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 2,201–2,300 of 3,564
Lankow, A. J., Hazen, B. T., & Douglas, M. A. (2021) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871209.2021.1963017 · Cited by 1
PENCEGAHAN PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA: KOLABORASI PEMERINTAH ACEH UTARA BERSAMA BNN KOTA LHOKSEUMAWE
Zahara, A., Armanda, D., Muhaddis, M., et al. (2023) · Al-Ijtima`i International Journal of Government and Social Science · doi:10.22373/jai.v8i2.2572 · Cited by 1
Temba, R. S., & Di, L. (2025) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669251350664 · Cited by 1
Wungo, G. L., Dewi, S. P., Mussadun, M., & Riswananda, A. H. (2024) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1404/1/012039 · Cited by 1
“Participants may also be referred to as members, stakeholders, parties, partners, or collaborators, depending on the context and goals of the collaboration process [28].”
InfluentialCollaboration as an approach towards good governance: experiences from China and the USA
Hu, Y. (2021) · Global Public Policy and Governance · doi:10.1007/s43508-021-00010-1 · Cited by 1
Колабораційне партнерство: бізнес-фактор у формуванні державної політики
Шевченка, Л. Н. У. І. Т., & Сичова, А. О. (2021) · Політичне життя · doi:10.31558/2519-2949.2021.2.7 · Cited by 1
van Dorsselaer, E., Voets, J., & Dupont, C. (2025) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.70000 · Cited by 1
Strategische motieven voor interorganisationele samenwerking binnen learning communities
Bos, P., Ros, A., Snoeren, M. M. W. C., et al. (2023) · Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs · doi:10.59532/tvho.v41i2.15695 · Cited by 1
Refle, J.-E., Elezovic, A. S., Burton‐Jeangros, C., et al. (2025) · European Policy Analysis · doi:10.1002/epa2.70012 · Cited by 1
Reform Pathways for Integrating Employment Assistance to Marginalized Groups
Rønningstad, C., Andreassen, T. A., Breit, E., et al. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190916329.013.54 · Cited by 1
Йылмаз, К., & Бообекова, К. (2024) · Наука Образование Техника · doi:10.54834/16945220_2023_3_86 · Cited by 1
A public-private partnership model for higher education infrastructure
Ateloye, A. B. (2019) · Cited by 1
Gawłowski, R., & Modrzyński, P. (2019) · Zarządzanie Publiczne · doi:10.15678/zp.2019.50.4.04 · Cited by 1
Penguatan Perlindungan Anak Kota Bandung Dalam Perspektif Collaborative Governance
Alpin, A., Sakti, F. T., & Nur, M. I. (2022) · Ministrate Jurnal Birokrasi dan Pemerintahan Daerah · doi:10.15575/jbpd.v4i2.18491 · Cited by 1
“Hal ini sejalan dengan pendapat Innes dan Booher dalam (Emerson et al., 2012) yang memaparkan bahwa tindakan kolaborasi adalah hasil utama dari proses kolaborasi yang telah dilakukan, sebab proses tidak akan lepas untuk memberikan suatu dampak.”
BackgroundVilleneuve, F., Riffon, O., & Lagadec, D. (2024) · Éthique Publique · doi:10.4000/13s4l
Schick, E. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su172310605 · Cited by 1
Reddy, K. S. (2024) · Development and sustainability in economics and finance. · doi:10.1016/j.dsef.2024.100022 · Cited by 1
Public Sector Knowledge Networks
Dawes, S. S. (2013) · Advances in electronic government, digital divide, and regional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4058-0.ch006 · Cited by 1
De-Governmentalizing Public Management: The Case of Platforms for Local Development in Cabo Verde
Lopes, J. M. G. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.115111 · Cited by 1
Informal Europeanization processes and domestic governance networks
Refle, J.-E., Fischer, M., & Maggetti, M. (2022) · European Policy Analysis · doi:10.1002/epa2.1138 · Cited by 1
“According to the governance network perspective adopted to analyze domestic politics (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012), political actors form a network that provides them with information and support, and with opportunities for negotiation and learning (Riche et al.”
