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 601–700 of 3,564
Two logics of democracy in collaborative governance: a mapping of clashes and compromises
Hansen, M. P., Triantafillou, P., & Christensen, S. E. (2022) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2107696 · Cited by 25
“…using the binary distinction between internal and external legitimacy of a collaborative network were also ascribing to the stakeholder conception of the demoi (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; *; Lucia, Botti, and Vesci 2012; *; Lundmark, Matti, and Sandström 2014; *; Berthod et al. 2017*).”
BackgroundMethodAn, B., & Bostic, R. W. (2020) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13220 · Cited by 24
Am I My Brothers’ Keeper? A Critical Review of Mandated Collaboration Research
Sullivan, A. A., Yeo, J., & Kim, S. (2024) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/02750740241229989 · Cited by 24
“…actions, motivations, and decision-making across people, organizations, levels of government, and sectors to accomplish complicated goals and implement policies and programs — can improve organizational performance in achieving policy and community goals (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundWang, H., Xiong, W., Yang, L., Zhu, D., & Cheng, Z. (2019) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.102429 · Cited by 24
Dada, S., Aivalli, P., Brún, A. D., Barreix, M., Chelwa, N., Mutunga, Z., Vwalika, B., & Gilmore, B. (2023) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czad078 · Cited by 33
“This two-way communication provides an opportunity for collaborative approaches across equal parties (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Farid and Li, 2021).”
Therrien, M., & Normandin, J. (2020) · Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy · doi:10.1002/rhc3.12192 · Cited by 31
A complex systems model for transformative supply chains in emerging markets
Yeoman, R., & Santos, M. M. (2019) · International Journal of Emerging Markets · doi:10.1108/ijoem-02-2017-0044 · Cited by 26
Liu, J., & Dong, C. (2024) · Fractal and Fractional · doi:10.3390/fractalfract8020098 · Cited by 24
“As a new governance mode, cross-regional governance breaks the traditional governance mode that is limited by administrative divisions and is effective for solving regional problems and realizing sustainable regional development [14,15].”
BackgroundEstévez, R. A., Veloso, C., Jerez, G., & Gelcich, S. (2020) · Natural Resources Forum · doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12200 · Cited by 24
COVID-19 in Pakistan: Challenges and priorities
Sohil, F., Sohail, M. U., & Shabbir, J. (2021) · Cogent Medicine · doi:10.1080/2331205x.2021.1966179 · Cited by 27
“Thus, policy makers should keep it in mind that we have finite human, financial, and health care resources (Einhorn et al., 1995; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMikwamba, K., Dessein, J., Kambewa, D., Messely, L., & Strong, R. (2020) · The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension · doi:10.1080/1389224x.2020.1844767 · Cited by 31
Blockchain Technology: the Beginning of a New Era in Reforming Corporate Governance Mechanisms
Akhtar, T. (2023) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-023-01289-7 · Cited by 24
“Emerson et al. (2011) have stated that collaborative governance is the decision-making related to public policy and the structures and processes of management that involve individuals constructively within the boundaries of levels of government, public and private agencies, and public and civic…”
Hartig, J. H., Krantzberg, G., Munawar, M., et al. (2018) · Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · doi:10.1080/14634988.2018.1539603 · Cited by 24
“Emerson et al., (2011) define collaborative governance as the processes and structures of public policy decision-making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose th…”
BackgroundInfluentialPower research in adaptive water governance and beyond: a review
McIlwain, L., Holzer, J. M., Baird, J., & Baldwin, C. L. (2023) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-14072-280222 · Cited by 25
A framework for voluntary business-government information sharing
Rukanova, B. D., Tan, Y., Huiden, R., Ravulakollu, A., Grainger, A., & Heijmann, F. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101501 · Cited by 24
“Another stream of research that studies similar processes is the research on collaborative governance (Emerson et al., 2012; Susha & Gil-Garcia, 2019).”
BackgroundGoverning Large Carnivores—Comparative Insights from Three Different Countries
Hansson‐Forman, K., Reimerson, E., Sjölander‐Lindqvist, A., & Sandström, C. (2018) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1447179 · Cited by 28
Avoyan, E., Kaufmann, M., Lagendijk, A., & Meijerink, S. V. (2024) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2023.2301409 · Cited by 29
“The literature on collaborative governance highlights the importance of leadership in initiating and sustaining CGRs (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThynne, I., & Peters, B. G. (2015) · Public Administration and Development · doi:10.1002/pad.1708 · Cited by 24
Zheng, L., Ma, L., Huang, T., & Tang, H. (2020) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc6020035 · Cited by 24
“[10] generated a framework for collaborative governance, which contains the components of system context, drivers, collaborative dynamics such as principled engagement, shared motivation, capacity for joint action, outputs collaborative actions, impact and adaptation.”
