Networks have assumed a place of prominence in the literature on public and private governing structures. The many positive attributes of networks are often featured—the capacity to solve problems, govern shared resources, create learning opportunities, and address shared goals—and a literature focused on the challenges networks pose for managers seeking to realize these network attributes is developing. The authors share an interest in understanding the potential of networks to govern complex public, or “wicked,” problems. A fundamental challenge to effectively managing any public problem in a networked setting is the transfer, receipt and integration of knowledge across participants. When knowledge is viewed pragmatically, the challenge is particularly acute. This perspective, the authors argue, presents a challenge to the network literature to consider the mind‐set of the managers—or collaborative capacity‐builders—who are working to achieve solutions to wicked problems. This mind‐set guides network managers as they apply their skills, strategies, and tools in order to foster the transfer, receipt, and integration of knowledge across the network and, ultimately, to build long‐term collaborative problem‐solving capacity.
In recent years, a growing number of scholars have urged greater intellectual effort regarding the outcomes, or impacts, being produced, or not produced by collaborative governance arrangements. Some progress has been made with "process" and "social" outcomes, outcomes affecting systemic collaborative capacity, the identification of second-and third-order consequences, and in refining approaches to incorporating and measuring real world environmental improvements. But what about other creative, important, and potentially useful governance outcomes that may well be unique to collaborative governance arrangements? Are we measuring all of the important things? We put this hypothesis to the test by examining four successful cases of collaborative governance in four Western states. The research, by discovering and developing three new types of governance outcomes-enhancing agency resources, developing and transferring technology, and going beyond compliance-suggests that our current frameworks for thinking about and measuring outcomes produced by collaborative governance arrangements are necessarily incomplete.
Understanding the performance of collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) necessitates an understanding of how stakeholders and their interactions evolve over time. However, few studies assess the evolution of the structure or process dynamics of CGRs over time. This paper contributes to our understanding of the longitudinal dynamics of CGRs. We apply a modified grounded theory approach to a dataset of collaboration case studies to develop empirically-based theory about how often CGRs persist over time, how different components of CGRs evolve over time, what conditions support or hinder this evolution, and how different developmental trajectories lead to differences in the outputs and outcomes achieved by these groups. We find that CGRs follow a variety of trajectories, from failing to initiate, to achieving their work in a relatively quick time, to sustaining their operations for decades, to incurring slow or rapid declines in health. Additionally, many characteristics of CGRs, including leadership, collaborative process, accountability, and outputs/outcomes, peak at the midpoint of the observed time, suggesting that at some point, even stable and healthy collaborations incur some decline in their robustness. As an exploratory study, this work highlights the need for a better accounting of how CGRs develop, sustain, evolve, and decline over time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.