The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Abstract
Collaborative governance draws from diverse realms of practice and research in public administration. This article synthesizes and extends a suite of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and practice-based knowledge into an integrative framework for collaborative governance. The framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or programbased intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collection action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration. It is presented as a general framework that might be applied to analyses at different scales, in different policy arenas, and varying levels of complexity. The article also offers 10 propositions about the dynamic interactions among components within the framework and concludes with a discussion about the implications of the framework for theory, research, evaluation, and practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
65 Own interpretation · 10 No full text of the sources · 7 Not checked yet · 4 Sources not found · 2 Own result · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The final driver, uncertainty, is a primary challenge for managing ''wicked'' societal problems (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004;Rittel and Webber 1973).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Koppenjan and Klijn 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Rittel and Webber 1973 source
Section 1 says wicked problems cannot be definitively formulated because the information needed depends on the proposed solution. Section 4 adds that their full consequences cannot be assessed in advance. Together, these passages support uncertainty as a central challenge in addressing wicked societal problems. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another common challenge we encountered with these frameworks is a lack of generalizability, that is, their inapplicability across different settings, sectors, geographic and temporal scales, policy arenas, and process mechanisms.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition One: One or more of the drivers of leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, or uncertainty are necessary for a CGR to begin.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interdependence, or when individuals and organizations are unable to accomplish something on their own, is a broadly recognized precondition for collaborative action (Gray 1989;Thomson and Perry 2006).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gray 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomson and Perry 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collective uncertainty about how to manage societal problems is also related to the driver of interdependence.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uncertainty that cannot be resolved internally can drive groups to collaborate in order to reduce, diffuse, and share risk.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This external system context creates opportunities and constraints and influences the general parameters within which a CGR unfolds.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > General System Context
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, such incentives (positive or negative) must exist to induce leaders and participants to engage together.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more drivers present and recognized by participants, the more likely a CGR will be initiated.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In contrast, and consistent with Ansell and Gash (2008) and Thomson and Perry (2006), we view the stages within collaborative dynamics as cyclical or iterative interactions.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 47
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparing these frameworks, we found expected overlap and considerable variation.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This system context generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the collaboration at the outset and over time.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our framework separates the contextual variables from essential drivers, without which the impetus for collaboration would not successfully unfold.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Governance Regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ansell and Gash 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > General System Context
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These drivers include leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collaborative dynamics, represented by the innermost box with dotted lines, consist of three interactive components: principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cahn 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cupach and Canary 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lulofs and Cahn 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this system context emerge drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These dynamics and the actions they produce over time constitute a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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)”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ansell and Gash 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Dynamics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Collaborative Governance Regime
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variations stem, in part, from the different research traditions, policy arenas, and scales in which these scholars work.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Drivers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, collaborative dynamics and actions shape the overall quality and extent to which a CGR is developed and effective.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE: SCOPE AND ORIGINS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agrawal and Lemos 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Argyris and Schon 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schon 1971
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the most basic level, the generic nature of the framework should enable comparative analyses of CGRs across different system contexts and policy arenas.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas and Koontz, 2011 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Beierle and Cayford 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sirianni 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, it examines collaborative governance broadly and treats it as an emergent system, a new kind of regime for cross-boundary governance.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through this iterative process, collaboration partners develop a shared sense of purpose and a shared theory of action for achieving that purpose.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests 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.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, without at least one or some combination of the other drivers (consequential incentives, interdependence, and/or uncertainty), a CGR is unlikely to continue.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, collaborative governance demands and cultivates multiple opportunities and roles for leadership (Agranoff and McGuire 2003;Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Capacity for Joint Action
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Agranoff and McGuire 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests 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.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we believe that the integrative framework can be applied usefully at different scales, in diverse policy arenas, and various levels of complexity.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The depth of the framework, from the dimensions to individual elements, lends itself to thick description in individual or comparative case studies.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our preliminary thought on this is that leadership is an essential driver, without which collaborative regimes would not be initiated.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set of drivers provide useful considerations for deciding whether and when to invest in a CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Principled Engagement
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the framework also situates the CGR in the broader context with which it interacts.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the framework itself improves upon existing frameworks for collaborative governance in several ways.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although several frameworks acknowledge the iterative and dynamic nature of collaboration, this framework more explicitly builds that vibrant nature into its construction.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making the collaborative dynamics dimension explicit with participants at the outset can assist with the codesign of the most effective and appropriate CGR.”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance > Capacity for Joint Action
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huxham and Vangen 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The definition of collaborative governance in the public administration literature remains amorphous and its use inconsistent.
