From institutionalisation to embeddedness: Internal mechanisms in collaborative governance

Egoitz Pomares

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2525

Authors

Egoitz Pomares University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6846-634X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2525

Keywords:

Collaborative governance, institutional work, socio-materiality, embeddedness, boundary objects

Abstract

This article examines how a formally adopted collaborative governance model becomes internally institutionalised within a public administration. Its aim is to explain the mechanisms through which collaborative logics are embedded in bureaucratic routines. The study employs a longitudinal qualitative case study of the Provincial Government of Gipuzkoa (Spain), based on systematic document analysis of meeting minutes, organisational artefacts and authorising documents produced during 2020. The analysis traces the sociomaterial evolution of two key artefacts (the Project Portfolio and the Monitor) and identifies a four-phase mechanism of creating, translating, legitimising and maintaining. These mechanisms reveal how boundary objects mediate institutional work and gradually stabilise new collaborative practices inside the administration. The findings show that internal institutionalisation is not merely procedural but a sociomaterial accomplishment. The article contributes to socio-legal debates on democratic innovations by specifying how participatory logics become materially anchored and embedded within the everyday work of public bureaucracies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Global Statistics

65 Views	17 Downloads
82 Total

Author Biography

Egoitz Pomares, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)

Egoitz Pomares holds a PhD in Social and Legal Sciences (UPV/EHU, 2020), an MSc in Business Administration (Mondragon Unibertsitatea, 2005), and a BA in Law (University of Deusto, 2004). He is an Adjunct Lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU. His research focuses on workplace innovation, organisational and technological change, public innovation policies and collaborative governance.

References

Ahedo Gurrutxaga, I., Zugaza Goienetxea, U., and Lekue López, I., 2024. Introducción: Institucionalización, irrupción y el arraigo en las innovaciones democráticas. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(4), 863–886. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.2131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2131

Ansell, C., and Gash, A., 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory [online], 18(4), 543–571. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Ansell, C., and Gash, A., 2018. Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory [online], 28(1), 16–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030

Ansell, C., and Torfing, J. 2021. Public Governance as Co-Creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381

Barandiarán, X., Canel, M. J., and Bouckaert, G., eds., 2023. Building collaborative governance in times of uncertainty. Leuven University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv35r3v4r

Battilana, J., Leca, B., and Boxenbaum, E., 2009. How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals [online], 3(1), 65–107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598

Beunen, R., Patterson, J., and Van Assche, K., 2017. Governing for resilience: The role of institutional work. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability [online], 28, 10–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.010

Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., and Rivenbark, W. C., 2021. Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review [online], 23(11), 1581–1589. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777

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

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M., 2015. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review [online], 75(5), 647–663. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432

Bussu, S., et al., 2022. Embedding participatory governance. Critical Policy Studies [online], 16(2), 133–145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2053179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2053179

Carlile, P. R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science [online], 15(5), 555–568. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review [online], 48(2), 147–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, 2016. Plan de Gestión Estratégica 2015-2019 [online]. Available at: https://www.gipuzkoa.eus/documents/20933/923358/GFA_KudeaketaPlanEstrategikoa_2015-2019-es.pdf/f7f10838-03e5-4276-8b53-d94d8022a49d

Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, 2020. Plan de Gestión Estratégica 2020-2023 [online]. Available at: https://www.gipuzkoa.eus/documents/20933/12167450/GFA_plan_estrategikoa_2020-2023-es.pdf/cb1d42ae-1832-79c6-9de3-c074cdc7cd14

Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, 2021. Etorkizuna Eraikiz – Status 2021 [online]. Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa. Available at: https://www.etorkizunaeraikiz.eus/documents/33991264/40680589/etorkizuna-eraikiz-status-2021.pdf/d6ab11f2-5cb8-1557-286e-652e6f001d95

Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., and Foldy, E. G., 2005. Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review [online], 65(3), 286–300. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00454.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00454.x

Eisenhardt, K. M., and Graebner, M. E., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal [online], 50(1), 25–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

Elstub, S., and Escobar, O., eds., 2019. Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433862

Emerson, K., and Nabatchi, T., 2015. Collaborative Governance Regimes [online]. Georgetown University Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt19dzcvf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book44406

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., and Balogh, S., 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory [online], 22(1), 1–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011

Erwin, D. G., and Garman, A. N., 2010. Resistance to organizational change: linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal [online], 31(1), 39–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011010371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011010371

Feldman, M. S., and Pentland, B. T., 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly [online], 48(1), 94–118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620

Head, B. W., and Alford, J., 2015. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society [online], 47(6), 711–739. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601

Howlett, M., 2023. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments (3rd ed.) [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003343431 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003343431-2

