability planning. The
conclusion of this is that organisations should
manage projects with goals that complement their
organisational objectives. This is supported
throughout the data from various perspectives.
Firstly, sustainability is difficult when the broader
organisation is not involved, limiting the
integration of project outputs into other activities
93
I6R14
(P1
). Where focus is on project acquisition,
organisations may neglect to acquire a
sufficiently-detailed understanding of the external
environment (contrary to P6
), or to sufficiently
interact with external actors (contrary to P9
).
Secondly, organisational ownership appears to
precede individual ownership, suggesting that
even with commitment from individual project
actors – which is deemed important - the ability to
integrate outputs into the organisations operational
objectives is important (P5
) .
P11
provides that meeting objectives of external
organisations can also encourage their ownership
of results, suggesting there may be little difference
between encouraging external organisational
ownership and encouraging internal (partner)
organisational ownership. This highlights the
relevance of project isolation within the
organisation (P1
) but also raises the question of
whether we can extend to the internal organisation
those factors deemed important to the external
environment, namely the need for detailed
94
I8R20

understanding (P6
) and systematic communication
(P9
) and encouraging individual connections to the
project and its outputs (P10
), ensuring that these
outputs meet professional standards and
expectations (P7
) and can be broadly applicable
(P8
).
This strengthens the conclusion that sustainability
requires understanding of the needs of those
required to facilitate sustainability, whether it be
the partner organisation or an external body.
Understanding these needs, and involving those
relevant parties (internal or external) outside of the
immediate project team during project
development may help to create projects with
sustainability potential by seeding ownership
outside of the project team.
In terms of the external programmatic
environment, there is a strong culture of blame-
shifting towards the funding body for
overwhelming bureaucracy (P12
) perceived policy-
incompatibilities (P13
), lack of support, and
unrealistic expectations (P14
). These concerns
may be valid, however they should not be so
crudely simplified.
On a practical level, bureaucratic demands may
distract project actors from sustainability work,
however this may reflect the problem of isolation
(P1
); if sustainability work could be shifted away
from project actors and towards operational staff
in the broader or external environment, then
project actors could focus on complicated
administrative processes, but whilst project actors
themselves retain stewardship of projects,
bureaucratic reporting will necessarily take
priority, if organisations wish to avoid negative
financial ramifications.
As such, the degree of bureaucracy experienced
may have effect of enabling and even encouraging
pragmatic, artificial planning through the
pervasive discourse of sustainability as necessity
rather than obligation, perhaps strengthened by
any the lack of support, incompatible policies and
unrealistic expectations identified by respondents.
The interview data suggests the existence of an
artificial market, limiting sustainability on the free
market (resulting fundamentally from market
failure) (P15
). Within this market organisations are
able to establish standard operational activities
(P17
), and may produce outputs to support the
needs of other projects within this market (P16
).
Taking into account P4
, that focusing purely on
project goals permits artificial, pragmatic planning
we may assume that organisations with this goal
are neglecting non-project objectives, however, if
the organisational objective is indeed to establish
standard operational activities within this market,
then the production of goods for this market
facilitates realignment between project
participation and non-project goals. Removal of
this artificial market would eliminate the
organisational goal. Whilst this supports the
argument that sustainable projects need to be
linked to long-term organisational goals, it may
also reflect policy failures on the part of the
funding body which essentially allow public funds
to be invested in the perpetuated acquisition of
more public funds with limited potential for the
mainstreaming of results outside of the funding
domain.
Whilst organisational goals remain propped up by
the funding body, there may be little incentive to
gear projects towards the pursuit of non-project-
based goals, limiting the extent to which
sustainability can be realistically built into, or
expected from, these projects.
However the revelation that the LLP may have
supported capacity-building in terms of European
exploitation and sustainability (P18
) presents the
view that it is not the outputs themselves that need
be the focus of sustainability, but rather the
intangible impacts on European cooperation and
coordination for those involved.
5.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The findings have implications for the
management of LLP projects, the
operationalization of the funding programme, and
for best practice under the Erasmus+ programme.
They show that project sustainability requires
commitment and resources to implement results
after the funding. Aligning project goals with
partner- or external organisations’ own goals,
rather than seeing project goals as independent
objectives, is instrumental in securing these
resources, encouraging project actors to approach
planning and implementation with a view to
sustainability, seeing pro-sustainability practices
such as needs analysis and stakeholder
involvement as opportunities rather than

