AUDIENCE................................................................................................ 3 WHY RESEARCH COLLABORATION?................................................................................ 3 SecondMuse research program......................................................................................................... 4 Initial line of inquiry: Collaboration landscape analysis...................................................................... 4 WHAT IS COLLABORATION?............................................................................................ 5 Collaboration in popular discourses.................................................................................................. 5 Forays into the academic discourse on collaboration......................................................................... 7 Definitions and conceptualizations of collaboration.......................................................................... 7 Synthesis of definitions..................................................................................................................... 8 SecondMuse definition................................................................................................................... 10 HOW IS COLLABORATION BEING DISCUSSED IN THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE?........... 13 260 Abstracts................................................................................................................................ 14 98 Journals or proceedings............................................................................................................. 15 56 Years........................................................................................................................................ 16 5 research features........................................................................................................................ 17 9 collaboration types...................................................................................................................... 18 23 settings for analysis.................................................................................................................. 19 4 sectors of collaborators............................................................................................................... 19 HOW HAVE ACADEMICS ORGANIZED THE THINKING ABOUT COLLABORATION?......... 20 Citation analysis............................................................................................................................ 21 A note on words............................................................................................................................ 22 Many frameworks.......................................................................................................................... 23 Few theories and no models........................................................................................................... 26 Suggested research........................................................................................................................ 26 RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT: TOWARD A SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX A: TOPICS EXAMINED BY LITERATURE REVIEW PAPERS............................... 29 APPENDIX B: THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS................................. 31 APPENDIX C: CITATIONS USED FOR “THE DATABASE” OF COLLABORATION PAPERS, CHAPTERS, AND BOOKS ..................................................... 34 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 45
of this document is to advance SecondMuse’s understanding of the “Art and Science of Collaboration.” It synthesizes academic and practitioner-oriented literature on collaboration and inserts insights from SecondMuse’s own expe- riences where relevant. This initial exercise is nec- essarily academic in nature in order to understand the language and frameworks which underpin cur- rent research and understanding of collaboration. As such, it has not been written with a general au- dience in mind; however we view this document as the foundation for additional publications designed to be more accessible to the general public. Why research collaboration? The world is troubled by grave and interconnect- ed social problems and environmental afflictions whose solutions call for new approaches. If our methods and approaches are based on a world- view which inaccurately reflects reality, they will fail to address, and may even exacerbate, these prob- lems. Indeed, some of the most pressing challenges of our time are complex, involving the interaction of many systems and relationships, each studied in- dependently by various disciplines. Although each discipline has made significant contributions to our understanding, when relied upon in a piecemeal or independent fashion, they are incomplete and inef- fectual at dealing with the challenges of this age. Repeated demonstration of this fact has motivated people and institutions around the world to engage in more effective collaboration. Effective collabo- ration is seen as a way to leverage multiple per- spectives in order to more accurately understand complex problems. As the fruits of the collaborative process yield better understanding of the complex- ity of these problems, it becomes evident that their solutions require well-coordinated and collabora- tive responses from various sectors and institutions in society - many of which are not accustomed to such efforts. This is SecondMuse’s passion; it is committed to learning about the functioning and transitioning of systems to exhibit patterns conducive to the solution of complex social, economic and environ- mental problems. Its focus is on understanding a principled form of collaboration distinct from col- laboration based merely on pragmatic self-interest. Guiding this work are the key principles underlying the Harmony Equity Group: coherence between the material and spiritual dimensions of reality, the or- ganic unity and interdependence of humanity, the reciprocal relationship between unity and justice in human affairs, and the importance of cultivating the capacity for altruistic service to others. Second- Muse’s commitment to these ideas is manifested through a diversity of projects employing collabora- tion - whether they be among a few people or thou- sands, externally- or self-organized, momentary or sustained over time, among highly diverse or similar participants, across industries and sectors or deeply within a single industry or firm. Over the last few years, SecondMuse has generated a wide array of experience and expertise - a firm foundation upon which to engage in a learning process.
such learning systematically, Second- Muse has instituted a research program devoted to advancing the science and art of systems transfor- mation. The program leverages SecondMuse’s ex- tensive consulting experience and data gathering through methods such as interviews, surveys, field observation, and document analysis. The program also gathers insights from relevant academic and industry research, using sources such as conference presentations as well as academic and practitioner oriented journal articles. External and internal in- sights are synthesized together ones to strengthen SecondMuse’s core consulting work which results in direct social impact in a variety of settings. This synthesis is also outwardly disseminated through academic, industry, and general audience publica- tions and presentations, thereby stimulating the discourses of society toward more effective collabo- rative action. The figure below depicts the relation- ship between internal and external research and dissemination with the work of SecondMuse. INITIAL LINE OF INQUIRY: COLLABORATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS Although the research program will ultimately engage in multiple lines of inquiry, its initial and ongoing line of inquiry is to assess the academic, and, to a lesser extent, the practitioner literature on collaboration. Such a landscape analysis should explore the definition of collaboration as well as the various disciplines’ frameworks to understand its functioning. This initial line provides a firm footing for complementary lines of inquiry which aim at understanding other related concepts in- cluding the value of collaboration and the meaning of systems transformation. Figure 1. Process diagram relating knowledge generation, application and dissemination functions within and outside of SecondMuse
to establish a research program on systems transformation, a firm footing is needed. In partic- ular, the very concept of collaboration must be ex- plored since it is employed in a variety of ways and contexts. The research program may be described as embarking on a voyage to gain knowledge on the topic of collaboration; we begin by knowing the ship’s place of origin. This program finds itself within an ongoing discourse in society which both shapes and is shaped by human action. After brief- ly examining the popular discourses on the word “collaboration”, a focused examination of academ- ic discourses on the subject is provided in hope of constructing a space within which the research pro- gram can be built. COLLABORATION IN POPULAR DISCOURSES Derived from the Latin, collaborare--meaning col or together, and laborare, to work--the Oxford English Dictionary defines collaboration as “united labour, co-operation; esp. in literary, artistic, or scientific work” and provides an instance as early as 1860 of its use by Charles Reade when he wrote, “It is plain that collaboration was not less..than it now is in France1“. A second definition, with historically concordant use-examples from the 1940s, describes collaboration as “Traitorous cooperation with the enemy.” Indeed, an examination of the use of the word col- laboration (see graph below2) via the Google cor- pus of English books (approximately 155 billion words) reveals an increase in the textual use of the word in the English language especially after after 1860 with a sudden spike in usage in the 1940s, reflecting its World War II “quisling” usage. The early 1980s witnessed an increase in the word’s relative usage and peaked in 2003. Interestingly, in recent years, between 2003 and 2008, the use of the word collaborate appears to have decreased in published-book usage. An analysis of search terms employed via the Google search engine from 2004 onward reveals a similar pattern of decline (see graph below). 1 “collaboration, n.”. OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press. 25 November 2013 <http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.proxy. library.oregonstate.edu/view/Entry/36197>. 2 The vertical axis indicates the percentage of the use of the word relative to all other words contained in Google’s corpus.
ON COLLABORATION In 1991, during the more recent upswing in the us- age of the word collaboration, the Journal of Be- havioral Science presented two special issues on collaboration and collaborative alliances. In synthe- sizing several of these papers, Wood and Gray make the observation that, while they assumed that a commonly accepted definition of collaboration ex- isted, “we found a welter of definitions, each having something to offer and none being entirely satisfac- tory by itself.”3 Only a few years later, Henneman et al. (1995) pointed out how such a “lack of clarity has resulted in the term ‘collaboration’ being used in a variety of inappropriate ways in both the re- search and practice settings. For example, it is often considered synonymous with other modes of inter- action such as cooperation or compromise. Unfortu- nately, confusion over the meaning of collaboration has hindered its usefulness as a variable in studies which attempt to evaluate its effectiveness.” Thus the social science endeavor early on recognized the need, and indeed perhaps even the challenge, of defining what is meant by the word collaboration. Once this is done, theoretical frameworks may be developed in order to frame the understanding of its functioning and implications. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF COLLABORATION Definitions in the academic literature for collabora- tion abound. In 1977, Appley and Winder4 define (as stated by Hord, 19865) collaboration as “...a relational system of individuals within groups, in which: 1 individuals in a group share mutual aspirations and a common con- ceptual framework,2 the interactions among individuals are characterized by “justice as fairness”; 3 these aspirations and conceptual- izations are characterized by each individual’s consciousness of his or her motives toward the other; by caring or concern for the other, and by commitment to work with the other over time provided that this commitment is a matter of choice.” In 1980, Kraus6 defined (as quoted by Henneman et al. 19957) collaboration to be “a cooperative venture based on shared power and authority. It is non-hierarchical in nature. It assumes power based on a knowl- edge or expertise as opposed to power based on role or function”. In 1989, Gray8 defined (as quoted by O’Leary and Vij, 20129) interorganizational collaboration as 3 Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Sage Publi- cations. 4 Appley, D. G. & Winder, A. E. (1977). An evolving definition of collaboration and some implications for the world of work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Sage Publications. 5 Hord, S. M. (1986). A synthesis of research on organizational collaboration. Educational Leadership. 6 Kraus, W. A. (1980). Collaboration in organizations: Alternatives to hierarchy. Human Sciences Press New York. 7 Henneman, E. A., Lee, J. L. & Cohen, J. I. (1995). Collaboration: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Wiley Online Library. 8 Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass San Francisco. 9 O’Leary, R. & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative Public Management Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? The American Review of Public Administration. SAGE Publications.
dent organizational actors who negotiate the answers to shared concerns”. In 1995, Henneman et al. avoid giving a one sen- tence definition but describe collaboration as having a set of defining attributes including: joint venture, cooperative endeavour, willing participation, shared planning and decision making, team approach, con- tribution of expertise, shared responsibility, non-hi- erarchical relationships, power as shared, based on knowledge and expertise instead of role or title. In 1996, Huxham described collaboration as “working in association with others for some form of mutual benefit” 10 More recently, in 2005 we find a definition in which collaboration is “a cooperative, interorganizational relation- ship in which participants rely on neither mar- ket nor hierarchical mechanisms of control to gain cooperation from each other.” 11 SYNTHESIS OF DEFINITIONS Throughout the years, attempts have also been made to collect definitions of collaboration, either from practitioners via interviews or from academ- ics via journal articles, and synthesize them into comprehensive characterizations. The earliest such attempt appears to be in 1991, by Wood & Gray12. They reviewed seven papers’ definitions of collab- oration, identified explicit and implicit common el- ements, and created a definition which answered three questions: “who is doing what, with what means, toward which ends.” Their resultant defini- tion was as follows: Collaboration occurs when a group of auton- omous stakeholders of a problem domain en- gage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain. In 2001, as part of the conclusion of her PhD re- search, Thomson13 distilled a definition after con- ducting a “systematic analysis of multiple defini- tions of collaboration across multiple disciplines” as well as interviewing 20 organizational directors. Her definition is as follows: Collaboration is a process in which autono- mous or semi-autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involving shared norms and mu- tually beneficial interactions. This definition later became the basis upon which to do a quantitative analysis of the definition’s dimensions in order to test its validity14. These di- 10 Huxham, C. (1996). Collaboration and Collaborative Advantage. In Huxham, Chris (Ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage. Sage. 11 Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B. & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity. Academy of Management Review. Academy of Management. 12 Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Sage Publi- cations. 13 Thomson, A. M. (2001). Collaboration: Meaning and measurement. Indiana University. Unpublished Ph.D. diss. 14 Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L. & Miller, T. K. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. PMRA.
