CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 510Public Policy and Administration ResearchPolitical Theory and DemocracyPublic Administration and Political Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes

Purdy, Jill M.·2012·Public Administration Review
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The growing use of collaborative methods of governance raises concerns about the relative power of participants in such processes and the potential for exclusion or domination of some parties. This research offers a framework for assessing power that considers authority, resources, and discursive legitimacy as sources of power and considers the participants, the process design, and the content of collaborative governance processes as arenas for power use. A case study of a collaborative governance process is presented and analyzed using the power framework. Implications for the design of collaborative governance processes are discussed, including the benefits of a multidimensional definition of power, tools for managing power imbalances among participants, and strategies that participants can use to participate more fully in collaborative governance processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1988.tb01257.x · DOI
  2. Andersen Emily Kay, 2000, Hydroelectric Power and Salmon: A Comparative Case Study of Eight Hydroelectric Power Projects and the FERC Relicensing Process
  3. 10.2307/2391696 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.2307/2086605 · DOI
  5. Bingham Lisa Blomgren, 2009, Collaborative Governance: Emerging Practices and the Incomplete Legal Framework for Public and Stakeholder Voice, Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution, 269
  6. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x · DOI
  7. 10.1002/ncr.69 · DOI
  8. Brockner Joel, 1996, Trust in Organizations, 390
  9. 10.1002/sres.434 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1177/0007650304265956 · DOI
  12. Carlson Chris, 2008, A Practical Guide to Collaborative Governance
  13. Cheng Antony S., 2006, Build It and They Will Come? Mandating Collaboration in Public Lands Planning and Management, Natural Resources Journal, 46, 841
  14. 10.2307/2095101 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1177/1056492603261042 · DOI
  16. Follett Mary Parker, 1918, The New State—Group Organization: The Solution of Popular Government
  17. Freeman Jody, 2000, Regulatory Negotiation and the Legitimacy Benefit, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 9, 60
  18. Friedland Roger, 1991, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 232
  19. Frost Peter J., 1989, International Human Resources Management, 1
  20. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gerlak Andrea K., 2005, Comparing Collaborative Mechanisms in Large‐Scale Ecosystem Governance, Natural Resources Journal, 46, 657
  22. Gray Barbara, 1989, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems
  23. 10.1002/casp.773 · DOI
  24. 10.4135/9781483329635 · DOI
  25. Hardy Cynthia, 1994, Managing Strategic Action: Mobilizing Change, 220
  26. 10.1287/orsc.9.2.217 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.2307/1556343 · DOI
  28. Huxham Chris, 2005, Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage
  29. Kanter Rosabeth Moss, 1977, Men and Women of the Corporation
  30. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00670.x · DOI
  31. Marshall Catherine, 1989, Designing Qualitative Research
  32. Miles Matthew B., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
  33. National Hydropower Association, 1999, Hydro Relicensing
  34. 10.1201/9781420088762 · DOI
  35. O'Leary Rosemary, 2007, A Manager's Guide to Resolving Conflicts in Collaborative Networks
  36. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00415.x · DOI
  37. 10.1177/0021886391272003 · DOI
  38. Sousa David J., 2007, New Directions in Environmental Policy Making: An Emerging Collaborative Regime or Reinventing Interest Group Liberalism?, Natural Resources Journal, 47, 377
  39. Straus David, 2002, How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions
  40. Swiger Michael A., 1998, Cost‐Effective Relicensing: Choosing the Right Process, Hydro Review, 17, 52
  41. Swiger Michael A., 2004, Creating a New FERC Licensing Process, Hydro Review, 22, 20

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology

    Jernite, Y., Nguyen, H., Biderman, S., Rogers, A., Masoud, M., Danchev, V., Tan, S., Luccioni, A. S., Subramani, N., Johnson, I., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3534637 · Cited by 75

    “Barnett and Duvall [10] and Purdy [108] examine how authority, resources, and discursive legitimacy can lead to exclusion within collaborative governance efforts.”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
Purdy, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Washington Tacoma (US)
Corresponding author
Purdy, Jill M.
ORCID
Purdy, Jill M.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-02
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
409-417
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x
OpenAlex
W2164574199
Cited by
510
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
35.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
  • University of Washington Tacoma Digital Commons (University of Washington Tacoma) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
collaborative governance, power assessment, power imbalance, authority, resources, discursive legitimacy, process design, participation, energy management strategy

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.

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