BackgroundLee, J., Rethemeyer, R. K., & Park, H. H. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy016 · Cited by 24
Public Value and Limits to Collaboration
Prebble, M. (2015) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.949742 · Cited by 26
“By contrast the advice from Emerson et al. (2012) approaches the specificity of a wiring diagram as they describe a regime in which 4 drivers operate through 3 dynamics, influenced by 12 elements, all summarized in 10 propositions.”
BackgroundCollaborative Governance Matters to E-Government Interoperability
Chatfield, A. T., & Alanazi, J. M. (2015) · International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age · doi:10.4018/ijpada.2015070102 · Cited by 24
Civic festivals and collaborative governance
Cabral, S., & Krane, D. A. (2016) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852315615196 · Cited by 24
“Contrasted with the diversity of collaboration definitions and theoretical roots, work on developing models of collaborative governance is converging around a set of similar elements and relationships (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2012; Thomson and Perry, 2006).”
BackgroundBilodeau, A., Laurin, I., Giguère, N., et al. (2017) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2017.1343934 · Cited by 24
Normandin, J., Therrien, M., Pelling, M., et al. (2018) · Resilient cities · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76944-8_2 · Cited by 24
Lindqvist, K. (2016) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399715621944 · Cited by 23
Krantz, V., & Gustafsson, S. (2023) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2580 · Cited by 23
Avoyan, E. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2021.2000380 · Cited by 23
“First, this study operationalizes, strengthens and moves one of the most referred frameworks on collaborative governance, the Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance (Emerson et al., 2012) towards causal analysis.”
BackgroundInfluentialShao, Y., & Sun, Y. (2023) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings13020519 · Cited by 23
Facilitating Public Participation in Local Governments in Hard Times
Jun, K.-N., & Bryer, T. A. (2016) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074016643587 · Cited by 30
Tilnærminger i forskning om samordning og samarbeid
Andreassen, T. A. (2019) · doi:10.23865/noasp.66.ch1 · Cited by 24
Mattor, K. M., & Cheng, A. S. (2015) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12151 · Cited by 24
Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Development in China
Kuhn, B. (2016) · Open Journal of Political Science · doi:10.4236/ojps.2016.64037 · Cited by 25
“Collaborative governance is also entangled with broader concepts of public administration and democracy (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011).”
BackgroundAn Analysis of Micro-scale Conflict in Collaborative Governance
Ulibarrí, N. (2023) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muad025 · Cited by 23
Ibrahim, A.-S., Akanbang, B. A. A., Nunbogu, A. M., Kuusaana, E. D., & Ahmed, A. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105051 · Cited by 27
Thellbro, C., Bjärstig, T., & Eckerberg, K. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10113914 · Cited by 23
“[29] presented a framework that distinguishes between contextual variables and essential drivers, which we will use as an analytical departure in this paper, with the purpose of mapping and analyzing drivers for partnerships in natural resource management in the Swedish mountains.”
InfluentialJules, T. D. (2017) · Globalisation Societies and Education · doi:10.1080/14767724.2016.1264289 · Cited by 23
“Governance research departs from the growing complexity of society, which makes traditional modes of governing less efficient and propels collaborative arrangements of governing and service delivery (Ansell and Gash 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundCollaborative governance difficulty and policy implication
Bang, M. S., & Yun-Young, K. (2016) · Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/dpm-12-2015-0295 · Cited by 23
Cain, B. E., Gerber, E. R., & Hui, I. S. (2020) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074020908578 · Cited by 23
“In recent decades, the management of water and other natural resources has turned to “collaborative governance” as a possible path toward a more integrated approach to water management (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Blomquist & Schlager, 2005; Emerson et al., 2012; Kallis et al., 2009; Sabatier et al., 2005).”
BackgroundAlsip, P. J., Hartig, J. H., Krantzberg, G., et al. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13031532 · Cited by 23
“Collaborative governance makes it possible to address actions that serve a public purpose by engaging groups and individuals across different institutions and spheres of society [4].”
