`

Weaving the collaborative fabric:

Building and sustaining capacity for
collaboration at the locality level a
voluntary sector perspective
Voluntary Sector and Volunteering
Research Conference 2014

Carol Jacklin-Jarvis, Open University
Siv Vangen, Open University
Nik Winchester, Open University


Introduction
This paper explores the relationship between VCOs and public agencies in terms of a concept of
collaborative fabric. The collaborative fabric provides a context for collaboration at the local
level which both enables and constrains collaborative practice. From the voluntary sector
perspective, this context frequently appears dominated by the impact of national policy and by
public sector dominated processes of collaboration partnership meetings, joint projects, and
commissioning processes. However, exploration of the micro level of social practice draws
attention to ways in which leaders of VCOs weave into the collaborative fabric, shaping the
environment for future collaboration.
The paper draws on a study of cross-sector collaboration in childrens services in England. In this
policy-driven environment, processes for collaboration are continually introduced, re-shaped,
withdrawn, and replaced. VCO representatives find themselves engaged in rapidly changing,
apparently overlapping cross-sector partnerships. In addition, research participants report that
they are often unable to access decision-making processes, which they perceive to lie outside
partnership structures. The example explored here is that of the short-lived multi-sector
Childrens Trusts, and the associated raft of partnerships and working groups.
In spite of this experience of disempowerment, voluntary sector actors engaged in multiple
collaborative partnerships and projects do find ways to influence dominant public sector
agencies, weaving into the local collaborative fabric, and thus contributing to the resilience of the
fabric for future collaboration. The paper explores ways in which this interweaving proceeds
through relationship-building, which links to local policy implementation, and to processes of
collaboration, drawing on a distinctive sense of sector identity. While the processes of
interweaving impact on existing spaces of collaboration, they also create new collaborative spaces
at the practice level shared training, opportunities for cross-sector working, and new spaces for
conversations across sector boundaries. Over time, this develops a resilient local collaborative
fabric which endures when policies and processes change, and individuals move on. This has
implications for thinking about the sustainability of collaborative capacity beyond the life of
specific collaborative arrangements.
Through the emergent concept of collaborative fabric, the paper reflects on this longer-term,
and more optimistic approach to cross-sector collaboration, focusing attention away from the
short-termism of the policy churn, and instead towards enduring collaborative relationships.
The research context
The concept of collaborative fabric emerged from a three year study of collaboration between
voluntary and public sectors in the context of childrens services in England, during the previous
Labour and current Coalition administrations. The qualitative research included semi-structured
interviews, observation of meetings, and collation of documents, as well as content analysis of
childrens services policy documents.


This paper draws on findings of that study, focusing on practices of collaboration in the context
of policy change, and its translation and implementation at the local level, following the 2010
change of government. In the context of policies of Big Society, localism, and austerity, the
coalition government removed from childrens services policy the requirement for specific cross-
sector collaborative entities and processes associated with multi-agency Childrens Trusts. Each
local authority area observed during the research responded to the change in different ways,
each appearing to limit access for VCOs to local decision-making:
- one replaced their inter-agency Childrens Trust Board with a public sector commissioning
group;
- a second reconfigured the Board as a council committee, with attendance from (non-
voting) external agencies, including VCOs;
- the third maintained the Board. However, the local voluntary sector infrastructure body,
questioning its effectiveness, began a process to review sector engagement.
In addition, childrens organisations appeared particularly vulnerable to the impact of reduced
funding at the local level:
It has been cautiously estimated that the children, young people and families voluntary and
community sector will lose a total of almost 405m in statutory funding between 2011/12 and
2015/16. The lions share of this cut, 324m, will come from local government, upon whom
childrens charitable organisations are more reliant than the wider sector (Davies and Evans,
2012, p.7 drawing on NCB 2011)
This operating context has been described as a perfect storm (Davies and Evans, 2012), but this
is not to suggest that policy change and consequent uncertainty were unfamiliar to childrens
organisations. Empirical research highlighted the shifting and ambiguous policy context for
collaboration in childrens services during the Labour administration, reflecting the hyperactive
mainstreaming (Alcock and Kendall, 2011) of policy-led programmes, and shifting policy
discourses of partnership and sector. Content analysis of childrens services policy highlighted
the fluidity and ambiguity of the policy discourse (Jacklin-Jarvis, 2014), offering little clarity
regarding voluntary sector engagement in strategy and decision-making, as opposed to its role as
service provider, delivering public sector priorities.
The research explores the practice of VCO actors in this context, describing how individuals
contribute to sustaining collaborative capacity, by weaving into the collaborative fabric.
Sustainability and Collaborative Capacity
Cross-sector collaboration is essential to tackle so-called wicked problems (Rittel and Webber,
1973), which exist within inter-organisational domains (Trist, 1983). These complex social
problems require the resources, tangible and intangible, of all parties to develop new
perspectives, creative strategies, and innovative service models (Crosby and Bryson, 2005, Gray,
1985, Osborne et al., 2008). However, while the literature highlights the potential of
collaboration, it also offers evidence of its difficulty, complexity, and ambiguity - processes of
collaboration consume resources; participants become discouraged; and collaborative