BackgroundMethodLocal government innovation model in Pekanbaru City, Indonesia: a study of public service mall
Febrian, R. A., Rahman, K., Yuza, A. F., & Zainal, Z. (2023) · Otoritas Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan · doi:10.26618/ojip.v13i2.10137 · Cited by 1
“Innovation can be a potential that can be utilized by external actors outside the government, so cooperation is needed and even leads to collaboration (Emerson et al., 2012) which emphasizes sharing resources in innovating.”
BackgroundScientific Knowledge Brokering in Collaborative Environmental Partnerships
Koontz, T. M., Thomas, C. W., & Cheng, K. R. (2025) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2025.2572060 · Cited by 1
“…knowledge can include experiential, Indigenous, and other ways of knowing (Koontz, Thomas, and Cheng 2025; Buuren 2009), it often includes deliberations across science-management boundaries (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Innes and Booher 2010; Morgan and Di Giulio 2018; Williams et al. 2024).”
Development of Health Policymaking Governance Guidance Tool (HP-GGT)
Hamra, R. (2018) · Cited by 1
De implementatie van opgavegericht werken binnen gemeenten
Anderson, R. (2018) · Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie · doi:10.5117/mab.92.25518 · Cited by 1
Collaborative Governance Model for Mangrove Ecotourism: Bintan Island Case, IndonesiaPreprint
Alfiandri, A., Salomo, R. V., Prasojo, E., et al. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2393040/v1 · Cited by 1
Understanding Nonprofit–Nonprofit Collaborations: Insight From Voluntary Failure Theory
Jeong, J., & Kim, J. W. (2025) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21662 · Cited by 2
“This aligns with collaborative governance principles (Emerson et al. 2012), where involving diverse stakeholders enhances inclusivity and reduces dominance by any single actor.”
Murgatroyd, A., & Feront, C. (2023) · Evaluation: African perspectives. · doi:10.4102/aosis.2023.bk459.02 · Cited by 1
Chen-Florea, A. L. Q., Granberg, M., Hofstad, H., et al. (2026) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2026.101167 · Cited by 1
“Stakeholder anchorage refers to the effective alignment and sustained engagement of key actors in dynamic interaction, ensuring both internal legitimacy and external support in emergent collaborative processes (Emerson et al., 2012; Shulla et al., 2020; S ø rensen and Torfing, 2003).”
STIA Bina Banua Banjarmasin, I., Irawanto, I., & Muluk, M. R. K. (2016) · Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences · doi:10.18551/rjoas.2016-11.17 · Cited by 1
Waldock, W. J., Gilchrist, M. J., Ashrafian, H., Darzi, A. W., & Franklin, B. D. (2026) · npj Antimicrobials and Resistance · doi:10.1038/s44259-026-00187-7 · Cited by 1
Nilawati, E. (2022) · Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Media Pengembangan Ilmu dan Praktek Administrasi · doi:10.31113/jia.v19i1.845 · Cited by 1
“Collaborative governance ditunjukkan dengan prinsip kebersamaan, motivasi bersama, dan kapasitas aksi bersama bisa diwujudkan pada kegiatan saat tanggap darurat bencana Pandemi Covid-19, sesuai pendapat Emerson et al. (2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Executive Branch and Attempts to Strengthen It
Galnoor, I., & Blander, D. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316160978.006 · Cited by 1
Managing open strategy paradoxes in the public sector
Bernardes, M. E. B., Milagres, R. D. M., Becker, P., et al. (2024) · Revista de Administração Pública · doi:10.1590/0034-761220230177x · Cited by 1
Will Facebook Encourage Citizen Participation?
