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 1,301–1,400 of 3,564
‘That was all over the shop’: Exploring the COVID‐19 response in disability residential settings
McAllister, A., Dickinson, H., Huska, M., Devine, A. E., Dimov, S., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2023) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12574 · Cited by 7
Vainieri, M., Ferré, F., & Manetti, S. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13073873 · Cited by 5
“Collaborative governance literature [4,5] provides a good ground for reflecting on the dynamics and actions of inter-organizational collaborations but still little evidence is available on how to assess such collaborations.”
BackgroundInfluentialKoch, L. (2024) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.2102 · Cited by 8
Rolandsson, B. (2016) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2016.1162803 · Cited by 7
“Justifying coproduced local policeability by shifting modalities Previous research has illustrated how authorities capitalize on partnerships as means to improve public services (Emerson et al., 2011; Prenzler, 2009).”
BackgroundButcher, J., & Gilchrist, D. J. (2020) · ANU Press eBooks · doi:10.22459/cfi.2020 · Cited by 11
Tait, M. K., & Brunson, M. W. (2021) · Wetlands Ecology and Management · doi:10.1007/s11273-021-09849-x · Cited by 7
Mayors’ leadership roles in direct participation processes – the case of community-owned wind farms
Wallmeier, F., & Thaler, J. S. (2018) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-07-2017-0182 · Cited by 7
DuPraw, M. E. (2014) · NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) · doi:10.13140/2.1.5182.6249 · Cited by 7
Institutional Duality in Land Administration: Insights from Collaborative Governance in Ghana
Ibrahim, A.-S., Akanbang, B. A. A., Yakubu, I., et al. (2024) · Journal of Land and Rural Studies · doi:10.1177/23210249241281857 · Cited by 7
“Collaborative governance refers to the process of public decision-making that constructively engages stakeholders across different frontiers to collectively pursue a purpose that cannot be accomplished by one stakeholder (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).”
Measuring collaborative stakeholder influence and open budget actions
de Abreu, W. M., & Gomes, R. C. (2018) · Revista de Administração Pública · doi:10.1590/0034-7612173451 · Cited by 7
A Quantum of Responsibility? A Comparison of National Quantum Governance Frameworks and Expert Views
Atladóttir, D., Roch, N., Leese, M., & Zimmermann, V. (2025) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-025-00205-7 · Cited by 7
“Collaborative governance, as emphasized by Emerson et al. ( 2012 ), ensures more inclusive and effective decision-making by drawing on a broad range of perspectives and expertise.”
Gobernanza Colaborativa para la Innovación Pública y Social: El caso de Gipuzkoa, País Vasco
Barandiarán, X. (2021) · European Public & Social Innovation Review · doi:10.31637/epsir.21-2.6 · Cited by 7
Commoning Experiments in a State-Corporatist City State: The Case of Hong Kong
Wang, X. L., Leung, C. Y., & Mui, C. K. (2023) · Urban Affairs Review · doi:10.1177/10780874231162934 · Cited by 7
Enabling Policing to Be Better: Lessons from Two Case Studies in Police Collaboration
Zaghloul, F., & Partridge, J. (2022) · Policing A Journal of Policy and Practice · doi:10.1093/police/paac018 · Cited by 7
Cabral, S., Krane, D., & Dantas, F. (2013) · Organizações & Sociedade · doi:10.1590/s1984-92302013000100010 · Cited by 9
Participatory policy development for integrated watershed management in Uganda's highlands
Mutekanga, F. P. (2012) · doi:10.18174/233473 · Cited by 7
“Emerson et al. (2011) rightly argue that generating and sustaining capacity for joint action is a function of four elements, namely, institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources (funding etc) and that principled engagement and shared motivation are supported with the development of these elements.”
BackgroundCollaboration for digital transformation: so much more than just technology
Verhoest, K., Klijn, E., Rykkja, L. H., & Hammerschmid, G. (2024) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781803923895.00023 · Cited by 8
Hernández, I. D., & Sánchez, O. (2014) · Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas · doi:10.18359/rfce.625 · Cited by 7
“Es notable la diferencia entre esta y la propuesta de Ansell & Gash (2007); mientras los segundos se concentran en un proceso de colaboración para la toma de decisiones; Emerson et al. (2012) se concentran no en el proceso sino en el arreglo de entidades involucradas en el proceso.”
