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 2,801–2,900 of 3,564
van Agthoven, G., Otterman, G. J., Knez, R., Makoroff, K. L., & Korhonen, L. (2026) · BMJ Paediatrics Open · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2026-005108
Dyani, D. A. M., & Nuralam, I. P. (2017) · Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences · doi:10.18551/rjoas.2017-09.11
“Emerson et al. (2012) have developed a less normative and less restrictive definition, as the processes and structures of the public policy of the decision making and management of public relations, the levels of government, and the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out…”
BackgroundMorris, M. J. R. (2016) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo)
Condro, S. P., Wicaksono, M. A., & Purwanto, S. A. (2025) · The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology · doi:10.1080/14442213.2025.2560926
“In doing so, individual experience is situated within a broader institutional and analytical context, informed by the anthropology of the state, crisis governance, and institutional improvisation (Haitami and Rengganis 2021; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
Collaboration and Interdependence in Nasa's ReinventionPreprint
Mcginnis, H., & Bienhoff, D. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5351913
Nope, M. S. A. (2021) · Advances in economics, business and management research/Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research · doi:10.2991/aebmr.k.210928.094
“Riyanta and Kurniati [11] in their article "Collaborative Governance Strategy between Government and NonGovernment Actors in Poverty Alleviation" explain that community empowerment as a long-term solution is expected to be carried out in a sustainable manner.”
BackgroundInfluentialKultur:Wandel - Impulse für eine zukunftsweisende Kulturpraxis
Blaich, A., Grädler, F., Mohr, H., & Seibold, H. (2023) · Schriften zum Kultur- und Museumsmanagement · doi:10.1515/9783839464922
The discourses of Ba’al Shem Tov (Besht) Street in Jaffa: From displacement to placement
Gigi, M., & Kedem, A. (2024) · Environment and Planning C Politics and Space · doi:10.1177/23996544241300389
“Additional models interrogate and expand on Ansell and Gash ’ s (2015) collective-governance model, starting with Emerson (Emerson et al., 2012), Vigoda Gadot (2009), and O ’ Flynn and Wanna (2008) and Williams (2012), who examine the extent of governance and of the integration of sectors and…”
Participatory Tech-Policy Design: A Methodological Approach Grounded in Regulatory Learning
Mejía, M. I., Gómez, P., Viloria-Núñez, C., et al. (2025) · IEEE Ecuador Technical Chapters Meeting (ETCM) · doi:10.1109/etcm67548.2025.11304402
“Emerson et al. [9] propose an integrative framework in which collaborative governance is structured around shared leadership, institutional capacity, and the joint generation of knowledge.”
COLLABORATION VERSUS COORDINATION: A DILEMMA ABOUT STATE ACTORS’ POSITION IN A POLICY
Mukhlis, M., Suwaryo, U., Deliarnoor, N. A., et al. (2018) · Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences · doi:10.18551/rjoas.2018-08.15
“Henton in Susanti, (2016) highlighted the core of collaborative governance, namely (1) forum for public deliberation, (2) community problem solving, and (3) multi-stakeholders dispute resolution.”
BackgroundHe, Z. X., Wang, R., & Huang, J. (2026) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos17070676
Leadership in the Age of Governance
Sørensen, E. (2020) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198777953.003.0002
Mustofa, A., Harsoyo, Pramudiana, I. D., et al. (2026) · Public Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1177/07349149261465370
Cross-Cultural Trust Networks and Advancing Education Equity in Place-Based Partnerships
Banks, A. J. (2017) · ResearchWorks at the University of Washington (University of Washington)
Suhadi, S., Ahmad, B., & Ibrahim, A. (2025) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v10i18.19517
Soulisa, F. M., Ufi, J. A., & Salampessy, M. (2026) · Journal of Social Knowledge Education (JSKE) · doi:10.37251/jske.v7i3.2720
“Collaborative governance studies emphasize that coordination must be supported by transparent communication, shared forums, and adaptive mechanisms that respond to local conditions [16], [17], [37].”
Zarch, R., & McGill, M. M. (2024) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--43474
“Effectiveness is increased when the backbone focuses on communication, sharing information, building trust, and engaging in activities that are mutually reinforced throughout the wider CI [21].”