Chu, P., Tseng, H., & Chen, Y.-J. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-3706-3.ch033 · Cited by 1
Decision framework for public-private partnership in agricultural commodities
Sumantri, Y., Gapsari, F., Lau, S. K., & Prinyapol, N. (2024) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1338/1/012067 · Cited by 1
“…the procedural and structural aspects of decision-making and the management of public policy, which effectively involves the public across several domains, such as public institutions, governmental levels, and the public, private, and civil sectors, with the aim of executing public policy [13].”
BackgroundAlignments of instruments and action in governance: a synthesis – revisited and extended
Thynne, I. (2016) · Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/23276665.2016.1159393 · Cited by 1
Tren Publikasi Tentang Model Kepemimpinan dalam Pelayanan Publik: Suatu Analisis Bibliometrik
Pawestri, C. R. M., & Yuadi, I. (2023) · Jurnal Wacana Kinerja Kajian Praktis-Akademis Kinerja dan Administrasi Pelayanan Publik · doi:10.31845/jwk.v26i2.834 · Cited by 1
“Peningkatan kualitas pelayanan publik dapat dilakukan dengan perbaikan tata kelola serta perbaikan kebijakan dan infrastruktur yang dilakukan melalui consensus antara pemerintah dengan masyarakat (Emerson et al ., 2012).”
BackgroundEffective collaborative climate change governance in urban areas
Pasquini, L., Petrik, D., Nyamakura, B., et al. (2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800883666.00030 · Cited by 1
Collaborative Governance in Efforts to Protect Indonesian Migrant Workers
Doctor of Public Administration, U. D., & Putro, W. E. (2024) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS · doi:10.47191/ijmra/v7-i04-14 · Cited by 1
Križaj, D. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18094490 · Cited by 1
Science Communication by Government Public Relation from A Network Organization Perspective
Sugiono, S., & Salamah, U. (2021) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210531.036 · Cited by 1
Antono, A., Setiahadi, M., & Ngalimun, N. (2020) · Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara ASIAN (Asosiasi Ilmuwan Administrasi Negara) · doi:10.47828/jianaasian.v8i2.17 · Cited by 1
Application of Collaborative Governance to Handle Earthquake Victims in West Nusa Tenggara
Harahap, N., Sutrisno, E., & Asropi, A. (2022) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v7i9.10961 · Cited by 1
Cross-Sector Collaboration North Kalimantan's Poverty Alleviation Program
Iskandar, I. (2023) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v8i17.14140 · Cited by 1
“…and management that involves the community constructively within the boundaries of public institutions, levels of government and/or community, and private and civil society to carry out public interest that cannot be achieved without the involvement of the private sector and community [5].”
BackgroundMethodKalesnikaite, V. (2018) · FIU - Digital Commons (Florida International University) · doi:10.25148/etd.fidc006865 · Cited by 1
“Theoretical and conceptual frameworks, designed to explain collaborative governance, have drawn from multiple streams of literature, including intergovernmental cooperation, conflict resolution, collective action, democracy theory, and policy implementation (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBridging Environmental Justice and Policy: A Collaborative Waste Management Approach in Local Level
Sarofah, R., Nurohman, T., Ramdhani, H., & Firmadi, S. (2025) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1566/1/012028 · Cited by 2
“The study emphasizes that the success of collaboration is highly dependent on leadership that is able to design inclusive deliberative processes, ensure equal access to decision-making, and encourage the achievement of shared consensus [30].”
Programme evaluation as a reflection and perpetuator of inequality in the global political economy
Dlakavu, A. (2023) · Evaluation: African perspectives. · doi:10.4102/aosis.2023.bk459.03 · Cited by 1
Effects of climate change on the urban drainage system of Palermo
Miceli, L. B. (2017) · Cited by 1
Akhdlori, F., & Kharisma, V. D. (2023) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v8i11.13554 · Cited by 1
“[6] Collaborative governance is based on the goal of solving certain issues of the parties concerned.”
