An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In comparing existing conceptual frameworks, the authors found expected overlap and considerable variation.

“In comparing these frameworks, we found expected overlap and considerable variation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The system context generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the collaboration at the outset and over time.

“This system context generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the collaboration at the outset and over time.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The framework separates contextual variables from essential drivers, without which the impetus for collaboration would not successfully unfold.

“In contrast, our framework separates the contextual variables from essential drivers, without which the impetus for collaboration would not successfully unfold.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The authors' definition can be applied to or used to inform participatory governance and civic engagement.

“Finally, it can also be applied to or used to inform participatory governance and civic engagement, although we recognize that the extent of involvement by citizens and the public in collaborative governance can vary considerably.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The form and direction of the CGR is shaped initially by the drivers that emerge from the system context.

“The form and direction of the CGR is shaped initially by the drivers that emerge from the system context; however, the development of the CGR, as well as the degree to which it is effective, is influenced over time by its two components: collaborative dynamics and collaborative actions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The authors' definition does not limit collaborative governance to formal, state-initiated arrangements and engagement between government and nongovernmental stakeholders.

“Unlike the Ansell and Gash definition, our definition does not limit collaborative governance to only formal, state-initiated arrangements, and to engagement between government and nongovernmental stakeholders.”

• cites Ansell and Gash 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The system context is represented not as a set of starting conditions but as a surrounding three-dimensional space because external conditions may influence the dynamics and performance of collaboration at any time during the life of the CGR.

“The system context is represented in this framework, not as a set of starting conditions but as a surrounding three-dimensional space because external conditions (e.g., an election, economic downturn, extreme weather event, or newly enacted regulation) may influence the dynamics and performance of collaboration not only at the outset but at any time during the life of the CGR, thus opening up new”

May combine two claims.

The essential drivers include leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.

“These drivers include leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The three components of collaborative dynamics work together in an interactive and iterative way to produce collaborative actions.

“The three components of collaborative dynamics work together in an interactive and iterative way to produce collaborative actions or the steps taken in order to implement the shared purpose of the CGR.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Collaborative dynamics consist of three interactive components: principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action.

“Collaborative dynamics, represented by the innermost box with dotted lines, consist of three interactive components: principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Through principled engagement, people with differing content, relational, and identity goals work across their respective institutional, sectoral, or jurisdictional boundaries to solve problems, resolve conflicts, or create value.

“Through principled engagement, people with differing content, relational, and identity goals work across their respective institutional, sectoral, or jurisdictional boundaries to solve problems, resolve conflicts, or create value (Cahn 1994;Cupach and Canary 1997;Lulofs and Cahn 2000).”

• cites Cahn 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Cupach and Canary 1997Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Lulofs and Cahn 2000Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

From the system context emerge drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR.

“From this system context emerge drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The dynamics and actions they produce over time constitute a CGR.

“These dynamics and the actions they produce over time constitute a CGR.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The authors' definition of collaborative governance is broader than the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008).

“our definition of collaborative governance is broader than what is commonly seen in the literature”

• Also stated in: § DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS · plain

  “Thus, it is broader than the definition proposed by Ansell and Gash (2008, 544)”

• cites Ansell and Gash 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Essential drivers energize or induce the convening of participants by reducing the initial formative costs of collective action and setting the collaborative dynamics in motion.

“Essential drivers energize or induce the convening of participants by reducing the initial formative costs of collective action and setting the collaborative dynamics in motion.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The development of the CGR, as well as the degree to which it is effective, is influenced over time by its two components: collaborative dynamics and collaborative actions.

“The form and direction of the CGR is shaped initially by the drivers that emerge from the system context; however, the development of the CGR, as well as the degree to which it is effective, is influenced over time by its two components: collaborative dynamics and collaborative actions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The variations among existing frameworks stem, in part, from the different research traditions, policy arenas, and scales in which these scholars work.

“The variations stem, in part, from the different research traditions, policy arenas, and scales in which these scholars work.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Individual uncertainty can exist about the extent to which conventional avenues for solutions or satisfaction can be relied on to produce the intended result.

“There can also be individual uncertainty about the extent to which conventional avenues for solutions or satisfaction (sometimes referred to as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement in conflict management literature) can be relied on to produce the intended result.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Collaborative dynamics and actions shape the overall quality and extent to which a CGR is developed and effective.

“Together, collaborative dynamics and actions shape the overall quality and extent to which a CGR is developed and effective.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The actions of the CGR can lead to outcomes both within and external to the regime, including impacts and potential adaptation.

“The actions of the CGR can lead to outcomes both within and external to the regime; thus, in the figure, arrows extend from the action box to demonstrate impacts (i.e., the results on the ground) and potential adaptation (the transformation of a complex situation or issue) both within the system context and the CGR itself.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The authors' definition encompasses multipartner governance, joined-up government, hybrid arrangements, community-based collaboratives, and intergovernmental collaborative structures.

