Collaborative governance research examines the role of individuals, organizations, and partnerships within a community to understand why particular interorganizational networks emerge. We take a different tact, arguing that communities adopt collaborative governance models based upon exposure to the models and the individual and organizational resources in a community. We conducted a web-based national-level scan of communities in the United States (N = 1,162) for the presence of one model of collaborative governance, education-focused collective impact. We found that spatial proximity, poverty rate, and individual resources each predicted the existence of collective impact in a U.S. county. Implications for collaborative governance research are drawn from the results.
AbrahamsonE.RosenkopfL. (1993). Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 487–517. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1993.9309035148
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
4.
AstleyW. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393106
5.
BeckT. E.PlowmanD. A. (2013). Temporary, emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected circumstances: A study of the Columbia space shuttle response effort. Organization Science, 25(4), 1234–1252. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0888
6.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C.StoneM. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
7.
CarboniJ. L.Saz-CarranzaA.RaabJ.IsettK. R. (2019). Taking dimensions of purpose-oriented networks seriously. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz011
8.
CarenN.GhoshalR. A.RibasV. (2011). A social movement generation: Cohort and period trends in protest attendance and petition signing. American Sociological Review, 76(1), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410395369
9.
ChristensB. D.InzeoP. T. (2015). Widening the view: Situating collective impact among frameworks for community-led change. Community Development, 46(4), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2015.1061680
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
14.
EdelenbosJ.van MeerkerkI.SchenkT. (2018). The evolution of community self-organization in interaction with government institutions: Cross-case insights from three countries. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016651142
15.
EinbinderS. D.RobertsonP. J.GarciaA.VuckovicG.PattiR. J. (2000). Interorganizational collaboration in social service organizations: A study of the prerequisites to success. Journal of Children and Poverty, 6(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/713675966
16.
EmersonK.NabatchiT. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4), 717–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016
17.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
18.
GazleyB. (2017). The current state of interorganizational collaboration: Lessons for human service research and management. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2015.1095582
19.
GazleyB.GuoC. (2015). What do we know about nonprofit collaboration? A comprehensive systematic review of the literature. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 15409. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.303
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964. https://doi.org/10.1086/226424
22.
HedströmP. (1994). Contagious collectivities: On the spatial diffusion of Swedish trade unions, 1890-1940. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1157–1179. www.jstor.org/stable/2781146
23.
HedströmP.SandellR.SternC. (2000). Mesolevel networks and the diffusion of social movements: The case of the Swedish social democratic party. American Journal of Sociology, 106(1), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1086/303109
HillygusD. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27(1), 25–47. www.jstor.org/stable/4500183
27.
InglehartR. (1990). Values, ideology and cognitive mobilization in new social movements. In DaltonR. J.KuechlerM. (Eds.), Challenging the political order: New social and political movements in Western democracies (pp. 43–66). Oxford University Press.
KaniaJ.KramerM. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 36–41.
30.
KingB. (2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650307306636
31.
KnokeD. (1982). The spread of municipal reform: Temporal, spatial, and social dynamics. American Journal of Sociology, 87(6), 1314–1339.
32.
KoschmannM. A. (2013). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912449314
LapanR. T.MarcotteA. M.StoreyR.CarboneP.Loehr-LapanS.GuerinD.ThomasT.Cuffee-GreyD.CoburnA.PfeifferT.WilsonL.MahoneyS. (2016). Infusing career development to strengthen middle school English language arts curricula. The Career Development Quarterly, 64(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12046
MarquisC.DavisG. F.GlynnM. A. (2013). Golfing alone? Corporations, elites, and nonprofit growth in 100 American communities. Organization Science, 24(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0717
37.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241. https://doi.org/10.1086/226464
38.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (2001). The enduring vitality of the resource mobilization theory of social movements. In TurnerJ. H. (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 533–565). Springer.
39.
McVeighR.MyersD. J.SikkinkD. (2004). Corn, Klansmen, and Coolidge: Structure and framing in social movements. Social Forces, 83(2), 653–690.
40.
MimsP. J.LeeA.BrowderD. M.ZakasT.-L.FlynnS. (2012). Effects of a treatment package to facilitate English/language arts learning for middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(4), 414–425. www.jstor.org/stable/23879635
41.
MinkoffD. C. (1997). The sequencing of social movements. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 779–799. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657360
42.
MyersD. J. (1997). Racial rioting in the 1960s: An event history analysis of local conditions. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657454
43.
NederhandJ.KlijnE. H. (2016). Stakeholder involvement in public–private partnerships: Its influence on the innovative character of projects and on project performance. Administration & Society, 51(8), 1200–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716684887
NichollsW. (2008). Place, networks, space: Theorising the geographies of social movements. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00331.x
46.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
47.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
48.
ProvanK. G.LemaireR. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638–648.
49.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00045
50.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1992). In search of the nonprofit sector II: The problem of classification. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(3), 267–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397460
51.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). SAGE.
52.
SeitanidiM. M.PedersenE. (2018). CSSI 2018 Copenhagen Business School call for papers for a symposium issue in nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly (NVSQ). Copenhagen Business School.
53.
SharfmanM. P.GrayB.YanA. (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272003
54.
StarrH. (1991). Democratic dominoes: Diffusion approaches to the spread of democracy in the international system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(2), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002791035002010
55.
SteijnB.KlijnE.-H.EdelenbosJ. (2011). Public private partnerships: Added value by organizational form or management?Public Administration, 89(4), 1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01877.x
56.
StoneM. M.HagerM. A.GriffinJ. J. (2001). Organizational characteristics and funding environments: A study of a population of United Way-affiliated nonprofits. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00030
UitermarkJ.NichollsW. (2012). How local networks shape a global movement: Comparing occupy in Amsterdam and Los Angeles. Social Movement Studies, 11(3–4), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.704181
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (Abridged ed.). Harvard University Press.
61.
VoorbergW. H.BekkersV. J. J. M.TummersL. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
WoodD. J.GrayB. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
