0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
13 просмотров13 страниц
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
Presented at the 20th Voluntary Sector and Volunteering Research Conference, 10-11 September 2014.
http://www.ncvo.org.uk/training-and-events/research-conference
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 In this policy-driven environment, processes for collaboration are continually introduced, re-shaped, withdrawn, and replaced.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.