BackgroundZuckerman, S. J., Garrett, A. L., Sarver, S., & Huddleston-Casas, C. A. (2020) · International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy · doi:10.1186/s40723-020-00072-4 · Cited by 7
Tata Kelola Smart City Dalam Perspektif Collaboratif Governance
Firman, F., & Rahmawati, R. (2023) · The Indonesian Journal of Public Administration (IJPA) · doi:10.52447/ijpa.v9i1.6903 · Cited by 7
“…dapat dilihat dari beberapa aspek berikut: manfaat ini memperkuat hubungan antara collaborative governance dan pengembangan smart city yang sukses (Emerson et al., 2012; Engagement, 2012) Tantangan dan hambatan dalam implementasi collaborative governance terhadap smart city Implementasi…”
BackgroundGoverning Collaborative Healthcare Improvement: Lessons From an Atlantic Canadian Case
Rossiter, M., Verma, J. Y., Denis, J., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Health Policy and Management · doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.60 · Cited by 7
Challenges and Opportunities of Collaborative Governance in Addressing Stunting: Lessons from Papua
Hadi, N. I. (2023) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v8i17.14183 · Cited by 7
Awad, M. H. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-023-05360-w · Cited by 7
“Surprisingly, despite being the carrier for governance mechanisms and collaborative action (Emerson et al., 2011), structure has received little attention in cross-sector partnerships research (Bryson & Crosby, 2015) with a few exceptions (Clarke, 2011; van Tulder & Pfisterer, 2013).”
BackgroundLim, X.-J., Chew, C.-C., Chang, C. T., Supramaniam, P., Ding, L.-M., Devesahayam, P. R., & Low, L.-L. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286638 · Cited by 8
“The governance model must be public policy to engage multi-stakeholder partnerships to ensure successful ageing city development [31, 33].”
BackgroundThe Effects of Enhanced Information Utilization in Collaborative Hazard Mitigation Planning
Margerum, R. D., Zwickle, A., Bruce, J., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American Planning Association · doi:10.1080/01944363.2021.1997352 · Cited by 7
van der Woerd, O., Schuurmans, J., Wallenburg, I., van der Scheer, W. K., & Bal, R. (2024) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/03055736y2024d000000030 · Cited by 7
Lachance, E. L., & Parent, M. M. (2023) · International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics · doi:10.1080/19406940.2023.2166564 · Cited by 7
“These policies direct, control, and regulate sport organisations to achieve desired outcomes like collaboration (SC) – that is, the interactions between entities to work together to achieve a desired state (Emerson et al. 2012) – or good governance (UK Sport).”
BackgroundStrategies to promote collaborative governance regime in Indian rural road maintenance
Dolla, T., & Laishram, B. S. (2021) · Built Environment Project and Asset Management · doi:10.1108/bepam-01-2021-0024 · Cited by 7
Integrated water resource management and British Columbia’s Okanagan Basin Water Board
Melnychuk, N., Jatel, N., & Sears, A. L. W. (2016) · International Journal of Water Resources Development · doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1214909 · Cited by 10
Can NPOs convene collaborative governance in China? —a case of addressing complex water conflicts
Wang, Y., Li, B.-Q., Wu, J.-N., & Wan, C. (2023) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2023.2231145 · Cited by 5
“Emerson et al. (2012) outlined the challenges in successful collaborative governance: 1. defining the problem and mobilizing stakeholders to participate; 2. convening the collaborative governance activities to make joint decisions; and 3. monitoring the implementation of the policies resulting from…”
Li, S., Xia, Y., Xiao, R., & Jiang, H. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192214734 · Cited by 8
“At a time when collaborative governance is advocated, it is crucial to understand and promote public participation [5,6].”
BackgroundBarandiarán, X., & García, Á. L. (2018) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2018.1503072 · Cited by 7
Stein, D., & Minniti, M. (2025) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2022.1331 · Cited by 7
The Enabling Effects of Open Government Data on Collaborative Governance in Smart City ContextsPreprint
Bartenberger, M., & Grubmüller, V. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2474974 · Cited by 7
“Trust is one of the main pillars of collaborative governance that is mentioned throughout the literature (e.g. Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Huxham et al., 2000; Leach & Sabatier, 2005).”
