The application of network perspectives and methods to study complex problem and policy domains has proliferated in the public management literature. Network metrics are highly sensitive to boundary decisions as findings are a direct reflection of who and what was considered to be part of the network. The more complex the problem domain, the messier the network and the more challenging it is for researchers to determine network boundaries. Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky's seminal (1989) article on network bounding highlighted the theoretical and methodological significance associated with determinations of network boundaries in social network research. However, despite an expansion of network scholarship, the advancement of frameworks aimed at assisting scholars in thinking through the relative advantages and disadvantages of different boundary determinations has received limited attention. This article addresses this gap. Drawing insights from three network studies, we argue that problem domain characteristics and concerns such as formal structures, isolates, disconnected subgroups and/or the duration of the ties will be differentially emphasized with different boundary approaches. We leverage these insights to advance a framework for aiding network scholars working in complex problem domains to consider the strengths and limitations of varied bounding approaches in relation to the question at hand.
Public and nonprofit management literature has focused more on formal accountability and less on emerging informal structures that are present in the pilot stages of partnerships. This study uses a phenomenological approach to examine the institutional logics of partner organizations and offers an integrated framework for how these logics may translate into accountability structures in a nonprofit—public partnership (NPPP). This framework advances a basis for the mechanisms present when an individual organization’s or agency’s institutional logics must be reconciled in the context of accountability. The analysis points to emerging challenges and cross pressures within the NPPP that are driving a need for comprehensive evaluation measures, established processes for business planning, and written agreements such as memorandums of understanding to provide clear definitions of partnership roles. Public managers designing or joining pilot partnerships need to be aware that mismatched institutional logics and perceptions of accountability can occur, and these dynamics may lead to a variety of hybrid measures to ensure future sustainability of interorganizational relationships.
The value created by public–nonprofit (PNP) alliances often emphasizes public sector service delegation to nonprofits, but public and nonprofit organizations often seek to create shared social value with alliances, particularly in sectors where there is coproduction. To better understand shared social value, we apply the Collaborative Value Creation (CVC) framework to investigate value creation in the Transition Coaching sector—nonprofit organizations that provide support to high school students as they transition to college. We interview public and nonprofit executives and staff and find that nonprofits seek resources to help navigate complex bureaucratic public structures related to private client information and centralizing bureaucratic information. We also find shared public and nonprofit value in improving client navigation, knowledge sharing within public bureaucratic structures, and capacity building. Future scholarship should develop the potential for reduced bureaucratic frictions as a point of shared value in PNP alliances.
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.