tuality, norms, and organizational autonomy. The authors operationalized the five key dimensions into dozens of questions and examined how well they correlated with collaboration. After collecting and analyzing data from over 400 surveys complet- ed by AmeriCorps directors, they discovered that their original conceptualizations of the dimensions of collaboration were not concordant with the di- rectors’. They state: For this sample of organizations, the gover- nance dimension is manifest in terms of the more informal negotiation mechanisms of brainstorming and appreciation of each oth- er’s opinions rather than the formal mecha- nisms of standard operating procedures and formal agreements. In contrast to gover- nance, the structural elements of implemen- tation manifest in the administration dimen- sion are clarity of roles and responsibilities, effective collaboration meetings, goal clarity, and well-coordinated tasks. Each of these is more closely linked to the administration di- mension than are formal mechanisms of re- liance on a manager, formal communication channels, and monitoring. Indicators of the mutuality dimension that did not withstand statistical scrutiny are questions that attempt to capture the extent of shared interests among partners. For this sample, collaboration seems to involve forg- ing commonalities from differences rather than finding solidarity through shared inter- ests. Mutuality in collaboration is manifest in partner organizations that (1) combine and use each other’s resources so all benefit, (2) share information to strengthen each other’s operations and programs, (3) feel respected by each other, (4) achieve their own goals better working with each other than alone, and (5) work through differences to arrive at win–win solutions. The primary norms dimension indicators that are statistically significant and valid are the trust indicators. We found little support for the indicators of [I-will-if-you-will] reciprocity. For this sample, collaboration involves a pro- cess characterized by a belief that (1) people who represent partner organizations in col- laboration are trustworthy, (2) partner organi- zations can count on each other to keep their obligations, and (3) it is more worthwhile to stay in the collaboration than to leave. In 2005, several researchers conducted a thorough literature review15 dealing with interprofessional col- laboration in order to distill the conceptual elements underlying collaboration as well as frameworks within which to think about it. After searching the literature using related terms, they identified 588 papers, seventeen of which actually dealt with defi- nitions or concepts associated with interprofessional collaboration. While they did not create a definition per se, they did look for those concepts which were repeatedly mentioned by others. They state: Among the most commonly referenced con- cepts mentioned in the literature were shar- ing, partnership, interdependency and power. Collaboration has also been defined as a dy- namic process. We therefore regrouped defi- nitions of collaboration under these keywords. 15 D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L. & Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collabo- ration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of interprofessional care. Informa UK Ltd UK.
series of authors conduct- ed a thorough synthesis of definitions of the word collaboration16. They spell out four criteria, while keeping in mind the principles of comprehensive- ness and parsimony, to develop a unified “construct definition of collaboration”. First, “the definition must explicitly apply to various levels of analysis” such as collaboration involving individuals, teams, organizations, etc.; second, “the definition must provide some explanation regarding the funda- mental process inherent in collaboration”; third, “collaboration must be defined and described as a process rather than a structure or an outcome”; fourth, “the definition must acknowledge the influ- ence of time.” Searches were conducted in a vari- ety of databases capturing papers from a variety of disciplines. Interestingly, they found the following limitations of the existing definitions: “(1) are too vague or too specific”, “(2) explain context without providing an explicit definition”, “(3) operate at a restricted level of analysis”, “(4) are not conceptu- alized as a process,” “and/or (5) describe another type of interaction altogether.” After reviewing 63 definitions from papers written between 1977 and 2008, and utilizing the criteria above, they write the following definition: Collaboration is an evolving process whereby two or more social entities actively and re- ciprocally engage in joint activities aimed at achieving at least one shared goal. It is worth noting that the word reciprocal, as used in this study, is not identical to what was measured in the Thomson (2009) article above. Instead, Bed- well et al. (2012) clarify that collaboration being reciprocal entails “a back-and-forth reciprocal pro- cess that requires each involved party to actively contribute in some way across the lifecycle of col- laborative effort”. Another worthwhile consideration when evaluating definitions is the sensible idea that “the specific outcomes of collaboration should not be incorpo- rated into the definition a priori, but left open to empirical analysis”17. SECONDMUSE DEFINITION To stimulate internal conversation on the topic and to coalesce a company-wide perspective on the subject, fifteen associates at SecondMuse engaged in an internal exercise to define collaboration. By the end of the process, three small groups had sev- eral pages of responses to exercise questions and their own definitions for the word. This data formed a rich foundation for a company-wide definition. The process was structured using several exercises to help each small group think through the concept of collaboration and lay the foundation for writing a definition. The first exercise asked the individuals in the groups independently to visualize, then share with their groups, what collaboration might look like. The second asked the groups to identify the key features of collaboration, some of which may have come from their individual visualizations. The third asked the groups to differentiate collaboration from other related concepts such as cooperation and coordination. It also asked the groups to identify antecedents (e.g. conditions or situations) and con- sequences of a successful collaboration. Finally, the 16 Bedwell, W. L., Wildman, J. L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W. S. & Salas, E. (2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review. Elsevier. 17 Gray, B. & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Sage Publications. Quoted in: Longoria, R. A. (2005). Is inter-organizational collaboration always a good thing. Journal Sociology & Social Welfare. HeinOnline.
generated to write a relatively brief definition of collaboration. Two methods were used to synthesize all the groups’ responses into a single definition. The first was to simply append the three definitions written by each group, remove any redundant statements, and streamline sentences. The result of this method is the following, somewhat lengthy definition: Collaboration is a process of discovery and creation that is motivated by a high sense of purpose made concrete by a shared goal and framework. Parties authentically and fully en- gage to work toward mutual as well as exter- nal benefit thereby creating an environment of mutual respect and trust. Such an environ- ment helps build unity of vision and purpose by embracing a deeper truth, and contributes to the betterment of the world. The collabo- rative process necessitates a greater aware- ness of the whole (e.g. group, community, systems) to solve complex challenges, bring about innovation, and increase relevance more broadly. The process itself inevitably leads to the creation of a more united, col- laboratively-adept community, organization or society. The second method was more complex and relied upon a researcher’s analysis of the groups’ respons- es to all of the exercise sections. First, responses by all three groups for each section were collected and synthesized into 23 features associated with collab- oration. Interestingly, these were found to fall into three categories: the environment of collaboration, the attitudes of collaborators, and the structure/ process of collaboration. Then, features deemed un- necessary for collaboration were removed from the list so that 13 features remained. Those 9 features pertaining to the structure/process of collaboration were then exclusively considered since they dealt in a more substantive way with the concept. Finally, keeping in mind the desire for parsimony, these 9 features were distilled into 4 necessary conditions for collaboration: • Shared Purpose. A group of people need to have a common purpose which lends direction to their efforts together, otherwise a collabora- tion reduces to a seemingly rich yet unproduc- tive conversation. • Idea Reformation. Participants need not only share ideas or perspectives, but the sharing process should include some form of interac- tion yielding alternative, interactively formed ideas or perspectives. • Creation/Discovery. A collaborative process should give rise to the discovery or creation of something new. Failing this, idea reformation will reach no conclusive end. • Shared Ownership. Throughout and by the end of the process, those engaged in a collab- oration have collective ownership over what- ever was created or discovered. Failing this perspective, a collaborative process reduces to an imposed external exercise. These four conditions could then be summarized in a concise definition as follows: Participants may be said to be collaborating when they are guided by a shared purpose to engage in a reciprocal process of sharing and reforming ideas to create or discover some- thing new which is collectively owned. Beyond parsimony, this last definition also effec- tively addresses the definition criteria mentioned by several authors: (a) it does not include the specific outcome of collaboration per Gray & Wood (1991); (b) it answers “who is doing what?” and “toward which ends” questions, and, to a lesser extent, the
Wood & Gray (1991); (c) it applies at various levels of analysis, says something about the inherent process of col- laboration, is described as a process, and acknowl- edges the influence of time, per Bedwell et al. (2012). This definition is most similar to Bedwell et al.’s (2012) interdisciplinary synthesis, except that they do not mention creation and discovery. • • • The definition above is somewhat technical and not infused with the conceptual framework which un- derpins SecondMuse’s perspective. Operating under the umbrella of the Harmony Equity Group, Second- Muse strives to apply and learn about four inter- twined principles: coherence between the material and spiritual dimensions of reality, the organic unity and interdependence of humanity, the reciprocal relationship between unity and justice in human af- fairs, and the importance of cultivating the capacity for altruistic service to others. At one level, these principles have implications for the motivation to engage in collaboration. Through a recognition of the organic unity and interde- pendence of humanity, for example, SecondMuse is motivated to conceive and foster relationships characterized by cooperation and reciprocity. While this does not imply all relationships must be strictly collaborative, such a posture motivates one to seek out elements of the system which would benefit from it. Collaborative environments also help foster the capacity for altruistic service among groups of people, as they develop aims beyond themselves. Also, by recognizing a reciprocal relationship be- tween unity and justice in the world, the imperative for collaboration as a means to unitedly seek out and apply justice strengthens. At another level, the principles have implications for the form which collaboration must take. Recogniz- ing the reciprocal relationship between justice and unity in human affairs, for example, guides collabo- rations to have aims conducive to the general wel- fare of humanity and to employ approaches which are conducive to the search for truth. In addition to this, acknowledging the organic unity and interde- pendence of humanity suggests the importance of adopting an inclusive approach, one which is not distorted by, say, a compartmentalized view of the various sectors of the economy. Such a truthful and inclusive collaborative process must be guided by a recognition of the spiritual and material dimensions of reality with its various implications including giv- ing due consideration to the capacities that people, communities and institutions will need to develop. Such capacities include not only, say, basic struc- tures and technical functioning, but should include environments of camaraderie, generosity, and com- mitment: in short, environments which cultivate our capacity for altruistic service to others.
in the published literature? The first step to examining the literature on collab- oration was to create a citation database of all the papers, books, conference proceedings, PhD theses, etc. which deal with collaboration or related sub- jects. This database was put together in two phases. The first phase involved putting together references which SecondMuse associates had already found on the topic. This list was augmented with addition- al references found online via Google Scholar using especially the terms “collaboration” and “colla- bor*”. The second phase involved selecting those papers among the two hundred which specifically and often comprehensively dealt with the subject of collaboration. This search yielded 29 journal arti- cles. The reference list for each of these papers was then examined to find additional material relevant to the topic at hand. The second phase generated over three hundred citations, increasing the size of the database to 581 citations. Not all of these papers deal specifical- ly with the topic of collaboration, yet they contain relevant material to the topic (e.g. human motiva- tion, social organization, etc.). However, of these citations 260 have the word collaboration in their abstracts, or in the first three paragraphs of text if not in the abstract, or in the title if neither abstract or initial paragraphs are readily accessible. These 260 sources are the subject of the following land- scape analysis and are hereafter referred to as the “database.” (See the appendix at the end of the document to review the complete list of sources.)
