Paradoxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach

Abstract

The literature suggests that collaborative governance efforts typically face three types of challenges: substantive problem-solving challenges, collaborative process challenges and multi-relational accountability challenges. In this article, we investigate how these challenges manifest themselves in practice and explore potential ways in which collaborators can deal with them. To do so, we studied eight multi-agency crime-fighting collaborations in the Netherlands using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. We found that the challenges present collaborations with a set of paradoxical demands. Collaborations that were able to make progress transcended the paradoxes by adopting a 'both/and' rather than an 'either/or' mindset. Our findings contribute to knowledge about designing effective multi-agency collaborations.

Boundaries of collaboration – the case of a temporary housing complex for refugees in Sweden

“…Thirdly, public officials working in collaborative projects frequently find it hard to capture tangible results before the end of a project (Vangen 2017b;Waardenburg et al 2019). Our study shows that they might subsequently be inclined to state (key) learnings as important results of their efforts and 'ripple effects' that might become apparent in the longer term.…”

“…Thirdly, while the literature has amply recognized the role of paradoxes in preventing many collaborations from delivering tangible results (Vangen 2017b;Waardenburg et al 2019), there are few studies on how collaborative work addresses the challenges emerging as a result of the paradoxical nature of collaboration (Ospina and Saz-Carranza 2010). However, while Ospina and Saz-Carranza (2010) argued that leaders deliberately adopt practices to address challenges, we show how paradoxes were enacted in practice and challenges arose due to efforts to manage collaborative work.…”

“…Instead, collaboration in the public sector has been studied extensively with a focus on the goals and outcomes of collaboration (Thomson, Perry, and Miller 2008) and how to design an effective collaborative setup (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006;Ulibarri et al 2020;Ansell et al 2020;Bitteman and Koliba 2020) as well as on the barriers to accomplishing the intended results (Rigg and O'Mahony 2013;Rodríguez et al 2007;Huxham et al 2000;Vangen 2017aVangen , 2017bStrindlund, Dahlgren, and Ståhl 2020). Barriers such as lack of trust (Willem and Lucidarme 2014;Doberstein 2016), issues of communication and information sharing (Vangen 2017a;Cuganesan, Hart, and Steele 2017), unbalanced power relations between the involved partners (Purdy 2012;Ran and Qi 2018), lack of leadership (Sullivan, Williams, and Jeffares 2012) and transparency and accountability issues (Ryan and Walsh 2004;Waardenburg et al 2019) have been seen as evoking challenges that must be managed as part of the collaborative work (Mandell and Keast 2007;Van Oortmerssen et al 2014).…”

“…In fact, paradoxes are a central part of organizing, and while they may paralyze and lead to inaction, they may also be co-opted into the existing order, leading to no change in action, or they may enable actions that subvert existing understandings and transform the status quo (Czarniawska 1997). It all depends on how paradoxes are managed -for example, by giving collaborators space to reflect on the underlying assumptions guiding their actions (Waardenburg et al 2019). In a similar vein, Vangen (2017b, 270-271) suggested that the acceptance of the paradoxical nature of collaboration 'can lead to realistic rather than idealistic expectations of what can be achieved'.…”

Governance for Social Purpose: Negotiating Complex Governance Practice

“…However, just as in adaptive governance, there are some lessons to learn for governance for social purpose. Waardenburg et al (2020) identify three challenges in collaborative governance which they term problem-solving , collaborative process , and multi-relational accountability challenges that would appear to be exceedingly relevant to social purpose initiatives. The first, problem-solving, is the difficulty of even defining the core issue and its root causes and the political challenges of negotiating problem-definition and parameters.…”