The American Review of Public Administration· 2012Q1
Collaborative Public Management
- 457citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2012year
Short summary
Collaborative public management research is fragmented with low consensus, lacking precise theoretical models and agreement on definitions and measurement, hindering the link between theory and practice.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Collaborative public management research is characterized by fragmentation and low consensus.
- Key issues include competing definitions, network management, and balancing autonomy/interdependence.
- The field suffers from a lack of precise theoretical models and agreement on measurement.
- There is a significant gap between collaborative public management theory and practice.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
This article analyzes the most important issues, concepts, and ideas in collaborative public management research and practice today. The issues, concepts, and ideas are (a) competing definitions of collaboration; (b) changes in the environment of public management that have encouraged the growth of collaborative public management; (c) “thinking DaVinci”—lateral thinking and interdisciplinarity; (d) the management challenges of working in networks; (e) the paradox of balancing autonomy and interdependence; (f) factors to consider before collaborating; (g) the importance of the individual; (h) the shifting leadership challenge; (i) weaknesses in collaborative public management research; and (j) the missing link between theory and practice. The authors conclude that the study and practice of collaborative public management is generally fragmented with low level of consensus. From a research perspective, it is a low-paradigm field. The authors close with a view to the future. To advance the study and practice of collaborative public management the authors urge (a) agreement on definitions of commonly used terms, beginning with the term “collaboration”; (b) agreement on pressing collaborative public management challenges and substantive research and practice questions; (c) more precise theoretical models of behavior; and (d) agreement on the measurement of relevant variables.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The American Review of Public Administration, 2012 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Public Administration
Public AdministrationSocial Sciences