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 301–400 of 3,564
Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance
Hovardas, T. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13147744 · Cited by 42
“Here we encounter the establishment and operation of formal and informal institutions aimed to secure stakeholder constructive engagement for inclusionary decisionmaking [13].”
BackgroundWoldesenbet, W. G. (2020) · Applied Water Science · doi:10.1007/s13201-019-1137-z · Cited by 42
A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study
Dale, A. P., Vella, K. J., Pressey, R. L., et al. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015037 · Cited by 42
“This view suggests that governance is a systemic concept mediated by power relationships; various processes of bargaining and negotiation among differing interests in society leading to particular system outcomes (Dorcey 1986, Emerson et al 2011).”
Bolton, K. A., Fraser, P., Lowe, J., Moodie, M., Bell, C., Strugnell, C., Hayward, J., McGlashan, J., Millar, L., Whelan, J., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266654 · Cited by 44
Shah, I., Mahmood, T., Khan, S. A., Elahi, N., Shahnawaz, M., Dogar, A. A., Subhan, F., & Begum, K. (2022) · Jàmbá Journal of Disaster Risk Studies · doi:10.4102/jamba.v14i1.1088 · Cited by 42
Sun, Y. (2014) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.11.005 · Cited by 42
van Popering‐Verkerk, J., & van Buuren, A. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.141 · Cited by 42
Kim, Y., & Darnall, N. (2015) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12463 · Cited by 41
Westskog, H., Amundsen, H., Christiansen, P., et al. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2020.1784115 · Cited by 41
“Adaptive governance shares many similarities with theories of collaborative governance, highlighting the importance of a shared understanding, capacity for joint action and principled engagement to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundDoes air pollution collaborative governance promote green technology innovation? Evidence from China
Sun, H., Zhang, Z., & Liu, Z. (2022) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-022-19535-x · Cited by 41
“The provinces and cities in the unit jointly plan and implement the air pollution control scheme, make overall planning, supervise and coordinate with each other, and ultimately improve regional air quality (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundAristovnik, A., Murko, E., & Ravšelj, D. (2022) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci12010026 · Cited by 54
Baldwin, E., Rountree, V., & Jock, J. (2017) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.013 · Cited by 41
Lee-Geiller, S., & Lee, T. (2022) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2022.2054434 · Cited by 52
“Emerson et al. (2012) defined collaborative governance broadly as “ the process and structure of public 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…”
BackgroundNetworking and Crisis Management Capacity: A Nested Analysis of Local-Level Collaboration in Sweden
Nohrstedt, D. (2016) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074016684585 · Cited by 41
Hawkins, C. V., Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., et al. (2017) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1379959 · Cited by 41
“However, some base amount of capacity is needed in order for collaboration to be successful (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Provan and Milward 1995; Turrini et al. 2010).”
BackgroundThe Changing Role of ENGOs in Water Governance: Institutional Entrepreneurs?
Davidson, S., & de Loë, R. C. (2015) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0588-8 · Cited by 41
Factors Of Effective Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Framework For Public Management
Kożuch, B., & Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. (2016) · Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) · Cited by 41
Hu, W., Li, Z., Chen, D., Zhu, Z., Peng, X., Liu, Y., Liao, D., & Zhao, K. (2023) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107341 · Cited by 45
The Smarthubs integration ladder: a conceptual model for the categorisation of shared mobility hubs
Geurs, K., Grigolon, A., Münzel, K., et al. (2023) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441647.2023.2239499 · Cited by 41
“Such approaches include Collaborative Govern-ance (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012), Democratic Innovation (Smith, 2009) or Co-creation (Ansell & Tor fi ng, 2021).”