“Collaborative governance has become a common term in the public administration literature, yet its definition remains amorphous and its use inconsistent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The variation in the scope and scale of perspectives on collaborative governance restricts researchers' ability to develop and test theory.
“Moreover, the variation in the scope and scale of perspectives on collaborative governance restricts the ability of researchers to further develop and test theory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four drivers—leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty—are the relevant drivers that generate energy for initiating a collaborative governance regime.
“Emerging from this system context are drivers, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Shared motivation consists of four elements: mutual trust, understanding, internal legitimacy, and commitment.
“We define shared motivation as a self-reinforcing cycle consisting of four elements: mutual trust, understanding, internal legitimacy, and commitment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Capacity for joint action consists of four necessary elements: procedural and institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources.
“In our framework, capacity for joint action is conceptualized as the combination of four necessary elements: procedural and institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-boundary engagement must generate returns for partners to justify their continued involvement to their own organizations and constituents.
“because cross-boundary engagement must generate ''returns'' for partners to justify their continued involvement to their own organizations and constituents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If needed changes are not made, the low costs of exiting the regime will lead to low participation or departure.
“If needed changes are not made, the low costs of exiting the regime will lead to low participation or departure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The purpose of collaboration is to generate desired outcomes together that could not be accomplished separately.
“The purpose of collaboration is to generate desired outcomes together that could not be accomplished separately.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study of collaborative governance lacks conceptual clarity and consistency, notwithstanding the term's popularity in research and claims of its widespread practical use.
“Despite the popularity of the term in research, and claims of its wide-spread use in practice, the study of collaborative governance continues to suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity and consistency.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, institutional mechanisms need to be calibrated to facilitate appropriate and accountable collaborative governance of public, civic, and private entities connected through algorithmic decision-making (cf.Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ICT remains peripheral in foundational collaborative governance frameworks despite its potential, revealing a critical conceptual gap in understanding its role.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Mainstream collaborative governance literature places significant emphasis on face-to-face communication as the foundation of trust-building and collaboration.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In their model, ICT is a contextual influence and not part of the inner workings of collaboration.”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al. (2012)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Trust among participants is a core element of successful governance arrangement (Emerson et al., 2012).”
From Redefining Collaborative Governance in the Digital Age: insights from an integrative systematic review on the role of ICT in collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as Emerson et al., 2012
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,723
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
Coleman, J. S. (1988) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228943 · Cited by 26,975
Kytle, J., & Bandura, A. (1978) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2065952 · Cited by 25,422
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
Coleman, J. S. (2000) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7222-1.50005-2 · Cited by 21,751
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Field, B. C., & Elinor Ostrom, B. (1992) · Land Economics · doi:10.2307/3146384 · Cited by 19,100
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-6408 · Cited by 14,338
Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital
Putnam, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 · Cited by 14,037
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400820740 · Cited by 12,946
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 2007, Environment, 49, 36
- 1992, MEASUREMENT AND EDUCATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT, 25, 58
- 2009, OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION, 24, 1
- 1973, ORI RESEARCH BULLETIN, 13, 1
- 2002, VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL, 21, 189
- 2000, American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 548
- 2001, Journal of the Power Division, 127, 378
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 1
- 1995, JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY, 6, 65
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 159
- 2006, Public administration review, 66, 20
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,201–1,300 of 3,564
Governance Arrangements of Cross-Sector Collaboration and Its Effectiveness
Bauer, Z., AbouAssi, K., & Johnston, J. M. (2022) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08997640221100705 · Cited by 9
“The form and direction of collaborations are shaped by certain drivers (e.g., leadership, interdependence, uncertainty, requirements, and needs for resources; see Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2015; Suárez & Esparza, 2015) and barriers (e.”