partnerships enter a state of collaborative inertia (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). Cultural
differences, language, and practices (Axelsson and Axelsson, 2009, Easen et al., 2000, Vangen and
Winchester, 2013) hinder communication. Differences in size, culture, objectives, systems,
interdependencies, identity, and expectations, are sources of potential conflict (Gazley and
Brudney, 2007, Lundin, 2007, Vangen and Huxham, 2012, Vangen and Winchester, 2013), and
subtle differences in long-term goals, belief systems...resources and organizational cultures and
norms (Connelly et al., 2008, p.20) threaten to pull partners apart. From the perspective of
VCOs, the processes of cross-sector collaboration frequently highlight asymmetries of power,
and lead to tensions within and between sectors (Craig et al., 2004, Kelly, 2007, Milbourne,
2009).
Collaboration for social purposes takes place in a continually dynamic policy-driven environment
(Selsky and Parker, 2010). In addition, the complex problems collaboration seeks to address are
by definition unstructured and relentless (Weber and Khademian, 2008). This suggests that
processes and practices to address these issues must be similarly dynamic, but also highlights the
need for long-term collaborative problem-solving capacity (ibid p.336). In this context, the
concept of sustainability is focused not on the longevity of a particular cross-sector entity
(Cropper, 1996), but rather on sustaining capacity to collaborate (Alexander et al., 2003, Sullivan
et al., 2006):
The notion of collaborative capacity refers to the level of activity or degree of change a
collaborative relationship is able to sustain without any partner losing a sense of security in the
relationshipnot only the tangible resources which are central to collaborative endeavour, but
less obvious matters such as perceived loss of autonomy and perceived change in relative
strength. (Hudson et al., 1999, pp.245-6)
Sustainability is future-oriented (Cropper, 1996), replicating or diffusing collaboration (ibid p.89),
such that good things happen in a sustained way over time (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p.227).
This suggests that sustaining collaborative capacity is not only related to the design of inter-
organisational entities, but also an issue of practice (Cropper, 1996). Collaboration is a social
process, enacted through interactions between individuals (Tsasis, 2009). Collaborative capacity
builders (Weber and Khademian, 2008) cultivate multiple relationships at different levels,
interpersonal and inter-organisational (Williams, 2002, Williams, 2013). They undertake the
capacitating work of creating community (Ospina and Foldy, 2010, Saz-Carranza and Ospina,
2011), encouraging interaction which facilitates further interaction (Agranoff and McGuire,
2001).
Ospina and Foldy (2010) describe the practice of leaders from small social change organisations
collaborating with dominant public agencies. Leaders from resource-poor organisations build
bridges between competing perspectives, nurturing interdependence, whilst continuing to
advance organisational mission. The processes of bridging both build relationship, and generate
multiple meanings and perspectives. Through interpersonal relationships, actors weave together
the multiple worlds of the collaborating partners. Although a relational approach to
collaboration with more outwardly powerful, resource-rich partners signals the potential for
over-dependence on individuals, it also offers a perspective which is not limited to current policy
or processes. It points towards the potential for individuals from less powerful organisations to