bureaucratic hurdles. These efforts are essential
for the achievement both of project goals as
organisational goals and as public value goals, as
Bryson (2004) hypothesises “strategic
management processes that employ a reasonable
number of competently done stakeholder analyses
are more likely to be successful – that is, meet
mandates, fulfil missions and create public value –
than those that do not”.cxiii
Therefore project managers should align project
activities with long-term organisational goals,
focusing on building strong relationships with
those within their organisations or the external
environment whom may be able to integrate
results into their activities. Project teams should
avoid retaining complete ownership of projects,
but rather facilitating them within the organisation,
involving other on an operative basis, bridging
project and non-project activities, with a strong
view to providing strategic added-value.
The LLP appears to impose supposedly rational
policy processes on non-rational organisations.cxiv
Bureaucratic and conflicting demands encourage
pragmatic approaches to ensure contractual
fulfilment and financial remuneration,
exacerbating the principle-agent problem in which
“agents will seek ways to act in their own interests,
whatever contracts are written and whatever
monitoring is put in place”,cxv
creating hybrid
programmes attempting to satisfy all partiescxvi
,
and inhibiting pro-sustainability practices.
Although validity of this conclusion requires
verification, including from the perspectives of
those working in the funding body, factors such as
conflict between public-value policy demands and
expectations of mainstreaming along with the
evolution of a self-serving market for European
grant-funding appear to have further weakened
capacity and incentive to engage in genuine pro-
sustainability practices. Nonetheless, within this
artificial market, the evolution of a community of
‘Europeanised’ groups of sector professionals may
fulfil broader long-term policy objectives,
facilitating transnational cooperation and cohesion
and building capacity to work on a European level.
This highlights a need for the funding body to
provide better sustainability support for
organisations, with coherent, informed guidelines,
and finding ways to hold organisations
accountable for sustainable impacts. However
policy-makers should also reflect on the capacity-
building effects of projects and their contribution
to European strategy, building this into their
impact analyses. It is possible that problems faced
in sustainability are a symptom of Curtis’ (2004)
split between policy formation and
implementation; where projects are implemented
remote from the formulation of policy goals they
are intended to contribute to, the mental
frameworks underpinning the motivation and
rationale for acting are fundamentally different.cxvii
A critical analysis of policy-making processes at
the level of the funding-body would be necessary
to fully evaluate the material importance of
sustainability within decision-making frameworks
and in policy rhetoric, cxviii
and whether results are
fed back into the policy-making process.cxix
The findings have potential implications on how
the topic of project sustainability can be
approached. The data confirms many factors
raised by Savaya et al’s (2008) literature review,
however it departs from current discourse by
viewing project sustainability from a systems
perspective, highlighting the systemic interaction
between influencing factors rather than describing
them as independent processes.
These implications are based on empirically-
grounded hypotheses, not irrefutable theory.
Sustainability is complex and multifaceted.
Identified factors are perhaps neither sufficient nor
necessary conditions, but contribute to
sustainability in LLP projects. P5
indicates that
individual ownership may contribute to promoting
pro-sustainability practices, but without
organisational ownership, will be insufficient.
Individual ownership may influence
organisational ownership, although this would
depend on complex processes not addressed here.
Similarly, that bureaucratic demands or policy
incompatibilities present challenges for
sustainability does not mean that sustainability is
impossible, only that it is made more difficult -
there has been some degree of sustainability from
LLP-funded projectscxx
. This study does not test
each emerging factor for its respective impact, and
cannot determine the existence of sufficient or
necessary conditions.
The data reflects perceptions of a small number of
project actors (20), analysed through the
subjective interpretations of the researcher,
himself professionally active in the field of
enquiry, with his own biases and pre-conceived

