Network Theory in the Public Sector

Building New Theoretical Frameworks

Robyn Keast, Myrna P Mandell, Robert Agranoff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135013240
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Government & Business
• Index: Business

Networks have been described in terms of metaphors, governance arrangements and structural or institutional arrangements. These different perspectives of networks come out of a variety of disciplines, including political science, public administration, urban affairs, social welfare, public management and organizational/sociological research. This wealth of research, while contributing to a deeper understanding of networks, presents a dilemma which is addressed by this book. That is the question of whether there is a theory of public networks that informs networks in their various forms, and is there a need for a new theory of networks? More importantly, is network research still relevant to practice? Does network theory improve the process of governance? Are different terms and/or approaches actually the same or different? What do these different approaches mean to theory?

This book deeply explores and integrates existing network theory and related theories from a number of perspectives, levels and jurisdictions to develop a framework to guide network design, governance and management. The book focuses on the important issue of network performance, looking at networks as bounded and consciously arranged; the actors who participate in them design the relationships among a bounded set of individual organizations to purse common objectives. Finally, the chapters tease out the variety of governance modes or regimes that intersect with network governance. This book offers a comprehensive, integrative, interdisciplinary approach that enables specialists, practitioners and administrators across a wide array of interests and fields to formulate and work on problems using a common language, analytical framework and theoretical basis.

Part I
Introduction to the Issues/Current Network Theories

1 Introduction

Understanding Theory

Myrna P. Mandell

Background

A phenomenon of the past thirty years has been the rapid rise of interest in and operation of networks, including networks and network-governance–based arrangements such as collaborations, alliances, partnerships, and “joined-up” ventures, as new and innovative ways of doing business in all sectors—government, community, and private. O’Toole (1997, 45) defines such network action as involving “structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of others in some hierarchical arrangement”. In this sense, the networks under analysis are goal-directed and multi-sectoral as opposed to serendipitous contacts among actors; that is, they are consciously arranged and bounded groupings, as opposed to associative clusters (Kilduff and Tsai 2003).

It has been argued across a number of research arenas that the capacity to harness the inherent benefits of networks has been, and continues to be, limited by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework informing their optimal design, governance arrangements and management, and the development of different mechanisms for evaluation (Agranoff and McGuire 2001a, b; Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997; Provan and Milward 2001; Oliver and Ebers 1998; O’Toole 1997; Provan and Milward 1995; Salancik 1995). Further complicating this understanding of networks has been a research agenda, which has been highly specialized and evolving almost independently spread across a number of areas of interest and at different levels of analysis and conceptualization (Börzel 1998; Cepiku, Meneguzzo, and Senese 2008; Cristofoli, Mandell, and Meneguzzo 2011; Oliver and Ebers 1998). In effect, the network paradigm has been restrained by “the ‘Babylonian’ variety of different understandings and applications of the . . . network approach” (Börzel 1998, 254), in which method, model, and theory are intermixed.

The expansion of theory in a broadened public sphere is argued to be a key and necessary step in the development of the literature on the practice and understanding of public and community sector networks. We currently rely conceptually, to a great extent, on the business literature to frame our understanding of public serving networks. However, the legally based authoritative roles of the public sector and the growing phenomenon of externalization of direct government services distinguish these types of networks from those discussed in the business literature. This book will serve to establish the study of public and public-serving governance networks as a separate and distinct field of study, working toward a distinct theoretical framework.

This book offers the potential for a comprehensive, integrative, interdisciplinary approach that enables specialists, practitioners, and administrators across a wide array of interest and fields to formulate and work on problems using a common language, analytical framework, and theoretical basis. Also of significance will be the translation of the emergent theoretical framework to inform the practical applications for which networks are meant. The practical implications highlighted or uncovered from theoretical developments center on identifying and matching the appropriate supporting managerial, cultural, and institutional arrangements necessary to sustain networks and ensure their effectiveness.

It is envisaged that in building a framework and/or theories about networks, the following outcomes would be delivered:

• Enhanced capacity for the management of different types of networks, including new and existing methods of management techniques
• Extensive knowledge on the design, operation, and evolution of net works
• Development of new performance measures that acknowledge and adequately capture the different outcomes produced through networks.

To build this framework, however, we must first understand what is meant by theory.

What is the Theory?

Theory is important because it provides a road map that clarifies our understanding (Innes and Booher 2010). It also allows researchers to see “how and why practices do or do not work in particular ways” (Innes and Booher 2010). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, second ed. (1982, 1260), theory is defined as including “systematically organized knowledge . . . a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature of behavior of a specified set of phenomenon”. It can also include “abstract reasoning, speculation . . . [or] An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge”.

Although there is much agreement as to the need for building a theoretical framework of networks, there is still disagreement as to what is appropriately considered a theory and also what is considered a good theory. The obvious problem, based on the dictionary definition, is that theory can be about anything and have different meanings for different people. Indeed this has been debated in the academic community. For instance, Sutton and Shaw (1995, 371) indicate there is little agreement among academics as to what constitutes strong or weak theory. According to these authors there is “lack of agreement about whether a model and a theory can be distinguished, whether a typology is properly labeled a theory, or not, whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is, and whether falsifiability is a prerequisite for the very existence of a theory”. Sutton and Shaw go on to list five features of what a theory is not. These include references, data, lists of variables or constructs, diagrams, and hypotheses.