contribute to sustaining collaborative capacity beyond short-term initiatives. Indeed,
collaborative capacity builders from beyond public sector boundaries may be less constrained
from taking this longer-term approach (Weber and Khademian, 2008). Even contexts driven by
central policy still allow sufficient flexibility for actors to choose to adopt strategies which build
collaborative capacity, rather than simply focusing on present implementation (Sullivan et al.,
2006).
It is in the context of this future-focused account of how individual actors contribute to sustaining
collaborative capacity, that we offer the metaphor of weaving into the collaborative fabric as
scaffolding (Goffman, 1990/1959) for building theory. Building on Ospina and Foldys (2010)
account of individuals who weave together multiple worlds through interpersonal relationships,
we explore how individuals begin to address and respond to the challenges of cross-sector
collaboration, and embed their organisations (and frequently the wider sector) in the local
collaborative fabric, building capacity for the future of the collaborative relationship. Resilient
collaborative fabric in turn provides an environment in which relationships develop between
self-organizing actors who are continuously negotiating the rules of the game (Jones and Liddle,
2011).
Weaving into the Collaborative Fabric
This section of the paper focuses on the practice of individual actors. Three case examples draw
on interview and observation data to provide accounts of how individuals respond to changes in
national policy and consequent uncertainties in the local environment. Policy changes introduce,
amend, and quickly close down formal processes for collaboration. However, these cases offer
some insight into how individual actors attempt to enact a more sustainable approach to
collaboration, which embeds their organisation (and the wider sector) into the local collaborative
environment, creates new spaces for future collaboration, and builds collaborative capacity. Each
case provides a brief account of local context, before exploring individual practice.
Each case introduces the chief executive of a VCO, which delivers services for children and young
people, in co-operation with public agencies. In a context of uncertainty and change, each
endeavours to keep their organisation embedded in the local collaborative fabric, but also
contribute to that fabric.
Case 1: Ellie
Family Time is a family support service. Nationally, similar projects have undergone major change
including retraction and closure in response to local implementation of changing policy
priorities for family services, as well as increasingly tight public finances. Family Time has a small
staff team, delivering services primarily through volunteers. It works across a single local authority
area, Southtown, where it has a contract with the council, but aims to move into the
neighbouring locality. Ellie, Family Times manager sits on a sub-group within the local
authoritys partnership arrangements for childrens services. These arrangements appear to be
stable, despite changes in national policy. Ellie creates opportunities to engage with public sector


colleagues through participation in less formal collaborative processes, including a public sector
led training programme, and a VCO network attended by local authority commissioners.
Ellie initially presents a somewhat negative view of policy-driven collaborative partnership,
acknowledging tension between the discourse of partnership and the relationship of financial
dependency:
I always think about partnership work as being on an equal footing, and actually the reality is that
there isnt because they give us were reliant on them, 70% of our funding comes from them.
So its not partnership in the true sense.
Ellie sets out to retain and even improve her organisations embededness in the local
collaborative environment. Rather than tackling this through public sector led processes -
partnership meetings, or formal contract discussions, Ellie approaches a local authority manager,
Jean, who she has met through participation in a cross-sector working group, for a one to one
meeting. In her account of this meeting, she attributes progress made to a rapport with Jean -
we got on so well.
Ellies aim is to convince Jean to support, financially and strategically, a pilot project to
demonstrate the value of Family Times intervention with vulnerable families in the context of
national policy priorities. This context constitutes a financial threat to the organisation, but more
fundamentally challenges Family Times distinctive service model. Failure to respond to policy
change is likely to impact on local authority support, but maintaining the distinctiveness of the
organisations offer is also important:
were different, and I think its necessary that were different because were perceived, were not
perceived by some families as Big Brother, which, you know, some statutory organisations will be.
During the meeting, Jean explained to Ellie that her staff had concerns about an aspect of Family
Times practice. Ellie addressed the issue in a staff development session, requiring staff and
volunteers to adjust their practice. Ellie is going ahead with the pilot project, drawing on existing
organisational funds. Jean has required assurances of quality standards, and additional training
for staff and volunteers, in return for her stated support, and the practical support of her local
authority team. She is providing no funding for the pilot.
Ellie presents her interaction with Jean as evidence of how public sector contacts are enabling her
to grow her organisation the interpersonal and the inter-organisational appear closely
intertwined. Ellie believes that the ongoing working relationship between the two teams, built on
her own relationship with Jean, will lead to positive outcomes for the future including funding.
More negatively, the story could be interpreted as an example of the public sector achieving
changes in an independent VCO, without financial commitment. By-passing commissioning
arrangements, Jean achieves quality improvement and additional service development, without
finance, although she commits staff time to training and ongoing liaison. Ellies decision to
address uncertainties in the environment through an interpersonal connection begins to weave
new threads of connectivity across the sector divide:


- Jean expresses a concern which was previously unspoken; Ellie takes this to the team, and
makes changes to practice - encouraging further collaboration.
- Jean offers human resources to deliver training; Ellie accepts, and as a result, new
connections are made between trainer and trained. The potential for coherent service
delivery increases.
- Ellie offers to deliver a pilot project, without funding, to evidence Family Firsts distinctive
approach. Jean and Ellie will meet regularly, developing a shared monitoring process.
- On both sides, there is shared learning, greater appreciation of the other at individual and
organisational levels and ongoing collaborative conversation initially between two
individuals, but increasingly between team members.
Ellie and Jeans initial meeting weaves threads of connectivity beyond their inter-personal
relationship into shared processes across their two teams, exploration of policy and its local
implementation, and on to evidencing the value of an alternative model of service delivery. New
collaborative spaces emerge, including areas of joint practice, training and shared learning, and
ongoing conversation across the two organisations about the needs of the families for whom
they both provide services. These threads of interconnectivity develop through discursive
strategies in a one-to-one meeting, but gradually extend into other areas of practice, increasing
capacity for further collaboration. Ellies organisation becomes interwoven into the collaborative
fabric through this multiplicity of connections with the local authority. Although, this capacity
develops outside formal collaboration processes, it builds on the pre-existing contractual
relationship, and participation in a partnership group.
Case 2: Colin
First provides services for young people across three local authority areas. Each is reviewing
partnership arrangements for children and young people in the light of policy changes, and
different priorities and processes for collaboration are emerging in each. In Fordtown, the local
authority has determined to replace the previous Childrens Trust Board with a council
committee, with continued representation from external agencies, including VCOs.
Colin has been chief executive at First for over 20 years, before which he worked in Fordtowns
social services department. He is well known in both voluntary and public sectors, and is spoken
of by voluntary sector colleagues as an experienced sector representative in different
collaborative contexts. Colin and his team are active in VCO networks, as well as a range of
cross-sector projects and partnerships. However, Colin recently withdrew from the role of sector
representative on Fordtowns Childrens Trust Board. In interview, he attributes this to changes
in his own organisation, as well as local politics, and national policy. He notes the impact of public
finances on cross-sector collaboration in terms of commissioning, but also in drawing the
attention of public sector officers back to the local authoritys own services.
Colin presents a somewhat negative view of his experience of engaging in collaborative
partnership meetings. He perceives that decisions are often made by public agencies without a
great deal of reference to the voluntary sector. Yet, despite his withdrawal from the Trust
Board, Colin and his staff team continue to engage in a wide range of public sector led