BackgroundTrulsrud, T. H., & van der Leer, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4612606 · Cited by 1
Collaborative Governance Model in Social Responsibility Program
Firdausijah, R. T. (2019) · International Conference on Administration Science (ICAS) · doi:10.2991/icas-19.2019.94 · Cited by 1
‘We all have the same goals’? Goal diversity in cross-sector collaborations of cultural education
Arnold, M.-T., & Kolleck, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1478472 · Cited by 1
Feng, Q., Sun, T., & Liu, X. (2023) · Energy & Environment · doi:10.1177/0958305x231192351 · Cited by 1
“Emerson et al. 16 de fi ned collaborative governance 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…”
India’s District Collectors as administrative entrepreneurs: myth or reality?
Jagannath, H. P. (2017) · International Journal of Public Leadership · doi:10.1108/ijpl-01-2017-0002 · Cited by 1
Contested sustainability standards in Indonesian agriculture
Wijaya, W. (2017) · doi:10.26481/dis.20170927aw · Cited by 1
Vignieri, V. (2022) · System dynamics for performance management · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07074-7_2 · Cited by 1
Febrian, R. A., Suwaryo, U., Kartini, D. S., et al. (2017) · doi:10.2991/icodag-17.2017.18 · Cited by 1
“[4] Similarly, Balogh (2011) concludes that Collaborative Governance is a process and structure in the management and formulation of public policy decisions involving actors constructively coming from various levels, both at the level of government and / or public institutions, private institutions and society civil s…”
BackgroundPan, Y., Luo, C., Han, Q., & Wang, Z. (2026) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2026.100806 · Cited by 3
Zhou, L., & Wu, J. (2026) · Public Administration and Development · doi:10.1002/pad.70062 · Cited by 2
“Public value is gradually created through deliberations and joint actions (Emerson et al. 2012; Weißmüller et al. 2023), and the enterprises focussed not only on economic values in collaboration but also on local residents' lives.”
InfluentialOutputs and Outcomes in Collaborative Governance
Agbodzakey, J. K. (2024) · SpringerBriefs in political science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57373-6_13 · Cited by 1
Collaboration in the city branding process - a bibliometric analysis of scientific literature
Ilczuk, K. (2019) · IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON) · doi:10.1109/temscon.2019.8813704 · Cited by 1
“A review of scientific literature within this area was performed by Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh [12] in their article titled "An integrative framework for collaborative governance".”
BackgroundTiglao, N. C. C., Sanciangco, E., & Tolentino, N. J. (2025) · Research in Transportation Economics · doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2025.101633 · Cited by 1
To Collaborate or Not: That Is the Question
Jagannath, H. P. (2012) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02679.x · Cited by 1
Bangun, G. E., & Suwandi, I. M. (2024) · SOSIOHUMANIORA Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora · doi:10.30738/sosio.v10i1.16268 · Cited by 1
“Bukan hanya berkolaborasi dengan pihak di luar pemerintahan, kolaborasi lintas sektor pemerintahan juga merupakan hal yang penting dalam menjaga keberlanjutan sebuah 2579-4728 (E-ISSN) | 2443-180X (P-ISSN) kebijakan maupun program (Emerson et.al., 2011).”
