Enacting intermunicipal strategy: Multi-trance strategizing in governance networks


Hans Erik Haugvaldstad


intermunicipal strategies, governance networks, interorganizational collaborations, public sector


Entering into interorganizational collaborations is one approach to handling the complex challenges faced by the public sector (Eriksson et al., 2020; Poister et al., 2013; Roberts, 2000; Torfing, 2019). Such collaborations often take the form of governance networks (Torfing, 2012). While attention has been paid to aspects such as network governance (Klijn, 2008; Sørensen & Torfing, 2017, 2009), structure, management (Provan & Kenis, 2008), democratic legitimacy (Klijn & Skelcher, 2007; Sørensen & Torfing, 2005), and efficiency (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Wang, 2016), little has been written on how the participants in a governance network conduct strategic work. Therefore, this thesis aims to explore how strategy is conceptualized and enacted within the context of municipal governance networks.

This study leans on the strategy-as-practice (SAP) perspective (Golsorkhi et al., 2015; Jarzabkowski et al., 2016; Reckwitz, 2002; Whittington, 1996) to explore the empirical context of a governance network (Torfing, 2012) tasked with helping the participating municipalities with digital transformation. Within the SAP perspective, strategy refers to the consequential activities performed to move an organization in a certain direction, whereas strategizing refers to how these activities are produced (Golsorkhi et al., 2015; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Jarzabkowski et al., 2021; Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009). In addition, the concepts of open strategy (Hautz et al., 2017; Seidl et al., 2019; Whittington et al., 2011) and interorganizational strategizing (De Gooyert et al., 2019) are used to inform the strategy work conducted, augmented by literature on organizational motivations (De Gooyert et al., 2019; Hautz et al., 2019; Seidl et al., 2019), the enticement of individuals (Brabham, 2010; Dahlander et al., 2019; Dahlander & Piezunka, 2014; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2013), democratic legitimacy (Mosley & Wong, 2020; Papadopoulos & Warin, 2007; Scharpf, 1999; Schmidt, 2012), organizational legitimacy (Deephouse et al., 2017; Suchman, 1995), and strategy implementation (Friesl et al., 2020; Weiser et al., 2020) to discern empirical nuances.

A pragmatic research paradigm (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019; Morgan, 2014; Pansiri, 2005; Powell, 2001) is adopted in an effort to identify real-world challenges faced when enacting strategy in a governance network, as identified – either directly or indirectly – by the stakeholders themselves. A case study with an abductive approach (Blaikie, 2009; Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Gerring, 2004; Yin, 2003) is conducted on the governance network Digi Rogaland. Additionally, data are collected from three of the participating municipalities to explore how they relate to the network and work to enact the network strategy. Qualitative methods are used, and the empirical material consists of interviews, observations, and documents. Analysis is conducted through a reflexive process (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2018; Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007).

The findings first identify a desire and need to entice municipalities to participate in interorganizational strategizing (Article 1). This is achieved using financial, structural, and nonfinancial mechanisms to promote adherence and lock the participants into the network, thus allowing for standardizations across municipal borders. Second, the analysis identifies a legitimacy gap between stakeholders directly involved in the network and those only indirectly affected (Article 2). Directly involved stakeholders view the network as a necessity, whereas indirectly affected stakeholders are mainly indifferent or, in some cases, opposed to participation. Third, challenges in enacting a network strategy are identified, which require balancing acts (Article 3). These are ambiguously balanced against clarity in strategy conceptualization, the use of coercion against voluntary participation, the choice of concentrating or distributing decision-making power, and the selection of a top-down or bottom-up approach to coordination.

The overarching analysis reveals that, when viewed from the SAP perspective, the network strategy is not enacted in the sense that no consequential activities for moving in the strategic direction of the network can be identified within the municipalities. This study finds that strategizing mainly occurs within the network, while strategizing to bridge between the network and municipalities is left to the municipalities themselves. However, this strategizing is not achieved. Possible explanations include a lack of legitimacy, limited inclusion and transparency with a top-down perspective on strategy, and different organizational interests and capabilities.

This thesis contributes to theoretical and empirical knowledge by identifying strategic practices with a top-down perspective – an approach that does not conform with the ideals of openness and collaboration in governance networks. The analysis indicates the need to engage in multi-tranche strategizing in order to enact strategy in the participating municipal organizations. To sufficiently enact a strategy, strategizing is necessary not only in the network and municipal tranches but also in the interplay between these sets of stakeholders. Furthermore, the analysis identifies differences in underlying assumptions in the applied theoretical frameworks, including differences in legitimacy, participation, and transparency. Suggested avenues of future research include empirical studies of open strategy principles applied in public organizations, such as the selection of participants, the distribution of decision-making power, and the dissemination of information.

