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 201–300 of 3,564
Breaugh, J., Rackwitz, M., & Hammerschmid, G. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101788 · Cited by 54
Zhou, L., & Dai, Y. (2021) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12664 · Cited by 56
Serious gaming for participatory planning of multi-hazard mitigation
Carson, A., Windsor, M., Hill, H., Haigh, T. R., Wall, N. A., Smith, J., Olsen, R., Bathke, D. J., Demir, İ., & Muste, M. (2018) · International Journal of River Basin Management · doi:10.1080/15715124.2018.1481079 · Cited by 53
“…enhances the understanding of the watershed and the issues to be addressed wherein multiple conceptual models were proposed for collaboration-based planning (Friedmann 1973, Selin and Chevez 1995, Moote and McClaran 1997, Bentrup 2001, Lane and McDonald 2005, Ansell and Gash 2007, Emerson et al .”
BackgroundUsing a design approach to create collaborative governance
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Seo, D. (2019) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/030557319x15613696433190 · Cited by 56
The Impacts of Democratic Innovations
Ávila-Acosta, F., Carrick, J., Elstub, S., Ercan, S. A., Felicetti, A., Fernández-Martínez, J. L., Font, J., Gastil, J., Geißel, B., Gourgues, G., et al. (2023) · ECPR Press eBooks · doi:10.61675/ksby3068 · Cited by 60
Abbas, S. S., Shorten, T., & Rushton, J. (2021) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czab134 · Cited by 60
“In other contexts, sectors could refer to the ownership of the institutions—such as state, non-governmental organizations and citizens, as in the case of collaborative governance literature (Tennyson and Wilde, 2000; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialState Capabilities for Problem-Oriented Governance
Mayne, Q., de Jong, J., & Fernández-Monge, F. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz023 · Cited by 79
van den Hurk, M., & Verhoest, K. (2014) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.05.005 · Cited by 55
Intergovernmentalism and its implications – new institutional leadership in major EU reforms
Smeets, S., & Beach, D. (2019) · Journal of European Public Policy · doi:10.1080/13501763.2019.1699940 · Cited by 55
Collaborative Governance for Integrated Care: Insights from a Policy Stakeholder Dialogue
Gordon, D., McKay, S. M., Marchildon, G. P., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.4684 · Cited by 53
Rojas, R., Bennison, G., Gálvez, V., et al. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12123316 · Cited by 54
Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework
Vince, J., Fudge, M., Fullbrook, L., & Haward, M. (2024) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1093/polsoc/puae027 · Cited by 71
“Underpinning these relationships among non-government and government actors is trust and perceived legitimacy of working with other actors (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Siddiki et al., 2022).”
Halvey, M. R., Santo, R. E., Lupolt, S. N., et al. (2020) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102013 · Cited by 54
Beyond engagement: Enhancing equity in collaborative water governance
Koebele, E. A., Méndez‐Barrientos, L. E., Nadeau, N., & Gerlak, A. K. (2023) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1687 · Cited by 57
“We began by reviewing foundational works on collaborative governance (e.g., Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012) for candidate design features (e.g., “ face-to-face interactions ” ).”
BackgroundMethodConflicts over Natural Resources in the Global South
Arsel, M., Mena, C., Pellegrini, L., & Radhuber, I. M. (2014) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b16498 · Cited by 55
“Collaborative governance aims to engage people across divides for “a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished’’ (Emerson et al. 2012: 2).”