partnerships. When asked what he expects to achieve through these, Colins response highlights
the interconnectedness between business opportunities, the opportunity to present the
different perspective of voluntary organisations, and opportunities to build relationships:
I think its partly influencing, and I think we come with a different perspective, a different
understanding, and I believe, you know, often more in touch with service users, so I think we can
bring a different perspective, and influence the way services are developed and commissioned.
Obviously, we hope to get more business out of the contacts that we make and, you know, there
are commissioning opportunities that we become more aware of if we are actually out there in
the meetings when these things are discussed. And also, I think its relationship-building...often,
its the conversations after the meeting that will lead to something happening, more than the
things that happen during the meetings...
For Colin, voluntary sector influence builds on the contribution made to delivering outcomes
which tackle problems highlighted in policy, but in a distinctive pattern of service delivery, and
with a distinctive understanding of, and relationship with, service users. However, debates about
service development are rarely held in formal partnership meetings. Influence is therefore
frequently enacted through key individuals public sector officers and elected politicians.
First faces threats related to finances, and to policy priorities at both national and local levels.
However, Colins case highlights the ways in which he continues to ensure that his organisation is
interwoven into the local collaborative environment at multiple levels:
- Colin strategically withdraws from one representation role in a part of the collaborative
process which is no longer central to policy, and where he perceives he has little influence;
- He uses the space to seek out meetings in different part of the system where he and his
colleagues can have most influence.
- Colin creates new cross-sector connections through the deliberate nurturing of
relationships with key people attending these meetings.
- Colin offers public sector colleagues an account of social problems and potential solutions
which he presents as distinctive. He presents this perspective in informal one-to-one
meetings, and in the context of formal partnership arrangements.
- Colin networks with VCO colleagues to craft a distinctive sector voice.
- Public sector colleagues begin to approach Colin to access this distinctive perspective,
both in informal meetings but also over time inviting Colin and his staff to take on
formal roles within new collaborative processes.
- As a result, new business is generated for First.
- First is seen to deliver outcomes.
Colin perceives interpersonal relationships and the processes of partnership as closely
intertwined. He remains committed to the cross-sector collaborative relationship over the
longer-term facilitated by the longevity of his relationships with key individuals. He contributes
to collaborative capacity over the longer term by strategically responding to changes in policy and
in local collaborative processes, developing and building on interpersonal relationships, and


sustaining a narrative of the distinctive contribution which VCOs bring to understanding and
tackling long term social issues.
Case 3: Ian
Together is a VCO which offers support and practical services to other VCOs supporting young
people in the locality of Mortown. The future of Together is threatened by parallel changes in
public policy and tightening of public funding, and it has recently been engaged in conversations
about potential mergers. Mortown Council replaced its Childrens Trust Board with new inter-
agency processes, confined to public agencies. As the role of sector representative was
previously held by Ian, Togethers chief executive, the organisation (and sector) has lost access to
a significant route for influence.
Before taking up his post as Togethers chief executive, Ian worked as a senior manager in the
council. He is engaged in development and delivery of numerous joint projects between the
council and VCOs, and draws on longstanding relationships with former council colleagues to
facilitate collaboration. Influence is exerted in both directions through these connections. At an
early morning meeting at the council Ian argues for services to be commissioned in the voluntary
sector. On another occasion, he cooperates with a council colleague to jointly deliver a
workshop to VCO leaders, arguing for changes in response to public policy priorities.
Ian builds on his network of contacts to gain access to and influence senior managers. However,
as a former local authority manager himself, Ian also understands the importance of engaging
with public sector processes, and of responding to policy changes. When the council makes a
decision which is unpopular with other local VCOs, Ian must decide whether to challenge this
decision, risking his status as a co-operative former colleague. He chooses to challenge - not via
his relationships with former colleagues, but instead on the basis of process, writing a letter of
complaint on behalf of local VCOs. As a consequence, Ian draws attention to the issue in a
formal way, bringing about a review of the decision through a high-level council committee,
moving the debate into the public arena. VCO colleagues join him in presenting the issue to the
council committee, and this ultimately results in the prospect of increased funding, and new
contractual relationships. In this example, Ian chooses not to pursue the informal threads of
connection between himself and public sector colleagues, and consequently opens up new, albeit
somewhat vulnerable connections:
- Ians letter of complaint is sent in the context of his reputation as former colleague and
continuing collaborator.
- It results in an opportunity for sector representatives to engage in a high profile
committee meeting.
- The Council is required to respond formally to the complaint.
- The alternative narrative offered by sector representatives at the committee meeting
results in the review of a policy decision, and the potential for funding in the sector.
This is just one example of how Ian continually moves between his identification with former
colleagues, and his identification with the voluntary sector in which he works, and which he
represents, moving continually between formal processes and informal relationships. The