At the confluence of ethics, laws and society: global working theory merging bio-ethics
LeBlanc, A. B. (2023) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-023-00807-3 · Cited by 8
“For instance, collaborative (Emerson et al. 2012), adaptive (Emerson and Gerlak 2014) and reflexive (Kemp and Loorbach 2006) governing processes or justification (Blasi and Jost 2006) and transparent (Jost 2017) systems in terms of ideology ** Empowerment ethics is favoured by bioethical tools that…”
Pioneering Public Sector Innovation: The Case of Greece’s e-Government Team
Deligiannis, A. P., & Peristeras, V. (2025) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci15080306 · Cited by 9
“They also aim to facilitate enhanced innovation capacity and sustainability by acting as facilitators using diverse knowledge bases and resources that help partners within an innovation ecosystem (Emerson et al., 2012).”
Levy, K. (2023) · Journal of Current Chinese Affairs · doi:10.1177/18681026231160799 · Cited by 7
“Emerson et al. (2012: 2) de fi ne it more broadly “ 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 public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a…”
BackgroundEconomic Sectors as Discursive Resources for Civil Society Collaboration
Koschmann, M. A. (2016) · Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1103295 · Cited by 7
Yang, L. (2020) · Public Policy and Administration · doi:10.1177/0952076720958468 · Cited by 9
“, 2016; Graffy, 2008; Orr and Bennett, 2012), (4) the sustainable endeavors of the experts (Buick et al., 2016; Emerson et al., 2012; Graffy, 2008; Landry et al., 2003), (5) their relationships with other social actors (Graffy, 2008; Kotlarsky and Oshri, 2005; Landry et al.”
BackgroundBeyond Consultation: Rethinking Stakeholder Engagement in Qatar’s Public Education Policymaking
Al-Thani, G. (2025) · Education sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15060769 · Cited by 17
Smith, Z. A. (2015) · Environmental Practice · doi:10.1017/s1466046615000071 · Cited by 7
Let's collaborate but how: Discussing collaboration barriers and opportunities in the digital era
Rouzbehani, R. (2020) · Canadian Public Administration · doi:10.1111/capa.12397 · Cited by 7
Osei, M. K. (2024) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-024-02085-y · Cited by 7
“…of public policy decision-making engage people across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and or the public-private and civic spheres to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished ” (Emerson et al. 2012, p. 2; see also Emerson and Nabatchi 2015 p. 18).”
InfluentialDesigning data collaboratives’ governance dimensions for long-term stability: an empirical analysis
Bartolomucci, F., & Bartalucci, S. (2024) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2024.29 · Cited by 7
“Few researchers (Susha et al., 2019a; Ruijer, 2021) have challenged existing collaborative governance models (Bryson et al., 2006; Thomson and Perry, 2006; Provan and Kenis, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012) in terms of DCs ’ uniqueness.”
InfluentialChavula, M. P., Matenga, T. F. L., Maritim, P., Munakampe, M. N., Habib, B., Liusha, N., Banda, J., Sinyangwe, N. N., Halwiindi, H., Mweemba, C., et al. (2024) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-024-01194-8 · Cited by 8
“The decentralisation [17] of TB services was implemented in alignment with the 2022–2026 Zambia National Health Strategic Plan for Tuberculosis, which stresses the significance of adopting the primary healthcare approach in eliminating MDR-TB by 2030 [12].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHildebrand, S., & Wehde, W. W. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13700 · Cited by 7
“These theoretical approaches to collaboration range from emphasizing managerial characteristics to environmental, contextual, or institutional conditions (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Esteve et al., 2013; McGuire & Silvia, 2010).”
Jayasinghe, K., Wijesinghe, C., Wijethilake, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting & Financial Management · doi:10.1108/jpbafm-12-2020-0191 · Cited by 7
Knowledge Conditions in the Co-creation of Social Innovation: A Theory-driven Review
Centeno, J. P. (2025) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997251334810 · Cited by 8
“For Emerson et al. (2012), “knowledge is information combined with understanding and capability (. . . ).”