Background22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research
Porter, J. J., & Birdi, K. S. (2018) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.004 · Cited by 54
Boundary Spanning Through Engagement of Policy Actors in Multiple Issues
Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K. M., Fischer, M., et al. (2020) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12404 · Cited by 54
Towards a values framework for integrated health services: an international Delphi study
Zonneveld, N., Raab, J., & Minkman, M. M. N. (2020) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-5008-y · Cited by 58
Collaboration Risk and the Choice to Consolidate Local Government Services
Hansen, K., Mullin, M., & Riggs, E. K. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz017 · Cited by 52
The political ontology of collaborative water governance
Harrington, C. (2017) · Water International · doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1309507 · Cited by 53
Chang, Y., Hu, P., Huang, Y., et al. (2022) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2022.104120 · Cited by 53
Getha‐Taylor, H., & Morse, R. S. (2013) · Public Administration Quarterly · Cited by 53
The Cambridge Handbook on the Law of the Sharing EconomyPreprint
Davidson, N. M., Finck, M., & Infranca, J. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3247816 · Cited by 56
Barton, J. R., Krellenberg, K., & Harris, J. (2014) · Climate and Development · doi:10.1080/17565529.2014.934773 · Cited by 52
Pulpón, Á. R. R., & Ruiz, M. D. C. C. (2020) · Land · doi:10.3390/land9070216 · Cited by 52
“Its relevance has been analysed in studies on rural tourism [50,51], rural areas in general [52], mountainous regions [53] and studies in the field of public management [54].”
BackgroundKoontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2018) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.007 · Cited by 53
Building Collaboration: Examining the Relationship between Collaborative Processes and Activities
Sedgwick, D. (2016) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muw057 · Cited by 59
A Framework for Assessing Accountability in Collaborative Governance: A Process-Based Approach
Lee, S., & Ospina, S. M. (2021) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab031 · Cited by 77
Value of inter-organizational collaboration in digital government projects
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutierrez-Martinez, I. O., Duhamel, F. B., Luna, D. E., & Luna‐Reyes, L. F. (2017) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1305702 · Cited by 58
“Moreover, there is a need to improve theoretical aspects of collaboration in this context (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundImproving Policy Coordination Across the Water, Energy, and Food, Sectors in South Asia: A Framework
Rasul, G., & Neupane, N. (2021) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.602475 · Cited by 53
Mosley, J. E., & Grogan, C. M. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mus043 · Cited by 49
Balázsi, Á., Riechers, M., Hartel, T., et al. (2019) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104232 · Cited by 50
Strategic public value(s) governance: A systematic literature review and framework for analysis
Thabit, S., Sancino, A., & Mora, L. (2024) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13877 · Cited by 57
“…key capacity elements identified by collaborative governance frameworks (i.e., procedural arrangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources) (Emerson et al., 2011), and the literature from public sector innovation, which frames operational capabilities as “ the key role of strategic…”
InfluentialForest social values in a Swedish rural context: The private forest owners' perspective
Bjärstig, T., & Kvastegård, E. (2016) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.007 · Cited by 50
“A theoretical framework was applied to analyze the data, specifically focusing on collaboration and participation (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMosley, J. E. (2021) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716221994464 · Cited by 59
Imperial, M. T., Ospina, S. M., Johnston, E., O’Leary, R., Thomsen, J. M., Williams, P., & Johnson, S. (2016) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1248 · Cited by 50
“The network’s structure and processes are based on shared rules and norms, and typically depend on participatory processes to make collective decisions based on communication, relationships (personal and organizational), and mutual interests (Powell 1990; Wood and Gray 1991; Milward and Provan 2000; Imperial 2005a; Em…”
BackgroundEckerberg, K., Bjärstig, T., & Zachrisson, A. K. E. (2015) · Mountain Research and Development · doi:10.1659/mrd-journal-d-14-00068.1 · Cited by 49
“We use the concept of collaborative governance to distinguish situations in which public and private actors work together to resolve a particular issue or take action for a public purpose that could otherwise not be accomplished (Emerson et al 2012).”
