Collaboration In Qualitative Research

3007 Words13 Pages
The fields of public administration, public health, and health promotion scholars have taken the need for collective action to address complex health problems seriously. As a public administration student and scholar deeply invested in community-based health promotion strategies, it appears that the scholarly literature in these fields is not always talking to each other despite the need to collaborate in practice. With a need for collaboration to solve complex health problems, the research question is can the literature on collaboration in two disciplines (and interrelated subfields ) be integrated into a cohesive framework or research agenda? The research is interpretivist – how do scholars of collaborations describe their efforts. The purpose…show more content…
544). According to Ansell and Gash’s contingency theory of collaboration, there are five important variables of interest that make collaborations effective, and they include: prior history, incentives, power and resources, leadership, and the collaborative process. In addition to these variables, there are four important factors in the collaborative process that require purposeful management by leaders and stakeholders involved. These include face-to-face dialogue, trust building, commitment, and shared understanding. Although all these contribute to successful collaborations, there are three contingencies that could impact their success – time, trust, and interdependence. There are six elements that make collaborative effort collaborative governance: initiated by public agencies or institutions; participants include non-state actors; participants engage directly in decision making; formally organized and meets collectively; decisions are made by consensus; and the focus is on public policy or public…show more content…
In public management, governance refers not to the activities of members, but mainly, to the funding and oversight roles of government agencies, especially regarding the activities of private organizations that have been contracted to provide public services (Kettl, 2006; Hill and Lynn, 2005). Agranoff (2012) argues that governance is more than citizen engagement, its also involves “organized interests” that are “operating in a dynamic, overlapping, almost chaotic fashion” (p. 209). Moreover, Agranoff notes that sophisticated artifacts and outcomes are emerging from diffuse, loosely coupled activities, and we need to understand how these holistic entities link people and government in nonbureaucratic ways. In other words, we need to challenge our underlying assumptions about governance. For example, Mark Bevir (2013) looks at how people make and remake organizations and the diversity in governing practices. Noting that modernist sociologists rely on reified concepts such as institutions and systems to offer explanations of governance, Bevir takes an interpretivist approach instead, one that is historicist and humanist. He writes, “because people cannot have pure experiences, their beliefs and desires are saturated with contingent theories” (p. 19). While institutionalists
Get Access