longevity of his relationships with key individuals within the authority is significant in this
approach, but so too is his willingness to adapt to his new location within the voluntary sector:
So, Im learning, having to try to learn fast, despite having worked for a long, long time. It does
feel a bit like going on a trip-wire, going on a high wire rather, a tight-rope, with a big drop either
side.
Ians story highlights the insecurity and vulnerability of VCO leaders who seek to embed their
organisations and the wider sector in the local collaborative environment. Ians practice weaves
new threads of connectivity across the sector divide, yet his assessment is that when he retires in
the next few years, his own organisation will almost certainly proceed with the discussed merger.
Discussion
These accounts draw attention away from formal collaborative entities, and instead reinforce the
messiness, fluidity, and dynamic nature of collaborative practice (Huxham and Vangen, 2000).
They show the context for cross-sector collaboration as framed by policy and its local
implementation, as well as by the processes of collaboration set up to move that policy forward
partnership groups, joint projects, shared training, and commissioning. However, they also show
that collaboration is moved forward through the practice of individuals, as they weave from
relationships into process and policy. These relationships weave together multiple worlds
(Ospina and Foldy, 2010), leading to new shared processes without compromising
organisational identity and distinctiveness.
National policy and its implementation produce a dynamic and volatile environment for
collaboration at the local level, which all too often reflects the short-termism of public policy and
of politics, and consequently fails to provide a context which facilitates long-term relationships
which build and sustain collaborative capacity. However, the local environment for collaboration
is also constituted and sustained through the practice of individuals. It is woven together
through practice which engages with collaborative processes; which contributes to but also
challenges policy priorities; and which builds on interpersonal relationships. The examples
presented here suggest that individuals engage with the processes of collaboration somewhat
strategically, assessing where they can have the greatest impact. They make use of interpersonal
relationships across the sector divide to build ties of connectivity at multiple levels between
individuals, and between teams; through processes of shared training, and project development;
through conversations, formal and informal, about policy priorities and implementation.
Over time, interweaving between processes, policy, and relationships, the continued negotiations
and micro-practices of individuals contribute to the pattern of a local collaborative fabric, as
collaborative practices and relationships become part of the local environment. This affirms that
sustaining collaborative capacity so that a sense of security in the collaborative relationship
endures (Alexander et al., 2003) is facilitated by day to day practice (Sullivan et al., 2006), as
well as by policy and public sector dominated processes. It suggests that the environment for
collaboration at the local level is constituted by policy, processes, and interpersonal relationships.
It also suggests that collaboration participants draw on a sense of the distinct contribution of their


organisation (and the wider sector) which they weave into the collaborative fabric. We refer to
this as participant identity. Engaging with policy, processes, relationships and participant identity
at the local level, participants contribute to a resilient fabric for a longer-term collaborative
relationship, contributing to the sustainability of collaborative capacity (Alexander et al., 2003,
Cropper, 1996), whilst engaging in short-lived policy initiatives and processes.
Conclusion
The paper builds on an emergent concept of collaborative fabric to begin to explore how
practice at the micro level can be understood to contribute to sustaining collaborative capacity
over the long term. It argues that the local collaborative environment, described as collaborative
fabric, can be understood as multi-dimensional, operating at the level of social practice, informed
by the distinctive identity of collaboration participants, framed by but also impacting on policy
implementation, and associated collaborative processes. This is not to ignore the enormous
challenges for sustaining collaborative capacity in a policy-driven, resource-poor context. It does,
though, offer a way of thinking about the sustainability of collaboration in practice terms, and
consequently offers narratives of hope not only for VCOs, but more importantly for the
children and families who continue to need their support.
References
Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (2001) 'Big questions in public network management research',
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol.11, no.3 pp.295-326.
Alcock, P. & Kendall, J. (2011) 'Constituting the third sector: processes of decontestation and
contention under the UK Labour governments in England', Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol.22, no.3 pp.450-469.
Alexander, J. A., Weiner, B. J., Metzger, M. E., Shortell, S. M., Bazzoli, G. J., Hasnain-Wynia, R.,
Sofaer, S. & Conrad, D. A. (2003) 'Sustainability of collaborative capacity in Community Health
Partnerships', Medical Research and Review, vol.60, no.4 pp.130S-160S.
Axelsson, S. B. & Axelsson, R. (2009) 'From territoriality to altruism in interprofessional
collaboration and leadership', Journal of Interprofessional Care, vol.23, no.4 pp.320-330.
Connelly, D. R., Zhang, J. & Faerman, S. (2008) 'The paradoxical nature of collaboration' In:
OLeary, R. & Bingham, L. B. (eds.) Big ideas in collaborative public management. New York:
M.E. Sharpe.
Craig, G., Taylor, M. & Parkes, T. (2004) 'Protest or partnership? The voluntary and
community sectors in the policy process', Social Policy and Administration, vol.38, no.3
pp.221-239.