Huxham, C., and Vangen, S., 2005. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203010167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203010167

Jepperson, R., and Meyer, J. W., 2021. Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism (1991). In: R. Jepperson and J. W. Meyer, Institutional Theory: The Cultural Construction of Organizations, States, and Identities [online]. Cambridge University Press, 37–66. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939744.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939744.004

Kornberger, M., and Clegg, S. 2011. Strategy as Performative Practice: The Case of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organization [online],, 9(2), 136-162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127011407758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127011407758

Kornberger, M., Pflueger, D., and Mouritsen, J., 2017. Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society [online], 60, 79–95. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.05.002

Kraatz, M. S., and Zajac, E. J., 1996. Exploring the Limits of the New Institutionalism: The Causes and Consequences of Illegitimate Organizational Change. American Sociological Review [online], 61(5), 812–836. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2096455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2096455

Kuipers, B. S., et al., 2014. The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration [online], 92(1), 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040

Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review [online], 24(4), 691–710. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259349

Larrea, M., Arrona, A. and Barandiaran, X., 2024. A place-based approach in collaborative governance. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(4), 983–1006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.1892 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1892

Lawrence, T. B., and Suddaby, R., 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In: S. R. Clegg et al., eds., The SAGE handbook of organization studies. 2nd ed [online]. London: Sage, 215–254. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7

Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., and Zilber, T. B., 2013. Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies [online], 34(8), 1023–1033. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495305

Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B., 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry [online], 20(1), 52–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222

Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B., eds., 2009. Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605

Leca, B., et al., 2019. The Role of Artefacts in Institutionalization Processes: Insights from the Development of Socially Responsible Investment in France. In: F. X. de Vaujany et al., eds., Spaces, Embodiment and Technology in Management and Organization Studies [online]. Cham: Springer, 73-107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_4

Leonardi, P. M., 2011. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly [online], 35(1), 147–167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., and Haug, N., 2019. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly [online], 36(4), 101385. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., and Greenwood, R., 2017. Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management [online], 43(6), 1885–1910. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317699522 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317699522

Moynihan, D. P., 2008. The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform [online]. Georgetown University Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt51c DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book13015

Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., and Swan, J., 2012. Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science [online], 23(3), 612–629. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

Orlikowski, W. J., 2007. Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies [online], 28(9), 1435–1448. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138

Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V., 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals [online], 2(1), 433–474. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644

Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., and Lee, S., 2018. Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review [online], 78(4), 593–605. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837

Pache, A. C., and Santos, F., 2013. Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. In: M. Lounsbury and E. Boxenbaum, eds., Institutional logics in action, Part B [online]. Leeds: Emerald Group, 3–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039b014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039b014

Pollitt, C., 2018. Advanced introduction to public management and administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Pomares, E., Lakidain, A., and Unceta, A., 2023. Etorkizuna Eraikiz: The conceptual basis of the model. In: X. Barandiaran, M. J. Canel and G. Bouckaert, eds., Building collaborative governance in times of uncertainty [online]. Leuven University Press, 39-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv35r3v4r DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv35r3v4r.7

Pressman, J. L., and Wildavsky, A. B., 1984. Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. 3rd ed. University of California Press.

Prior, L., 2008. Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology [online], 42(5), 821–836. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094564

Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J., 2012. Experimentalist governance. In: D. Levi-Faur, ed., The Oxford handbook of governance [online]. Oxford University Press, 169–185. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012

Saetnan, A. R., Lomell, H. M., and Hammer, S., eds., 2010. The Mutual Construction of Statistics and Society. 1st ed. [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846612 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846612

Sahlin, K., and Wedlin, L., 2008. Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In: R. Greenwood et al., eds., The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism [online]. London: Sage, 218–242. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n9

Scott, T., and Thomas, C., 2015. Do Collaborative Groups Enhance Interorganizational Networks? Public Performance & Management Review [online], 38(4), 654–683. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031008

Smets, M., et al., 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal [online], 58(3), 932–970. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638

Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J., 2021. Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems in collaborative governance? Public Management Review [online], 23(11), 1590–1611. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914

Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. R., 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science [online], 19(3), 387–420. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Suchman, M. C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review [online], 20(3), 571–610. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., and Lounsbury, M., 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001

Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S., 2005. Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies [online], 26(9), 1377–1404. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056907 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605056907

Van Hulst, M., and Yanow, D., 2014. From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach. The American Review of Public Administration [online], 46(1), 92-112. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533142

Van Thiel, S., 2014. Research methods in public administration and public management [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078525

Wegner, D., et al., 2024. A systematic review of collaborative digital platforms: structuring the domain and research agenda. Review of Managerial Science [online], 18(9), 2663-2695. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00695-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00695-0

Yin, R. K., 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th ed. London: Sage.