BackgroundMethodNarratives, narrations and social structure in environmental governance
Koch, L., Gorris, P., & Pahl‐Wostl, C. (2021) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102317 · Cited by 48
Xu, M., & Wu, J. (2020) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106466 · Cited by 49
Public policies for scaling corporate responsibility standards
Bendell, J., Miller, A., & Wortmann, K. (2011) · Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal · doi:10.1108/20408021111185411 · Cited by 49
A Framework for Governance Capacity: A Broad Perspective on Steering Efforts in Society
van Popering‐Verkerk, J., Molenveld, A., Duijn, M., et al. (2022) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997211069932 · Cited by 56
Explaining Mobilization and Performance of Collaborations in Routine Emergency Management
Nohrstedt, D. (2013) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399712473983 · Cited by 52
“One interesting avenue of study is to uncover the causal mechanisms mediating the effects of preparatory action on collaborative activity and outcomes (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundJones-Crank, J. L., & White, D. D. (2021) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.025 · Cited by 49
Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2015) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074015576953 · Cited by 52
“Although such efforts are emergent in studies of collaborative governance (see, for example, Emerson et al., 2012; Innes & Booher, 1999; McGuire, 2006), an emphasis on interpersonal dynamics as opposed to structural characteristics and procedures is not yet found in the literature.”
BackgroundThe impacts of trust, cost and risk on collaboration in environmental governance
Bodin, Ö., Baird, J., Schultz, L., Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. R. (2020) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10097 · Cited by 51
Environmental solutions fast-tracked: Reversing public scepticism to public engagement
McAfee, D., Reinhold, S.-L., Alleway, H. K., & Connell, S. D. (2020) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108899 · Cited by 53
Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2022) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11702.001.0001 · Cited by 55
Lee, D., & Hung, C. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab038 · Cited by 48
Drivers of collaborative governance for the green transition
Nielsen, R. Ø., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2024.2358321 · Cited by 63
“…decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accom-plished’ (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012, 2).”
Johansson, J. (2016) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001 · Cited by 56
Willis, C. D., Greene, J. K., Abramowicz, A., & Riley, B. (2016) · Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.36.6.01 · Cited by 44
“Outer context is the external setting, including the norms, resources, regulations and operations of societies, as well as existing policy, political and legal conditions that affect a partnership.(12,44,45)”
BackgroundGoverning wildfires: toward a systematic analytical framework
Kirschner, J., Clark, J. R. A., & Boustras, G. (2023) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-13920-280206 · Cited by 63
Local Place-Based Collaborative Governance: Comparing State-Centric and Society-Centered Models
Clarke, S. E. (2016) · Urban Affairs Review · doi:10.1177/1078087416637126 · Cited by 48
Hybrid governance in aquaculture: Certification schemes and third party accreditation
Vince, J., & Haward, M. (2019) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.04.041 · Cited by 47
van Duijn, S., Bannink, D., & Ybema, S. B. (2021) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997211033818 · Cited by 48
“, Provan & Kenis, 2007), shedding light on conditions that may influence the success of a network or building relations between actors (e.g., Bryson et al., 2015; Emerson et al., 2012), and considering how we can evaluate the outcomes of network governance (e.”
BackgroundInfluentialAngst, M., Mewhirter, J. M., McLaughlin, D., & Fischer, M. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13427 · Cited by 49
Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2017) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12865 · Cited by 47
Institutional Factors and Processes in Interagency Collaboration: The Case of FEMA Corps
Ward, K. D., Varda, D., Epstein, D., et al. (2018) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074017745354 · Cited by 47
“Emerson et al. (2012) outline a collaborative governance regime, whereby a regime encompasses “the particular mode of, or system for, public decision making in which cross-boundary collaboration represents the prevailing pattern of behavior and activity” (p. 6).”
BackgroundParticipation and Political Influence in Complex Governance Systems
Mewhirter, J., Coleman, E. A., & Berardo, R. (2017) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12227 · Cited by 47
Collaborative Leadership in Integrated Care Systems; Creating Leadership for the Common Good
Moore, J. R., Elliott, I. C., & Hesselgreaves, H. (2023) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2023.2261126 · Cited by 62
“The dynamic of adaptability aligns with the Integrative Collaborative Governance Framework (Emerson et al., 2012), which in turn captures the dynamic, collaborative nature of an ICS.”
Backgroundvon der Porten, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2014) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.918232 · Cited by 52
“, Huxham and Vangen 2005), public administration (Emerson et al. 2012), planning (e.”