BackgroundInfluentialBaek, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Urban Sciences · doi:10.1080/12265934.2021.1879663 · Cited by 11
“Eventually, the leaders can conduct 344 Y. BAEK AND Y. ZHANG architectural and technical works, which accord with both the residents’ requirements and the design guidelines.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialNordjo, E., Ahenkan, A., Okbandrias, M. A., Boadu, E. S., Boon, E. K., Otchere‐Ankrah, B., Knoblich, R., & Kwawu, G. (2025) · Public Administration and Development · doi:10.1002/pad.2106 · Cited by 9
Management control practices in interorganizational initiatives: The case of a public program
Barretta, A. D., & Noto, G. (2022) · Financial Accountability and Management · doi:10.1111/faam.12349 · Cited by 12
Senecah, S. L. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2023.2238126 · Cited by 9
“…concluded that “ The strongest effect on the environmental standard of governance outputs was observed for the degree of power delegated to participants to shape the output ” , that is, taking participants seriously as agents in decisions (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Jager et al. 2020).”
BackgroundWu, H., Lu, Y., Zhou, C., et al. (2025) · Water Economics and Policy · doi:10.1142/s2382624x25400119 · Cited by 9
Ilmu Administrasi Negara, F. I. S. D. I. P., Umar, A., Burhanuddin, B., et al. (2019) · Matra Pembaruan · doi:10.21787/mp.3.1.2019.57-66 · Cited by 9
Bingham, L. B., & Vieilledent, T. (2021) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab007 · Cited by 10
Kasimba, S. A., & Lujala, P. (2021) · Community Development Journal · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsab021 · Cited by 9
State business relations and innovation in the MENA region
Sabry, M. I. (2018) · Middle East Development Journal · doi:10.1080/17938120.2018.1520003 · Cited by 9
Axelsson, L., & Pettersson, N. (2021) · Environment and Planning C Politics and Space · doi:10.1177/23996544211043523 · Cited by 9
Gesso, C. D., & Romagnoli, L. (2020) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v15n2p1 · Cited by 9
“More in general, providing information about performance for citizens – as well as to all stakeholders – can encourage collaborative governance through the constructive engagement of people in public policy decision making and management (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundCollaborative freshwater planning: changing roles for science and scientists
Berkett, N., Fenemor, A., Newton, M., et al. (2018) · Australasian Journal of Water Resources · doi:10.1080/13241583.2018.1465246 · Cited by 9
“…governance, co-management and collaborative planning as participatory approaches to decision-making that may achieve more robust and more democratic outcomes than approaches based on consultation (see e.g. Ansell and Gash 2007, Innes and Booher 2010; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundPlanning in Democratizing River Basins: The Case for a Co-Productive Model of Decision Making
Foran, T., Penton, D., Ketelsen, T., Barbour, E., Grigg, N., Shrestha, M., Lebel, L., Ojha, H. R., Almeida, A. C., & Lazarow, N. (2019) · Water · doi:10.3390/w11122480 · Cited by 8
“[49] describe collaborative governance as working via three processes, which may interact in a virtuous cycle over time.”
BackgroundLiu, R., & Fan, B. (2022) · Journal of Chinese Governance · doi:10.1080/23812346.2022.2131988 · Cited by 8
Hajnal, G., & Jeziorska, I. (2021) · Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.24193/tras.62e.4 · Cited by 8
Performance Information Use in a Purpose-Oriented Network: A Relational Perspective
Nakashima, M. (2022) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muac039 · Cited by 8
Chow, J., Du, C. D., & Wu, X. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2022.2044297 · Cited by 8
“Others have noted that uncertainty has been an important motivation for collaborative governance (Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).”
BackgroundConflict: The Missing Ingredient for Sustainability in Complex Partnerships
Carpenter, A. C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15054326 · Cited by 8
Influencing factors and realization paths for smart community construction in China
Li, W., & Zhang, L. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303687 · Cited by 11
Integrating climate service co-production into spatial planning in Jakarta
Putra, A. L., Martínez, J. A., & Verplanke, J. J. (2020) · International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development · doi:10.1080/19463138.2020.1843043 · Cited by 8
“(d) Resources can be seen as budget support, time, technical skills, or organisational assistance to support bottom-up planning, as well as the process of collaboration (Emerson et al. 2012; Wijaya 2015).”
BackgroundLocal Wisdom-Based Sustainable Tourism Village Development Collaboration in Badung Regency
Dewi, N. L. Y., Supriyono, B., Wijaya, A. F., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Science and Society · doi:10.54783/ijsoc.v5i3.724 · Cited by 8
Human resource development in local government: a management perspective.
Cloete, H. C. A. (2016) · SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) · Cited by 8
Zhu, W., Shan, S., Xiao-hui, S., et al. (2021) · Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society · doi:10.1155/2021/1179351 · Cited by 8
“(us, air pollution is not a problem of one city in a region and should break the model of territorial autonomy [8].”