BackgroundWoldesenbet, W. G. (2018) · Applied Water Science · doi:10.1007/s13201-018-0763-1 · Cited by 23
Chen, Y., Liu, X., Tadikamalla, P. R., Qu, M., & Wang, Y. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14190 · Cited by 24
“Emerson et al. (2012) believed that the CG system has three main characteristics, namely, “self-initiated,” “independently committed,” and “externally directed.””
BackgroundPaulsson, A. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2018.1432345 · Cited by 23
Misener, L., Lu, L. D., & Carlisi, R. (2020) · Journal of Sport Management · doi:10.1123/jsm.2019-0283 · Cited by 23
Jones-Crank, J. L., & White, D. D. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-021-00676-3 · Cited by 23
Overcoming political stalemates: The German stakeholder commission on phasing out coal
Hauenstein, C., Braunger, I., Krumm, A., & Oei, P.-Y. (2023) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103203 · Cited by 23
How intersectoral policy networks shape affordable housing outcomes
Raynor, K. E., & Whitzman, C. (2020) · International Journal of Housing Policy · doi:10.1080/19491247.2019.1697150 · Cited by 23
Metagoverning the Co-Creation of Green Transitions: A Socio-Political Contingency Framework
Torfing, J., Ansell, C., & Sørensen, E. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16166776 · Cited by 31
“Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh [31] confirm that repeated interactions based on principled engagement, help to foster the trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy, and shared commitment crucial for generating and sustaining collaborative problem-solving.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCalò, F., Sancino, A., & Scognamiglio, F. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2024.2311181 · Cited by 24
“…government and social enterprise actors were already reflected in studies of new public governance (S. Osborne 2010), collaborative governance (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012), cross-sectoral collaborations (Vangen, Hayes, and Cornforth 2015) and public value co-creation (Alford and Yates…”
Devenin, V. (2018) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.10.009 · Cited by 22
Erkkilä-Välimäki, A., Pohja-Mykrä, M., Katila, J., et al. (2022) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105205 · Cited by 22
Abbott, J. (2012) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 22
Resh, W. G., Siddiki, S., & McConnell, W. R. (2014) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12101 · Cited by 22
Dialogic Collaboration across Sectors: Partnering for Sustainability
Colaner, N. R., Imanaka, J. L., & Prussia, G. E. (2018) · Business and Society Review · doi:10.1111/basr.12154 · Cited by 25
Djosetro, M., & Behagel, J. H. (2019) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103746 · Cited by 25
Individuals in Collaborative Governance for Environmental Management
Zambrano-Gutiérrez, J. C., de Macedo, L. S. V., Picavet, M. E. B., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (2022) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01693-w · Cited by 26
“, institutional design), and their context (Ansell and Gash 2007; Emerson et al. 2012; Bryson et al. 2015).”
BackgroundSatrústegui, A. U., Barandiarán, X., & Restrepo, N. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11216103 · Cited by 30
“governance; the principle of engagement is a dynamic process that occurs with the creation of common interaction spaces in which different agents participate in working collaboratively and creating value for local development [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialUnderstanding public service supply chain management: a systematic literature review
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K., & Szymczak, M. (2023) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-023-00350-8 · Cited by 29
Comparing three theories of participation in pro-environmental, collaborative governance networks
Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.103 · Cited by 29
Loosemore, M., Bridgeman, J., & Keast, R. (2020) · Building Research & Information · doi:10.1080/09613218.2019.1699772 · Cited by 22
Understanding Tradeoffs in the Institutional Design and Leadership of Collaborative Governance
Christensen, I. (2023) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2023.2283583 · Cited by 30
“…the given time and resources. of effectiveness supports arguments in the collaboration literature, that “collaborations are generally initiated with an instrumental purpose in mind” (Huxham et al., 2000, p. 340), to pursue goals difficult to achieve by a single organization (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundHuman rights in tension: guiding cadastral systems development in customary land rights contexts
Hull, S., & Whittal, J. (2019) · Survey Review · doi:10.1080/00396265.2017.1381396 · Cited by 21
“Integrative, or synthesised, frameworks run the risk of being either overly simplified to be applicable in any given context, or overly specified and hence inappropriate for general use (Ostrom 2007, Emerson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialFliervoet, J., & van den Born, R. J. G. (2016) · International Journal of Water Resources Development · doi:10.1080/07900627.2016.1200962 · Cited by 22
“To understand how stakeholders construct the meaning of collaborative objectives and structures, different perceptions, opinions and stakeholder frames of reference need to be analyzed (Emerson et al., 2012; Gray, 2004; Selin, Schuett, & Carr, 2000; Termeer, 2009).”