views. Interview participants represented a
response rate of 7%. That respondents chose to
participate may reflect a response-bias in that they
were interested in project sustainability; indeed
some have strongly-formulated views and
opinions. Responses ranged from descriptive
accounts of their organisational procedures and
what they perceive to impact sustainability, to
critical self-reflection, acknowledging
deficiencies in their own approaches, and blame
allocation, presenting passionate arguments about
what they perceive to be wrong. This may not
reflect respondents’ “true attitude or
sentiment”,cxxi
and we should “recognise that
informants can and do hold conflicting [and]
varying sentiments”.cxxii
Indeed the relevance of
this topic for those anxious of their projects failing
on sustainability criteria [i.e. “it was extremely
unfair to analyse projects by this criteria, because
the project officer or manager of the programme
hasn’t set a standard […] and for sure you don’t
have specialists that are capable of offering a
help-desk”] may have prompted more emotional,
defensive responses than if no emotional
connection to the topic was present. It is clear,
although patterns emerged from across the data,
that due to the inability to pursue iterative
theoretical saturation it might be difficult to
determine exactly how the data reflects the various
values, attitudes, opinions or emotional reactions
of respondents.
This study has revealed policy-relevant processes
in a formally neglected research field, but further
research is needed to verify and build on the
results. The processes identified are not
unimportant, and a greater understanding of these
processes may have significant value to
researchers and policy makers in all fields relating
to grant-funded projects and projects with public-
value policy objectives.
6 CO N C L U S I O N S A N D RE C O M ME N D AT I O N S
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
This study has identified sustainability as central
to the success of the LLP as a policy instrument.
In contrast to existing project-focused literature,
this study viewed projects within a systems
framework, identifying factors – often confirming
those identified within the literature – but
revealing potential interconnectedness of factors
within and between different operating
environments.
This study found that aligning project goals with
long-term organisational objectives is instrumental
in securing the capacity and resources to plan and
implement projects sustainably and continue
delivering impacts. Policy and processes at the
level of the funding body do little to encourage
pro-sustainability practices, and may have made it
easy for organisations to avoid systematic output
mainstreaming.
This study highlights clear implications of this for
both organisations and the funding body, namely
that the integration of projects into long-term goals
and broader organisational involvement (internal
or external) in project development and
implementation should be explicitly encouraged,
and that better support should be offered to project
actors, with coherent, informed guidelines and
greater accountability. However, whilst the LLP
fails to promote long-term impact of project
outputs, it promotes the Europeanisation of sector
professionals, promoting and facilitating
transnational cooperation and cohesion and
building capacity of members of the European
workforce to work on a European level, which
itself contributes to longer-term European political
strategies.
The findings are useful for project actors, agency
project officers and policy-makers as they reveal
systemic processes occurring in the
implementation of the LLP. Increasing
competition for grant-funding requires
organisations to demonstrate attention to
sustainability. This study identifies strategies to
make project outputs more valuable for
organisations and for European policy goals. At
the same time, increasing attention to project
sustainability within European policy discourse
demands practicable evaluation criteria by which
to make cost-effective policy and funding
decisions.