BackgroundMosley, J. E., & Jarpe, M. (2019) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13037 · Cited by 46
Purpose-Oriented Networks: The Architecture of Complexity
Nowell, B. L., & Kenis, P. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz012 · Cited by 46
Regenerative city-regions: a new conceptual framework
Axinte, L. F., Mehmood, A., Marsden, T., & Roep, D. (2019) · Regional Studies Regional Science · doi:10.1080/21681376.2019.1584542 · Cited by 49
“Similarly, multilayered political, legal, socioeconomic and environmental systemic circumstances define the dynamics and actions that ‘shape the overall quality and extent to which a collaborative governance regime is developed’ (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 6). Certainly, city-regions are spaces that have to accommodate…”
BackgroundCockburn, J., Schoon, M., Cundill, G., Robinson, C., Aburto, J., Alexander, S., Baggio, J., Barnaud, C., Chapman, M., Llorente, M. G., et al. (2020) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-11527-250307 · Cited by 35
Swann, W. L. (2015) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074015598576 · Cited by 46
“However, it is also believed that public managers need capacity in order for collaboration to be effective (Emerson et al., 2012; Provan & Milward, 1995; Turrini et al., 2010; Waugh & Streib, 2006).”
BackgroundRaungratanaamporn, I.-S., Pakdeeburee, P., Kamiko, A., et al. (2014) · Procedia Environmental Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.079 · Cited by 46
Collaborative Learning Processes in Social Impact Bonds: A Case Study from the Netherlands
Smeets, D. J. A. (2017) · Journal of Social Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1080/19420676.2017.1299034 · Cited by 46
“One or more of the following four drivers are necessary for a collaboration to begin (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011, 9–10).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialUrban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts
Veeckman, C. M., & Temmerman, L. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13020526 · Cited by 57
“Specifically, it is defined 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 public purpose that could not otherwise be…”
BackgroundMa, Y., Thornton, T. F., Mangalagiu, D., Lan, J., Hestad, D., Cappello, E. A., & van der LEEUW, S. (2019) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02541-3 · Cited by 47
“…requires collective visioning and behavioural change in order to transform social actors from passive consumers to active value co-creators towards sustainability and therefore involves extensive and deliberate social learning, and relationship and resource reconfigurations (Farla et al. 2012).”
BackgroundImproving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Governance Regimes: Lessons from Watershed Partnerships
Biddle, J. C. (2017) · Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000802 · Cited by 45
van den Oord, S., Kenis, P., Raab, J., & Cambré, B. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13736 · Cited by 55
Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology
Jernite, Y., Nguyen, H., Biderman, S., Rogers, A., Masoud, M., Danchev, V., Tan, S., Luccioni, A. S., Subramani, N., Johnson, I., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3534637 · Cited by 75
“[46]’s proposed framework considers principled engagement and shared motivation between all the participants in a governance structure (their shared values) as the basis for resolving tensions.”
BackgroundWhat drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative governance? An experimental study
Lee, S., & Esteve, M. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2026692 · Cited by 45
Alignment mechanisms to effectively govern the sustainable development goals
Wiegant, D. A., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., & van Zeben, J. A. W. (2024) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106721 · Cited by 44
McIntyre, K. B., & Schultz, C. A. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104683 · Cited by 57
Investigating the Relationship between Public Governance and the Corruption Perception Index
Koeswayo, P. S., Handoyo, S., & Hasyir, D. A. (2024) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2024.2342513 · Cited by 113
Bjärstig, T. (2017) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su9101685 · Cited by 44
“The qu stionnaire contains four overarching themes d veloped from the integrative framework for collaborative gov rnance [34].”