the sources of interest give a sense of the kind of notions which are often associated with the concept of collaboration. As can be seen in the word cloud below, words such as “research”, “public”, “management”, and “process” are very frequently used. This is representative of the fact that much of the discourse which often refers to collaboration as a process typically discusses it in the context of involving the public, and is inquiring into management-oriented questions. Indeed, the phrases “public management” and “decision mak- ing” are used 26 times, and “public administration” 20 times. The repeated use of the word “research” is likely due to the fact that abstracts often are ex- plaining the research. Figure 4. Word cloud indicating word frequency within collaboration database abstracts
within collaboration database 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Public Administra6on Review The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Journal of Public Administra6on Research and Theory Academy of Management Journal Administra6on & Society The American Review of Public Administra6on Research Policy Academy of Management Review Human Rela6ons Organiza6onal Dynamics Administra6ve Science Quarterly Environmental Management Interna6onal Journal of Public Administra6on Organiza6on Science Public Administra6on Public Management Review Strategic Management Journal European Journal of Innova6on Management Interna6onal Journal of Physical Distribu6on & Logis6cs Management Journal of management Policy Studies Journal Public Management an Interna6onal Journal of Research and Theory Society & Natural Resources Supply Chain Management: An Interna6onal Journal 98 JOURNALS OR PROCEEDINGS Of the sources in the database, nearly 200 were published in journals or proceedings. As the graph below shows, most of the papers were published in the journal Public Administration Review and The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, followed by Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Academy of Management Journal, and Ad- ministration & Society. Such journals suggest that papers target a more applied research audience with an inclination toward administration and man- agement. Journals mentioned two or more times are included in the figure below.
sources spans 56 years with an early paper published in the American Journal of Sociol- ogy in 1958, dealing with an experimental study on intergroup relations and conflict all the way to several papers published in 2013, dealing with col- laboration among researchers, collaboration among public agencies, as well as the systems and tools of collaboration. The graph below shows the count of sources across their publication dates. Figure 6. Citation frequency across years within collaboration database 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
of the papers elucidated some form of framework, usually a way to think about the topic of collaboration, such as Gray’s 1989 antecedents, process, outcome framework. Over a third included some kind of case study, a more or less in-depth examination of a particular setting in which col- laboration occurred. Nearly 40 papers included a literature review, whether it formed a substantial portion or the vast majority of a paper. Interestingly, nearly the same number were found in which a hy- pothesis was actually tested using, in many cases, strictly quantitative methods. A few more than 20 articles contained predominantly an overview and/ or perspective on the topic of collaboration. Figure 7. Research features within collaboration database framework building case study hypothesis tes7ng literature review overview 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
database is focused on collaboration, papers are often written within one or another con- text which determines the type of collaboration be- ing described. These types are in no way mutually exclusive or exhaustive; instead they give a sense of the ways in which collaboration is being writ- ten about. Most papers describe collaboration in its broadest, inter-organizational form, i.e. collabora- tion taking place among various types of organi- zations. Then there are papers which describe col- laboration between firms (inter-firm), or between individuals (interpersonal), whether co-workers or not. Several papers were focused more on the related, yet not equivalent, concepts of coalitions, partnerships and/or alliances. And a growing lit- erature discusses collaboration between or with researchers (“inter-researcher”) as well as collab- oration for participatory governance. An emerging literature discusses crowdsourcing, which describes a distributed method of acquiring resources from large numbers of individuals. Finally, the database contains a few papers dealing with collaboration among government agencies specifically. Figure 8. Collaboration types discussed within collaboration database 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 inter-‐organiza2onal collabora2on inter-‐ﬁrm collabora2on inter-‐personal collabora2on coali2ons/partnerships/aliances inter-‐researcher collabora2on par2cipatory governance inter-‐governmental collabora2on crowdsourcing intra-‐ﬁrm collabora2on
the nearly 140 papers describing a case study and/or hypothesis testing component, nearly 130 had one or more settings which were readily identi- fiable. Twenty-five or more papers drew from expe- riences of collaboration in the social services, nat- ural resources, healthcare, and/or research settings. About 20 papers dealt with cases in technology (not including biotech) and/or education settings. The figure below includes the count of papers by settings, as long as two or more papers drew from experiences in each setting. Figure 9. Settings for analysis within collaboration database 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 social services healthcare natural resources research technology educa7on environment manufacturing construc7on biotech chemicals military disaster management supply chain transporta7on 4 SECTORS OF COLLABORATORS Papers describing some form of organizational collaboration dealt with institutions in either gov- ernmental, private, nonprofit/non-governmental, or university/school sectors. For those papers with a case study or hypothesis testing component, about 70 papers included governmental and/or pri- vate sectors, and about 57 included the nonprofit/ non-governmental sector. Nearly 40 mentioned uni- versity or school collaborators. At least 30 sourc- es dealt with collaboration between organizations within three or more sectors.
thinking about collaboration? Since a comprehensive analysis of nearly 300 pa- pers would be prohibitive, this analysis will concen- trate on those papers which were categorized as containing a literature review. Among those cate- gorized as such, the vast majority were published in journals, and about 2/3 also included development of some kind of overarching framework within which to organize the research and/or think about collaboration. After a careful review of sources in this category, 11 were selected (see table below) for a more thorough analysis below, since they ei- ther contained a more exhaustive literature review or conducted an interesting overview analysis of the field of collaboration and/or collaborative gov- ernance. AUTHOR TOPIC FRAME- WORK INCLUDES THEORY PROPOSITIONS OR CONCLUSIONS? PRIMARY BASIS FOR FRAMEWORK OR ARGUMENT REFERENCES TO THE PAPER REFERENCES FROM THE PAPER Bedwell et al., 2012 Collaboration Explicit No conceptual, some empirics 20 106 Ansell & Alison, 2008 Collaborative governance Explicit Yes empirical 641 148 McGuire et al., 2010 Collaborative public management None No empirical 3 115 Zakocs & Edwards, 2006 Community coalitions None No empirical 145 108 Mattessich et al., 2001 Collaboration Implicit No empirical 648 82 Foster- Fishman et al., 2001 Collaborative capacity in community coalitions Explicit No empirical 372 85 Emerson et al., 2012 Collaborative governance Explicit Yes mixed 77 138 O’Leary, & Vij, 2012 Collaborative public management None No mixed 10 76 Hudson, et al., 1999 Inter-agency collaboration in public sector Explicit No mixed 192 70 Longoria, 2005 Inter-organizational collaboration None No mixed 49 62 Bryson et al., 2006 Cross-sector collaboration Explicit Yes conceptual, some empirics 485 70 * The “references to the paper” refer to the number of papers which cite the paper indicated by each row. These figures are estimated using Google Scholar. “References from the paper” indicates the number of references included in the paper and provides a close approximation of the number of papers included in a given paper’s literature review.
papers listed above, 927 unique written sources were cited, 106 of which were cit- ed by two or more of the eleven papers. Figure 10 below gives a graphical depiction of the degree of crossover of citations in the eleven papers. An alter- native depiction of the degree of crossover can be made where each node represents the journal or book cited. In Figure 11, we see a representation of such information. Here one notices the degree to which each paper draws from similar (central circle) or unique sources (circles around satellites surrounding the central circle). Figure 10. Paper citation crossover Figure 11. Journal/Book citation crossover
words frameworks, theories and models are often used interchangeably in the social sciences. This comes as no surprise, especially in the field of collaboration and collaborative governance, since it draws upon the knowledge from so many dis- ciplines, each with its own nomenclature. For our purposes, however, we draw upon Elinor Ostrom’s (2005) distinction of the three concepts since they provide a very helpful way to frame the multi-disci- plinary discourse. In her work “Understanding Institutional Diversity” (2005), Ostrom refers to frameworks, theories and models as concepts “which range from the most general to the most detailed types of assumptions made by the analyst.” Frameworks organize inquiry, outline relevant variables, provide “a meta-theoret- ic language that is necessary to talk about theories and that can be used to compare theories.” Theories actually specify “which components of a framework are relevant for certain kinds of questions and to make broad working assumptions about these ele- ments.” Many theories may coincide with a single framework yet may each make distinct predictions. Models “make precise assumptions about a limit- ed set of parameters and variables.” These allow analysts to precisely identify the consequences of changes in assumptions and/or parameters. A great number of papers in the database elaborate some kind of framework to organize the thinking on collaboration. The subset of 11 we focus on sim- ilarly includes many frameworks, except these are based upon the analysis of many, in some cases hundreds, of other papers. As can be seen in the table above, five papers explicitly define a frame- work (Ansell & Alison, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012; Bryson et al., 2006; Bedwell et al., 2012; Hudson, et al., 1999), one implicitly does so by categorizing relevant factors (Mattessich et al., 2001), and an- other defines a framework limited to the topic of collaborative capacity (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). The remaining four papers (McGuire et al., 2010; O’Leary, & Vij, 2012; Zakocs & Edwards, 2006; Lon- goria, 2005) raise a series of interesting concepts without elaboration of a specific framework. Of those that include a framework, only three explicitly make theoretical statements either in the forms of testable conclusions or propositions.