BackgroundLi, X., & Zou, Y. (2026) · Ain Shams Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2026.104366
Soares, F. D. L., & Horne, R. E. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4868903
Pacheco, I. M., van der Werff, E., & Steg, L. (2026) · Environmental Psychology Research · doi:10.1002/epr2.70018
Zhou, L., & Ren, H. (2026) · Local Government Studies · doi:10.1080/03003930.2026.2699745
Governança Colaborativa em redes: uma discussão teórica
da Silva, A. M. V., Paz, H. C., & da Silva, G. B. (2023) · Revista de Tecnologia Aplicada · doi:10.48005/2237-3713rta2023v12n2p5364
Sustaining collaborations after a crisis: Australian disability and health policy and practice
Dickinson, H., Badji, S., Llewellyn, G., et al. (2026) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1093/polsoc/puag004
Martínez, V. P., Torres, L., Moreno, A. L., et al. (2026) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.71728
4. Empirical Analysis of the Guadalquivir
Schütze, N. (2023) · Edition Politik · doi:10.14361/9783839466896-005
Open Government: Conceptual Underpinnings, Benefits, and Relationship with SDGs
Uddin, N. (2021) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95960-3_86
Who Volunteers to Co-Design? Emotional Drivers and Public Engagement in Nuclear Energy SitingPreprint
Livingston, W., Bitterman, A., Ter-Mkrtchyan, A. V., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7210666
Hendriks, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848291.003.0009
스포츠 공공기관 AI 혁신의 성립 조건과 공공 AI 거버넌스의 한계: 국민체육진흥공단 경륜⋅경정 AI Pick 사례의 성능 비교
김, 필., 이, 상., & 전, 성. (2026) · 한국체육학회지 · doi:10.23949/kjpe.2026.3.65.2.36
Mphahlele-Ntsasa, L., & van Rensburg, M. J. (2024) · Discover Global Society · doi:10.1007/s44282-024-00048-6
“While scholarly research has broadly identified dimensions of inter-organizational networks [7, 8], researchers have called for further investigation to understand how specific types of inter-organizational networks experience these dimensions [9, 10].”
Lee, N., Min, G., Kang, S., et al. (2026) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f17080984
“These findings are also consis-https tent with previous research emphasizing collaborative governance among governments, public institutions, and private organizations in addressing complex social problems and operating public services effectively [49,50].”
Collaborative Governance for Digital Health in Epidemics: Case Studies from Emerging Systems
Mrad, L. A. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30647-0_17
Marchevska, D. (2025) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.70082
Governance Performance of Türkiye: A Comparative Analysis with OECD, EU, and BRICS Countries
Birol, Y. E. (2025) · Ekonomi İşletme ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.38009/ekimad.1701948 · Cited by 1
Noorani, A., Yahya, A. S., Khairi, H., et al. (2025) · Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Kesatuan · doi:10.37641/jimkes.v13i4.3493
Gomes, J. H. D. F., da Costa, S. C., de Paiva, A. P., Peruchi, R. S., & Lopes, L. G. D. (2020) · Editora Conhecimento Livre eBooks · doi:10.37423/200300442
Yang, T.-M., & Wu, Y.-J. (2025) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2025.102049
Business in Acute Crisis: A Humanitarian Impact Value Chain for Assessing Cross-Sector Partnerships
Vestergaard, A., & Ruamps, C. (2026) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-026-06440-3
Abdel‐Samad, M., & Flanigan, S. T. (2018) · Working Paper Series · doi:10.35188/unu-wider/2018/443-8
“While it can be difficult to achieve (Ansell and Gash 2007), trust is crucial for successful collaboration (Brown et al. 2007; Emerson et al. 2012; Romzek et al. 2012), and results in numerous benefits (Klijn et al. 2010).”
BackgroundResultHu, D. H., Pope, K. L., & Cole, N. W. (2026) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2026.2720886
Mu, J., Li, C., Kang, T., Dong, C., Chen, C., Ou, B., Liang, H., & Zhang, N. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1967645
Agbodzakey, J. K., Schrouder, S. M., & Bolden, N. (2020) · Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development · doi:10.7176/jesd/11-8-01
“In fact, the leaders’ contributions in terms of process variables such as trust building, commitment formation, shared understanding, communication, consensus and consequential empowerment of stakeholders, offer more opportunities for collaborative success (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Agbodzakey, 2010, 2017; Emerson et al.…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPublic Innovation: An Empty Discourse
Isaza, C. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4063-1
Diyanto, C., Putranti, I. R., Yuwono, T., et al. (2023) · European Journal of Education and Applied Psychology · doi:10.29013/ejeap-23-3-3-11
den Bakker, M., Verweij, S., Arts, J., et al. (2026) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2026.104067
Bonilla, D. M., & Suárez, L. (2026) · Revista Conectividad · doi:10.37431/conectividad.v7i1.363
Shagun, S. (2024) · Acceleron Aerospace Journal · doi:10.61359/11.2106-2432
“By working together, scholars can develop a shared understanding of the complex issues involved in space exploration and create governance frameworks that are more responsive to AAJ.11.2106-2432 the needs and perspectives of various stakeholders [54] .”