Whilst these findings lack the concrete theoretical
foundations required to credibly influence
management and policy decisions, they provide a
starting point for verification through further
research and hopefully serve to sensitise the policy
and management research community to the
importance of the topic. Further research on the
policy-making process would also be helpful in
revealing why the LLP was selected as a means of
achieving policy, and the extent to which
sustainability played a role in this decision-making
process.
BI B L I O G RA P H Y
Ali, H., & Birley, S. (1999). Integrating deductive and inductive approaches in a study of new ventures and
customer perceived risk. Qualitative Market Research, 2(2), pp. 103-110.
Barriball, K. L., & White, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper.
Journal of Advanced Nursing(19), pp. 328-335.
Bienzle, H., Hedman, E., Kirtley, R., Purokuro, V., Rus, C., Wiesinger, S., & Wilen, E. (2010). Survival
Kit. Managing Multilateral Projects in the Lifelong Learning Programme. Vienna: die Berater
Unternehmensberatungs.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 19(13), pp. 3-10.
Bryson, J. (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter, in Public Management Review, 6, 1:26
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., & Ketley, D. (2005). No going back: a review of the literature on sustainining
organisational change. International Journal or Management Reviews, 7(3), pp. 189-205.
Centre for Financial and Management Studies, (2010). Unit 1: The Policy Analysis Model and Alternatives.
In C212: Public Policy and Strategy. SOAS, University of London
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
London: Sage.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P., (1972) A garbage can model or organisational choice,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,1. pp.1-25;
Council of the European Union, 2009. Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for
European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). 28th May 2009 (2009/C 119/02)
Curtis, D. (2004). How we think they think: thought styles in the management of international aid. Public
Administration and Development, 24, pp. 415-423.
Dean, J. P., & Whyte, W. F. (1978). How do you know if the informant is telling the truth? In J. Bynner, &
K. Stribley, Social Research: Principles and procedures. London: Longman Group UK Ltd in
association with The Open Univeristy Press.
Deshpande, R. (1983). Paradigms lost: on theory and method in research in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 47(Fall), pp. 101-110.
European Commission. Introduction to EU Funding. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/grants/introduction_en.htm. Last Accessed 27.8.14
European Communities. (2006). Sustainability of international cooperation projects in the field of higher
education and vocational training: Final Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
Fernandes, G., Ward, S., & Arajújo, M. (2013). Developing a Framework to Improve and Embed Project
Management Practices in Organisations”. Peocedia Technology(9), pp. 846-856.
Flynn, N. (2007) Public Sector Management, 5th Ed, London. Sage, p.128
Griffin, C. (2011). Policy and Lifelong Learning. In P. J. (ed), The Routledge International Handbook of
Lifelong Learning Oxon: Routledge. pp. 261-270
Halcomb, E. J., & Davidson, P. M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary?
Applied Nursing Research, 19, pp. 38-42.
Hogwood, B. W., and Gunn, L. A. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: OUP;
Ingle, M. D. (2005). Project Sustainability Manual: How to incorporate Sustainability into the Project Life
Cycle. Portland: Portland State University.

Jarvis, P. (2011). The European Union and Lifelong Learning Policy. In P. Jarvis, The Routledge
International Handbook of Lifelong Learning Oxon: Routledge pp. 271-280
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publicaions Inc.
Lapadat, J. C. (2000). Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradign and quality. Social Research
Methodologiy, 3(3), pp. 203-219.
Lloyd, R., Baginsky, M., & Puchwein, I. (2006). Sustainability Research: The Big Lottery Fund. London:.
London: Big Lottery Fund.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage.
McEllan, E., MacQueen, K. M., & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data preparation
and Transcription. Field Methods(15), pp. 63-84.
Morgan, G, (1997) Images of Organisations. London. Sage.
Noblit, G. W., & Dwight Hare, R. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Qualitative
Research Methods Series 11. London: Sage Publications.
Nutt, P. C. (2002) Chapter 3: Decision.Making Processes Prone to Success and Failure. Why Decisions
Fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San Francisco. Berrett-Koehler for
discussions on the policy-making process
Ouane, A. (2011). UNESCO's drive for Lifelong Learning. In P. Jarvis, The Routlege International
Handbook of Lifelong Learning Oxon: Routledge. pp. 302-311
Pitagorsky, G. (2011, January 26). Project Managers are Change Managers. Retrieved from
http://www.projecttimes.com/george-pitagorsky/project-managers-are-change-managers.html.
Last accessed 27.7.14
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK
guide (3. ed.). Pennsylvania: PMI Publications.
Public Policy and Management Institute. (2011). Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme
(2007-2013) Service Contract No. 2009-5173-PPMI. European Commission.
Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research Methods. London: Sage.
Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2001). What does organisational change mean? Speculations on a taken for
granted category. Management Accounting Research, 12, pp. 403-435.
Robson, C. (2002). Sampling in Surveys - and Elsewhere. In C. Robson, Real World Research Oxford:
Blackwell. pp. 260-268
Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective Interviewing: a Gruide to Theory & Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Sarriot, E., Ricca, J., Yourkavitch, J., Ryan, L., & SHOUT. (2008). Taking the Long View: A Practical
Guide to Sustainability Planning and Measurement in Community-Oriented Health
Programming. Calverton, MD: Macro International Inc.
Savaya, R., Spiro, S., & Elran-Barak, R. (2008). Sustainability of Social Programs: A Comparative Case
Study Analysis. American Journal of Evaluation (29), pp. 478-493.
Senior, B., & Swales, S. (2010). Organisational Change (4 ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Sequira, A. H., & Moharana, S. (2012). A Re-Look at Project Sustainability. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2111031 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2111031.
Sheier, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? American Journal of Evaluation, 26. 320-347
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach To
Successful Growth And Innovation. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
TANGO. (2009). Sustainability of rural development projects: Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD
in Asia. IFAD.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed Method Sampling: A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1, pp. 77-100.
Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results (2007) Planning and Budgeting:
Linking Policy, Planning and Budgeting – A background paper. Hanoi, Vietnam, 5-8 February
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45).
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative meta-synthesis:
reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health
Research(14), pp. 1342-1365.