depict (sometimes) sim- plified versions of the frameworks provided by the papers mentioned above (except the one on collab- orative capacity). Two papers (Hudson, et al., 1999; Mattessich et al., 2001) omitted visual representa- tion of their framework and are represented as lists. Figure 12. Collaborative governance, based on empirical literature, Ansell et al., 2008 Figure 13. Collaboration, primarily conceptual exploration, Bedwell et al., 2012
in public sector. Based primaril on conceptual exploration. Hudson et al., 1999 Figure 17. Collaboration. Based on empirical literature. Mattessich et al., 2001 A cursory examination of Hudson et al.’s (1999) framework reveals how the conception of collabo- ration is blurred with that of coordination. Indeed, a “collaborative” relationship could only take place within a market or hierarchy if its conception was reduced simply to one of coordination. A reading of the paper confirms this conception. In 2001, Matte- sich et al., developed a more refined understanding of collaboration as distinct yet related to concepts such as coordination and synthesized the research on factors producing effective collaboration accord- ing to six categories: environment, membership characteristics, process and structure, communica- tion, purpose, and resources. In the frameworks of three of the more recent pa- pers, we can see from the above depictions a gen- eral pattern emerges of various inputs facilitating, by way of some collaborative process, structure, and/or performance a series of outcomes--a kind ENVIRONMENT Contextual factors: expectations and constraints Recognition of the need to collaborate Identification of a legitimate basis for collaboration Assessment of collaborative capacity Articulation of a clear sense of collaborative purpose Nurturing fragile relationships Building up trust from principled conduct Selection of an appropriate collaborative relationship Ensuring wide organizational ownership Selection of a pathway (market, hierarchy, network) COMMUNICATION MEMBERSHIP PURPOSE PROCESS AND STRUCTURE RESOURCES
process. Of the three papers, only Bedwell et al. (2012) explicitly state this fact when it states that its depiction of this framework is based on the input–mediator– output–input framework (IMOI) discussed by Ilgen et al. (2005). Finally, in Emerson et al., (2012) the framework is similar, but is discussed in the context of embedded systems with adaptive processes. FEW THEORIES AND NO MODELS Of all the papers which elucidate a framework, only three (Bryson et al., 2006; Ansell & Alison, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012) explicitly provide testable propositions or conclusions, thereby approaching the existence of a theory, as discussed by Ostrom (2005). These propositions or conclusions essen- tially come from or form the bases for the frame- work as elucidated in the paper. In this sense, then, the frameworks may be more accurately described as theories, or at least, theoretical frameworks. (See the Appendix for a list of each paper’s proposi- tions or conclusions.) None of the papers reviewed includes a concrete model whereby the effects of changes in assumptions or parameters can be elucidated. SUGGESTED RESEARCH All of the papers included in this analysis make explicit and specific recommendations for future research, except for the paper dealing with collab- orative capacity (i.e. Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). As would be expected, those papers which develop a framework, theoretical or otherwise, for thinking about collaboration in various contexts, recommend further testing and refinement of that same frame- work. For example, in Emerson et al.’s (2012) paper, this could include testing whether shared motiva- tion enhances and sustains principled engagement and vice versa in a “virtuous cycle”, as mentioned in the paper. Along these lines, nearly all of these same papers, as well as a couple others, recom- mend that variables thought to be conducive to collaboration be operationalized into quantitative measures to enable more empirical analysis and cross-study comparisons. Beyond these issues, authors emphasize the pressing need for research to be of better use to practitioners (Bryson et al., 2006; McGuire et al., 2010; O’Leary, & Vij, 2012), greater dialogue and agreement on the definition of key concepts such as collaboration as well as better elaborations of collaboration theory (Longoria, 2005; O’Leary, & Vij, 2012). Also emphasized is the need to strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration (Zakocs & Edwards, 2006; Bryson et al., 2006) and to include an explo- ration of the costs vis a vis benefits of collaboration (Mattessich et al., 2001; Longoria, 2005). Several other research concerns are noted including the need for better examination of how stakehold- ers in collaborative processes are actually affected (Longoria, 2005) or drawing on the team literature (Bedwell et al., 2012). Mattessich et al. (2001) is- sue several recommendations. These include identi- fying factors which compel people to collaborate in the first place, examining if history influences how collaboration unfolds, and understanding the long- term outcomes of collaboration.
systems framework for collaboration The study of many subjects arguably traces their initial development to the use of images and met- aphors drawn from nature. These help us under- stand phenomena and stimulate the generation of knowledge. For example, atomic models resemble patterns of the solar system, gravitational models derive inspiration from the palpable force of mag- netism, and economic market models aspire toward notions of equilibrium in simple physical systems. For SecondMuse, the human body is a helpful guide as a metaphor for the healthy operation of a society. The interactions at the cellular or whole-body level indicate the necessity of structure and the concor- dant necessity for permeability and reciprocity. The evolution of the body yields insight into the concept of phases, added structure, and the mutually rein- forcing functions of specialization and integration. Additionally, unhealthy conditions within the body yield metaphorical insights into the root causes of society’s maladies. In this light, it is surprising to reflect upon the above literature review and see the inordinate focus placed on the collaborative process irrespective of the larg- er system in which collaboration is embedded . The concept of a system, with its associated elements and relationships, in combination with the concept of a process, supports the formalization of the body metaphor as context for collaboration. Here, collab- oration can be described as one among many types of relationship within the system. Collaborative processes, then, may be seen within the context of the system itself, in time altering the direction of its evolution. To the extent that collaborative process- es are conscious, the participants, each performing particular functions, heighten their own awareness of the surrounding system and contribute to its healthier reshaping. • • • The last century-and-a-half has positioned human- ity to be increasingly conscious of the systemic na- ture of the world and the importance of concep- tions and values. The number of relationships in society have increased exponentially. Individuals, institutions, and natural resources have evolved to interact with each other through a multifaceted web of cause and effect. Unharmonious relations in one part of the system more readily conduce to disharmony elsewhere through ripples in the sys- tem. Concurrent with this process of increasing structural interdependence is the increasing capac- ity of humanity to perceive interactions and more effectively change them. Communication technol- ogies and a gradually manifesting, yet unmistak- able, selfless-orientation poise humanity to rethink the nature of relationships within this system and strive for its ultimate transformation to a sustain- able whole which welcomes the contribution of all individuals and ensures justice for all. Generating knowledge on the process through which individuals and/or institutions engage in a collaborative interaction to describe reality, develop a shared vision for transformation, and continuously engage in action and reflection is a formidable task. How does one describe a process through which society redefines itself? The generation of knowl- edge in this respect may more effectively proceed through an ongoing, dialogical process of learning. In particular, it must be guided by the explicit elabo- ration of a conceptual framework comprised of fun-
associ- ated concepts which guide thinking and maintain consistency, features of any scientific endeavor. This is not to deny that, along the way, certain methods or techniques may prove helpful to improve col- laborative relationships and processes. Indeed, the exercise of visually mapping a system with its own stakeholders is one such example. Yet, given that collaboration is fundamentally tied to the human experience, refining our understanding of collabo- ration will require a reconsideration of fundamental beliefs, motivations, and attitudes. Such a reconsideration is guided by principles of the Harmony Equity Group, under which SecondMuse operates. Its four intertwined principles include: coherence between the material and spiritual di- mensions of reality, the organic unity and interde- pendence of humanity, the reciprocal relationship between unity and justice in human affairs, and the importance of cultivating the capacity for altruistic service to others. These principles not only motivate SecondMuse to engage in collaboration, but also inform its approach. The body metaphor and associ- ated concept of the system tie into these principles, contributing to the development of a world-view which more accurately reflects reality. Altogether, these guide SecondMuse’s efforts to learn about and foster a new vision for the world.
literature review papers The following table summarizes the literature review papers which are described above in the report: AUTHOR TOPIC DEFINITION WHAT IS DONE Bedwell et al., 2012 Collaboration “… an evolving process whereby two or more social entities actively and reciprocally engage in joint activities aimed at achieving at least one shared goal.” Review multi-disciplinary literature to synthesize a concept of... and develop a theoretical framework of … Ansell & Alison, 2008 Collaborative governance “A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.” Conduct meta-analysis of literature and create contingency model of… McGuire et al., 2010 Collaborative public management “… describes the process of facilitating and operating in multiorganizational arrangements for solving problems that cannot be achieved, or achieved, or achieved easily, by single organizations.” Review and synthesize recent and more distant literature on… Zakocs & Edwards, 2006 Community coalitions “...inter-organizational, cooperative, and synergistic working alliances…” Review empirical literature and identify factors related to indicators of effectiveness of… in the health context Mattessich et al., 2001 Collaboration “... a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. The relationships includes a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards.” Review and synthesize literature on factors contributing to successful collaborations Foster- Fishman et al., 2001 Collaborative capacity in community coalitions “Collaborative capacity refers to the conditions needed for coalitions to promote effective collaboration and build sustainable community change (Goodman et al., 1998).” No definition is provided for coalitions per se. Develop an “integrative framework” which addresses the “core competencies” and “processses” needed for collaborative entities Emerson et al., 2012 Collaborative governance “The processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.” Synthesize literature into an “integrative framework” for…
DONE O’Leary, & Vij, 2012 Collaborative public management “... a concept that describes the process of facilitating and operating in multi-organizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved or easily solved by single organizations. Collaborative means to co-labor, to achieve common goals, often working across boundaries and in multi-sector and multi-actor relationships. Collaboration is based on the value of reciprocity and can include the public.” Analyze pressing issues and concepts in the research and practice of…. Hudson, et al., 1999 Inter-agency collaboration in public sector n/a Review literature to create a framework--informed by research and theory--within which to pursue... Longoria, 2005 Inter- organizational collaboration They choose Wood and Gray’s (1991) definition: “Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures to act or decide on issues related to that domain” Explore interest in... as based on evidence or on symbolic content Bryson et al., 2006 Cross-sector collaboration “The linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by organizations in one sector separately.” Review literature, examine conditions prompting... and offer propositions to guide design and implementation of…