BackgroundMacDonald, A. (2016) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 8
The Emergency Manager as Risk Manager
Roberts, P. S., Wernstedt, K., Árvai, J., et al. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04691-0_13 · Cited by 8
Kumar, C. R., Kannan, B., Keshavammaiah, P. H., et al. (2025) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-025-02102-0 · Cited by 8
“Emerson et al., 2012).”
Power relations are central to shaping collaborative governance of the urban sharing economy
Jun, C., Prior, J., Giurco, D., et al. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01600-6 · Cited by 8
Relational behaviours and organisational capabilities in public safety networks
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-04-2018-0486 · Cited by 8
Trust-building and leadership in multi-stakeholder forums: lessons from Indonesia
Tamara, A., Vigil, N. M. H., Liswanti, N., et al. (2021) · The International Forestry Review · doi:10.1505/146554821833466068 · Cited by 8
“…by research participants and scholars working on participatory processes, this paper discusses trust (Fisher and Brown 1989, Ansel and Gash 2007, Emerson et al. 2011, Edelenbos and Klijn’s 2014, Alfantoukh et al. 2018) and leadership (Aulich 2009, Orihuela 2017) as two of the factors that can…”
Maor, M. H., Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, R., & Balmas, M. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13597 · Cited by 12
Collaborative Governance for Poverty Alleviation: A Systematic Mapping Study
Muslim, M. A., Prasojo, E., & Jannah, L. M. (2021) · RUDN Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.22363/2312-8313-2021-8-1-20-36 · Cited by 8
Bogdewic, S., & Ramaswamy, R. (2021) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems9030068 · Cited by 9
van Noort, C., van Leeuwen, J., Toonen, H., van Tatenhove, J. P. M., Haapasaari, P., Flannery, W., Nielsen, K. N., Boteler, B., Passarello, C., Dyremose, S. C. S., et al. (2025) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.70002 · Cited by 10
Interorganizational collaboration and value creation in digital government projects
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutierrez-Martinez, I. O., Duhamel, F. B., Luna, D. E., & Luna‐Reyes, L. F. (2015) · Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research · doi:10.1145/2757401.2757403 · Cited by 8
“The importance of collaboration among government agencies and other partners such as private organizations and non-profits has been identified by several streams of literature such as collaborative public management, multi-partner governance, joined-up government, public value management or networked government [15, 2…”
BackgroundVikstedt, E., & Vakkuri, J. (2025) · PAR. Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13959 · Cited by 7
“Both collaborative governance and PMM are prime examples of topics that are discussed across various disciplines and research traditions (Emerson et al. 2012; Vogel et al. 2022; Vakkuri 2022).”
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): Field of Research and Avenues for Future Studies
Wegner, D., Zuquetto, R. D., & Grisi, F. C. (2024) · BAR - Brazilian Administration Review · doi:10.1590/1807-7692bar2024230183 · Cited by 13
Park, C. H., & Johnston, E. (2019) · International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior · doi:10.1108/ijotb-07-2018-0088 · Cited by 12
Justice and Recovery for Victimised Children
Johansson, S., Stefansen, K., Bakketeig, E., & Kaldal, A. (2024) · Palgrave studies in victims and victimology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53233-7 · Cited by 10
Plaček, M., Valentinov, V., Vaceková, G., et al. (2024) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.13016 · Cited by 8
“Emerson et al. (2012) expand Bryson et al. (2006) set of propositions by analyzing cross-sectoral collaboration in terms of its dimensions, components, system context, drivers, principled engagement, shared motivation, capacity for joint action, and outputs for collaborative action.”
Divay, G., & Belley, S. (2017) · Revue Gouvernance · doi:10.7202/1038891ar · Cited by 8
Aproximações entre governança colaborativa e ação comunicativa: uma proposta analítica de estudo
Sant’Anna, L. T., Alcântara, V. D. C., Pereira, J. R., et al. (2019) · Revista de Administração Pública · doi:10.1590/0034-761220170400 · Cited by 8
A local governance initiative for climate mitigation: the place-leading role of local government
Hermelin, B., & Gustafsson, S. (2024) · Regional Studies Regional Science · doi:10.1080/21681376.2024.2401550 · Cited by 8
“To achieve this, we have used a model of collaborative governance (Emerson et al., 2012) coupled with a discussion on change agency (Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020) through a local government body, with a specific focus on place leading and institutional work (Patterson & Huitema, 2019).”