BackgroundInfluentialVisentini, A. L. F., & Verschoore, J. R. (2026) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-06-2025-0505
Back to Basics! Shifting Towards Morality Discourse: The Self-Delusion
Chowdhury, S. (2024) · Approaches to global sustainability, markets, and governance · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-4742-9_3
Dwiyanti, O., & Anisykurlillah, R. (2025) · Journal of Governance and Social Policy · doi:10.24815/gaspol.v6i2.26
“…in collaborative governance literature, such intricate public issues cannot be effectively addressed by a single entity; instead, they require the concerted efforts of diverse actors who bring complementary resources and perspectives to the problem-solving process (Emerson et al., 2012) .”
Hatmaja, D., Andri, S., Heriyanto, M., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Religion · doi:10.61707/p51yna78
How to study the implementation of health policy interventions with integrative frameworks?
Ridde, V., Allegri, M. D., Dukuze, M.-B., et al. (2024) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800887565.00008
Dynamics of Collaboration in Poverty Alleviation in Bone Regency
Akbar, A., Usman, J., & Malik, I. (2024) · Journal La Sociale · doi:10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v5i6.1370
“The concept of collaborative governance according to(Emerson et al., 2012), which describes a collaborative governance regime (CGR) as a dynamic, cyclical collaborative process that generates temporary actions and impacts before accelerating to larger impacts and adapting to temporary pressures.”
BackgroundSanchez, W. R., Rezkalah, S. E. B., & Saenz, S. G. A. (2023) · Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar · doi:10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i1.4975
Prasetia, A. R., & Dirgantari, P. D. (2026) · Politeia Journal of Public Administration and Political Science and International Relations · doi:10.61978/politeia.v4i2.1493
“The case also fits collaborative-governance scholarship, especially the view that complex public problems require linked intervention among multiple actors rather than isolated action by a single agency (Bryson et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2012).”
Hierarchy and collaborative networks: a study on the colour of culture
Milagres, R. D. M., da Silva, S. A. G., & Rezende, O. (2021) · Gestão & Produção · doi:10.1590/1806-9649-2020v28e5041
“In this sense, the case highlighted the importance of leadership performed by FRM in the network (Emerson et al., 2012; Nielsen, 2010).”
BackgroundToward more effective regional networks
Klaster, E. (2017) · Bestuurskunde · doi:10.5553/bk/092733872017026002011
“, celebrating small wins and developing shared plans) (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Emerson et al., 2011).”
Background6. Empirical Analysis of the Mediterranean Basins of Andalusia
Schütze, N. (2023) · Edition Politik · doi:10.14361/9783839466896-007
Is Network Governance Universally Feasible?
Li, Y. (2023) · Understanding governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44903-1_1
Scott, T. A. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2519663
DYNAMICS OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE IN INDONESIAN SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Saputra, T., Nurpeni, N., В.Руди, Х., et al. (2025) · Public Administration Issues · doi:10.17323/1999-5431-2025-0-6-43-60
“Furthermore, Emerson et al., (2012) have proff ered a comprehensive framework for collaborative governance, encompassing aspects such as system context, collaborative regimes, and the dynamics of collaboration.”
Employer networks for human capital: a scoping review on their drivers, dynamics and outcomes
Vollenbroek, R., Stynen, D., Semeijn, J., & Stoffers, J. (2026) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-05-2025-0344
Wang, Y., Li, T., Huang, C., et al. (2026) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.70085
Amir, M. Y., Haning, M. T., Nara, N., Yunus, M., Ibrahim, M. A., Susanti, G., & Achmadi, B. (2022) · Journal of Health and Nutrition Research · doi:10.56303/jhnresearch.v1i3.92
Osei_Dwomoh, E., Amenyah, H., & Forkuo, G. O. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9246107/v1
Bárbara Raíssa Ferreira de, L. I. M. A., Kalil, F. B., de Souza, J. R. S., et al. (2024) · Revista Tecnológica de Administração · doi:10.12660/reta.v1n1.2024.91410
Implementing Collaborative Governance in Investment for Regional Development in Southwest Papua
Widjasenaa, H. F., Ahmad, B., & Yunus, M. (2025) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v10i18.19586
“In addition, [3] revealed that the main elements that support the success of collaborative governance are active participation from various parties, open communication, and DOI 10.18502/kss.v10i18.”