BackgroundMutamimah, M., Alifah, S., Gunawan, G., et al. (2021) · Journal of Islamic accounting and business research · doi:10.1108/jiabr-05-2020-0154 · Cited by 41
Galnoor, I., & Blander, D. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316160978.019 · Cited by 39
Collaborative networks and environmental governance performance: a social influence model
Huang, C., Chen, W., & Yi, H. (2020) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1795229 · Cited by 43
Co‐creating ambitious climate change mitigation goals: The Copenhagen experience
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2020) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12374 · Cited by 46
Juell-Skielse, G., Lönn, C.-M., & Päivärinta, T. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.008 · Cited by 40
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab024 · Cited by 77
Sustainable Groundwater Management in California: A Grand Experiment in Environmental Governance
Lubell, M. N., Blomquist, W. A., & Beutler, L. (2020) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2020.1833617 · Cited by 42
Creating restoration landscapes: partnerships in large-scale conservation in the UK
Adams, W. M., Hodge, I., Macgregor, N. A., et al. (2016) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-08498-210301 · Cited by 40
A Framework for Improving Policy Priorities in Managing COVID-19 Challenges in Developing Countries
Rasul, G. (2020) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.589681 · Cited by 45
“One way to align multiple perspectives and build shared understanding through the process of engagement known as “principled engagement” that fosters reasoned argument (weigh different options and priorities objectively against broad social goals) and deliberation focused on defining problems and finding agreements to…”
BackgroundRamadass, S. D., Sambasivan, M., & Xavier, J. A. (2018) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-018-9401-4 · Cited by 40
“Ansell and Gash (2007) and Emerson et al. (2012) have categorically stated that it is essential to develop and test integrated frameworks.”
BackgroundInfluentialSchneider, H. M., Zulu, J. M., Mathias, K. R., Cloete, K., & Hurtig, A. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001645 · Cited by 40
Merlin-Brogniart, C., Fuglsang, L., Magnussen, S. F., Peralta, A., Révész, É., Rønning, R., Rubalcaba, L., & Scupola, A. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121826 · Cited by 45
Structural Community Governance: Importance for Community‐Academic Research Partnerships
Sanchez‐Youngman, S., Boursaw, B., OETZEL, J. G., Kastellic, S., Devia, C., Scarpetta, M., Belone, L., & Wallerstein, N. B. (2021) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.12505 · Cited by 38
Anttiroiko, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712680 · Cited by 40
Regional Governance Networks: Filling In or Hollowing Out?
Jacobsen, D. I. (2014) · Scandinavian Political Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12037 · Cited by 41
Kim, H., Kim, H., & Woosnam, K. M. (2023) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102767 · Cited by 42
Drivers of (in)equity in collaborative environmental governance
Dobbin, K. B., Kuo, M. C., Lubell, M. N., Bostic, D., Mendoza, J., & Echeveste, E. (2022) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12483 · Cited by 44
“Thus, all of these purported benefits require more empirical assessment (Emerson et al., 2012).”
Investigating Collaborative Processes Over Time
Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074014544196 · Cited by 39
“As with internal communication, external communication that is effective has both quantity and quality elements (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTheoretical Advances in Our Understanding of Network Effectiveness
Smith, J. G. (2019) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvz032 · Cited by 40
Cronemberger, F. A., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2019) · Public Administration and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98953-2_10 · Cited by 25
Governing a multilevel and cross‐sectoral climate policy implementation network
Wagner, P. M., Torney, D., & Ylä‐Anttila, T. (2021) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1942 · Cited by 38
“have examined the initial conditions that enable the formation of these networks to explain how their purpose came to be defined (Bryson et al., 2015; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundWhat drives network effectiveness? A configurational approach
Cepiku, D., Giordano, F., Mastrodascio, M., & Wang, W. (2020) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1764084 · Cited by 43
Brogaard, L. (2018) · International Public Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10967494.2018.1457107 · Cited by 37
Designing environments for experimentation, learning and innovation in public policy and governance
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., & de Jong, J. (2019) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/030557319x15586040837640 · Cited by 38
Problem Severity, Collaborative Stage, and Partner Selection in US Cities
Kalesnikaite, V., & Neshkova, M. I. (2020) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muaa040 · Cited by 40
Ulibarrí, N. (2018) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.022 · Cited by 38
“together in a deliberative process to decide jointly how to manage the environment (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015).”