conclusions The following are the propositions and conclusions which are explicitly stated by papers which attempt to elucidate a framework. These sets of propositions and conclusions may be said to begin to constitute a theory of collaboration in the context each paper examines. Emerson et al.’s (2012) propositions 1. One or more of the drivers of leadership, conse- quential incentives, interdependence, or uncertainty are necessary for a CGR to begin. The more drivers present and recognized by participants, the more likely a CGR will be initiated. 2. Principled engagement is generated and sustained by the interactive processes of discovery, definition, deliberation, and determination. The effectiveness of principled engagement is determined, in part, by the quality of these interactive processes. 3. Repeated, quality interactions through principled engagement will help foster trust, mutual under- standing, internal legitimacy, and shared commit- ment, thereby generating and sustaining shared motivation. 4. Once generated, shared motivation will enhance and help sustain principled engagement and vice versa in a “virtuous cycle.” 5. Principled engagement and shared motivation will stimulate the development of institutional ar- rangements, leadership, knowledge, and resources, thereby generating and sustaining capacity for joint action. 6. The necessary levels for the four elements of ca- pacity for joint action are determined by the CGR’s purpose, shared theory of action, and targeted out- comes. 7. The quality and extent of collaborative dynamics depend on the productive and self-reinforcing in- teractions among principled engagement, shared motivation and the capacity for joint action. 8. Collaborative actions are more likely to be imple- mented if 1) a shared theory of action is identified explicitly among the collaboration partners and 2) the collaborative dynamics function to generate the needed capacity for joint action. 9. The impacts resulting from collaborative action are likely to be closer to the targeted outcomes with fewer unintended negative consequences when they are specified and derived from a shared theory of action during collaborative dynamics. 10. CGRs will be more sustainable over time when they adapt to the nature and level of impacts resulting from their joint actions. Ansell & Alison’s (2008) conclusions 1. If there are significant power/resource imbalances between stakeholders, such that important stake- holders cannot participate in a meaningful way, then effective collaborative governance requires a commitment to a positive strategy of empowerment and representation of weaker or disadvantaged stakeholders 2. If alternative venues exist where stakeholders can pursue their goals unilaterally, then collaborative governance will only work if stakeholders perceive themselves to be highly interdependent. 3. If interdependence is conditional upon the collab- orative forum being an exclusive venue, then spon- sors must be willing to do the advance work of getting alternative forums (courts, legislators, and executives) to respect and honor the outcomes of collaborative processes. 4. If there is a prehistory of antagonism among stake- holders, then collaborative governance is unlikely to succeed unless (a) there is a high degree of inter- dependence among the stakeholders or (b) positive steps are taken to remediate the low levels of trust and social capital among the stakeholders. 5. Where conflict is high and trust is low, but pow- er distribution is relatively equal and stakeholders have an incentive to participate, then collaborative governance can successfully proceed by relying on the services of an honest broker that the respective stakeholders accept and trust. This honest broker might be a professional mediator. 6. Where power distribution is more asymmetric or in- centives to participate are weak or asymmetric, then collaborative governance is more likely to succeed if there is a strong ‘‘organic’’ leader who commands the respect and trust of the various stakeholders
process. ‘‘Organic’’ leaders are leaders who emerge from within the community of stakeholders. The availability of such leaders is likely to be highly contingent upon local circumstances. 7. Even when collaborative governance is mandated, achieving ‘‘buy in’’ is still an essential aspect of the collaborative process. 8. Collaborative governance strategies are particularly suited for situations that require ongoing cooperation. 9. If prior antagonism is high and a long-term com- mitment to trust building is necessary, then inter- mediate outcomes that produce small wins are particularly crucial. If, under these circumstances, stakeholders or policy makers cannot anticipate these small wins, then they probably should not embark on a collaborative path. Bryson et al.’s (2006) propositions 1. Like all interorganizational relationships, cross-sec- tor collaborations are more likely to form in tur- bulent environments. In particular, the formation and sustainability of cross-sector collaborations are affected by driving and constraining forces in the competitive and institutional environments. 2. Public policy makers are most likely to try cross-sector collaboration when they believe the separate efforts of different sectors to address a public problem have failed or are likely to fail, and the actual or potential failures cannot be fixed by the sectors acting alone 3. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when one or more linking mechanisms, such as powerful sponsors, general agreement on the problem, or existing networks, are in place at the time of their initial formation 4. The form and content of a collaboration’s initial agreements, as well as the processes used to for- mulate them, affect the outcomes of the collabora- tion’s work 5. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when they have committed sponsors and effective champions at many levels who provide formal and informal leadership. 6. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when they establish-with both internal and external stakeholders-the legitimacy of collab- oration as a form of organizing, as a separate en- tity, and as a source of trusted interaction among members. 7. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when trust-building activities (such as nurturing cross-sectoral and cross-cultural under- standing) are continuous. 8. Because conflict is common in partnerships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when partners use resources and tactics to equalize power and manage conflict effectively. 9. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when they combine deliberate and emer- gent planning; deliberate planning is emphasized more in mandated collaborations and emergent planning is emphasized more in non-mandated collaborations. 10. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when their planning makes use of stakeholder analyses, emphasizes responsiveness to key stake- holders, uses the process to build trust and the ca- pacity to manage conflict, and builds on distinctive competencies of the collaborators. 11. Collaborative structure is influenced by environ- mental factors such as system stability and the col- laboration’s strategic purpose. 12. Collaborative structure is likely to change over time because of ambiguity of membership and complexity in local environments. 13. Collaboration structure and the nature of the tasks performed at the client level are likely to influence a collaboration’s overall effectiveness. 14. Formal and informal governing mechanisms are likely to influence collaboration effectiveness. 15. Collaboration structure and the nature of the tasks performed at the client level are likely to influence a collaboration’s overall effectiveness. 16. Collaborations involving system- level planning activities are likely to involve the most negotia- tion, followed by collaborations focused on ad- ministrative-level partnerships and service delivery partnerships. 17. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to suc- ceed when they build in resources and tactics for dealing with power imbalances and shocks 18. Competing institutional logics are likely within cross-sector collaborations and may significantly influence the extent to which collaborations can agree on essential elements of process, structure, governance, and desired outcomes.
likely to cre- ate public value when they build on individuals’ and organizations’ self-interests and each sector’s characteristic strengths while finding ways to minimize, overcome, or compensate for each sec- tor’s characteristic weaknesses. 20. Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to cre- ate public value when they produce positive first-, second-, and third-order effects. 21. Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to cre- ate public value when they are resilient and en- gage in regular reassessments. 22. Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to be successful when they have an accountability sys- tem that tracks inputs, processes, and outcomes; use a variety of methods for gathering, interpret- ing, and using data; and use a results manage- ment system that is built on strong relationships with key political and professional constituencies. 23. The normal expectation ought to be that success will be very difficult to achieve in cross-sector collaborations.
“the database” of collaboration papers, chapters, and books. Abers, Rebecca Neaera (2007). Organizing for gover- nance: building collaboration in Brazilian river ba- sins. World Development. 35(8) 1450-1463 Agranoff, R. (2004). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Col- laboration: Using Networks and Partnerships, 62- 102. Agranoff, Robert (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administra- tion Review. 66 56-65 Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and The- ory. 11(3) 295-326 Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael. (2004). Collab- orative public management: New strategies for lo- cal governments. Georgetown University Press Ahuja, Gautam (2000). Collaboration networks, struc- tural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly. 45(3) 425-455 Albors, Jordi and Ramos, Juan C and Hervas, Jose L. (2008). New learning network paradigms: Commu- nities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source. International Journal of Information Man- agement. 28(3) 194-202 Alexander, Jeffrey A and Comfort, Maureen E and Wein- er, Bryan J and Bogue, Richard (2001). Leadership in collaborative community health partnerships. Non- profit management and leadership. 12(2) 159-175 Alter, Catherine and Hage, Jerald. (1993). Organizations working together. Sage Publications Newbury Park, CA Amabile, Teresa M and Patterson, Chelley and Mueller, Jennifer and Wojcik, Tom and Odomirok, Paul W and Marsh, Mel and Kramer, Steven J (2001). Ac- ademic-practitioner Collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal. 44(2) 418-431 Amirkhanyan, Anna A (2009). Collaborative perfor- mance measurement: Examining and explaining the prevalence of collaboration in state and local gov- ernment contracts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 19(3) 523-554 Amirkhanyan, Anna A and Kim, Hyun Joon and Lam- bright, Kristina T (2012). Closer Than “Arms Length” Understanding the Factors Associated With Collab- orative Contracting. The American Review of Public Administration. 42(3) 341-366 Ansell, Chris and Gash, Alison (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18(4) 543-571 Antikainen, Maria and MÃ¤kipÃ¤Ã¤, Marko and Ahonen, Mikko (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management. 13(1) 100-119 Appley, Dee G and Winder, Alvin E (1977). An evolving definition of collaboration and some implications for the world of work. The Journal of Applied Be- havioral Science. 13(3) 279-291 Arino, Africa and De La Torre, Jose (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collabo- rative ventures. Organization Science. 9(3) 306-325 Arya, Bindu and Lin, Zhiang (2007). Understanding Collaboration Outcomes From an Extended Re- source-Based View Perspective: The Roles of Orga- nizational Characteristics, Partner Attributes, and Network Structures. Journal of Management. 33(5) 697-723 Bahinipati, Bikram K and Kanda, Arun and Deshmukh, SG (2009). Horizontal collaboration in semiconduc- tor manufacturing industry supply chain: an evalu- ation of collaboration intensity index. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 57(3) 880-895 Bardach, Eugene. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press Barratt, Mark (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 9(1) 30-42 Barratt, Mark and Oliveira, Alexander (2001). Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning initiatives. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Lo-