Author Biography

Hans Erik Haugvaldstad

PhD fellow
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Social Studies
University of Stavanger


Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265– 1281. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159366

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (Third edition). Sage.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (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

Aten, K., & Thomas, G. F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627269

Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922110400

Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Management Review, 29–40.

Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2nd ed). Polity Press.

Börzel, T. A., & Panke, D. (2007). Network governance: Effective and legitimate? In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 153–166). Palgrave Macmillian.

Bovens, M. (2007). New forms of accountability and EU-governance. Comparative European Politics, 5(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110101

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Bowman, G. (2016). The practice of scenario planning: An analysis of inter- and intra-organizational strategizing. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 77– 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12098

Brabham, D. C. (2010). Moving the crowd at threadless. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1122–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691181003624090

Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Chesbrough, H. W. (2011). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology (Nachdr.). Harvard Business School Press.

Committee on Business and Industry. (2013). Meld. St. 23 (2012–2013) Innstilling fra næringskomiteen om digital agenda for Norge. IKT for vekst og verdiskaping. næringskomiteen. https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og- publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Innstillinger/Stortinget/2012-2013/inns-201213- 370/?lvl=0

Dahlander, L., Jeppesen, L. B., & Piezunka, H. (2019). How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract, and select. In J. Sydow & H. Berends (Eds.), Managing inter-organizational collaborations: Process views (Vol. 64, pp. 239–270). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000064016

Dahlander, L., & Piezunka, H. (2014). Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention. Research Policy, 43(5), 812–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.006

De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2019). Interorganizational strategizing. In D. Seidl, R. Whittington, & G. von Krogh (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy (1st ed., pp. 106–120). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.007

Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Toast, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 27–54). SAGE.

Dewey, J. (1931). Philosophy and civilization. Minton, Balch & Company. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/924742.html

Dobusch, L., Kremser, W., Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2017). A communication perspective on open strategy and open innovation. Managementforschung, 27(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1365/s41113-017-0015-6

Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617736930

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2014). “Systematic combining”—A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.036

Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (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

Eriksson, E., Andersson, T., Hellström, A., Gadolin, C., & Lifvergren, S. (2020). Collaborative public management: Coordinated value propositions among public service organizations. Public Management Review, 22(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1604793

Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00055

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691

Fleming, J. (2018). Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work- Integrated Learning, 19(3), 311–320.

Friesl, M., Stensaker, I., & Colman, H. L. (2020). Strategy implementation: Taking stock and moving forward. Long Range Planning, 102064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102064

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2020). From government to governance…to meta-governance: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1760–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777882.001

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2015). Introduction: What is strategy as practice? In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed., pp. 1–30). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139681032.001

Greenwood, D. (2016). Governance, coordination, and evaluation: The case for an epistemological focus and a return to C. E. Lindblom. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915620048

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin K. & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2006). Swimming with sharks: Creating strategic change through multi-sector collaboration. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1/2), 96. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSCM.2006.011105

Hautz, J., Matzler, K., Sutter, J., Hutter, K., & Füller, J. (2019). Practices of inclusion in open strategy. In D. Seidl, R. Whittington, & G. von Krogh (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy (1st ed., pp. 87–105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.006

Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001

Heger, T., & Boman, M. (2015). Networked foresight—The case of EIT ICT Labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.002

Hermanowicz, J. C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative Sociology, 25(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021062932081

Holmquist, T. (2019). Kommuner danner regionale digi-nettverk. kommunal- rapport.no. https://kommunal-rapport.no/2019/01/digi-norge-regionaliseres

Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham House Publishers. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2002). Types of multi-level governance. European Integration online Papers, 5(11). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302786

Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.12.001

Järvensivu, T., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2010). Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.05.005

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040675

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707075703

Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2016). On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015604125

Jarzabkowski, P., Kavas, M., & Krull, E. (2021). It’s practice. But is it strategy? Reinvigorating strategy-as-practice by rethinking consequentiality. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211029665

Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x

Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, & Buckley. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/strategy-drives-digital-transformation/

Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255

Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466

Klijn, E-H., (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802263954

Klijn, E-H., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). The influence of democratic legitimacy on outcomes in Governance Networks. Administration & Society, 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712454113

Klijn, E-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector.