InfluentialHossu, C.-A., Iojă, C., Pătroescu, M., Duşa, A., & Hersperger, A. M. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11247072 · Cited by 11
“, mediator, sponsor, and technical expert), knowledge (joint and comprehensible knowledge is produced), and resources (parties contribute with resources to effectively manage the collaborative process) [24].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPublic participation in an era of governance: lessons from Europe for Australian local government
Evans, M., & Reid, R. (2013) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 9
Looping to success (and failure): second-order mechanisms and policy outcomes
Compton, M. E., & Hart, P. ‘. (2019) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788118194.00021 · Cited by 11
Söderberg, C., Sandström, A., Lundmark, C., et al. (2021) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1958 · Cited by 8
Imperiale, F., Sancino, A., Fasiello, R., & Ricci, P. (2023) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-023-09693-6 · Cited by 10
“…on two dimensions of the collaborative governance conceptual framework: the initiating leadership and the institutional design (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson &Natabatchi, 2015; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004) like they have been operationalised in categories informing typologies…”
InfluentialCho, B., Noh, I. H., Roggio, A. M., et al. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2241047 · Cited by 8
“…and principled engagement suggests that the inclusion and diversity of stakeholders involved allows for all relevant perspectives to be adequately represented when designing solutions to the stated problem (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
InfluentialCollaborative Governance in Developing Tourism Potential Through Tourism Villages
Fitriana, K. N., Kumalasari, D., Suranto, et al. (2023) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/978-2-494069-35-0_20 · Cited by 8
(Re)Defining the Disarticulated Municipality: Budget Accountability for Networked Governance
Mitchell, D. A., & Thurmaier, K. M. (2016) · Public Budgeting & Finance · doi:10.1111/pbaf.12087 · Cited by 8
Budiarso, Putro, U. S., Sunitiyoso, Y., et al. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08431 · Cited by 8
Silumbwe, A., Sebastiån, M. S., Zulu, J. M., Michelo, C., & Johansson, K. (2023) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2023.2212959 · Cited by 11
“We used Emerson’s integrative framework for collaborative governance to explore the collaborative dynamics among stakeholders involved in the development of the tobacco policy in Zambia [26].”
MethodHendra, O., Kurnianto, B., & Endrawijaya, I. (2023) · Higher Education Skills and Work-based Learning · doi:10.1108/heswbl-06-2023-0164 · Cited by 8
Larsson, O. L. (2019) · Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/01442872.2019.1634188 · Cited by 8
Generative Spaces: Collaboration, Learning and Innovation in a Regulatory SandboxPreprint
Macrae, C., & Ansell, C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4825907 · Cited by 8
An Enterprise View for Artificial Intelligence Capability and Governance: A System Dynamics Approach
Luna‐Reyes, L. F., & Harrison, T. M. (2023) · Digital Government Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3609228 · Cited by 12
“The literature in public management and digital government refers to these approaches as łCollaborative Governancež [25], łPublic Value Governancež [10], łJoined-up governmentž [4] or łWhole-of-Governmentž [12].”
BackgroundCollaborative Governance in Eradicating Corruption in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities
Abubakar, A., Prasojo, E., & Jannah, L. M. (2017) · doi:10.2991/icaspgs-icbap-17.2017.21 · Cited by 8
Enhancing collaboration across the knowledge system boundaries of ecosystem governance
Badry, N. A., & Hickey, G. M. (2022) · Advances in ecological research/Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2022.04.010 · Cited by 11
Influences on trust during collaborative forest governance: a case study from Haida Gwaii
Hotte, N., Wyatt, S. W., & Kozak, R. A. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0222 · Cited by 11
“…policy decision 85 making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public 86 agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out 87 a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al. 2012: 2).”