Characterizing Competing Viewpoints in Stormwater Governance: An Urban Honolulu Case Study
Arik, A. D. (2022) · Frontiers in Sustainable Cities · doi:10.3389/frsc.2022.832935 · Cited by 9
“Without clear solutions, collaborative governance offers a means of seeking successful outcomes in wicked problems (Innes and Booher, 2010; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundCOLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE DALAM PENANGANAN STUNTING
Fatikha, N. T., & Permatasari, A. (2023) · Jurnal Kebijakan Publik · doi:10.31258/jkp.v14i3.8308 · Cited by 7
Chen, S., Zhou, C., & Zhang, W. (2026) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-025-02513-7 · Cited by 7
“These findings extend collaborative governance theory (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012) by demonstrating how China’s hybrid system blends hierarchy with organizational interaction and network governance.”
Władza lokalna a państwo, społeczeństwo i rynek. Współpraca i konkurencja
Wojciechowski, E., Podgórniak-Krzykacz, A., Kalisiak-Mędelska, M., et al. (2014) · Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego eBooks · doi:10.18778/7969-168-5 · Cited by 7
Sabry, M. I. (2018) · International Journal of Social Economics · doi:10.1108/ijse-08-2017-0347 · Cited by 7
Predicting Community Adoption of Collective Impact in the United States: A National Scan
Boyer, A.-M., Cooper, K. R., Dougherty, S. M., Wang, R., & Shumate, M. (2020) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764020964583 · Cited by 7
“Moreover, scholars have highlighted communication and information-sharing as essential collaboration governance practices for trust-building and engagement (Emerson et al., 2012), especially when it involves cross-sector partners (Bryson et al., 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMancheva, I., Pihlajamäki, M., & Keskinen, M. (2023) · West European Politics · doi:10.1080/01402382.2022.2158639 · Cited by 7
“We define collaborative governance the same as Emerson et al. (2012: 2), i.e. 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 public, private and civic…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBartocci, L., & Picciaia, F. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12010292 · Cited by 7
“Processes are focused on activities and communication while structures are more about organization or “organizing” [41].”
BackgroundChan, C. H. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2132280 · Cited by 9
“…as this policy case between the Fund and the project holders could improve interorganizational trust and mutual understanding, and that in turn could reduce transaction costs, enhance stability in relations, and facilitate commitment across the network actors (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundThe facilitators of interagency working in the context of European public service reform
Connolly, J. W. D., Barnes, J., Guerra, J. V., et al. (2020) · Contemporary Social Science · doi:10.1080/21582041.2020.1824078 · Cited by 7
“…Europe, the rise in studies of interagency working re fl ect the need for state actors to span boundaries and work across sectors in an e ff ort to address the emergence of new social risks (Borosch, Kuhlmann, & Blum, 2016; Christensen, 2015; Connolly et al., 2020; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012).”
Montoya, L. A., Restrepo, L. A. M., & González, O. D. S. (2015) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2015.01.030 · Cited by 7
Mu, R., & Spekkink, W. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10061950 · Cited by 7
“The advantage of formal forms of cooperation is that they define rules, roles, responsibility, and decision-making authority more explicitly [13], and therefore define more clearly what is expected from the involved actors.”