BackgroundMultidimensional Publicness and Collaboration for Community Benefits: The Case of U.S. Hospitals
Min, N., Lee, K., & Yang, K. (2020) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13166 · Cited by 22
KOLABORASI MODEL PENTA HELIX DALAM MEWUJUDKAN SMART VILLAGE PONDOK RANJI
Kelvin, K., Widianingsih, I., & Buchari, R. A. (2022) · J-3P (Jurnal Pembangunan Pemberdayaan Pemerintahan) · doi:10.33701/j-3p.v7i2.2587 · Cited by 22
“…environm ent smart economy smart mobility smart govern ment smart living struktur pengambilan keputusan dan tata kelola yang melibatkan masyarakat secara konstruktif antar badan-badan publik, berbagai level pemerintahan, privat dan sipil untuk mencapai tujuan bersama (Emerson et al., 2012).”
McNaught, R., Nalau, J., Hales, R., Pittaway, E., Handmer, J. W., & Renouf, J. S. (2024) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104366 · Cited by 34
“These can assist in enabling the outcomes of a collaboration (for example through political will) and also represent a broad set of factors that can hinder a collaborative process [38].”
BackgroundInfluentialNohrstedt, D. (2013) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.848921 · Cited by 22
“Researchers have previously come a long way in identifying factors and conditions that enable collaborations to successfully combine participants’ perspectives, knowledge, and skills, and translate these resources into positive outcomes (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Provan and Milward 2001).”
BackgroundAli, M. A., & Kamraju, M. (2024) · Water science and technology library · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62079-9_18 · Cited by 28
Environmental justice organizing as commoning practice in groundwater reform
Dobbin, K. B. (2021) · Elementa Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.00173 · Cited by 24
Pluvial Flooding in Utrecht: On Its Way to a Flood-Proof City
Brockhoff, R. C., Koop, S., & Snel, K. A. W. (2019) · Water · doi:10.3390/w11071501 · Cited by 24
Groundwater Governance in Australia, the European Union and the Western USA
Ross, A. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23576-9_6 · Cited by 22
Measuring dynamic collaborations: Collaborative health assessment tool
Salignac, F., Marjolin, A., Noone, J. H., et al. (2019) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12386 · Cited by 21
Liu, Y., & Tan, C. (2022) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12834 · Cited by 21
Allen-Dumas, M. R., Xu, H., Kurte, K. R., & Rastogi, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Water · doi:10.3389/frwa.2020.562304 · Cited by 21
“To fulfill these management needs, comprehensive disaster management frameworks are proposed to promote the collaborative planning and management of water, land, and related resources (Selin and Chevez, 1995; Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundCosens, B. A., & Gunderson, L. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72472-0_1 · Cited by 23
Collaborative Governance Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemics: Czech Republic and Slovakia
Klimovský, D., Malý, I., & Nemec, J. (2021) · Central European Public Administration Review · doi:10.17573/cepar.2021.1.04 · Cited by 21
“However, according to Emerson et al. (2012), besides the mentioned conditions, it is important to keep in mind the essential drivers (namely leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty) without which the impetus for collaboration cannot successfully unfold.”
BackgroundA bird in the hand: empirically grounded archetypes of collaborative innovation in the public sector
Kurtmollaiev, S., Pedersen, P. E., & Lie, T. (2023) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2171092 · Cited by 30
“However, they often seem to ‘conflate system context and conditions with the specific drivers of collaboration’ (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012, 11).”
BackgroundRalston, R. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114451 · Cited by 21
Religious Congregations and Poverty Alleviation in the Age of New Public Governance
Scott, M. L., & Cnaan, R. A. (2017) · Nonprofit Policy Forum · doi:10.1515/npf-2017-0013 · Cited by 21
“This brand of NPM calls for the extension of public services delivery to nonpublic partners and citizens (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).”
BackgroundLetting go of Managing? Struggles over Managerial Roles in Collaborative Governance
Plotnikof, M. (2016) · Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies · doi:10.19154/njwls.v6i1.4888 · Cited by 21
Wang, H., Ran, B., & Li, Y. (2022) · Journal of Urban Affairs · doi:10.1080/07352166.2022.2133725 · Cited by 25
“…stakeholders from public, private, and civic sectors who are working together based on deliberative consensus and collective decision-making to achieve shared goals that could not be otherwise fulfilled individually (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Booher, 2004; Emerson et al., 2012; Ran & Qi, 2018).”