BackgroundBrudney, J. L., Prentice, C. R., & Harris, J. L. (2017) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2017.1390582 · Cited by 8
“…and Wood (1991), Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006), Thomson and Perry (2006), Ansell and Gash (2008), Agranoff (2007), Provan and Kenis (2008), and Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012), identify the antecedents of collaboration, provide recommendations for collaboration structures and processes,…”
BackgroundCollaboration, (Dis)trust and Control in Brazilian Manufactured Public/Non-profit Partnerships
Peci, A., Oquendo, M. I., & Mendonça, P. (2018) · VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11266-018-0027-6 · Cited by 8
“2003; Van Slyke 2007), with the building of trust being a consequence of collaboration (Alexander and Nank 2009; Bunger 2013; Emerson et al. 2012; Gazley 2010; Van Slyke 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialWouters, S., Janssen, M., & Crompvoets, J. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1_17 · Cited by 11
Needs before Tools: Using Technology in Environmental Conflict Resolution
Cravens, A. E. (2014) · Conflict Resolution Quarterly · doi:10.1002/crq.21071 · Cited by 8
Research trends of collaborative governance in climate change: a bibliometric analysis
Harmawan, B. N., Ilman, G. M., Pertiwi, V. I., & Bataha, K. (2024) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-04-2024-0192 · Cited by 8
Ethno Pedagogy Approach in Preparing Science Learning in The Society 5.0 Era
Hidayat, S., Leksono, S. M., Jamaludin, U., & Shintawati, S. (2023) · Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v9i7.4154 · Cited by 24
“Thus, several initiatives must be carried out, including reviving the curriculum and utilizing appropriate information technology (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundActors in forums: work input and different types of benefits
Fischer, M., & Maag, S. (2022) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x22000022 · Cited by 8
“Although several authors have proposed theoretical arguments and lists of benefits that actors could get from participating and working in a forum (e.g. Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015b), the empirical literature on which of these benefits are important for actors’ work in forums i…”
BackgroundInfluentialChanging management strategies of a government-hosted festival
Cho, B. S., Lee, J., Lee, W., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Event and Festival Management · doi:10.1108/ijefm-08-2018-0051 · Cited by 8
Schmidt, E. J. E. T., Schalk, J., Ridder, M., et al. (2022) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/jhom-03-2021-0102 · Cited by 8
Akerboom, M., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2024) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvae007 · Cited by 9
Developmental Evaluation of a Collective Impact Initiative: Insights for Foundations
Landers, G., Price, K. M., & Minyard, K. J. (2018) · The Foundation Review · doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1417 · Cited by 8
Ensuring social equity through service integration design
Perikangas, S., Määttä, A., & Tuurnas, S. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2246962 · Cited by 8
“SID has several similarities with the goal-oriented collaborative public management outlined by Eriksson et al. (2020), the participatory process described by Bryson et al. (2012), and the collaborative governance framework described by Emerson et al. (2011).”
InfluentialA population ecology of network domains
Nowell, B. L., & Albrecht, K. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2182903 · Cited by 9
Haapasaari, P., Marttunen, M., Salokannel, V., & Similä, J. (2024) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103937 · Cited by 11
The role of values in the interorganizational network response to wicked problems
Zonneveld, N., Raab, J., Kenis, P., & Minkman, M. M. N. (2024) · Public Policy and Administration · doi:10.1177/09520767241230846 · Cited by 8
“Several well-known articles provide insight into key features and aspects (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2015; Emerson et al., 2012), structures, regimes, partner decision, and modes of governance (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2015; Provan and Kenis, 2008; Van der Heijden, 2022), and the…”
Doğrusöz, L. A., & Yazıcı, S. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12442-0 · Cited by 11
“Co-operation strengthens the capacity for joint action by bringing together leadership, information sharing and resource management towards common goals [18].”
Zeid, M. B., & Abouchedid, K. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102751 · Cited by 11
How Do Community and Technical Colleges Build Cross-Sector Collaborations?
Soliz, A., DeLoach, C., & Mesa, H. (2023) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.2023.2171212 · Cited by 8
“Public administration scholars have attempted to identify the characteristics and processes underlying the development and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations (Bryson et al., 2006, 2015; Crosby et al., 2015; Emerson et al., 2011; Quick & Feldman, 2014; Simo & Bies, 2007; Stone, 2003).”