Turner, M., & Hulme, D. (1997). Organisational Environments: Comparisons, Contrasts and Significance.
In M. Turner, & D. Hulme, Governance, Administration and Development. Baisingstole:
Macmillan. pp. 22-61
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing Language Boundaries: Qualitative Interviewing in International
Business. Management International Review, 46(4), pp. 417-437.
NOTES
i
Council of the European Union, 2009. Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for
European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). 28th
May 2009 (2009/C 119/02); Jarvis, P.,
2011. The European Union and Lifelong Learning Policy. In P. Jarvis, The Routledge International
Handbook of Lifelong Learning Oxon: Routledge. pp. 271-280
ii
Griffin, C., 2011. Policy and Lifelong Learning. In: The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong
Learning. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 261-270; Ouane, A., 2011. UNESCO's drive for Lifelong Learning. In:
The Routlege International Handbook of Lifelong Learning. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 302-311.
iii
The Lifelong Learning Programme ran from 2007-2013 and has now been succeeded by the programme
‘Erasmus+’, running from 2014-2020.
iv
http://ec.europa.eu/grants/introduction_en.htm (last accessed 27.8.14)
v
Public Policy and Management Institute, 2011
vi
Ibid:114
vii
Ibid:117
viii
Savaya, R., Spiro, S. & Elran-Barak, R., 2008. Sustainability of Social Programs: A Comparative Case
Study Analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, Issue 29, pp. 478
ix
Ingle, M. D., 2005. Project Sustainability Manual: How to incorporate Sustainability into the Project
Life Cycle.. Portland: Portland State University. §2-2
x
Ibid:421
xi
Sheier, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? American Journal of Evaluation, 26, pp. 320-347
xii
Sequira, A. H. & Moharana, S., 2012. A Re-Look at Project Sustainability, Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2111031 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2111031
xiii
Savaya et al, 2008, pp. 478
xiv
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L. & Ketley, D., 2005. No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining
organisational change. International Journal or Management Reviews, 7(3), pp. 189-205.
xv
European Communities, 2006. Sustainability of international cooperation projects in the field of higher
education and vocational training: Final Report., Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, p. edition notice
xvi
NHS Modernisation Agency, 2002 in Buchanan, Fitzgerald and Ketley, 2005, p. 190
xvii
Lloyd, R., Baginsky, M. & Puchwein, I., 2006. Sustainability Research: The Big Lottery Fund. London:,
London: Big Lottery Fund.
xviii
Sarriot et al (2008); Buchanan, Fitzgerald and Ketley (2005)
xix
Savaya et al, 2008, pp. 479-481
xx
Ibid:490
xxi
Ibid:491
xxii
Sarriot et al, 2008
xxiii
Turner, M. & Hulme, D., 1997. Organisational Environments: Comparisons, Contrasts and
Significance. In: Governance, Administration and Development. Baisingstole: Macmillan, p.22
xxiv
Buchanen et al, 2005
xxv
Senior, B. & Swales, S., 2010. Organisational Change. 4 ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; Quattrone, P.
& Hopper, T., 2001. What does organisational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category.
Management Accounting Research, Volume 12, pp. 03-435
xxvi
Project Management Institute, 2004. A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Third
edition. Pennsylvania: PMI Publications, p. 5