BackgroundCollaborative governance in tourism: lessons from Etorkizuna Eraikiz in the Basque Country, Spain
Barandiarán, X., Restrepo, N., & Luna, Á. (2019) · Tourism Review · doi:10.1108/tr-09-2018-0133 · Cited by 38
Cosens, B. A., McKinney, M. J., Paisley, R. K., & Wolf, A. T. (2018) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1355-1 · Cited by 36
“…networks as part of both the public and private response to complex problems that cross boundaries, whether those boundaries represent divides that are jurisdictional, sectoral, or the line between public and private resources (Carlsson and Sandstrom 2008; Leong et al. 2011; Emerson et al. 2011).”
BackgroundUsing Analysis of Governance to Unpack Community-Based Conservation: A Case Study from Tanzania
Robinson, L. W., & Makupa, E. E. (2015) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0573-2 · Cited by 38
“This scholarship has developed frameworks and typologies for exploring different approaches to and types of collaboration (e.g., Imperial 2005; Margerum 2008) and collaboration dynamics (Emerson et al. 2011).”
BackgroundMethodPark, A. Y. S., Krause, R. M., & Feiock, R. C. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy078 · Cited by 37
Smart home technology: Challenges and opportunities for collaborative governance and policy research
Mallinson, D. J., & Shafi, S. (2022) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12470 · Cited by 36
Kamara, R. D. (2017) · SocioEconomic Challenges · doi:10.21272/sec.1(3).98-115.2017 · Cited by 37
Challenges and successes in collaborative tourism governance: A systematic literature review
Sentanu, I. G. E. P. S., Haryono, B. S., Zamrudi, Z., & Praharjo, A. (2023) · European Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.54055/ejtr.v33i.2669 · Cited by 84
“Emerson et al .”
InfluentialRepresentation and Collaboration: Exploring the Role of Shared Identity in the Collaborative Process
Conner, T. W. (2015) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12413 · Cited by 37
Pathways of Representation in Network Governance: Evidence from Multi-Jurisdictional Disasters
Steelman, T. A., Nowell, B. L., Velez, A. K., & Scott, R. P. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab004 · Cited by 37
Tourism as a catalyst for resilience: Strategies for building sustainable and adaptive communities
Khater, M., & Faik, M. (2024) · Community Development · doi:10.1080/15575330.2024.2382174 · Cited by 54
“This collaboration enhances decision-making, builds trust, and fosters collective action (Emerson et al., 2012).”
Verhoest, K., Maggetti, M., Guaschino, E., & Wynen, J. (2024) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12596 · Cited by 48
Successful Small-Scale Household Relocation after a Millennial Flood Event in Simbach, Germany 2016
Mayr, B., Thaler, T., & Hübl, J. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12010156 · Cited by 38
“Trust was enhanced by provided knowledge, scientific facts, and individual dialogue, while legitimacy and understanding of the mitigation concept was supported [79].”
BackgroundTrujillo, D. (2018) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3855-9 · Cited by 43
Bartels, K. P. R. (2018) · Environment and Planning C Politics and Space · doi:10.1177/2399654418754387 · Cited by 37
“Interdependence, informal interactions, face-to-face communication, mutual commitment, trust; all are crucial to “collaborative dynamics” (Emerson et al., 2012, 6).”
BackgroundInfluentialFu, Y., & Ma, W. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12020617 · Cited by 37
“We incorporated the collaborated governance framework into the institutional perspectives as discussed in the previous section [37].”