Klijn, E-H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x

Koliba, C., Wiltshire, S., Scheinert, S., Turner, D., Zia, A., & Campbell, E. (2017). The critical role of information sharing to the value proposition of a food systems network. Public Management Review, 19(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1209235

Lyrio, M. V. L., Lunkes, R. J., & Taliani, E. T. C. (2018). Thirty years of studies on transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector: The state of the art and opportunities for future research. Public Integrity, 20(5), 512– 533. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1416537

Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (Eds.). (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (Second edition). Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand.

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

Mosley, J. E., & Wong, J. (2020). Decision-making in collaborative governance networks: Pathways to input and throughput legitimacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa044

Nelles, J., Gross, J. S., & Kennedy, L. (2018). The role of governance networks in building metropolitan scale. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2017.1421478

Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities. (2021). Regionale digitaliseringsnettverk. https://www.ks.no/fagomrader/digitalisering/styring- og-organisering/regionale-nettverk-og-samstyring-i-kommunesektoren/

Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. (2014, December 6). Digitalisering i offentlig sektor. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/statlig-forvaltning/ikt- politikk/digitaliseringen-i-offentlig-sektor/id2340245/

Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. (2016, April 15). Meld. St. 27 (2015–2016) Digital agenda for Norge—IKT for en enklere hverdag og økt produktivitet [Stortingsmelding]. Regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-27- 20152016/id2483795/

Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. (2018, June 4). IKT- politikk [Tema]. Regjeringen.no; regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/statlig-forvaltning/ikt-politikk/id1367/

Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. (2019). One digital public sector. regjeringen.no. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/one-digital-public-sector/id2653874/

Osmundsen, K., Iden, J., & Bygstad, B. (2018). Hva er digitalisering, digital innovasjon og digital transformasjon? En litteraturstudie. Norsk Konferanse for Organisasjoners Bruk at IT, 26(1), Article 1. https://ojs.bibsys.no/index.php/Nokobit/article/view/532

O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public administration review, 57(1), 45– 52. https://doi.org/10.2307/976691

Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 2(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790530500399333

Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 6765.2007.00696.x

Poister, T. H., Edwards, L. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Edwards, J. (2013). Strategy formulation and performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 585–615. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360405

Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.173

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (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

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. 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

Rasche, A., & Chia, R. (2009). Researching strategy practices: A genealogical social theory perspective. (Report). Organization Studies, 30(7), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104809

Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919862424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432

Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1).

Røiseland, A., & Vabo, S. I. (2016). Styring og samstyring: Governance på norsk. Fagbokforlaget.

Rouwette, E., Bleijenbergh, I., & Vennix, J. (2016). Group model-building to support public policy: Addressing a conflicted situation in a problem neighbourhood. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2301

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338– 360. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330942

Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2019). Social change in a material world. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. von (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge.

Schmelzle, C. (2012). Evaluating governance: Effectiveness and legitimacy in areas of limited statehood (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1986017). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1986017

Schmidt. (2012). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61, 2–22. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x

Schmidt, & Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration, 97(4), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12615

Seidl, D., von Krogh, G., & Whittington, R. (2019). Defining open strategy: Dimensions, practices, impacts, and perspectives. In D. Seidl, R. Whittington, & G. von Krogh (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy (1st ed., pp. 9–26). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347921.002

Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412212469112

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160882

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331

Sullivan, H. (2003). New forms of local accountability: Coming to terms with ‘many hands’? Policy and Politics, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1332/030557303322034992

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016643181

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems in collaborative governance? Public Management Review, 0(0), 1– 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914

Tjora, A. H. (2006). Writing small discoveries: An exploration of fresh observers’ observations. Qualitative Research, 6(4), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068012

Torfing, J. (2012). Governance Networks. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 99–112). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001

Torfing, J. (2016). Metagovernance. In J. Torfing & C. K. Ansell (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248

Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. Qualitative Report, 17(29). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1752

Wang, W. (2016). Exploring the determinants of network effectiveness: The case of neighborhood governance networks in Beijing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv017

Weiser, A.-K., Jarzabkowski, P., & Laamanen, T. (2020). Completing the adaptive turn: An integrative view of strategy implementation. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 969–1031. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0137

Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(96)00068-4

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606064101

Whittington, R. (2019). Opening strategy: Professional strategists and practice change, 1960 to today. Oxford University Press.

Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis‐Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00762.x

Yi, H. (2018). Network structure and governance performance: What makes a difference? Public Administration Review, 78(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12886

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed). Sage Publications.

Zyzak, B., & Jacobsen, D. I. (2020). External managerial networking in meta- organizations. Evidence from regional councils in Norway. Public Management Review, 22(9), 1347–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1632922

Cover image



May 13, 2022


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.