Leadership Week 4 Disc 1

SYMPOSIUM CONCLUSION: FUTURE RESEARCH

ON THE DIMENSIONS OF COLLABORATION

JOY A. CLAY

University of Memphis

As the research findings in this symposium

demonstrate, public and nonprofit managers in health and

human service agencies continue to collaborate with

multiple goals in mind. As would be anticipated, the

collaborations described in the symposium generally

addressed service gaps, enhanced services, improved

access, and expanded programs. A common underlying

expectation was that participation in the collaboration

would further an agency’s mission (Goodsell, 2011). As

cautioned by Word in her commentary, however, making

joint decisions and sharing power does not come easy when

agencies also must respond to countervailing pressures that

inherently flow from the agency’s political, social, and

economic contexts.

Overall, the symposium examines levels of

linkages, decision-making, hierarchy, autonomy, shared

administration, governance, outcomes, and more.

Reflecting their various research questions, the authors use

a variety of methods to examine the multiple dimensions of

collaboration. Clearly, the symposium’s researchers are

building on and adding to our knowledge about

cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (Keast,

Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast, Mandell, Brown, &

Woolcock, 2004) as well as how to assess the multiple

dimensions of collaboration. The authors effectively used

existing instruments and models to understand

collaboration dimensions but also propose new models and

test metrics/variables.

140 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The case authors and practitioner commentaries

respectively offer interesting suggestions for potentially

fruitful research directions. In reacting to the symposium,

key research directions appear to have some urgency.

Clearly, an important area of research should include a

fuller examination of collaboration impacts, beyond the

outcomes of a specific collaborative effort to community-

wide issues of equity, diversity, fairness, and

responsiveness. Mayhew’s research draws attention to the

need for more attention to how end users, not just the

collaboration participants, assess the effectiveness of the

collaboration and whether the resulting programming

actually yields innovation and effectiveness. Similarly,

Wrobel comments that assessing additional stakeholders,

especially parents, is needed to assess the impact on the

children and families served by a collaborative. These

researchers convincingly argue that there has been

insufficient attention to measure end user perceptions of

outcomes from collaborations.

Especially relevant to health and human services

sectors, research directed at improving our capacity to

identify specific indicators that pinpoint cultures of

competition vs. collaboration could enable participants and

policymakers to build more effective collaboration

structures and processes. This issue appeared relevant

throughout the symposium. Similarly, concrete measures to

analyze how the diversity of professional cultures and

norms affect collaboration dynamics and structures could

help practitioners be strategic about collaboration practice

and leadership. Very importantly, research attention to how

organizations learn effective collaboration practices could

also be rewarding and insightful and help funders set better

benchmarks for expectations.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 141

Both practice and theory would benefit from more

researcher attention to the role of local government,

especially counties, in affecting collaboration dynamics,

structures and outcomes, positively and negatively. As

mentioned by Knepper, further examination of the role of

county government in network analysis as well as more

comparative studies of networks would be beneficial.

Sullivan’s rich description of SPARC highlights how the

same program resulted in an enduring collaboration in one

county but not in another nearby county. What indicators

predict the barriers? In his commentary, Mirvis notes many

barriers to county involvement. With counties playing such

an important role in health and human services

collaborations, a better understanding of the counites as

intermediaries, facilitators, and/or participants could be a

productive area of research. Again, more comparative

studies of counties and counties within regions also would

be beneficial to build our knowledge base about

collaboration.

Given the importance of intergovernmental

relationships and the increased role of government or

nonprofit agencies serving as intermediaries, deeper

examination their role(s) on outcomes could help build and

sustain more effective collaboration practice. Although the

Head Start collaboration increased access to funding,

reduced duplication, and served more children, Wrobel

notes that policy constraints made collaboration difficult

for each agency. Consequently, further research into local,

state and federal constraints on collaboration seems

justified. Leslie calls for additional research on state and

federal dynamics, noting that where one is in the system

affects problem definition, accountability demands, and the

building of trust and performance. More insight into these

dynamics would provide very usable insights. Sakran

convincingly argues for more examination of the dynamics

142 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

of merging funding streams and regulatory differences, and

how these dynamics affect interagency collaboration.