Jean M and Foster-Fishman, Pennie G and Keys, Christopher B (1996). Using collaborative advocacy to foster intergroup cooperation: A joint insider-outsider investigation. Human Relations. 49(6) 701-733 Bazzoli, Gloria J and Stein, Rebecca and Alexander, Jef- frey A and Conrad, Douglas A and Sofaer, Shoshan- na and Shortell, Stephen M (1997). Public-private collaboration in health and human service delivery: Evidence from community partnerships. Milbank Quarterly. 75(4) 533-561 Bedwell, Wendy L and Wildman, Jessica L and Di- azGranados, Deborah and Salazar, Maritza and Kramer, William S and Salas, Eduardo (2012). Col- laboration at work: An integrative multilevel con- ceptualization. Human Resource Management Re- view. 22(2) 128-145 Belefski, Mary (2006). Collaboration at the US Environ- mental Protection Agency: An Interview with Two Senior Managers. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 143-144 Bentrup, Gary (2001). Evaluation of a Collaborative Model: A Case Study Analysis of Watershed Plan- ning in the Intermountain West. Environmental Management. 27(5) 739-748 Bessis, Nik and Xhafa, Fatos. (2011). Next Generation Data Technologies for Collective Computational In- telligence. Springer Bingham, John B. (2003). Collaborative Problem Solving and Decision Justice in New Product Development. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, EE1-EE6. Bingham, Lisa Blomgren and O’Leary, Rosemary (2006). Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: Missing questions, missing connections. Public Administra- tion Review. 66(s1) 161-167 Bingham, Lisa Blomgren and O’Leary, Rosemary. (2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management. ME Sharpe Bititci, Umit S and Martinez, Veronica and Albores, Pavel and Parung, Joniarto (2004). Creating and manag- ing value in collaborative networks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage- ment. 34(41337) 251-268 Black, Laura J and Cresswell, Anthony M and Luna, Luis F and Pardo, TA and Martinez, IJ and Thompson, F and Andersen, DF and Canestraro, DS and Richard- son, GP and Cook, M. (2003). A dynamic theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating intergovernmental use of information technology. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii Interna- tional Conference on System Sciences. Bonnell, Joseph E and Koontz, Tomas M (2007). Stum- bling forward: the organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Society & Natural Resources. 20(2) 153-167 Bovaird, Tony (2006). Developing new forms of partner- ship with the ‘market’ in the procurement of public services. Public Administration. 84(1) 81-102 Brenner, Brian (2004). Build It and They Will Come. Lead- ership and Management in Engineering. 4(4) 154- 155 Briggs, Robert O (2006). On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 64(7) 573- 582 Bruns, Hille C (2013). Working alone together: coordi- nation in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management Journal. 56(1) 62-83 Bruns, Hille C (2013). Working alone together: coordi- nation in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management Journal. 56(1) 62-83 Bryant, Susan L and Forte, Andrea and Bruckman, Amy. (2005). Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclope- dia. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, 1-10. Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2008). Failing into cross-sector collaboration successfully. Big ideas in collaborative public management, 55-78. Bryson, John M and Crosby, Barbara C and Stone, Me- lissa Middleton (2006). The Design and Implemen- tation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 44-55 Burns, Sam and Cheng, Anthony S. (2005). The utiliza- tion of collaborative processes in forest planning. USDA Forest Service. Office of Community Services Butterfield, Kenneth D and Reed, Richard and Lemak, David J (2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the Stakeholder’s perspective. Business & So- ciety. 43(2) 162-195
in interagency collabora- tion: Lessons from a project that failed. Child Abuse & Neglect. 9(4) 549-554 Cannon, Alan R and St. John, Caron H. (2008). Synergy through Collaboration: A Theory of Culture’s Effects. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Carlson, Christine. (2007). A practical guide to collabo- rative governance. Portland, OR: Policy Consensus Initiative Catlaw, Thomas J and Jordan, Gregory M (2009). Public Administration and the Lives of Others: Toward an Ethics of Collaboration. Administration & Society. 41(3) 290-312 Cheng, Antony S and Sturtevant, Victoria E (2012). A framework for assessing collaborative capacity in community-based public forest management. Envi- ronmental management. 49(3) 675-689 Chesbrough, Henry, Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for un- derstanding industrial innovation. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. 1-12. Oxford univer- sity press. Chiaroni, Davide and Chiesa, Vittorio and Frattini, Fed- erico (2009). Investigating the adoption of open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: a framework and an empirical analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management. 12(3) 285-305 Chompalov, Ivan and Genuth, Joel and Shrum, Wesley (2002). The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy. 31(5) 749-767 Chris Huxham, Arthur Turovh Himmelman, Colin Eden, Barbara Gray, Steve Cropper, David Sink, Catherine Barr and Chris Huxham, Sandor P. Schuman, Chris Huxham, Charles B. Finn, Arnold de Jong, Chris Huxham. (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. Sage Coe, Barbara A (1988). Open focus: implenenting proj- ects in multi-organizational settings. International Journal of Public Administration. 11(4) 503-526 Cohen, Susan G and Mankin, Don (2002). Complex col- laborations in the new global economy. Organiza- tional Dynamics. 31(2) 117-133 Conley, Alexander and Moote, Margaret A (2003). Evalu- ating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society & Natural Resources. 16(5) 371-386 Cooper, Terry L and Bryer, Thomas A and Meek, Jack W (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public man- agement. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 76- 88 Cooperrider, David L and McQuaid, Michelle (2013). The Positive Arc of Systemic Strengths. Journal of Corpo- rate Citizenship. 46 Crabtree, Andy. (2003). Designing collaborative systems: A practical guide to ethnography. Springer Cropper, Steve (1996). Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability. Creating Collaborative Ad- vantage. 80-100 Crosby, Barbara C and Bryson, John M (2005). A leader- ship framework for cross-sector collaboration. Pub- lic Management Review. 7(2) 177-201 Cummings, Jonathon N and Kiesler, Sara (2007). Coordi- nation costs and project outcomes in multi-univer- sity collaborations. Research Policy. 36(10) 1620- 1634 Dailey, Robert C (1977). The effects of cohesiveness and collaboration on work groups: A theoretical model. Group & Organization Management. 2(4) 461-469 Daley, Dorothy M (2009). Interdisciplinary problems and agency boundaries: Exploring effective cross-agen- cy collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 19(3) 477-493 Damodaran, Sumangala (1998). Book Review of Eco- nomics of collaboration. Indian shoemakers be- tween market and hierarchy. Indian Economic Re- view. 33(1) 107-109 D’Amour, Danielle and Ferrada-Videla, Marcela and San Martin Rodriguez, Leticia and Beaulieu, Ma- rie-Dominique (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of interprofessional care. 19(S1) 116-131 Daniell, Katherine A and White, Ian and Ferrand, Nils and Ribarova, Irina and Coad, Peter and Rougier, Jean-Emmanuel and Hare, Matthew and Jones, Natalie and Popov, AA and Rollin, Dominique and others (2010). Co-engineering participatory water management processes: theory and insights from Australian and Bulgarian interventions. Ecology and Society. 15(4) Daniels, Steven E and Walker, Gregg B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Praeger Publishers Davis, Jason P. (2008). Network Plasticity and Collabora- tive Innovation: Processes of Network Reorganiza-
Proceedings, 1-7. Davis, Jason P. (2009). Rotating Leadership and Symbi- otic Organization: Relationship Processes in Collab- orative Innovation. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. DeLeon, Peter and Varda, Danielle M (2009). Toward a theory of collaborative policy networks: Identifying structural tendencies. Policy Studies Journal. 37(1) 59-74 Desilets, Alain and Paquet, S and others. (2005). Wiki as a Tool for Web-based Collaborative Story Telling in Primary School: a Case Study. National Research Council of Canada Doan, Anhai and Ramakrishnan, Raghu and Halevy, Alon Y. (2011). Mass Collaboration Systems on the World-Wide Web. Unpublished. Donahue, John D. (2004). On collaborative governance. Working Paper No. 2 Drabek, Thomas E and McEntire, David A (2002). Emer- gent phenomena and multiorganizational coordina- tion in disasters: Lessons from the research litera- ture. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 20(2) 197-224 Dudley, Larkin and Raymer, Mary (2001). Inside organi- zational change: Puzzling across permeable bound- aries. Public Administration Review. 61(5) 620-624 Ebrahim, Alnoor (2004). Institutional Preconditions to Collaboration Indian Forest and Irrigation Policy in Historical Perspective. Administration & Society. 36(2) 208-242 Elazar, Daniel J (1964). Federal-State Collaboration in the Nineteenth-Century United States. Political Sci- ence Quarterly. 79(2) 248-281 Elliott, Mark (2006). Stigmergic collaboration: The evolu- tion of group work. m/c journal. 9(2) Elliott, Mark Alan. (2007). Stigmergic Collaboration A Theoretical Framework for Mass Collaboration. PhD Thesis. Emerson, Kirk and Nabatchi, Tina and Balogh, Stephen (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Re- search and Theory. 22(1) 1-29 Emigh, William and Herring, Susan C. (2005). Collab- orative authoring on the web: A genre analysis of online encyclopedias. In: System Sciences, 2005. HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 99a. Emily R. Lai. (2011). Collaboration: A Literature Review. Erat, Sanjiv. (2011). Sharing Rules and Individual Incen- tives: Implications to Collaboration. Working paper, unpublished. Estellés-Arolas, Enrique and González-Ladrón-de-Gue- vara, Fernando (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science. 38(2) 189-200 Fawcett, Stanley E and Fawcett, Amydee M and Watson, Bradlee J and Magnan, Gregory M. (2010). Bridging the Barriers to Supply Chain Collaboration: An Inte- grative Theoretic Model. In: Academy of Manage- ment Proceedings, 1-6. Finn, Charles B. (1996). Using Stakeholder Strategies for Positive Collaborative Outcomes. Creating Collabo- rative Advantage, 152. Sage Fjeldstad, \Oystein D and Snow, Charles C and Miles, Raymond E and Lettl, Christopher (2012). The ar- chitecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal. 33(6) 734-750 Forte, Andrea and Bruckman, Amy. (2005). Why do peo- ple write for Wikipedia? Incentives to contribute to open-content publishing. In: Group 05 Workshop: Sustaining Community: The Role and Design of In- centive Mechanisms in Online Systems. Sanibel Is- land, FL, 1-9. Foster-Fishman, Pennie G and Berkowitz, Shelby L and Lounsbury, David W and Jacobson, Stephanie and Allen, Nicole A (2001). Building collaborative ca- pacity in community coalitions: A review and inte- grative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology. 29(2) 241-261 Fox, Mary Frank and Faver, Catherine A (1984). Indepen- dence and cooperation in research: The motivations and costs of collaboration. The Journal of Higher Education. 347-359 Gardner, Dianne C (2011). Characteristic Collaborative Processes in School-University Partnerships.. Plan- ning and Changing. 42(1) 63-86 Goyal, Sanjeev and Joshi, Sumit (2003). Networks of collaboration in oligopoly. Games and Economic behavior. 43(1) 57-85 Graham, John R and Barter, Ken (1999). Collaboration: A social work practice method. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services. 80(1) 41438
Charles. (1995). A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collabora- tion.. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, 17-21. Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter-organizational collabo- ration: Multiple conceptions and multiple methods. Cooperative strategy: Economic, business, and or- ganizational issues, 243-260. Oxford University Press Gray, Barbara (1985). Conditions Facilitating Interorga- nizational Collaboration. Human Relations. 38(10) 911-936 Gray, Barbara and Wood, Donna J (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The Jour- nal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(1) 41355 Green, Charles. (2001). The third hand: Collaboration in art from conceptualism to postmodernism. New- South Publishing Hakansson, Hakan (1990). Technological collaboration in industrial networks. European Management Journal. 8(3) 371-379 Hall, Leda McIntyre and Kennedy, Sheila Suess (2008). Public and nonprofit management and the New Governance. The American Review of Public Admin- istration. 38(3) 307-321 Hansen, Morten T. (2009). Collaboration: How leaders avoid the traps, create unity, and reap big results. Harvard Business Press Hardy, Cynthia and Lawrence, Thomas B and Grant, Da- vid (2005). Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity. Academy of Management Review. 30(1) 58-77 Hartley, Troy W and Gagne, Michele and Robertson, Robert A (2008). Cases of collaboration in New En- gland coastal communities: an approach to manage change. Human Ecology Review. 15(2) 213 Haskins, Mark E and Liedtka, Jeanne and Rosenblum, John (1998). Beyond teams: Toward an ethic of col- laboration. Organizational Dynamics. 26(4) 34-50 Heikkila, Tanya and Gerlak, Andrea K (2005). The Forma- tion of Large-scale Collaborative Resource Manage- ment Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakehold- ers, Science, and Institutions. Policy Studies Journal. 33(4) 583-612 Henneman, Elizabeth A and Lee, Jan L and Cohen, Joan I (1995). Collaboration: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21(1) 103-109 Henton, Doug and Melville, John and Amsler, Terry and Kopell, Malka. (2005). Collaborative governance: A guide for grantmakers. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Himmelman, A. T. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: Collaboration as a bridge from social service to social justice.Creating collaborative advantage, 19-43. Himmelman, Arthur. T. (1994). Communities working collaboratively for a change. Resolving Conflict: Strategies for local government, 27-47 Washington D.C.: International City/County Management Asso- ciation Hinkin, Timothy and Holtom, Brooks C and Klag, Malvi- na (2007). Collaborative Research: Developing Mu- tually Beneficial Relationships Between Researchers and Organizations. Organizational Dynamics. 36(1) 105-118 Hoegl, Martin and Wagner, Stephan M (2005). Buy- er-supplier collaboration in product development projects. Journal of Management. 31(4) 530-548 Holloway, Samuel and Parmigiani, Anne. (2011). When Collaboration Trumps Rivalry: Examining Organiza- tional Forms In The Construction Industry. In: Acad- emy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Hord, Shirley M (1986). A synthesis of research on or- ganizational collaboration. Educational Leadership. 43(5) 22-26 Hoyt, James and Huq, Faizul. (2000). An Evolutionary Process in the Supply Chain: From Arm’s Length to Collaboration. In: Academy of Management Pro- ceedings, C1-C6. Hudson, Bob and Hardy, Brian and Henwood, Melanie and Wistow, Gerald (1999). In pursuit of inter-agen- cy collaboration in the public sector: What is the contribution of theory and research?. Public Man- agement an International Journal of Research and Theory. 1(2) 235-260 Huxham, Chris (2003). Theorizing Collaboration Prac- tice. Public Management Review. 5(3) 401-423 Huxham, Chris and Hibbert, Paul. (2005). More or Less than Give and Take: Manifested Attitudes to In- ter-Partner Learning in Collaboration. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, M1-M6. Huxham, Chris and Macdonald, David (1992). Introduc- ing collaborative advantage: Achieving inter-organi- zational effectiveness through meta-strategy. Man-