Cropper, S. (1996) 'Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability' In: Huxham, C. (ed.)
Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage.
Crosby, B. C. & Bryson, J. M. (2005) Leadership for the common good: tackling public
problems in a shared-power world, San-Francisco, Josey-Bass.
Crosby, B. C. & Bryson, J. M. (2010) 'Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance
of cross-sector collaborations', The Leadership Quarterly, vol.21, no.2 pp.211-230.
Davies, N. & Evans, K. (2012) Perfect storms: an analysis of the operating conditions for the
children, young people and families voluntary sector. London: Children England.
Easen, P., Atkins, M. & Dyson, A. (2000) 'Inter-professional collaboration and
conceptualisations of practice', Children and Society, vol.14, no.5 pp.355-367.
Gazley, B. & Brudney, J. (2007) 'The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit
partnership', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.36, no.3 pp.389-416.
Goffman, E. (1990/1959) The presentation of self in everyday life, London, Penguin.
Gray, B. (1985) 'Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboraiton', Human Relations,
vol.38, no.10 pp.911-936.
Hudson, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M. & Wistow, G. (1999) 'In pursuit of inter-agency
collaboration in the public sector', Public Management Review, vol.1, no.2 pp.235-260.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000) 'Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of
collaboration', Human Relations, vol.53, no.6 pp.771-806.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of
collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2014) Collaboration for children: leadership in a complex space. A voluntary
sector perspective. PhD, Open University.
Jones, M. & Liddle, J. (2011) 'Implementing the UK central government's policy agenda for
improved third sector engagement', International Journal of Public Sector Management,
vol.24, no.2 pp.157-171.
Kelly, J. (2007) 'Reforming public services in the UK: bringing in the third sector', Public
Administration, vol.85, no.4 pp.1003-1022.
Lundin, M. (2007) 'Explaining cooperation: how resource interdependence, goal congruence,
and trust affect joint actions in policy implementation', Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, vol.17, no.4 pp.651-672.


Milbourne, L. (2009) 'Remodelling the third sector: advancing collaboration or competition in
community-based initiatives?', Journal of Social Policy, vol.38, no.2 pp.277-297.
Osborne, S. P., Chew, C. & McLaughlin, K. (2008) 'The once and future pioneers? The
innovative capacity of voluntary organisations and the provision of public services: a
longitudinal approach', Public Management Review, vol.10, no.1 pp.51-70.
Ospina, S. & Foldy, E. (2010) 'Building bridges from the margins: the work of leadership in
social change organizations', Leadership Quarterly, vol.21, no.2 pp.292-307.
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973) 'Dilemmas in a general theory of planning', Policy Sciences,
vol.4, 155-69.
Saz-Carranza, A. & Ospina, S. M. (2011) 'The behavioral dimension of governing
interorganizational goal-directed networks - managing the unity-diversity tension', Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, vol.21, no.2 pp.327-365.
Selsky, J. W. & Parker, B. (2010) 'Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective
sensemaking devices for social benefit', Journal of Business Ethics, vol.94, 21-37.
Sullivan, H., Barnes, M. & Matka, E. (2006) 'Collaborative capacity and strategies in area-
based initiatives', Public Administration, vol.84, no.2 pp.289-310.
Trist, E. (1983) 'Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains',
Human Relations, vol.36, no.3 pp.269-284.
Tsasis, P. (2009) 'The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in
nonprofit organizations', Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol.20, no.1 pp.5-21.
Vangen, S. & Huxham, C. (2012) 'The tangled web: unraveling the principle of common goals
in collaborations', Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, vol.22, no.4 pp.731-
760.
Vangen, S. & Winchester, N. (2013) 'Managing cultural diversity', Public Management Review,
vol.In press.
Weber, E. P. & Khademian, A. M. (2008) 'Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and
collaborative capacity builders in network setting.', Public Administration Review, vol.68, no.2
pp.334-349.
Williams, P. (2002) 'The competent boundary spanner', Public Administration vol.80, no.1
pp.103-24.
Williams, P. (2013) 'We are all boundary spanners now?', International Journal of Public
Sector Management, vol.26, no.1 pp.17-32.