InfluentialParticipatory Budgeting-new style
Hendriks, F. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848291.003.0008
Guan, Y., & Yi, H. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18189351
Ramasamy, R., & Silva, K. T. (2025) · Contemporary South Asia · doi:10.1080/09584935.2025.2460618
“…of government’ and ‘whole of society’ approaches under credible leadership (Ansell and Gash 2008; Ansell, Sørensen, and Torfing 2021; Boin et al. 2016; Bromfield and McConnell 2021; Chowdhury and Jomo 2020; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Klimovsky, Malý, and Nemec 2021; Scott and Boyd 2020).”
Drapeau, J., Bilek, G. M., & Carassus, D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6561594
The Scope of Public Opinion and Governance
Bennett, S. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54696-4_2
Analysis Of The Impact Of Collaborative Governance On The Development Of Village Owned Enterprises
Yahya, A., & Andreas Wahyu Gunawan, P. (2023) · Journal of Comprehensive Science (JCS) · doi:10.59188/jcs.v2i8.488
Sulfiani, A. N., ., S., Abdullah, M. T., et al. (2025) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v10i18.19518
“The first theme, Stakeholder Engagement and Power-Sharing, highlights the importance of engaging local actors for the effectiveness of collaborative policies [26], [27].”
Civil Society: The Third Sector that Grew Unnoticed by the State
Galnoor, I., & Blander, D. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316160978.013
Wang, L., Bivona, E., Yan, H., et al. (2025) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.3158
Wang, W., Wang, T., & Wang, X. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3730436.3730502
“A wide definition of collaborative governance was created by Emerson et al. (2012) as ”the process and structure of public policy decision-making and administration” [ 22 ] .”
DUVERGER, T. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394388387.ch3
Primanto, A., & Puspitasari, L. (2023) · ARRUS Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities · doi:10.35877/soshum2222
Vision making and values in urban regeneration
Street, E., & Nicholls, V. (2026) · Planning Theory · doi:10.1177/14730952261437002
“…constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished ” (Emerson et al., 2012: 1) is an especially important feature of Bracknell ’ s regeneration.”
Policy Collaboration in the Development of Lake Mas Harun Bastari Torurism in Bengkulu
Indarti, S., Ju’im, J., & Yuliani, F. (2023) · Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-106-7_14
He, Y., Zhen, W., & McDougall, J. (2024) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5098-6_33
Phasing the negotiations of housing public-private partnerships in Municipal housing projects
Salane, R. R. (2018) · UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria)
Moore, J. (2021) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Yun, Z., & Wang, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1941280
“Collaborative governance theory further suggests that cross-boundary action depends on institutional arrangements that connect shared purpose, principled engagement, capacity for joint action, and mechanisms of accountability (16, 17).”
PERENCANAAN PEMBANGUNAN E-GOVERNMENT : ANALISIS VISUAL MENGGUNAKAN VOS VIEWERS
Prakoso, I. (2022) · Jurnal Sosioteknologi · doi:10.5614/sostek.itbj.2022.21.1.10
Chyngwa, A., & Ferrant, A. (2025) · Le climatoscope · doi:10.7202/1125686ar
Data-Driven Collaboration in Mandated Networks: US Homelessness Services
Cheng, L., Kim, S., & Sullivan, A. A. (2026) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2026.2725004
Zhao, L., Hao, Y., & Cao, L. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2689523
Kolaborasi Pembangunan Kawasan Perdesaan Margomarem Kabupaten Wonosobo
Ainaqo, A. A. A., Handayani, W., & Mardiansyah, F. H. (2024) · Jurnal Tataloka · doi:10.14710/tataloka.26.4.266-279
Chen, Y., Cheng, X., & Knepper, R. (2025) · Digital Government Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3745788
“Organizational capacity entails the ability to create and sustain shared goals and to take joint actions across varying organizational priorities and circumstances to accomplish these goals [ 13 , 19 ].”
TOWARDS A COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE STRATEGY IN SERVICE DELIVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA
Onwuegbuchulam, S. P. C. (2024) · Journal of Public Administration Finance and Law · doi:10.47743/jopafl-2024-31-25
“The above responses from community participants help in elucidating the variegated views in literature (Ansell & Gash, 2017; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh, 2011; Bianchi, Nasi & Rivenbark 2021) on the issue of collaborative governance between state organs and private organizations like the FBOs.”
BackgroundA theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value
Torfing, J., Ferlie, E. B., Jukić, T., & Ongaro, E. (2024) · Policy Press eBooks · doi:10.51952/9781447369042.ch001
Reig, M., Albareda, A., Giardina, F., & Estève, M. (2026) · International Public Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10967494.2026.2693112
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