and Vangen, Siv (2000). Ambiguity, com- plexity and dynamics in the membership of collabo- ration. Human Relations. 53(6) 771-806 Huxham, Chris and Vangen, Siv (2000). Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of Collaboration Agendas: How Things Happen in a (Not Quite) Joined-up World. Academy of Management journal. 43(6) 1159-1175 Huxham, Chris and Vangen, Siv and Huxham, C and Eden, C (2000). The challenge of collaborative gov- ernance. Public Management an International Jour- nal of Research and Theory. 2(3) 337-358 Huxham, Chris and Vangen, Siv. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Psychology Press Huxham, Chris. (Ed.). (1996). Collaboration and Collab- orative Advantage. Creating collaborative advan- tage. Sage. Imperial, Mark T (2005). Using collaboration as a gov- ernance strategy lessons from six watershed man- agement programs. Administration & Society. 37(3) 281-320 Innes, Judith E and Booher, David E (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A frame- work for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association. 65(4) 412- 423 Ives, Zachary G and Khandelwal, Nitin and Kapur, Aneesh and Cakir, Murat. (2005). ORCHESTRA: Rapid, Collaborative Sharing of Dynamic Data.. In: CIDR, 107-118. Johnson, Christopher M (2001). A survey of current re- search on online communities of practice. The Inter- net and Higher Education. 4(1) 45-60 John-Steiner, Vera and Weber, Robert J and Minnis, Mi- chele (1998). The challenge of studying collabora- tion. American Educational Research Journal. 35(4) 773-783 Kallis, Giorgos and Kiparsky, Michael and Norgaard, Richard (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science & Policy. 12(6) 631-643 Kalu, Kalu N (2013). All That Glitters Competing Narra- tives and Transaction Costs in Complex Collabora- tive Environments. Administration & Society. 45(4) 420-442 Kamensky, John M and Burlin, Thomas J. (2004). Collab- oration: Using networks and partnerships. Rowman & Littlefield Kapucu, Naim (2006). Public-Nonprofit Partnerships for Collective Action in Dynamic Contexts of Emergen- cies. Public Administration. 84(1) 205-220 Kastan, John (2000). School-based mental health pro- gram development: A case study of interorganiza- tional collaboration. Journal of Health Politics, Poli- cy and Law. 25(5) 845-862 Katz, J Sylvan and Martin, Ben R (1997). What is re- search collaboration?. Research Policy. 26(1) 41292 Keast, Robyn and Mandell, Myrna P and Brown, Kerry and Woolcock, Geoffrey (2004). Network struc- tures: Working differently and changing expecta- tions. Public Administration Review. 64(3) 363-371 Kemmis, Daniel and Brick, Philip and Snow, Donald and Bates, Sarah F. (2000). Across the great divide: Ex- plorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Island Press Kenis, Patrick and Knoke, David (2002). How organi- zational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Re- view. 27(2) 275-293 Kettl, Donald F (2006). Managing boundaries in Amer- ican administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 41566 Keyton, Joann and Ford, Debra J and others (2008). A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration. Communication Theory. 18(3) 376-406 Khozein, Todd, Michael Karlberg & Carrie Freeman. (2013). From Competition to Collaboration: Toward a New Framework for Entrepreneurship. Creating Good Work: The World’s Leading Social Entrepre- neurs Show How to Build a Healthy Economy, 105- 115, Palgrave Macmillan. Koontz, Tomas M and Thomas, Craig W (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmen- tal outcomes of collaborative management?. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 111-121 Kramer, Robert (1990). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems by Barbara Gray. The Academy of Management Review. 15(3) 545- 547 Kumar, Kuldeep and Van Dissel, Han G (1996). Sustain-
coopera- tion in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly. 279-300 Laband, David N and Tollison, Robert D (2000). Intel- lectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy. 108(3) 632-662 Langlois, Richard N and Garzarelli, Giampaolo (2008). Of Hackers and Hairdressers: Modularity and the Organizational Economics of Open-source Collabo- ration. Industry and Innovation. 15(2) 125-143 Lawrence, Thomas B and Hardy, Cynthia and Phillips, Nelson (2002). Institutional Effects of Interorgani- zational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-in- stitutions. Academy of Management Journal. 45(1) 281-290 Leach, William D (2006). Collaborative public manage- ment and democracy: Evidence from western wa- tershed partnerships. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 100-110 Lee, Jeongsik and others (2010). Heterogeneity, bro- kerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Orga- nization Science. 21(4) 804 Legler, Ray and Reischl, Thomas (2003). The Relation- ship of Key Factors in the Process of Collaboration A Study of School-to-Work Coalitions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 39(1) 53-72 Leinonen, Piritta and Järvelä, Sanna and Häkkinen, Päivi (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collabo- ration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). 14(4) 301-322 Levine, Sheen S. (2012). Open Source, Open Innovation, Open Communities: What Drives the Performance of ‘Open’?. In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. Lewis, Laurie K. (2006). Collaborative interaction: Re- view of communication scholarship and a research agenda. Communication yearbook, 30, 197-247. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Logsdon, Jeanne M (1991). Interests and interdepen- dence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(1) 23-37 Longoria, Richard A (2005). Is inter-organizational col- laboration always a good thing. Journal Sociology & Social Welfare. 32123-138 Love, James H and Roper, Stephen (2004). The organisa- tion of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manu- facturing. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 28(3) 379-395 Lubell, Mark., Leach, William D., & Sabatier, Paul A. (2009). Collaborative watershed partnerships in the epoch of sustainability. Toward sustainable commu- nities: transition and transformations in environ- mental policy, 255-288. MIT Press Mandell, Myrna and Steelman, Toddi (2003). Under- standing what can be accomplished through in- terorganizational innovations: The importance of typologies, context and management strategies. Public Management Review. 5(2) 197-224 Mandell, Myrna P (1999). Community collaborations. Policy Studies Review. 16(1) 42-64 Mandell, Myrna P. (2001). Getting results through col- laboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management. Quorum Books Westport, CT Martin, Jeffrey A and Eisenhardt, Kathleen M (2010). Re- wiring: Cross-business-unit collaborations in multi- business organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 53(2) 265-301 Marttiin, Pentti and Lehto, Jari A and Nyman, Goste. (2002). Understanding and evaluating collaborative work in multi-site software projects-a framework proposal and preliminary results. In: HICSS. Pro- ceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 283-292. Mattessich, Paul W and Monsey, Barbara R. (1992). Collaboration: What Makes it Work. A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing Success- ful Collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation Mattessich, Paul W and Murray-Close, Marta and Mon- sey, Barbara R. (2001). Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd Edition: A Review of Research Liter- ature on Factors Influencing Successful Collabora- tion. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation McCaffrey, David P and Faerman, Sue R and Hart, David W (1995). The appeal and difficulties of participa- tive systems. Organization Science. 6(6) 603-627 McCann, Joseph E and Gray, Barbara (1986). Power and collaboration in human service domains. Interna- tional Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 6(3) 58-67
and Varadarajan, Van- itha and Kramnik, Alexander. (2003). Building data integration systems via mass collaboration. In: Intl. Workshop on the Web and Databases, USA. McGuire, Michael (2000). Collaborative policy making and administration: The operational demands of lo- cal economic development. Economic Development Quarterly. 14(3) 278-293 McGuire, Michael (2006). Collaborative public manage- ment: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 33-43 McGuire, Michael and Agranoff, Robert and Silvia, Chris (2010). Collaborative public administration. The Foundations of Public Administration Series. 61(6) 671-681 McLaughlin, Colleen and Ponte, Petra (1997). The emo- tional aspects of cross-cultural collaboration: as- sumptions and challenges. British Journal of In-ser- vice Education. 23(1) 101-111 Means, Robin and Harrison, Lyn and Jeffers, Syd and Smith, Randall (1991). Co-ordination, collaboration and health promotion: lessons and issues from an alcohol education programme. Health Promotion International. 6(1) 31-40 Medoff, Marshall H (2003). Collaboration and the qual- ity of economics research. Labour Economics. 10(5) 597-608 Merrill-Sands, Deborah and Sheridan, Bridgette (1996). Developing and Managing Collaborative Alliances: lessons from a review of the literature. Organiza- tional Change Briefing Note. (3) Mintzberg, Henry and Jorgensen, Jan and Dougherty, Deborah and Westley, Frances (1996). Some sur- prising things about collaborationâ€”Knowing how people connect makes it work better. Organization- al Dynamics. 25(1) 60-71 Mitchell, Will and Singh, Kulwant (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to com- mercialize complex goods. Strategic management journal. 17(3) 169-195 Modelski, G., Devezas, T., & Thompson, W. R. (Eds.). (2007). Globalization as evolutionary process: mod- eling global change. Routledge. Mowery, David C. (1988). International collaborative ventures in US manufacturing. Ballinger Pub Co Mullen, Patrick B (2000). A word of introduction: Col- laborative research in context. Journal of Folklore Research. 119-122 Mullin, Megan and Daley, Dorothy M (2010). Working with the state: Exploring interagency collaboration within a federalist system. Journal of Public Admin- istration Research and Theory. 20(4) 757-778 Mulotte, Louis. (2010). The Contingent Value of Initial Collaborations for the Establishment of Later Au- tonomous Operations. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6. Mulroy, Elizabeth A (1997). Building a neighborhood network: interorganizational collaboration to pre- vent child abuse and neglect. Social Work. 42(3) 255-264 Nabatchi, Tina (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration. 40(4) 376-399 Newman, Mark EJ (2001). The structure of scientific col- laboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98(2) 404-409 Noy, Natalya F and Chugh, Abhita and Alani, Harith (2008). The CKC challenge: Exploring tools for col- laborative knowledge construction. Intelligent Sys- tems, IEEE. 23(1) 64-68 Ojo, Adegboyega and Janowski, Tomasz. (2010). A whole-of-government approach to information technology strategy management. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Govern- ment Research Conference on Public Administra- tion Online: Challenges and Opportunities., 72-81. O’Leary, Rosemary and Vij, Nidhi (2012). Collaborative Public Management Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?. The American Review of Public Administration. 42(5) 507-522 Olson, Gary M and Malone, Thomas W and Smith, John B. (2013). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Psychology Press Ospina, Sonia and Saz-Carranza, Angel. (2005). Para- dox and collaboration in coalition work. In: Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolu- lu, HI. Ospina, Sonia M and Saz-Carranza, Angel (2010). Par- adox and collaboration in network management. Administration & Society. 42(4) 404-440 Ostrower, Francie (2005). The Reality Underneath the Buzz of Partnerships. Stanford Social Innovation Re- view. 34-41