NEXT STEPS

The interconnection of government and nonprofit

sectors continues to be important in serving our

communities (Roberts, 2011; Crosby, 2010; Weber, 2009;

Bryer, 2009; Dawes, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2009; Agranoff,

2008; Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast, Mandell,

Brown, & Woolcock, 2004; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003;

Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2004). As noted by Goodsell

(2011), agencies are not acting in silos but seek

collaborative relationships to further their missions, what

he labels as “dispersed public action” (p. 270). However,

questions about the degree and quality of the collaboration

approach remains. For example, does the collaboration

result in more than superficial, instrumental approach to

collaboration? Does the collaboration yield the

programming improvements and enhancements only

minimally expected? Alternatively, does the collaboration

approach yield a shared relationship that drives innovation,

quality, and effectiveness? Does the collaboration

effectively engage the investment of the community, key

stakeholders, and concerned citizens not affiliated in

agencies in ways that sustain their involvement and

commitment? As Lubin and Esty (2010) note, gaining

advantage for organizations caught in an emerging

megatrend requires “leadership, methods, strategy,

management, and reporting” and thus the need to

“transition from tactical, ad hoc, and siloed approaches to

strategic, systematic, and integrated ones” (p. 47). The

pressure to coordinate, partner, and collaborate shows no

sign of diminishing. Consequently, research into how to do

this more strategically and systematically appears justified.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 143

Although the policy-area literature often uses

qualitative research from case analysis, the sophistication

level of methodology needs to continue to increase as

researchers compare multiple cases to identify patterns or

test frameworks (Welsh, 2004; Agranoff, 2008; Vogel,

Ransom, Wai, & Luisi, 2007; Simo & Bies, 2007; Chen,

2008). Our understanding of the dynamics and multiple

dimensions of collaboration would benefit from more

research that examines large-scale collective impact.

Complaining about the approach that has nonprofits

chasing grants and attempting specifically to measure their

individual influence, Kania and Kramer (2011)

convincingly argue that isolated initiatives will not likely

solve large-scale social problems. Instead, they call for a

more systematic approach to collaboration that supports

and drives social impact from collective action.

The research in the symposium contributes to our

knowledge base as the researchers have focused on

unpacking collaboration and partnering dynamics and the

evolution of these dynamics. This research also describes

the breadth of interests involved in the collaboration, the

goals and priorities that attracted the various agencies to

join together, and the variety of structures that were

designed for the collaboration. The cases and commentaries

also provide insights into factors that may yield successful

or unsuccessful collaborative efforts. Clearly, more

research from a multi-level, multi-dimensional approach

remains to be done.

REFERENCES

Agranoff, R. (2008). Enhancing performance through

public sector networks: Mobilizing human capital in

communities of practice. Public Performance &

Management Review, 31 (1), 320-347.

144 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

Bryer, T. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in

collaboration: Administrator and citizen role

perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69 (2),

271-83.

Chen, B. (2008). Assessing interorganizational networks

for public service delivery: A process-perceived

effectiveness framework. Public Performance &

Management Review, 31 (3), 348-363.

Crosby, B. (2010). Leading in the shared-power world of

2020. Public Administration Review, 70

(Supplement), S69-S77.

Dawes, S., Cresswell, A., & Pardo, T. (2009). From “Need

to Know” to “Need to Share”: Tangled problems,

information boundaries, and the building of public

sector knowledge networks. Public Administration

Review, 69 (3), 392-402.

Goodsell, C. (2011). Mission mystique: Belief systems in

public agencies. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact.

Stanford Social Innovation Review, 37 (Winter), 36-

41.

Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the

right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and

strategies. International Public Management

Journal, 10 (1), 9-33.

Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G.

(2004). Network structures: Working differently

and changing expectations. Public Administration

Review, 64 (3), 363-371.

JHHSA SUMMER 2012 145

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community based

participatory research for health. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, N. (2011). Beyond smokestacks and silos: Open-

source, web-enabled coordination in organizations

and networks. Public Administration Review,71 (5),

677-693.

Schulz, A., Israel, B., & Lantz, P. (2004). Assessing and

strengthening characteristics of effective groups in

community-based participatory research

partnerships. In C. D. Garvin, L. M. Gutierrez, &

M. J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of Social Work

with Groups (pp. 332-349). New York: Guilford.

Simo, G., & Bies, A. (2007). The role of nonprofits in

disaster response: An expanded model of cross-

sector collaboration. Public Administration Review,

67 (Supplement), 125-142.

Vogel, A., Ransom, P., Wai, S., & Luisi, D. (2007).

Integrating health and social services for older

adults: A case study of interagency collaboration.

Journal of Health and Human Services

Administration, 30 (2), 199-228.

Weber, E. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough

cases of collaboration: "Ideas" in the Blackfoot

Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69 (2),

314-327.

Welsh, M. (2004). Fast-forward to a participatory norm:

Agency response to public mobilization over oil and

gas leasing in Pennsylvania. State and Local

Government Review, 36 (3), 186-197.

146 JHHSA SUMMER 2012

Joy A. Clay is a professor in the Division of Public and

Nonprofit Administration and Associate Dean for

Interdisciplinary Studies, College of Arts and Sciences at

the University of Memphis. Her research interests include

collaboration and community-based evaluation as well as

maternal and infant health policy.

Copyright of Journal of Health & Human Services Administration is the property of Southern Public

Administration Education Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to

a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or

email articles for individual use.