MethodRapp, C. E. (2020) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.00028 · Cited by 45
“Taken together, these studies highlight key components of the integrative framework of collaborative governance relevant to CFLRP projects (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialDobbin, K. B. (2020) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2020.1772925 · Cited by 36
Scale-sensitive governance in forest and landscape restoration: a systematic review
Wiegant, D. A., van Oel, P. R., & Dewulf, A. R. P. J. (2022) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-022-01889-0 · Cited by 36
Fisher, M. R., Workman, T., Mulyana, A., Moeliono, M., Yuliani, L., Colfer, C. J. P., & Adam, U. E. F. B. (2017) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.057 · Cited by 37
The Practice of Water Policy Governance Networks: An International Comparative Case Study Analysis
Eberhard, R., Margerum, R. D., Vella, K. J., et al. (2017) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1272728 · Cited by 36
Perspectives of natural resource sector firms on collaborative approaches to governance for water
de Loë, R. C., Murray, D., & Brisbois, M. C. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.166 · Cited by 36
Cumiskey, L., Priest, S. J., Klijn, F., et al. (2019) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-11298-240417 · Cited by 36
Wegner, D., Hölsgens, R., & Bitencourt, C. C. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122786 · Cited by 36
Chang, K. (2012) · Cited by 36
Exploring the Role of Dynamic Social Capital in Collaborative Governance
Oh, Y., & Bush, C. B. (2014) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399714544941 · Cited by 37
“…contribute to a social capital loop in which forms of social capital have a cyclical and snowballing effect on initiating, facilitating, and developing collaborative governance throughout the phases and arenas (Emerson et al., 2012; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Vangen & Huxham, 2003; Warner, 1997).”
BackgroundInfluentialExploring the Determinants of Collaboration Failure
McNamara, M. W., Miller‐Stevens, K., & Morris, J. C. (2019) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1627552 · Cited by 36
Beyond sports autonomy: a case for collaborative sport governance approaches
Meier, H. E., & García, B. (2021) · International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics · doi:10.1080/19406940.2021.1905035 · Cited by 36
Public Voice via Social Media: Role in Cooperative Governance during Public Health Emergency
Yang, Y., & Su, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17186840 · Cited by 37
“Governance refers to processes and structures in public decision making and may involve the participation of multiple agents, such as governments, corporations, and the public, with the aim of carrying out a public purpose that cannot be accomplished by single force [49].”
BackgroundInfluentialBuilding Climate-Resilient Food Systems Through the Water–Energy–Food–Environment Nexus
Dhar, A. R. (2025) · Environments · doi:10.3390/environments12050167 · Cited by 40
“Outreach at the local government level, where resource departments are often co-located, can foster habits of integrated planning from the ground up [241].”
Westerink, J., Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Manhoudt, A. (2020) · International Journal of the Commons · doi:10.5334/ijc.997 · Cited by 38
Li, X., & Ding, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17051778 · Cited by 35
“Despite that insightful prospect, holistic governance tended not only to provide more opportunities for citizen engagement but also to place a heavier weight on the role of citizens than that of enterprises, especially the rising Internet enterprises, in the digital government context [44].”
BackgroundScott, R. J., & Merton, E. R. K. (2021) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1879916 · Cited by 35
Hui, I. S., & Smith, G. (2021) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12453 · Cited by 41
Collaborative governance as a policy strategy in healthcare
Frankowski, A. (2019) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/jhom-10-2018-0313 · Cited by 43
Public–private partnerships: a collaborative framework for ensuring project sustainable operations
Liu, B., Li, J., Wang, D., et al. (2022) · Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-12-2021-1124 · Cited by 35
Policy issue interdependency and the formation of collaborative networks
Hedlund, J., Bodin, Ö., & Nohrstedt, D. (2020) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10170 · Cited by 40
“Such multi-stakeholder collaboration is often depicted as the ultimate model for governing complex policy problems (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundFrom Fragmentation to Comprehensiveness in Network Governance
Molin, M. D., & Masella, C. (2015) · Public Organization Review · doi:10.1007/s11115-015-0320-4 · Cited by 35
“Literature identifies a set of starting conditions that could affect the choice of a form of network governance (see Sørensen 2005; Milward and Provan 2006; Klijn and Skelcher 2007; Rodriguez et al. 2007; Ansell and Gash 2008; Provan and Kenis 2008; Klijn et al. 2010b; Milward et al. 2009; Robins et al. 2011; Emerson…”
BackgroundInfluentialDesai, A., & Manoharan, A. (2024) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2024.2350762 · Cited by 35
“It also shows the results of empirical tests of Emerson et al. (2012)’s integrative framework for collaborative governance.”