for managing interagency collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 13(3) 311-339 Page, Stephen (2004). Measuring accountability for re- sults in interagency collaboratives. Public Adminis- tration Review. 64(5) 591-606 Pasquero, Jean (1991). Supraorganizational collabora- tion: The Canadian environmental experiment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(1) 38-64 Patel, Harshada and Pettitt, Michael and Wilson, John R (2012). Factors of collaborative working: A frame- work for a collaboration model. Applied Ergonom- ics. 43(1) 1-26 Peters, B Guy (1994). Managing the hollow state. In- ternational Journal of Public Administration. 17(41337) 739-756 Pisano, Gary P (1991). The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry. Research Policy. 20(3) 237-249 Powell, Walter W (1996). Inter-organizational collabora- tion in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Insti- tutional and Theoretical Economics. 197-215 Powell, Walter W and Koput, Kenneth W and Smith-Do- err, Laurel (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly. 116-145 Presser, Stanley (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social studies of Science. 10(1) 95-101 Prins, Silvia (2010). From competition to collaboration: Critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty col- laboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci- ence. 46(3) 281-312 Radin, Beryl A and Agranoff, Robert and Bowman, AO’M and Buntz, C Gregory and Ott, J Steven and Romzek, Barbara S and Wilson, Robert H and others. (1996). New Governance for Rural America: Creating Inter- governmental Partnerships.. University of Kansas Press Ramakrishnan, Raghu and Baptist, Andrew and Erce- govac, Vuk and Hanselman, Matt and Kabra, Navin and Marathe, Amit and Shaft, Uri. (2004). Mass col- laboration: a case study [customer support system]. In: Database Engineering and Applications Sympo- sium, 2004. IDEAS’04. Proceedings. International, 133-146. Reason, Peter (1999). General Medical and Complemen- tary Practitioners Working Together The Epistemo- logical Demands of Collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 35(1) 71-86 Richardson, Matthew and Domingos, Pedro. (2003). Building large knowledge bases by mass collabora- tion. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international con- ference on Knowledge capture, 129-137. Rigby, John and Edler, Jakob (2005). Peering inside re- search networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Research Policy. 34(6) 784-794 Roberts, Nancy C and Bradley, Raymond Trevor (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A study of public policy initiation at the state level. The Jour- nal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(2) 209-227 Robertson, Peter J (2011). An Assessment of Collabora- tive Governance in a Network for Sustainable Tour- ism: The Case of RedeTuris. International Journal of Public Administration. 34(5) 279-290 Rogers, Ellen and Weber, Edward P (2010). Thinking harder about outcomes for collaborative gover- nance arrangements. The American Review of Pub- lic Administration. 40(5) 546-567 Rogers, Yvonne and Ellis, Judi (1994). Distributed cog- nition: an alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Infor- mation Technology. 9119-119 Roschelle, Jeremy and Teasley, Stephanie D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: Computer supported collabora- tive learning, 69-97. Roussos, Stergios Tsai and Fawcett, Stephen B (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health. 21(1) 369-402 Sabatier, Paul. (2005). Swimming upstream: Collabo- rative approaches to watershed management. The MIT Press Sarbaugh-Thompson, Marjorie and Lobb, Christian and Thompson, Lyke (1999). Dimensions of collabora- tion and family impacts. Administration & Society. 31(2) 222-246 Sawyer, R Keith. (2008). Group genius: The creative pow- er of collaboration. Basic Books
The new tech- nologies of collaboration. Random House Inc. Selden, Sally Coleman and Sowa, Jessica E and Sandfort, Jodi (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public Administration Review. 66(3) 412-425 Selin, Steve and Chevez, Deborah (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management. 19(2) 189-195 Selsky, John W (1991). Lessons in community develop- ment: An activist approach to stimulating interor- ganizational collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(1) 91-115 Sharfman, Mark P and Gray, Barbara and Yan, Aimin (1991). The context of interorganizational collabo- ration in the garment industry: An institutional per- spective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(2) 181-208 Sharma, Aarti and Kearins, Kate (2011). Interorgani- zational Collaboration for Regional Sustainability What Happens When Organizational Representa- tives Come Together?. The Journal of Applied Be- havioral Science. 47(2) 168-203 Sherif, Muzafer (1958). Superordinate goals in the re- duction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology. 349-356 Simonin, Bernard L (1997). The importance of collabo- rative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal. 40(5) 1150-1174 Singh, Kulwant and Mitchell, Will (1996). Precarious collaboration: Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships. Strategic Manage- ment Journal. 17(S1) 99-115 Sirianni, Carmen. (2009). Investing in democracy: En- gaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brook- ings Institution Press Skilton, Paul F and Dooley, Kevin J (2010). The Effects of Repeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion. Acade- my of Management Review. 35(1) 118-134 Smith, Craig R (2009). Institutional determinants of collaboration: An empirical study of county open- space protection. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 19(1) 41295 Snavely, Keith and Desai, Uday (2001). Municipal Gov- ernment-Nonprofit Sector Collaboration in Bulgar- ia An Attitudinal Analysis. The American Review of Public Administration. 31(1) 49-65 Soosay, Claudine A and Hyland, Paul W and Ferrer, Mario (2008). Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 13(2) 160-169 Sowa, Jessica E (2008). Implementing Interagency Col- laborations Exploring Variation in Collaborative Ventures in Human Service Organizations. Admin- istration & Society. 40(3) 298-323 Stank, Theodore P and Keller, Scott B and Daugherty, Patricia J (2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance. Journal of Business logistics. 22(1) 29-48 Stone, Melissa M (2000). Exploring the effects of col- laborations on member organizations: Washington county’s welfare-to-work partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29(supp 1) 98-119 Stuart, Toby E (1998). Network positions and propen- sities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly. 668-698 Subramanian, Ram (1999). Do Crowding and Prestige Explain Why Organizations Collaborate?. The Acad- emy of Management Executive. 13(2) 90-91 Sullivan, Helen and Barnes, Marian and Matka, Elizabeth (2002). Building Collaborative Capacity through Theories of Change: Early Lessons from the Evalua- tion of Health Action Zones in England. Evaluation. 8(2) 205-226 Sundaramurthy, Chamu and Lewis, Marianne (2003). Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Gover- nance. Academy of Management Review. 28(3) 397-415 Tapscott, Don and Williams, Anthony D. (2008). Wiki- nomics: How mass collaboration changes every- thing. Penguin Thacher, David (2004). Interorganizational Partnerships as Inchoate Hierarchies A Case Study of the Com- munity Security Initiative. Administration & Society. 36(1) 91-127 Thompson, Paul J and Sanders, Steve R (1998). Partner- ing continuum. Journal of Management in Engi- neering. 14(5) 73-78 Thomson, Ann Marie and Perry, James L (2006). Collab- oration processes: Inside the black box. Public Ad-
Ann Marie and Perry, James L and Miller, The- odore K (2008). Linking collaboration processes and outcomes. Collaborative Public Management. 97-120 Thomson, Ann Marie and Perry, James L and Miller, The- odore K (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Re- search and Theory. 19(1) 23-56 Tomassini, Marco and Luthi, Leslie (2007). Empirical analysis of the evolution of a scientific collaboration network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 385(2) 750-764 Trist, Eric (1983). Referent organizations and the devel- opment of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations. 36(3) 269-284 Tschirhart, Mary and Christensen, Robert K and Perry, James L (2005). The paradox of branding and col- laboration. Public Performance & Management Re- view. 29(1) 67-84 Tucker, Jonathan B (1991). Partners and rivals: a model of international collaboration in advanced technol- ogy. International Organization. 83-120 Van Slyke, David M. (2009). Collaboration and relational contracting. The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century, 137-155. George- town University Press. Vangen, Siv and Huxham, Chris (2003). Nurturing col- laborative relations Building trust in interorganiza- tional collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behav- ioral Science. 39(1) 5-31 Vangen, Siv and Huxham, Chris (2012). The tangled web: unraveling the principle of common goals in collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Re- search and Theory. 22(4) 731-760 Wang, Chunlei and Rodan, Simon and Fruin, Mark and Xu, Xiaoyan (2013). Knowledge Networks, Collabo- ration Networks, and Exploratory Innovation. Acad- emy of Management Journal. Waugh, William L and Streib, Gregory (2006). Collab- oration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review. 66(s1) 131-140 Weber, Edward P (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough cases of collaboration: “ideas” in the Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review. 69(2) 314-327 Weber, Edward P and Lovrich, Nicholas P and Gaffney, Michael (2005). Collaboration, enforcement, and endangered species: A framework for assessing collaborative problem-solving capacity. Society and natural resources. 18(8) 677-698 Williams, Paul (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration. 80(1) 103-124 Winer, Michael Barry and Ray, Karen Louise. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation (Saint Paul, Minn.) Wondolleck, Julia M and Yaffee, Steven Lewis. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innova- tion in natural resource managment. Island Press Wood, Donna J and Gray, Barbara (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 27(2) 139-162 Xu, T and Bower, DA and Smith, NJ (2005). Types of col- laboration between foreign contractors and their Chinese partners. International Journal of Project Management. 23(1) 45-53 Zakocs, Ronda C and Edwards, Erika M (2006). What ex- plains community coalition effectiveness?: A review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 30(4) 351-361 Zhang, Ying and Huxham, Chris (2009). Identity con- struction and trust building in developing interna- tional collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behav- ioral Science. 45(2) 186-211 Zhao, Yuxiang and Zhu, Qinghua (2012). Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction. Information Systems Frontiers. 1-18
A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administra- tion Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. Bedwell, W. L., Wildman, J. L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W. S. & Salas, E. (2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualiza- tion. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 128–145. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collab- orations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. (2012). An inte- grative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and The- ory, 22(1), 1–29. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S. & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collab- orative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261. Hudson, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M. & Wistow, G. (1999). In pursuit of inter-agency collaboration in the public sector: What is the contribution of theory and re- search? Public Management an International Jour- nal of Research and Theory, 1(2), 235–260. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–pro- cess–output models to IMOI models. Annual Re- view of Psychology, 56, 517–543. Longoria, R. A. (2005). Is inter-organizational collabora- tion always a good thing. Journal Sociology & So- cial Welfare, 32, 123–138. Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M. & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd Edition: A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration (2nd ed.). Am- herst H. Wilder Foundation. McGuire, M., Agranoff, R. & Silvia, C. (2010). Collabora- tive public administration. The Foundations of Pub- lic Administration Series, 61(6), 671–681. O’Leary, R. & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative Public Man- agement Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? The American Review of Public Administra- tion, 42(5), 507–522. Ostrom, E. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Zakocs, R. C. & Edwards, E. M. (2006). What explains community coalition effectiveness?: A review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medi- cine, 30(4), 351–361.