BackgroundChandler, S. M. (2016) · Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance · doi:10.1080/23303131.2016.1229708 · Cited by 8
“Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2011) add to the literature by highlighting the importance of the processes and governing structures and focusing on the management skills necessary to engage people to work constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, within different levels of government…”
BackgroundInfluentialAndrée, P., Coulas, M., & Ballamingie, P. (2018) · Canadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i3.283 · Cited by 8
Karlsson, A. K., Guillén, L. A., & Brukas, V. (2024) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103840 · Cited by 8
Witteveen, L., van Arensbergen, P., & Fliervoet, J. (2022) · Central European Journal of Communication · doi:10.51480/1899-5101.15.1(30).6 · Cited by 8
“…and sectors, various participatory and collaborative approaches in environmental governance have been developed, such as community-based natural resource management (Kellert et al., 2000), network governance (Klijn et al., 1995; Rhodes, 2007), and collaborative governance (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundLynch, S. C. (2025) · Plant-Environment Interactions · doi:10.1002/pei3.70029 · Cited by 7
“The system context includes available resources and the policy and legal factors that create opportunities or constraints on processes (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012) and the role of prior relationships or existing networks (Ansell and Gash 2008; Guerrero et al. 2015; Bodin 2017; Tollefson,…”
InfluentialPublic Library Partnerships: Using Collaborative Governance to Support Vulnerable Users
Garner, J. (2024) · Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association · doi:10.1080/24750158.2024.2397940 · Cited by 7
“This aspect of working together to achieve a goal that could not be achieved if each party were to act alone is also identified as central to the concept by Emerson et al. (2012) and Agranoff and McGuire (2003).”
Changing market values? Tensions of contradicting public management discourses
Plotnikof, M. (2016) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-02-2016-0027 · Cited by 7
Collaborative Governance Model on Agricultural Business in Banten, Indonesia
Hikmawan, M. D., Hamid, A. R., Nurrohman, B., et al. (2020) · Jurnal Transformative · doi:10.21776/ub.transformative.2020.006.02.3 · Cited by 7
Fourth Generation University: Co-creating a Sustainable Future
Öztel, H. (2020) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_77 · Cited by 8
Downey, H., & Threlkeld, G. (2020) · Community Development Journal · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsaa012 · Cited by 6
Shi, Q., Yang, S., Wang, N., et al. (2023) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04521-w · Cited by 7
Mallinson, D. J., Ali, A., Guo, J., et al. (2022) · Public Works Management & Policy · doi:10.1177/1087724x221112958 · Cited by 7
“…public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2011, p. 2).”
BackgroundInfluentialPedersen, O., Jahre, M., & Norrman, A. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies · doi:10.31374/sjms.354 · Cited by 7
Amhøj, C. B. (2019) · Local Economy The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit · doi:10.1177/0269094219847124 · Cited by 7
Gómez, J. D. S., Polanco, J., & Escobar-Sierra, M. (2021) · Energy Reports · doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.026 · Cited by 7
Strategy Formulation Process and Interorganizational Collaboration
Hong, M., & Jimenez, B. S. (2024) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2024.2366238 · Cited by 7
“Additional factors that contribute to successful collaboration include trust, mutual respect, and a shared understanding of goals (see Agranoff & McGuire, 2001, 2003; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Romzek et al., 2012; Weber & Khademian, 2008).”
InfluentialPeters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2020) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12455 · Cited by 11
Lenhart, S., & Fox, D. (2021) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102345 · Cited by 7
Jacklin-Jarvis, C., & Potter, K. (2019) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1669176 · Cited by 7
“…can increase our understanding of how policy decisions shape practice, leverage joint action, and structure the environment (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Sowa & Lu, 2017); and of how leadership emerges from and reflects different policy-led institutional contexts (Evans et al.,…”
Finally Throwing Those Wellies Away? Collaborating in Search of a Solution for Venice Flooding
Cristofoli, D., Trivellato, B., Micacchi, M., et al. (2022) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01727-3 · Cited by 7
“The extant literature sheds light on the importance of stakeholders’ convergence for collaborative governance success (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015), but “important questions remain as to the specific mechanisms that drive these”
BackgroundWang, S., & Crosby, A. (2019) · Public Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/073491491904300404 · Cited by 7
“Here we adopt a broader definition of collaborative governance by Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) as “the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the…”
MethodBultema, S., Morrow, H., & Wenzl, S. (2020) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2020.305773 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Syracuse University (US)
- State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Emerson, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-05-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-29
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2163699426
- Cited by
- 3,637
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 513 · 2025: 372 · 2024: 366 · 2023: 432 · 2022: 317 · 2021: 306 · 2020: 341 · 2019: 230 · 2018: 202 · 2017: 159 · 2016: 140 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 155.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Syracuse University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Local Governance and Planning
- Keywords
- collaborative governance, integrative framework, intergovernmental cooperation, regional cooperation, public-private partnerships, conflict resolution, institutional arrangements, multi-level governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