BackgroundOlszowski, R. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202104.0422.v1
Extending Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Managing Dissent in Public Lands Agencies
Taggart, G., & Bedwell, M. G. (2023) · Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs · doi:10.20899/jpna.9.1.53-72 · Cited by 1
Nugroho, K. S., Rahayu, R., Adnan, M., et al. (2020) · ijd-demos · doi:10.37950/ijd.v2i2.53 · Cited by 1
Tata Kelola Kolaboratif Program Ketahanan Pangan di Kodim 0733 Kota Semarang
Indriastuti, D., Priluddina, M., Rusmana, R. B., et al. (2023) · Al Qalam Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan · doi:10.35931/aq.v17i6.2960 · Cited by 1
Local governance and public policy : the dynamics of renewing disadvantaged neighbourhoods
Walsh, P. (2017) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.104757 · Cited by 1
Kalawong, S., Chainit, A., & Bongsebodhidhamma, N. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3304821 · Cited by 1
International experience of co-governance in occupational safety
Li, S., & Wang, M. (2017) · Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies · doi:10.1080/24761028.2017.1391622 · Cited by 1
Rijal, S., Taufiq, M., Amalia, I. F., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Tourism Cities · doi:10.1080/20565607.2026.2656241 · Cited by 1
Kemitraan pemerintah kelurahan dalam penanganan COVID 19 dengan model pentahelix di Kota Malang
Nasution, V. A. U., Hadi, K., & Roziqin, A. (2022) · Jurnal Integrasi dan Harmoni Inovatif Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial · doi:10.17977/um063v2i2p89-95 · Cited by 1
“Hal ini sejalan dengan pernyataan dari Nabatchi dan Emerson yang mengatakan bahwa kegiatan kerja sama dapat dilakukan baik secara individual maupun hanya melibatkan beberapa aktor saja, namun tetap berprinsip pada pengetahuan dan kapasitas masing-masing aktor (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialEnhancing Collaborative Governance in Managing Grand Forest Park in Riau, Indonesia
Wardana, D., Wijaya, M., & Hafis, R. I. A. (2023) · Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy · doi:10.46507/jcgpp.v4i2.208 · Cited by 1
“…process to achieve a goal involves several constructive actors from various sectors, including government, the private sector and the community (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Erickson, Hamilton, Jones, & Ditomassi, 2003; Gordon, McKay, Marchildon, Sacha Bhatia, & Shaw, 2020; Morse &…”
BackgroundSuratman, J. A. M., Damayanti, N. A., & Azzahla, W. T. (2023) · Jurnal Ners · doi:10.31004/jn.v7i2.14510 · Cited by 1
Conventional Disaster Management: Issues and Challenges towards Muslims
Saibi, S. N. S., & Mokhtar, W. K. A. W. (2017) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i5/2978 · Cited by 1
Facilitating collaborative construction and Demolition waste governance: an SFIC approach
Liu, J.-K., Liu, H., & Li, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Construction Management · doi:10.1080/15623599.2025.2568100 · Cited by 1
“This conclusion echoes the emphasis on “procedural legitimacy” in collaborative governance literature: inclusive institutional arrangements help establish consensus and avoid trust crises caused by rule deficiencies (Emerson et al. 2012).”
InfluentialBuilding the Capacity of Village Apparatus in an Intergovernmental Network Approach
Ma’ruf, M. F., Mudzakkir, M., & Widyaningrum, D. (2023) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-008-4_19 · Cited by 1
Duong, T. M. P., Nguyen, M., Sari, N. P. W. P., Nguyen, H.-H. T., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18062706 · Cited by 2
van Duijn, S., Ybema, S. B., & Kamsteeg, F. H. (2026) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2026.2690422 · Cited by 1
Keegan, S., Reis, K., Roiko, A. H., & Desha, C. (2025) · Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/13876988.2025.2544892 · Cited by 3
“…tiers of government We complemented the appraisal of Dimension 2 – Sub-system involvement – with additional collaborative governance criteria by Emerson et al. (2012, p. 2), referring to how policies “engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government,…”
-Fistabella, S. J. A. (2025) · JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan · doi:10.54371/jiip.v8i4.7587 · Cited by 1
“Dalam analisis data, penelitian ini menggukanan kerangka kerja Collaborative Governance menurut Emerson et al., (2012) yang terdiri atas dinamika kolaborasi, tindakan kolaborasi, dan dampak dan adaptasi.”
Suda, Y. (2025) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2025.2580356 · Cited by 1
Kassim, H.-S. (2016) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s2053-769720160000026004 · Cited by 1
Citizen engagement and collaboration: The key to promoting learning city
Kaewhanam, K., Kaewhanam, P., Pongsiri, A., Intanin, J., Kamolkat, S., & Thongmual, N. (2022) · Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) · doi:10.11591/edulearn.v17i1.20650 · Cited by 1
“In the workplace, leadership is primarily essential during the implementation process, [10], [28]–[31].”