xxvii
Sarriot et al, 2008, p.20
xxviii
Pitagorsky, 2011 ‘Project Managers are Change Managers’. http://www.projecttimes.com/george-
pitagorsky/project-managers-are-change-managers.html. Last accessed 27.8.14
xxix
Savaya et al, 2008, p.481
xxx
Ali, H., & Birley, S. (1999). Integrating deductive and inductive approaches in a study of new ventures
and customer perceived risk. Qualitative Market Research, 2(2), pp. 103-110.
xxxi
Morgan, G, 1997. Images of Organisations. London. Sage.
xxxii
Shenhar, A. J. & Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach To
Successful Growth And Innovation. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press, p.222
xxxiii
Noblit, G. W. & Dwight Hare, R., 1988. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies.
Qualitative Research Methods Series 11. London: Sage Publications.
xxxiv
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M, 2004. Qualitative meta-
synthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research
(14), pp. 1342-1365.
xxxv
Thomas, J. & Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45).
xxxvi
Thorne et al, 2004, p. 1358
xxxvii
Buchanan, Fitzgerald, & Ketley, 2005, p.192
xxxviii
Ingle, 2005; Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006; TANGO, 2009. Sustainability of rural
development projects: Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD in Asia: IFAD; Sarriot et al, 2008;
Savaya et al, 2008; Bienzle, H. et al., 2010. Survival Kit. Managing Multilateral Projects in the Lifelong
Learning Programme. Vienna: die Berater Unternehmensberatungs
xxxix
European Communities, 2006; Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006
xl
Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008; European Communities, 2006; Ingle, 2005
xli
Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006; TANGO, 2009
xlii
Ingle, 2005; Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006
xliii
Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006
xliv
Sarriot et al, 2008
xlv
Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006; Ingle, 2005; TANGO, 2009
xlvi
Ingle, 2005; TANGO, 2009; European Communities, 2006
xlvii
TANGO, 2009
xlviii
Ingle, 2005
xlix
Ingle, 2005; European Communities, 2006
l
Bienzle et al., 2010
li
Ingle, 2005; TANGO, 2009
lii
TANGO, 2009
liii
Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008
liv
Sarriot et al, 2008
lv
TANGO, 2009
lvi
Sarriot et al 2008; Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008
lvii
Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006
lviii
Ingle, 2005; Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008; Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006
lix
Ingle, 2005
lx
lxi
European Communities, 2006
lxii
lxiii
Ingle, 2005; Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006; Tango, 2009; Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008;
Bienzle et al., 2010, Sarriot et al 2009; European Communities, 2006
lxiv
Bienzle et al, 2010
lxv
Ingle, 2005; Lloyd, Baginsky and Puchwein, 2006; Tango, 2009; Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008;
Sarriot et al 2008