“For example, our definition encompasses ''multipartner governance,'' which can include partnerships among the state, the private sector, civil society, and the community, as well as joined-up government and hybrid arrangements such as public-private and private-social partnerships and co-management regimes (Agrawal and Lemos 2007).”

• cites Agrawal and Lemos 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The framework's drivers account for why collaboration might emerge, but they do not yet account for how particular drivers shape the nature of the regime differently, or whether and how they keep sustaining it as it evolves.

“For example, the drivers identified in the framework explain why collaboration might emerge but do not yet explain how specific drivers might affect the nature of the CGR differently or if and how the drivers continue to sustain the CGR as it evolves over time.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

For practice, the framework gives public managers and collaboration and conflict resolution practitioners a conceptual map for navigating the dimensions, components, and elements of collaborative governance.

“In terms of practice, the framework offers public managers and collaboration and conflict resolution practitioners a conceptual map by which to navigate the various dimensions, components, and elements of collaborative governance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Recognizing that a collaborative governance regime is likely, even expected, to adapt over time enables the creation of innovative learning systems for government and reflective practice.

“Finally, understanding that a CGR is likely, if not expected, to adapt over time further enables the development of innovative learning systems for government and reflective practice (Argyris and Schon 1974;Schon 1971).”

• cites Argyris and Schon 1974Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Schon 1971Not checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The regime is shaped by surrounding conditions and started by particular drivers, and it generates impacts on those surrounding conditions, on the regime itself, and on its collaborative dynamics.

“The regime is influenced by surrounding conditions and initiated by specific drivers, and the regime produces impacts affecting those surrounding conditions, as well as the regime itself and its collaborative dynamics.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Because the framework is generic, it should make it possible to compare collaborative governance regimes across differing system contexts and policy arenas.

“At the most basic level, the generic nature of the framework should enable comparative analyses of CGRs across different system contexts and policy arenas.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Table 1 offers a way to treat the integrative framework as a logic model for testing intermediate outputs (actions) and end outcomes (impacts and adaptation) and as a basis for case and performance evaluation in program management.

“For example, table 1 suggests a way in which to view the integrative framework as a logic model that can be used to test intermediate outputs (actions) and end outcomes (impacts and adaptation) and become the basis for case evaluation and performance evaluation for program management (Thomas and Koontz, 2011).”

• cites Thomas and Koontz, 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Inclusion and diversity are valued not only as normative organizing principles but also for instrumental reasons-they give voice to multiple perspectives and different interests, allowing the development of more thoughtful decisions that take a broader view of who will benefit or be harmed by an action.

“Inclusion and diversity are valued not only as normative organizing principles but also for instrumental reasons-they give voice to multiple perspectives and different interests, allowing the development of more thoughtful decisions that take a broader view of who will benefit or be harmed by an action (Beierle and Cayford 2002;Sirianni 2009).”

• cites Beierle and Cayford 2002Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Sirianni 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The framework lays out the components of the collaborative governance regime so as to combine many factors from prior research into an operational system and to propose both broad and quite specific causal links.

“Second, the framework specifies the components of the CGR in a way that integrates a range of factors identified in research into an operational system and suggests some general and very specific causal linkages.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The framework treats collaborative governance as an emergent system, a new type of regime for governing across boundaries, and examines it broadly.

“First, it examines collaborative governance broadly and treats it as an emergent system, a new kind of regime for cross-boundary governance.”

May combine two claims.

Through this iterative process, collaboration partners develop a shared sense of purpose and a shared theory of action for achieving that purpose.

“Through this iterative process, collaboration partners develop a shared sense of purpose and a shared theory of action for achieving that purpose.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The framework covers a broader set of collaborative initiatives than other definitions do, and reaches past the usual public-sector and public-manager focus to include collaboratives started in the public, private, and civic sectors.

“In doing so, it encompasses a wider range of collaborative initiatives than other definitions and extends beyond the typical focus on the public sector and the public manager to include the myriad of collaboratives initiated in the public, private, and civic sectors.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Collaborative governance is drawing considerable attention as a new paradigm in public administration and is the subject of a growing body of books, articles, and monographs.

“There can be little argument that the notion of collaborative governance is attracting considerable attention as a new paradigm in public administration.”

• Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain

  “It is the subject of a growing number of books, articles, and monographs.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The study of collaborative governance lacks conceptual clarity and consistency, notwithstanding the term's popularity in research and claims of its widespread practical use.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Principled engagement is produced and maintained through the interplay of discovery, definition, deliberation, and determination.

“Proposition Two: Principled engagement is generated and sustained by the interactive processes of discovery, definition, deliberation, and determination.”

• Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain

  “We posit that the principled engagement is generated and sustained by these four elements”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

A collaborative governance regime is unlikely to persist without at least one, or some combination, of the other drivers: consequential incentives, interdependence, and/or uncertainty.