BackgroundCollaborative policymaking: factors of trust in the multipolitical environment
Sychova, A. O. (2023) · Politicus · doi:10.24195/2414-9616.2023-2.8 · Cited by 1
The paradox of collaborative governance in leprosy rehabilitation in Central Java
Hafis, R. I. A., Warsono, H., Larasati, E., et al. (2021) · Management and Entrepreneurship Trends of Development · doi:10.26661/2522-1566/2021-3/17-05 · Cited by 1
“…Innes & Boher, 2004; Ansell & Gash, 2007; Agrawal & Lemos, 2007; Zadek, 2008; Wanna, 2008; Shergold, 2008; Robertson & Choi, 2010; Rasche, 2010; Emerson et.al, 2011; Eppel, 2013; Wang, 2014; Sun, 2017) the definition can be as following: collaborative governance is a characteristic of…”
InfluentialA Landscape Governance Approach to Mining Landscape Restoration: Assessing the Evidence in GhanaPreprint
Kaye‐Essien, C. W., & Yankson, E. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3651318/v1 · Cited by 1
Good Data Governance als Hebel der Transformation im öffentlichen Sektor
Höhn, S., Zurkinden, M., Neuroni, A. C., et al. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-21596-5_57-1 · Cited by 1
Building a Certification and Inspection Data Infrastructure to Promote Transparent Markets
Luciano, J., Sayogo, D. S., Ran, W., DePaula, N., Jarman, H., Tayi, G. K., Zhang, J., Hrdinová, J., Pardo, T. A., Andersen, D. L., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/ijegr.2017100104 · Cited by 1
Ren, H., Zhang, L., Whetsell, T. A., et al. (2025) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.106635 · Cited by 1
Designing Governance Structures for Performance and Accountability
Su, T.-T., Niu, M., Wanna, J., Podger, A., & Chan, H. S. (2020) · ANU Press eBooks · doi:10.22459/dgspa.2020 · Cited by 7
Wicaksono, A., Andari, R. N., Azni, U. S., et al. (2025) · Urban Governance · doi:10.1016/j.ugj.2025.10.003 · Cited by 1
Lyu, P., Du, J.-W., Ma, L., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2023) · Chinese Public Administration Review · doi:10.1177/15396754231200132 · Cited by 1
“All articles, including those of Ansell and Gash (2007), Rittel and Webber (1973), Provan and Kenis (2007), Emerson et al. (2011), and Hood (1991) overlap in Figures 2 and 3, indicating that they had immense influence on public administration and also had significant annual citations.”
BackgroundInfluentialFrom institutionalisation to embeddedness
Pomares, E. (2026) · Oñati Socio-legal Series · doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2525 · Cited by 1
“They make collaborative activity collectively legible and connect operational routines with strategic visibility that underpins adaptive governance (Emerson et al. 2012, Sabel and Zeitlin 2012).”
Carlsson, F., Lindström, N. B., & Sandberg, J. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01589-1_3 · Cited by 1
Zhang, N., Lu, Z., & Shou, Y. (2017) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.075 · Cited by 1
“Emerson, Nabatchi and Balog explains the three dimensions of an integrative framework for collaborative governance [14]: (1) the general system context, (2) the collaborative governance regime (CGR), and (3) its collaborative dynamics and actions.”
BackgroundMethodRespuestas proactivas del gobierno surcoreano a la pandemia del coronavirus
Kim, P. S. (2021) · Gestión y Política Pública · doi:10.29265/gypp.v30i2.877 · Cited by 1
Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaborative Leadership in an Organizational Context
Ang'ana, G. A., Ongeti, W. J., & Chiroma, J. A. (2023) · Journal of Human Resource &Leadership · doi:10.53819/81018102t2289 · Cited by 2
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
