Abstract
Networking is considered by many analysts (Alford and O’Flynn, 2012; Ferlie et al., 2013) as the most appropriate solution to complex problems (which require better management of interdependencies between the actors involved). Networks are understood as structures of interdependence involving multiple actors that are not in subordinate relations to each other (O’Toole, 1997), which does not exclude the existence of power relationships.
Many of the social issues that we are facing are complex. The ageing of the population is one such issue that raises many challenges in terms of the need for social and health services, the economic condition of seniors, the provision of adequate housing and environments, maintaining self-help and social networks, and managing the impact on the labour market and public finances. The juxtaposition of several other social phenomena (e.g. increased migration flows and the transformation of gender relations) adds to this complexity. The answer to these social problems is the deployment of intersectoral networks that involve actors from different sectors of societal organisation (state, private and civil society), and sectors of public action (e.g. education, health and housing) (Divay et al., 2013). These networks are considered as hybrid networks (Skelcher and Smith, 2015) insofar as they involve actors influenced by different institutional logics. Thornton and Ocasio (1999: 804) define institutional logics as ‘the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’.
Moreover, several analysts (Coaffe and Headlam, 2008) propose that universal models, defined by central governments, cannot be an ‘effective’ solution to the problems facing communities; they tend to advocate an approach, referred to as ‘new localism’, that empowers local governments, which are required to collaborate with different partners to develop pragmatic solutions to the issues that they see as priorities. All of this means that local intersectoral networks are becoming ‘unavoidable’.
Networking is a booming field of study that has given rise to several streams of research in public administration, associated with several concepts: collaborative networks (Agranoff, 2006); collaborative management (Huxham and Vangen, 2005); network governance (Klijn and Edelenbos, 2013); the governance of networks (Provan and Kenis, 2008); collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash, 2008); and collaborative innovation (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011). Several recent reviews of the literature have attempted to identify the main lessons of this research current.
O’Toole (2015) highlights the great progress that has been made in describing networks through social network analysis (Scott, 2017). However, according to this author, there is little consensus on the most ‘important’ characteristics of networks for our understanding of network-based operation. Research into the emergence of networks has helped highlight the role of environmental variables and organisational variables, for example, in relation to the expectations of stakeholders (Andrews, 2011). On the other hand, as pointed out by Provan and Lemaire (2012), more in-depth research is needed to analyse the trajectory of these networks. Beyond the analysis of the concrete forms of action in networks and the factors underlying its emergence, several authors have examined the collaboration within these networks. These studies have mainly addressed the factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration, such as power asymmetries, goal incongruence, ideological conflict and trust issues (Wood and Gray, 1991). They do not make it possible to pinpoint how collaboration emerges and develops (Touati et al., 2016). The few studies that have analysed these processes focused their efforts on a political reading; they show how the mobilisation of different dimensions of power constrains or promotes the emergence of collaboration (Rodriguez et al., 2007; Swan and Scarbrough, 2005).
Finally, what do we know about the effects of network action and network performance? First, as McGuire and Agranoff (2011) show, networking has not always been able to live up to its promises. Moreover, even though several works on network performance exist, focusing on the links between network structure and performance, and, to a lesser extent, between network operation and performance (Heranz, 2014), this field of study is very fragmented. Therefore, ‘no definitive answers from the literature are presently available off the shelf for assessing which structural form is the best for fostering innovations in networks or producing related types of outcomes’ (Turrini et al., 2010). Cristofoli and Markovic (2016), in the light of their empirical work in the field of service networks for the elderly, suggest concentrating more on the complexity of the effects' production processes.
In conclusion, a critical analysis of the state of knowledge shows little progress on certain issues. This argues for an opening of the black box of the social processes underlying the trajectory of networks, their operation and the production of effects. The articles in this special issue strive to do that.
The article by Divay and Slimani proposes an analytical framework of local intersectoral action, based on the example of integrated territorial approaches deployed in Quebec. This framework makes it possible to better understand the operation of networks and their propensity to do away with the silo structure that marks public action through a hybridisation of the different institutional logics. Based on the intersection of two key concepts (integration and hybridisation), this framework leads to a conceptual typology representing specific integration regimes. The authors show that each regime is distinguished by the behaviour of the actors in terms of collaboration, by the style of governance and by the underlying paradigm of action on the milieu. Taking a more dynamic perspective in a second part, the authors set out to answer the following two questions: ‘How does a regime come to dominate?’; and ‘How is the transition from one regime to another explained?’. In this sense, this first article also contributes to a better understanding of the trajectory of networks. In particular, it sheds light on the way in which the institutional convergence regime (the most successful regime in terms of the hybridisation of collective action) emerges and takes shape in the learning of the co-modelling of the environment.
The article by Evans et al. focuses more on these learning dynamics within hybrid networks, using Ontario’s integrated health and social services networks as examples. The importance of a socio-cognitive perspective for a better understanding of the development of collaboration within the networks is no longer in doubt. Drawing on the theory of the shared mental model (Mohammed et al., 2010), the authors highlight the beliefs and thought patterns of the actors involved in the network, exploring, on the one hand, ‘what is integrated, how, why and for whom it is integrated – strategic mental model’ and, on the other hand, ‘the organisations, groups, the individuals involved in the integration of care and services, and how these actors are connected – relationship mental model’. Their analysis thus highlights the divergence of beliefs and thought patterns before going on to show how they can converge over time through the implementation of different strategies that allow learning through action.
Finally, the article by Touati and Maillet tackles the issue of the emergence of innovation within intersectoral action networks. Specifically, it examines the potential of co-creation processes, which refer to the processes of solving common problems through constructive exchanges of different types of knowledge, skills, ideas and resources. By focusing on a particular co-creation mechanism, in this case, strategic communities (SCs), tested in the Quebec health sector, they deal with the following research question: ‘How, and in what context, can co-creation processes in hybrid networks lead to innovative practices?’. SCs are temporary structures of interorganisational collaboration, made up of professionals, first level managers, general practitioners, representatives of community organisations and so on, tasked with generating, implementing and evaluating new ideas about the organisation of inter-institutional work. Based on the Actor-Network Theory (Callon, 1986), the longitudinal case study carried out makes it possible to better understand the conditions that foster innovation within hybrid networks. This symposium is the result of a conference organized by REGARDS, a research team financed by Fonds de recherche société et culture (Quebec).