Theorizing the political dimension of collaborative governance
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2025) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf007 · Cited by 36
Izdebska, O., & Knieling, J. (2020) · European Spatial Research and Policy · doi:10.18778/1231-1952.27.2.08 · Cited by 20
“…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 accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2012, p. 2).”
BackgroundAbouAssi, K., Wang, R., & Huang, K. (2020) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764020945800 · Cited by 21
“For that reason, the way partnerships are structured may facilitate or hinder progress; the way they are forged may contribute to organizational legitimacy and mitigate pressure on autonomy (Emerson et al., 2012; Zeimers et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialBjärstig, T., Johansson, J., Mancheva, I., & Sandström, C. (2024) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.2099 · Cited by 22
Wong, W. (2021) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2021.1894314 · Cited by 21
“In that sense, policy responses should be more appropriately understood as the coproduction and co-governing of state–society interactions, within which the state can be further subdivided into bureaucrats and politicians (Emerson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialQuayle, A., Grosvold, J., & Chapple, L. L. (2019) · Australian Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0312896219872234 · Cited by 21
“Insights from our study of Australia’s offshore regional processing centres extend our collective understanding of existing models of cross-sector collaboration (Bryson et al., 2006; Emerson et al., 2012) by focusing on how they can be used as effective management tools for addressing grand challenges.”
BackgroundYi, H., Yang, Y., & Zhou, C. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18052557 · Cited by 21
Public Sector Innovation Ecosystems: A Proposition for Theoretical-Conceptual Integration
Carneiro, D. K. D. O., Isidro, A., & Criado, J. (2023) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2023.2213853 · Cited by 22
“…to adapt appropriately, integrate, and reconfigure internal and external resources and competences so as to innovate and address social aspects (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Bekkers & Tummers, 2018; Desmarchelier et al., 2021; Emerson et al., 2012; Osborne, 2010; Sørensen & Torfing, 2017; Torfing, 2016).”
Balancing artistic and financial performance: is collaborative governance the answer?
Fanelli, S., Donelli, C. C., Zangrandi, A., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-05-2019-0138 · Cited by 21
Rethinking a Typology of Watershed Partnerships
Diaz‐Kope, L. M., & Miller‐Stevens, K. (2014) · Public Works Management & Policy · doi:10.1177/1087724x14524733 · Cited by 21
“partnership hinges on its ability to collaborate within a web of formal and informal networks (Emerson et al., 2011).”
BackgroundParticipatory Budgeting in Poland: Quasi-Referendum Instead of Deliberation
Sześciło, D. (2015) · University of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE) · Cited by 21
The mediated partnership model for sustainable coffee production: experiences from Indonesia
Wijaya, A., Glasbergen, P., & Mawardi, S. (2017) · The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review · doi:10.22434/ifamr2017.0021 · Cited by 21
“Regarding Motramed, potential actors need to find advantages that they cannot achieve without the partnership (Brinkerhoff, 2002; Emerson et al., 2011).”
BackgroundConstructed Governance as Solution to Conflicts in E-Waste Recycling Networks
Pedro, F. A., Giglio, E. M., Velazquez, L. E., & Munguía, N. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13041701 · Cited by 21
“This construction occurs over time through the learning and cooperation involvement of actors, which reinforces trust, credibility, and commitment, thus legitimizing and encouraging continuity of collaboration [35,78].”
BackgroundCollaboration and individual performance during disaster response
Guerrero, A. M., Bodin, Ö., Nohrstedt, D., Plummer, R., Baird, J., & Summers, R. (2023) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102729 · Cited by 21
Third Party Certification: implementation challenges in private-social partnerships
Vince, J. (2018) · Policy Design and Practice · doi:10.1080/25741292.2018.1541957 · Cited by 21
New Public Governance as a Hybrid
Cataldi, L. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009418904 · Cited by 21
Janssen, C., Daamen, T. A., & Verheul, W. J. (2023) · Urban Studies · doi:10.1177/00420980231179554 · Cited by 21
“Seeing UDPs as collaborative governance processes (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012) thus implies that urban transformations are not only the result of ‘planned’ policy interventions, but also shaped by the various activities of and interactions between public, private, and societal…”
BackgroundAgüero, R. D. L. R. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab026 · Cited by 20
Sun, Y., & Zhou, C. (2024) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122124 · Cited by 21
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