BackgroundWood, A., & Tenbensel, T. (2017) · Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/13876988.2017.1391462 · Cited by 7
“…collaboration, such as strong leadership, getting the “right people” to the table, trust among collaboration members, and shared understanding and ownership of the process (Huxham and Vangen 2000, 2005; Bryson et al. 2006; Thomson and Perry 2006; Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWang, H., Chen, B., Xiong, W., Yang, L., & Zhu, D. (2019) · Urban Policy and Research · doi:10.1080/08111146.2019.1663725 · Cited by 7
Governance Design of Collaborative Intelligence for Public Policy and Services
Chen, Y., Liu, H. K., & Wang, Y.-F. (2024) · Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research · doi:10.1145/3657054.3657075 · Cited by 9
“The goal is governance design informed primarily by the collaborative governance framework [18] and the studies of institutional analysis and development [42, 52].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGillis, J. (2023) · Canadian Public Administration · doi:10.1111/capa.12547 · Cited by 8
Stakeholders Reach Consensus in Troubled Waters
Rugel, K. (2020) · Case Studies in the Environment · doi:10.1525/cse.2020.1112837 · Cited by 7
Crotty, J., & Ljubownikow, S. (2022) · East European Politics · doi:10.1080/21599165.2022.2138352 · Cited by 7
Bolognesi, T., & Pflieger, G. (2024) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108226 · Cited by 7
Bringing Society Back in: Actors, Networks, and Systems in Public Policy
Schneider, V. (2020) · Translational systems sciences · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_3 · Cited by 7
Abutabenjeh, S., Dimand, A., Brunjes, B. M., Azhar, A., & Nukpezah, J. A. (2024) · Public Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/07349149241262598 · Cited by 7
“We adopt Emerson et al. (2012) definition of collaborative governance which holds that collaboration is “ 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 public,…”
InfluentialKOLABORASI MODEL PENTAHELIX DALAM UPAYA PENANGANAN BENCANA WABAH COVID-19 DI KABUPATEN BOJONEGORO
Ardiansyah, F., & Pradana, G. W. (2021) · Publika · doi:10.26740/publika.v9n4.p545-560 · Cited by 7
Meerkerk, J. (2024) · International Journal of the Commons · doi:10.5334/ijc.1282 · Cited by 7
Nukpezah, J. A., Apalowo, J. T., & Abutabenjeh, S. (2025) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.106036 · Cited by 11
Siahaan, J. R., Pagalung, G., Demmallino, E. B., et al. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17136218 · Cited by 7
Bartz, C. R. F., Turcato, J. C., Sausen, J. O., et al. (2020) · Interações (Campo Grande) · doi:10.20435/inter.v21i1.2097 · Cited by 6
Collaborative Governance in Local Economic Development: the Case in East Java, Indonesia
Haris, R. A., Suryono, A., Said, A., & Rozikin, M. (2024) · Journal of Law and Sustainable Development · doi:10.55908/sdgs.v12i1.2501 · Cited by 7
Pebriani, H., & Nasyaya, A. (2023) · Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik · doi:10.36982/jpg.v8i2.2905 · Cited by 6
“Kepercayaan akan terus berkembang sejalan dengan keikutsertaan para stakeholders dalam melaksanakan kolaborasi, dalam proses kolaborasi ini para memberikan bukti bahwa mereka dapat dipercaya dalam menjalankan tanggung jawab dan tugasnya (Fisher dan Brown dalam (Emerson et al. 2012)).”
BackgroundVisser, E. L. (2023) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12943 · Cited by 6
More Than Just Complaints: Generating Thick Engagement Through Thin Participatory Programs
Scott, R. P. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz003 · Cited by 6
Where Do We Go From Here With Sagebrush Conservation: A Long-Term Perspective?
Remington, T. E., Mayer, K. E., & Stiver, S. J. (2024) · Rangeland Ecology & Management · doi:10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.009 · Cited by 6
“Collaborative governance emerges in contexts where there are enabling legal and policy frameworks, a prior failure to address issues, and established networks and relationships among relevant actors ( Emerson et al. 2012 ).”
Humanitarian INGO governance arrangements and forms of coordination
Beagles, J. E. (2021) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21482 · Cited by 6
Song, R., Li, S., & Feldman, M. W. (2021) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci10070243 · Cited by 6
Ryan, M. P. (2021) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/02750740211059113 · Cited by 7
Poverty Reduction Strategies in Canada: A new way to tackle an old problem?
Notten, G., & Laforest, R. (2016) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-312 · Cited by 6
Zhu, Z., Zhang, N., & Tan, F. T. C. (2024) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2024.103956 · Cited by 6
Lele, G. (2018) · Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/01442872.2018.1530414 · Cited by 6
“…much more complex and dynamic action arena than both traditional (bureaucratic) public administration and new public administration and governing by network is at the heart of numerous government initiatives (see Pierre 2000; Rhodes 2007; O’Flynn and Wanna 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011).”
