Getting The Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies

Keast, Robyn; Brown, Kerry; Mandell, Myrna

doi:10.1080/10967490601185716

Cited by 274 publications

(312 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

275

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It managed to have a very high degree of collaboration, while maintaining a low degree of formalization and centralization, in contrast with previous studies that assume an everdeepening level of collaboration and concomitant formalization and centralization (Bryson et al, 2006;Keast et al, 2007;Page et al, in press). It did this by developing rich interaction and deep commitment from partners who remained focused on the big issues, by only creating central bureaucracy when it was necessary and keeping this to an absolute minimum.…”

Section: Governancecontrasting

confidence: 39%

“…In response to this spectrum of diversity challenges, a series of dimensions of structural governance has been discussed in the literature. First, is the degree of collaboration from short-term, relatively superficial co-operation, to long-term, interdependent collaboration (Keast et al, 2007). Second, the degree of formality and centralization range from a loose network to a strong partnership with its own legal entity, administration, organization and staff (Bryson et al, 2006;Provan and Kenis, 2008).…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecomuseums as cross-sector partnerships: governance, strategy and leadership

Bowden¹,

Ciesielska²

2015

Public Money & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Governancecontrasting

confidence: 39%

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Ecomuseums as cross-sector partnerships: governance, strategy and leadership

Bowden¹,

Ciesielska²

2015

Public Money & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In terms of understanding where contestation and coordination happens during an incursion response we first need to define how these two terms are different (Keast et al 2007;McNamara 2012). For 'coordination problems', stakeholders are assumed to display trustworthy and predicable behaviours.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing collaboration with coordination: Contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The logistical challenge of coordinating natural resource management actions across large scales is typically complicated by the diversity of stakeholders' interests. Devising a plan is difficult. Getting diverse stakeholders to agree to and adhere to any logistical solution is harder still. Hence logistical solutions to large-scale problems involve a combination of coordination, and trust-building and contestation which are two key features of collaboration. We studied networks based on stakeholder participation in institutional responses to agricultural pest and disease incursions, where the spatial complexity of response is further challenged by the need to design and implement plans quickly in order to stop Balancing collaboration with coordination 331 the spread of incursions. Using data from the 2010 Australian myrtle rust incursion, we used novel statistical network methods which showed that policy forums at national scales, where higher-level decisions are made, were associated with denser overlapping stakeholder interactions signifying collaboration (bondingcapital, high transaction-costs). Our qualitative data unpacked this, showing how at times uncertainty in process and information is used by some stakeholders to contest decisions at national scales. We failed to find statistical evidence that at local scales, where plans are implemented more-or-less at face value, networks exhibited lower-transaction cost interactions associated with the socially cheaper task of coordination (bridging-capital, low transaction-costs). By identifying the mix of coordination and collaboration in networks for solving environmental problems, capacity building can be more targeted, and rules-of-behaviour can be developed that better fit the requirements of the diverse tasks involved.

show abstract

“…They represent a unique type of network model that exhibits "complex reciprocal interdependencies and closer, denser relationships in which participants are engaging in system changes" (Keast et al, 2014, p. 34). Participants recognize that the current mechanisms are no longer working and new innovative solutions that transcend information sharing and coordination are needed (Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007). Under a collaborative network, members are engaged in activities that go beyond making changes at the margins to creating "new collective value" by reframing the problem and developing alternatives that may not have been generated through existing interactions (Innes & Booher, 1999, p. 15).…”

Section: Collaborative Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants recognize that the current mechanisms are no longer working and new, innovative solutions that transcend information sharing and coordination are needed (Keast et al, 2007).…”

Section: Collaborative Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Wicked Water Problems: Can Network Governance Deliver? Integrated Water Management Case Studies from New Zealand and Oregon, USA

Dingfelder¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated water management is a wicked public policy problem with no clear path to resolution. This dissertation is an in-depth qualitative comparative analysis of two collaborative governance processes created to tackle complex water problems in New Zealand and Oregon, U.S.A. Both cases convened a wide range of state and non-state actors in efforts to find common ground, build consensus for change, and develop innovative water policy solutions.The goal of this comparative case study analysis is to gain a better understanding of collaborative network governance frameworks as applied to integrated water management and primary factors for success. The proposition posits that collaborative networks involving public, private, and non-profit actors are better equipped than government-driven efforts to develop desired outcomes. To test this proposition, the research questions probe the role of state and non-state policy actors, conditions for collaboration, strength of actor ties, development of trust and social capital, barriers to success, and the role of climate change as a policy driver in these two case studies.The comparative case study analysis yields fascinating insights that add to the network governance literature. In the New Zealand case, a collaborative-led process called the Land and Water Forum (LAWF) showed that this ongoing network offers benefits to creating consensus on complex water issues. LAWF succeeded in moving policy conversations forward where previous government-led efforts had failed. Within the LAWF collaborative network, non-state actors formed strong ties; however, relationships with state actors exhibited weaker ties.ii With Oregon's integrated water policy, a collaborative network approach created a more conducive environment for meaningful dialogue among vested interests, and built some levels of interdependency and trust, thus generating a wider array of policy options than through previous legislative and bureaucratic efforts. However, long-standing political, legal, and institutional challenges continue to constrain effective integrated water management and the delivery of integrated outcomes in Oregon. The Oregon case did not exhibit strong leadership within the collaborative to broker challenging policy issues. Also, it faced implementation challenges as one state agency was given responsibility for stewarding integrated water management but lacked authority for implementation or coordination with other state agencies. Overcoming fragmented natural resource governance arrangements remains a daunting challenge.This research revealed three key findings: 1. in both cases, collaborative network governance worked well for framing and designing new integrated water policies, but encountered implementation challenges; 2. managing the complexities around the intersection of top-down, vertical command and control governance with horizontal collaborative approaches remains an ongoing challenge to New Public Governance; and 3. the two cases represent examples of the use of formal an...

show abstract

Getting The Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies

Cited by 274 publications

References 25 publications

Ecomuseums as cross-sector partnerships: governance, strategy and leadership

Ecomuseums as cross-sector partnerships: governance, strategy and leadership

Balancing collaboration with coordination: Contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system

Wicked Water Problems: Can Network Governance Deliver? Integrated Water Management Case Studies from New Zealand and Oregon, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About