lxvi
lxvii
TANGO, 2009
lxviii
TANGO, 2009; Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006; Savaya, Spiro, & Elran-Barak, 2008
lxix
TANGO, 2009
lxx
Ibid
lxxi
Ibid
lxxii
Ingle, 2005; Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006; Bienzle, et al., 2010; Sarriot et al 2008; European
Communities, 2006
lxxiii
Ingle, 2005
lxxiv
lxxv
Lloyd, Baginsky, and Puchwein, 2006; European Communities, 2006
lxxvi
lxxvii
Ibid
lxxviii
Ibid
lxxix
Ibid
lxxx
Public Policy and Management Institute, 2011
lxxxi
Blumer, H., 1954. What is wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 19(13), pp. 3-10.
lxxxii
Ali & Birley, 1999
lxxxiii
Fernandes, G., Ward, S. & Arajújo, M., 2013. Developing a Framework to Improve and Embed Project
Management Practices in Organisations”. Peocedia Technology, Issue 9, pp. 846-856
lxxxiv
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
London: Sage
lxxxv
Senior & Swales, 2010, p. 5
lxxxvi
Senior & Swales, 2010, pp. 14-15.
lxxxvii
Senior & Swales, 2010, p. 14-15
lxxxviii
Locke, K., 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage.
lxxxix
Punch, K. F., 1998. Introduction to Social Research Methods. London: Sage.
xc
Halcomb, E. J., & Davidson, P. M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary?
Applied Nursing Research, 19, p.39
xci
see, for example, the issue of meaning and linguistic diversity, §3.2.4
xcii
Deshpande, R., 1983. Paradigms lost: on theory and method in research in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 47(Fall), pp. 101-110
xciii
Ali & Birley, 1999
xciv
Blumer, 1954 in Charmaz, 2006, p. 16
xcv
Charmaz, 2006, p. 17
xcvi
Fernandes, Ward, & Arajújo, 2013
xcvii
Teddie, C. & Yu, F., 2007. Mixed Method Sampling: A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Volume 1, pp. 77-100; Robson, C., 2002. Sampling in Surveys - and Elsewhere. In:
Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 260-268.
xcviii
Robson, 2002:265
xcix
Teddlie & Yu, 2007, p. 82
c
Teddlie & Yu, 2007
ci
Barriball, K. L. & White, A., 1994. Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Issue 19, pp. 329-330
cii
Roulston, K., 2010. Reflective Interviewing: a Gruide to Theory & Practice. London: Sage Publications.
ciii
Lapadat, J. C., 2000. Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradign and quality. Social Research
Methodologiy, 3(3), p. 210
civ
Lapadat, 2000
cv
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc, p. 163
cvi
Halcomb & Davidson, 2006

cvii
McEllan, E., MacQueen, K. M. & Neidig, J. L., 2003. Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data
preparation and Transcription. Field Methods, Issue 15, p. 67
cviii
Welch, C. & Piekkari, R., 2006. Crossing Language Boundaries: Qualitative Interviewing in
International Business. Management International Review, 46(4), p. 418
cix
Tsang, 1998 in Welch & Piekkari, 2006, p. 422
cx
Welch and PIekkari, 2006
cxi
Ibid, p. 428
cxii
Interviews were conducted with 21 people. One respondent left the teleconference abruptly due to
technical difficulties having provided only superficial descriptive accounts of sustainability that could not
be probed further. These responses were not considered in the analysis, leaving a total of 20 respondents in
the final dataset.
cxiii
Bryson, J, 2004, What to do when stakeholders matter, in Public Management Review, 6, 1:26
cxiv
Centre for Financial and Management Studies, 2010. Unit 1: The Policy Analysis Model and
Alternatives. In C212: Public Policy and Strategy. SOAS, University of London
cxv
Flynn, N. 2007. Public Sector Management, 5th Ed, London. Sage:128
cxvi
Curtis, D. 2004. How we think they think: thought styles in the management of international aid. Public
Administration and Development, 24, pp. 415-423.
cxvii
Curtis, 2004
cxviii
See for example Hogwood, B. W., and L. A. Gunn, 1984. Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford:
OUP; Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P., 1972. A garbage can model or organisational choice,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,1:1-25; or Nutt, P. C., 2002. Chapter 3: Decision.Making Processes
Prone to Success and Failure. Why Decisions Fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles.
San Francisco. Berrett-Koehler for discussions on the policy-making process
cxix
Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results, 2007. Planning and Budgeting:
Linking Policy, Planning and Budgeting – A background paper. Hanoi, Vietnam, 5-8 February.
cxx
For example the European Computer Driving License (EDCL), flagged by the funding agency as best
practice in sustainability
cxxi
Dean, J. P., & Whyte, W. F. (1978). How do you know if the informant is telling the truth? In J. Bynner,
& K. Stribley, Social Research: Principles and procedures. London: Longman Group UK Ltd in
association with The Open Univeristy Press, p. 188
cxxii
Ibid

Achieving Sustainable Impacts European Lifelong Learning Projects

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Achieving Sustainable Impacts European Lifelong Learning Projects

Similar to Achieving Sustainable Impacts European Lifelong Learning Projects (20)

Achieving Sustainable Impacts European Lifelong Learning Projects