BackgroundFarooqi, S. A., & Knox, S. (2025) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.13067 · Cited by 6
“Internal legitimacy is generally achieved through trust, equal participation, inclusive decision-making, and the distribution of power (Choi and Robertson 2014; Emerson et al. 2012; Mosley and Wong 2021; Purdy 2012).”
Shah, K. U., & Kelman, I. (2025) · Development Policy Review · doi:10.1111/dpr.70017 · Cited by 6
Ontario’s Clean Water Act and Capacity Building: Implications for Serviced Rural Municipalities
Minnes, S. (2017) · Water · doi:10.3390/w9070538 · Cited by 6
“Threat identification and mechanisms for mitigation should be a collaborative effort [23,24].”
BackgroundGuerrero, A. M., Sporne, I., & Wilson, K. A. (2024) · Conservation Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/csp2.13175 · Cited by 6
“…by reviewing frameworks for the evaluation of collaborative governance and planning processes in conservation or natural resource management settings (Dale et al., 2013; Emerson et al., 2012; Lebel et al., 2013; Lockwood et al., 2010; Margerum, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2015; Young et al., 2008).”
Contextualizing Smart Governance Research: Literature Review and Scientometrics Analysis
Чугунов, А., Cronemberger, F. A., & Kabanov, Y. (2018) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_9 · Cited by 6
A place-based approach in collaborative governance
Larrea, M., Arrona, A., & Barandiarán, X. (2024) · Oñati Socio-legal Series · doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1892 · Cited by 6
“…and hierarchical forms of government, a diverse body of work has advocated for collaborative forms of policymaking and service delivery, proposing a new relationship between governments, stakeholders, and citizens (Ansell and Gash 2008, Blomgren 2011, Emerson et al. 2012, Batory and Svensson 2019).”
BackgroundDigital Governance on Broadcasting Industry
Sjuchro, D. W., Surachman, A. Y., & Achmad, W. (2022) · Journal of Governance · doi:10.31506/jog.v7i2.15414 · Cited by 6
Leveraging Digital Disruptions for a Climate-Safe and Equitable World: The Dˆ2S Agenda: [Commentary]
Luers, A. L., Garard, J., Clair, A. L. S., Gaffney, O., Hassenboehler, T., Langlois, L., Mougeot, M., & Luccioni, A. S. (2020) · IEEE Technology and Society Magazine · doi:10.1109/mts.2020.2991495 · Cited by 6
Collaborative Governance in Overcoming Poverty Problems in Surakarta: A Literature Review
Tando, C. E., Sudarmo, S., & Haryanti, R. H. (2020) · doi:10.2991/icstcsd-19.2020.11 · Cited by 6
“Then Collaborative Governance is intended to integrate many stakeholders through external institutions with the dynamics of collaboration to actions, impacts, and adaptations (Emerson et al., 2011).”
BackgroundHotte, N., Kozak, R. A., Wyatt, S. W., & Wilkes, R. (2021) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2021.1950883 · Cited by 6
Accelerated planning for urban housing infills: coordination strategies
Bröchner, J., Gregorowicz-Kipszak, J., Gustafsson, M., & Hagson, A. (2020) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654313.2020.1817866 · Cited by 6
“For Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012), who view collaboration in a general framework of collaborative governance, it can be de fi ned it as ‘ the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies,…”
BackgroundNg, J. S. C., Chervier, C., Roda, J., et al. (2023) · The Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220388.2023.2222212 · Cited by 6
“There are many articles written on the challenges of collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Bodin, 2017; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Margerum, 2016; Memon & Weber, 2010; Morrison et al., 2019; Purdy, 2012), but few have been done for the collaboration challenges of a jurisdictional…”
Hedelin, B. (2015) · Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research · doi:10.1080/19390459.2015.1015815 · Cited by 6
“For recent overviews, see Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012), O’Leary and Vij (2012), Pahl-Wostl, Lebel, Knieper, and Nikitina (2012) and Christopoulos and Horvath (2012).”
BackgroundWaeterloos, E. (2021) · Land · doi:10.3390/land10050534 · Cited by 6
“For clar‐ ity’s sake, Emerson, Nabachi and Balogh [25] add that this is to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished by the actors individually.”
BackgroundInfluential
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