BackgroundTowards Interactive Governance: Embedding Citizen Participation in Local Government
Jäntti, A., Paananen, H., Kork, A., & Kurkela, K. (2023) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997231177220 · Cited by 73
“, 2012), new public governance (Osborne, 2006), collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Sørensen & Torfing, 2021), participatory governance (Fung & Wright, 2001; Gaventa, 2004), community engagement (Head, 2007), and public value (Moore, 1995).”
BackgroundGhorbani, M., & Azadi, H. (2020) · Rangeland Ecology & Management · doi:10.1016/j.rama.2020.10.008 · Cited by 40
Hong, W., Li, Y., Yang, X., et al. (2024) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105008 · Cited by 35
Gyllenhammar, D., Eriksson, E. M., & Löfgren, M. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2206398 · Cited by 38
THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF EXPERIMENTAL CO‐PRODUCTION: THE CASE OF URBAN REDESIGN IN VIENNA
Bartenberger, M., & Sześciło, D. (2015) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12233 · Cited by 34
“The map of theoretical associations includes particularly New Public Governance (Osborne 2006, 2010), New Public Service (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011), and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008; Ansell 2012a; Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundGreen Total Factor Productivity Growth: Policy-Guided or Market-Driven?
Wang, S., Yang, C., & Li, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191710471 · Cited by 35
“There is no absolute authoritative evaluation standard for environmental policy evaluation, but as one of the public policies, we can refer to the evaluation standard of the classical theory of public policy evaluation [23].”
BackgroundExamining collective board leadership and collaborative sport governance
Shilbury, D., O'Boyle, I., & Ferkins, L. (2020) · Managing Sport and Leisure · doi:10.1080/23750472.2020.1713198 · Cited by 30
Zhang, Z., Zhang, G., Song, S., & Su, B. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17134857 · Cited by 33
“Figure 1 shows the main conceptual relationship among air pollution control policy, informal environmental regulation, and air pollutant emissions according to the existing literature [3,4,7,8].”
BackgroundInfluentialNowell, B. L., & Milward, H. B. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108987646 · Cited by 39
Collaborative Governance as Creative Problem-Solving
Ansell, C. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316105337.002 · Cited by 34
Anshelm, J., Haikola, S., & Wallsten, B. (2018) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.03.003 · Cited by 35
Do local politicians really want collaborative governance?
Sønderskov, M. (2019) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-10-2017-0271 · Cited by 34
Aivalli, P., Dada, S., Gilmore, B., Srinivas, P. N., & Brún, A. D. (2025) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czaf022 · Cited by 57
“However, its emphasis on consensual decision-making does not always align with the hierarchical and resource-constrained realities of LMIC settings (Emerson et al. 2012).”
InfluentialMolenveld, A., Voorberg, W., van Buuren, A., & Hagen, L. (2021) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.1879912 · Cited by 35
“As we cannot include all the elements of Ansell and Gash (2007) and Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012), we selected the aforementioned major elements that could explain the durability of the CGSs.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialKapucu, N. (2013) · Disaster risk reduction · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-54255-1_3 · Cited by 34
Conrad, E., Moran, T., DuPraw, M. E., et al. (2018) · California Agriculture · doi:10.3733/ca.2018a0002 · Cited by 34
Li, X.-H., Chen, W.-B., & Alrasheedi, M. A. (2023) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2023.100430 · Cited by 30
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