BackgroundCoordinating for Integrated Youth Care: The need for smart metagovernance
Voets, J., Verhoest, K., & Molenveld, A. (2015) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1029347 · Cited by 44
“Collaborative dynamics As mentioned in the second section, the collaborative dynamics concern the interplay of principled engagement, shared motivation and capacity for joint action (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Science of Public Administration: Problems, Presumptions, Progress, and Possibilities
Wright, B. E. (2015) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12468 · Cited by 47
Lü, Y., Geng, J., & He, G. (2015) · Advances in Climate Change Research · doi:10.1016/j.accre.2015.10.002 · Cited by 44
Kuluski, K., & Guilcher, S. J. T. (2019) · A Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2019.26030 · Cited by 48
“Moreover, if patients and caregivers identify social factors as key priorities within their health system encounters, to what extent are health system providers/ decision makers accountable and responsible? We argue the need to explore collaborative governance opportunities as a way to bring health and social care sec…”
BackgroundA systematic review of collaborative digital platforms: structuring the domain and research agenda
Wegner, D., da Silveira, A. B., Marconatto, D. A. B., & Mitręga, M. (2023) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00695-0 · Cited by 44
“There is also room for analyzing CDPs through the lens of collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012).”
Unravelling collaborative governance dynamics within healthcare networks: a scoping review
Belrhiti, Z., Bigdeli, M., Lakhal, A., Kaoutar, D., Zbiri, S., & Belabbes, S. (2024) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czae005 · Cited by 48
“We used ‘the integrative collaborative governance regime (CGR) model’ developed by Emerson et al ., 2011 (see Figure 1).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialJiren, T. S., Bergsten, A., Dorresteijn, I., Collier, N. F., Leventon, J., & Fischer, J. (2018) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.014 · Cited by 44
Ulibarrí, N. (2019) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-10962-240215 · Cited by 48
Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy068 · Cited by 44
Parent, M. M., Rouillard, C., & Naraine, M. L. (2017) · Sport Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.smr.2017.02.001 · Cited by 43
He, C., Liu, H., He, L., Lu, T., & Li, B. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107019 · Cited by 44
Baldwin, E. (2019) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muz033 · Cited by 43
Exploring Collaborative Governance Processes Involving Nonprofits
Calò, F., Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Bellazzecca, E., & Mazzei, M. (2023) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08997640231155817 · Cited by 54
“…for developing a sense of trust between nonprof-its and public-sector partners, aligning with previous work affirming that leadership is critical for helping collaborations achieve their goals (see for example Ansell, 2012; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Emerson et al., 2012; Mosley & Wong, 2021).”
BackgroundHow to foster collaborative performance management? Key factors in the US federal agencies
Choi, I., & Moynihan, D. P. (2019) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1571275 · Cited by 42
“As a strategy, collaboration promises to address complex social issues by eliminating duplicate processes and sharing resources effectively (Connelly, Zhang, and Faerman 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Markovic 2017).”
BackgroundSmart Governance Toolbox: A Systematic Literature Review
Ruijer, E. H. J. M., van Twist, A., Haaker, T., Tartarin, T., Schuurman, N., Melenhorst, M., & Meijer, A. J. (2023) · Smart Cities · doi:10.3390/smartcities6020042 · Cited by 43
“Components in Literature: Bryson, Crosby and Stone [27] Thomson and Perry [29] Ansell and Gash [26] Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh [28] Overview Shared Collaborative Governance Components”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDINAMIKA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE DALAM STUDI KEBIJAKAN PUBLIK
Dewi, N. L. Y. (2019) · Jurnal Ilmiah Dinamika Sosial · doi:10.38043/jids.v3i2.2188 · Cited by 42
Musleh, M., Subianto, A., Tamrin, M. H., et al. (2023) · Journal of Local Government Issues · doi:10.22219/logos.v6i1.22218 · Cited by 42
Addressing food poverty in systems: governance of food assistance in three European countries
Galli, F., Hebinck, A., & Carroll, B. (2018) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0850-z · Cited by 42
Policy learning in collaborative environmental governance processes
Koebele, E. A. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2019.1623661 · Cited by 44
The power of place in public leadership research and development
Jackson, B. (2019) · International Journal of Public Leadership · doi:10.1108/ijpl-09-2019-0059 · Cited by 42
de Abreu, M. C. S., & de Andrade, R. D. J. C. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133700 · Cited by 42
Regulating Collaboration: The Legal Framework of Collaborative Governance in Ten European Countries
Batory, A., & Svensson, S. (2019) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1658771 · Cited by 42
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