“However, without at least one or some combination of the other drivers (consequential incentives, interdependence, and/or uncertainty), a CGR is unlikely to continue.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Articulating targeted outcomes and jointly producing a shared theory of action and criteria for assessing effective outcomes can help participants sharpen their focus.

“Working to articulate the targeted outcomes and coproduce a shared theory of action to affect those outcomes and the criteria by which to assess effective outcomes can enable participants to sharpen their sights and their pencils.”

May combine two claims.

Collaborative governance both requires and cultivates multiple opportunities and roles for leadership.

“Moreover, collaborative governance demands and cultivates multiple opportunities and roles for leadership (Agranoff and McGuire 2003;Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).”

• cites Agranoff and McGuire 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

At least one of four drivers-leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty-must be present for a collaborative governance regime to begin, and the likelihood of initiation rises with the number of drivers present.

“We propose that one or more of these four drivers must be present to start a CGR and that the presence of more drivers increases the likelihood that such a regime will be initiated (Proposition 1).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The four drivers—leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty—are the relevant drivers that generate energy for initiating a collaborative governance regime.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The integrative framework can be put to useful work at different scales, in varied policy arenas, and at differing levels of complexity.

“Moreover, we believe that the integrative framework can be applied usefully at different scales, in diverse policy arenas, and various levels of complexity.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The framework's depth, running from dimensions down to individual elements, suits thick description in single or comparative case studies.

“The depth of the framework, from the dimensions to individual elements, lends itself to thick description in individual or comparative case studies.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Drawing attention to the elements within principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action can foster a shared view of needed strategic directions and of progress so far.

“Drawing attention to the elements within principled engagement, shared motivation, and the capacity for joint action can stimulate a shared perspective on needed strategic directions and on progress made to date.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Leadership is an essential driver: without it, collaborative regimes would not be initiated.

“Our preliminary thought on this is that leadership is an essential driver, without which collaborative regimes would not be initiated.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The framework does not imply that every component and element is always necessary, or necessary at the same quality or to the same degree.

“Moreover, although the framework encompasses many interactive components and elements, we do not mean to suggest that all are necessary all the time or at the same level of quality or to the same extent.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The set of drivers gives useful considerations for deciding whether and when to invest in a collaborative governance regime.

“The set of drivers provide useful considerations for deciding whether and when to invest in a CGR.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The framework surpasses others by separating actions from impacts and by following the possible adaptation of both the system context and the regime.

“Finally, the framework goes beyond others in distinguishing actions from impacts and tracing the potential for adaptation of the system context and the CGR itself.”

May combine two claims.

Increasing diversity in participation may have undesired consequences, such as generating higher levels of conflict and eroding principled engagement.

“It should be noted that increasing diversity in participation may have undesired consequences as well.In some situations, more diversity can generate higher levels of conflict and erode principled engagement, whereas in other situations, less diversity can lead to different, though not necessarily inferior actions and accomplishments (Korfmacher 2000;Schlager and Blomquist 2008;Steelman and Carmin”

• cites Korfmacher 2000 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Schlager and Blomquist 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Steelman and Carmin 2002Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The framework places the collaborative governance regime within the wider context with which it interacts.

“Third, the framework also situates the CGR in the broader context with which it interacts.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The framework's breadth allows researchers to collect more consistent indicator data from many cases in order to test propositions or hypotheses about the components, their elements, and their interactions.

“The breadth of the framework enables efforts to gather more consistent data on a range of indicators from a large set of cases to test the propositions or specific hypotheses relating to the components, their elements, and their interactions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The integrative framework presented here is an improvement on prior frameworks for collaborative governance in multiple respects.

“Nevertheless, the framework itself improves upon existing frameworks for collaborative governance in several ways.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The propositions drawn from the framework start to construct a general predictive theory of collaborative governance via an instrumental systems approach, rather than a prescriptive theory resting on normative assumptions.

“The propositions derived from the framework begin to build a general predictive theory for collaborative governance through an instrumental systems approach, as opposed to a prescriptive theory based on normative assumptions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Compared with frameworks that merely acknowledge collaboration's iterative and dynamic character, this framework incorporates that character more explicitly into its structure.

“Although several frameworks acknowledge the iterative and dynamic nature of collaboration, this framework more explicitly builds that vibrant nature into its construction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Making the collaborative dynamics dimension explicit with participants from the start can help codesign the most effective and appropriate regime.

“Making the collaborative dynamics dimension explicit with participants at the outset can assist with the codesign of the most effective and appropriate CGR.”

May combine two claims.

Power can be treated as a resource, and like other resources it is almost always distributed unevenly among participants.

“Power can also be viewed as a resource and, like other resources, is almost always distributed unevenly across participants (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006;Huxham and Vangen 2005).”

• cites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Huxham and Vangen 2005Not checked — no full text of the source