ABSTRACT
Gray identified four ways in which her work was distinct from previous work. First, Gray (1985) focuses her analytical attention on the set of relationships present across an interorganizational domain, rather than focusing on a central (or referent) organization. For Gray, all of the relationships in the system are important, not just those involving the referent organization. Second, her work focuses on “underorganized domains” (Gray, 1985, p. 912); those that are not already engaged in highly structured networks
or structures. This allows Gray to address the conditions that might allow the development of collaborative structures. Third, Gray is concerned with settings in which “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973) exist. In Gray’s (1985) terms, these are “. . . domains which cannot be satisfactorily managed by a single organization or by an oligopoly” (p. 913). Wicked problems are thus problems that defy solutions (or even definitions), and that cannot be addressed satisfactorily by single organizations. Finally, Gray’s work examines the set of relationships and behaviors that develop within the setting, from the premise that the set of relationships present defines the domain, rather than assuming that the type of domain present controls the behaviors and relationships present (Gray, 1985, p. 913). From the perspective of hindsight, Gray’s early work arguably proved to be the foundational piece in this stream of literature. She followed the publication of her article four years later with her book Collaborating (1989), which more fully developed the arguments and propositions offered in the initial article, and offered a series of case study vignettes to illustrate her arguments. Gray’s work opened a floodgate of new research, as scholars began to explore more fully the theoretical and practical implications of her ideas. Early in this process, the scholarship began to move away from the explicitly interorganizational underpinnings of Gray’s work, as many scholars approached collaboration as a study of institutional networks. The relatively informal nature of collaboration (when compared to more traditional authoritative interorganizational conceptualizations) lent itself well to a network approach. In this respect: relationships were not governed by an established set of rules; barriers to entry and exit were largely nonexistent; traditional public-sector accountability mechanisms, especially for both resources and outcomes, were inappropriate; and traditional conceptions of leadership were not appropriate for the setting. Personal relationships and connections were important, and power and authority were likely to be shared equally among participants. For these reasons, much of the scholarship in these early years was written by those with a strong interest in network theory. The literature has progressed significantly in the intervening years, and scholars have brought a number of different perspectives to bear on the study of collaboration. Many articles have been written from the perspective of collaborative management (Koontz & Thomas, 2006; Leach, 2006; McNamara, 2012; Selin & Chavez, 1995; see also O’Leary & Bingham, 2009), accountability mechanisms (Bardach & Lesser, 1996; Page, 2004; Romzek, LeRoux, & Blackmar, 2012), goal-setting (Gray, 1989; Wood & Gray, 1991), collaboration as governance (Agranoff & McGuire, 1999; Ansell & Gash, 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2011; Imperial, 2005; Provan & Kenis, 2007), and others. Throughout this period some questions about collaboration have been settled, but many more are left unanswered, and even unasked. The purpose of this volume is to examine the state of knowledge in collaboration theory and
practice; we seek to provide insight into existing ideas and theories of collaboration, determine the state of knowledge in the study of collaboration, identify some of the unasked questions in the field, and offer some thoughts about questions that are at the cutting edge of collaboration research. Finally, we offer some cases to illustrate how these issues translate to help us understand collaborative processes within the public sector.