Weick (1995), however, takes exception with these five features as defining what is not a theory. Instead, he sees theory as a process, not necessarily a product. Weick discusses “the process of theorizing” (1995, 385). For him “most theories approximate, rather than realize the conditions necessary for a strong theory because these five features themselves [per Sutton and Shaw] have gradations of abstractedness and generality” (385). Weick cites TenHouten and Kaplan (1973) as to what is a theory. For them, theorists start with a vision for a theory and change it “from entwined ideas at the edge of words to a linear order in which the ideas are unraveled and set forth in the form of a propositional argument” (14). For Weick, theory can take many forms as indicated by the definition in the dictionary. Of course, as Weick indicates, academics will “want to underpin their theories with more empirical data . . . [and will] want a theory to incorporate more than one hypothesis” (1996, 386).

Di Maggio (1995) also has reservations as to what is a good theory. He indicates that a good theory is difficult to produce because “goodness is multidimensional” (362). For him, theory combines approaches to theorizing and results in compromise. In addition, he indicates that readers influence what is a theory. Di Maggio (1995) sees theories as hybrids that include “the best qualities of covering laws, enlightenment and process approaches” (392). In describing theory as covering laws, Di Maggio refers to “generalizations that, taken together, describe the world as we see (or measure) it” (391). Enlightenment refers to “. . . a set of categories and domain assumptions aimed at clearing away conventional notions to make room for artful and exciting insights” (391). And he describes theory as a narrative or an account of a social process and empirical tests of plausibility of the narrative.

The chapters in this book take the broader approaches to theory, as outlined above, to build a theoretical foundation of networks. The editors of this book also agree with Innes’ and Booher’s idea of what is a “good theory”. According to them “it is a good theory if it makes sense to explain complex situations . . . it allows one to see aspects that were previously invisible, or seemingly unimportant, if those involved [in the case they are analyzing] think it is on target, and it generates new ideas, new thinking and even debate” (2010, 16).

The chapters in this book include both normative and descriptive theories. We agree with Innes’ and Booher’s (2010) emphasis as to why these types of theories are of value. In writing about collaborative networks, they point out that normative and descriptive types of theories are “descriptive of successful collaborative processes and normative in that [they provide] a model for the design and implementation of collaborative processes that can produce significant outcomes” (35). We see normative and descriptive theories as having great value in building a theoretical foundation for the understanding of networks. In addition, we build grounded theory based on a number of case studies. Overall, the chapters in this book are based on qualitative and quantitative analyses to better understand network constraints.

Building Theory for Networks

The aim of this book is to establish a comprehensive, multilevel theory of networks that explains network formation and provides predictive capacity to better inform the design, operation, and management of networks to meet effectiveness and sustainability requirements and capitalize on the inherent collaborative advantage and synergistic benefits of these new organizational forms.

With their focus on trust, reciprocity, and mutual gains, networks require a shift from conventional hierarchical authority to processes and operational arrangements that are more horizontal, equalitarian, and relational in their orientation (Ansell 2000; Chisholm 1996; Rhodes 1996). As a consequence of this differential orientation, networks are more than ‘business as usual’ and require different design principles, management, and governance arrangements and performance measures (Agranoff and McGuire 2001a; Keast et al. 2004; Mandell and Keast 2008; Mandell and Steelman 2003; Provan and Milward 2001).

Some early research and theoretical development on networks in both the public and private sectors has provided some speculative insights on the structural properties and governance arrangements of networks (Laumann and Knoke 1987; Provan and Milward 2001). For example, during the 1990s several initial conceptualizations and theoretical considerations of network operation and governance were established. In the human services arena, Provan and Milward (1995) developed a preliminary theory of network effectiveness, while in the business sector Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti (1997) proposed a general theory of networks. While these network theories made a noteworthy contribution to thinking about network operation, they were largely descriptive and tended to overemphasize governance and structural considerations at the expense of establishing a predictive capacity for network formation, operation, and effectiveness. This has led Salancik (1995) and others (Oliver and Ebers 1998) to call for a comprehensive theory of networks.

It is contended that a comprehensive theory of networks has been constrained by three main factors: the fragmentation of the research field, a tendency to rely on prior management literature based on interorganizational theory as the basis for all network research, and a propensity to treat networks as undifferentiated.

The first factor has emerged from a research and practice history that has proceeded from disparate perspectives and sectors as well as taking place at multiple levels of theorizing and operation (Oliver and Ebers 1998). For instance, Börzell (1998) has demonstrated that network research and conceptualization have occurred through two main conceptual strands—the networks as disparate policy instruments focus preferred by the U.K. and the networks as governance model of Europe. Further complicating this duality of the network concept, as Oliver and Ebers (1998) have shown in their analysis of interorganizational relationships, there has been rapid expansion of research in this area resulting in a lack of conceptual consolidation (549). This view is supported by a number of other researchers examining interorganizational and network arrangements including Nohria (1992) and Alter and Hage (1993). In addition a study by Cristofoli, Mandell, and Meneguzzo (2011) highlights the varied and conflicting perspectives that are part of the literature based on analyses by researchers from the U.S., Australia, and Europe. The overall effect of this divergence of interests, locales, perspectives, and levels of analysis has been a fragmentation of thinking and theorizing about networks and an associated need for the development of a more coherent or comprehensive understanding of networks.

A further constraining factor to a theory of networks has been the failure to adequately define networks (Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997). At a minimal level, networks are defined as two or more organizations working together (O’Toole 1997). Such a broad conceptualization, while providing an overarching description of networks and indicating their orientation, fails to acknowledge the diversity of networks and their formation, governance, and management requirements (Keast, Mandell, and Brown 2006.

A more detailed review of the literature identified two main conceptualizations of networks. First, are the interorganizational networks, which are the coming together of still relatively independent organizations for the mostly instrumental purposes of advancing their own profit base (Gulati 1998; Powell and Smith-Doerr 199...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Original Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• PART I Introduction to the Issues/Current Network Theories
• PART II New Theoretical Frameworks: Informing Design, Governance Arrangements, and Management
• PART III Putting Theory into Practice
• PART IV Implications and Conclusion
• Contributors
• Index