Introduction

The studies on inter-organizational relations (IOR) have received significant attention from scholars in recent years, as a result of the increase in the use of cooperative strategies between organisations. The course of said studies has revealed theoretical gaps and pointed to research opportunities (Cropper, Ebers, Huxham, & Ring, 2010), among which the advances in IOR governance stand out. Several concepts such as network governance (Marafioti, Mariani, & Martini, 2014; Provan, Isett, & Milward, 2004; Provan & Milward, 2001) governance networks (Klijn, 2008; Klijn & Skelcher, 2007), network orchestration (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Dollet & Matalobos, 2010), network management (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Möller & Halinen, 1999; Ruffin, 2010; Verschoore, Wegner & Balestrin, 2015) and network coordination (Raeymaeckers & Kenis, 2016; Williams, 2005) have been used to address this topic over the years. Although this myriad of concepts has revealed the importance of the subject, it has also led to the fragmentation of the understanding of governance, which makes academic consensus based on a single guiding theory hard to reach.

It was in this inextricable context that Provan and Kenis (2008) published the article Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management and Effectiveness in an attempt to contribute for the structuring of an actual field of studies and to establish a direction for its evolution. According to the authors, “there has been no theory on the various forms of governance that exist, the rationale for adopting one form versus another, and the impact of each form on network outcomes” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 231). Their article rescued and organised three basic modes of governance (shared governance, lead organisation-governance, and network administrative organisation), established key predictors of effectiveness of network governance forms, and detailed three cardinal tensions in governance (efficiency versus inclusiveness, internal versus external legitimacy, and flexibility versus stability). Its eight propositions examine the characteristics of each form of governance, outline critical contingency components that may explain governance form effectiveness, discuss the tensions inherent in each form of governance and how they can be managed, and explore the evolution of network governance over time (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Despite the fact that network governance finds its roots on earlier studies (Milward & Provan, 2000, 2006; Provan & Milward, 1995) the Provan and Kenis (2008) article has establishing itself as one of the main references in a substantial number of studies on network governance (Isett, Mergel, Leroux, Mischen, & Rethemeyer, 2011).

We nonetheless questioned whether the reputation and influence of the article had been enough to structure and guide the field of research as the authors had intended. This questioning led to other such questions as, “How has the field of network governance evolved in recent years?”, “What advances have been made regarding the propositions of the authors?”, and “Have the modes, contingency factors and tensions of governance become guides for the evolution of the topic?”. Said questions served as a starting point for our research, aiming to identify the advances in the studies of network governance stemming from the propositions presented by Provan and Kenis (2008). To this end, we conducted a meta-study (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009; Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005) combining quantitative and qualitative analyses in the ego network of articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008). Although other meta studies already explored the topic of network governance (e.g. Ansell & Gash, 2008; Dal Molin & Masella, 2015; Pilbeam, Alvarez, & Wilson, 2012) its focus, methods and objectives are different from those in this study.

This paper is organised as follows: section 2 presents a brief overview of the main topics discussed in the article that served as a starting point for our study; section 3 presents the methodological features of our meta-study; section 4 presents the results of the analysis; while section 5 presents the conclusions and directions for future research.

Literature Review

The concept of network governance is understood from different perspectives in inter-organisational studies. A widely shared perspective uses the concept of network governance as an alternative form of organisation of economic activities (Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998; Powell, 1990) and strives to understand in which situations this form of governance is preferable to markets and hierarchies (Jones, Hesterly, & Borgatti, 1997). Another line of research endeavours to comprehend how the governance of inter-organisational networks occurs and what its effects on the efficacy of initiatives are (Provan & Kenis, 2008). From this perspective, governance refers to the way in which the network is structured and organised, to its regulatory and decision-making mechanisms, and to how it guarantees the interests of its members and assures the fulfilment of the established norms by both managers and participants.

In this line, Provan and Kenis (2008) identified three basic modes of network governance from which hybrid modes can be generated. The simplest mode is the shared governance, where a group of organisations works collectively as a network despite not possessing a structure of exclusive and formal management. The second mode is the lead organisation-governance, which typically occurs in relationships formed by a bigger, more powerful organisation and a set of lesser, weaker firms (Provan & Kenis, 2008). The third mode is the network administrative organisation, where an administrative entity is created specially to manage the network and its activities.

According to Provan and Kenis (2008) proposal, four contextual factors act as key predictors of effectiveness of network governance modes: the level of trust among network members, the number of participants, the level of goal consensus, and the need for network- level competencies (Figure 1). The relationship between these predictors should enable the identification of the mode of governance best suited to the network, as no one mode of governance is necessarily superior in every situation.

Figure 1.
Key Predictors of the Effectiveness of Network Governance Modes

Source: Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness (p. 237). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.

Governance Mode	Trust	Number of Participants	Goal Consensus	Need for Network Level Competencies
Shared governance	High density	Few	High	Low
Lead organization	Low density, highly centralized	Moderate number	Moderately low	Moderate
Network administra-tive organization	Moderate density, NAO monitored by members	Moderate number	Moderately high	High

However, choosing the best mode of governance is not a guarantee of success. As stated by Provan and Kenis (2008), “network managers operating within each form must recognize and respond to three basic tensions, or contradictory logics, that are inherent in network governance”. These tensions refer to the efficiency of the network versus the inclusiveness of its members in decisions and deliberative activities, to the internal versus external legitimacy of the network, and to the flexibility versus stability of the network. The management of these tensions is critical to the efficacy of the network: “Despite the absence of empirical research on how these three tensions occur regarding network governance, they are an essential, but problematic, aspect of network management” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 246).

The fourth topic discussed by the authors refers to network evolution. When there is a discrepancy between the mode of governance chosen for the network and one or more of the critical contingencies, adopting a different mode of governance is a viable option. Provan and Kenis (2008, p. 246) argue that the change from one mode of governance to another is predictable, “depending on which form is already in place”. Evolution from shared governance to a more brokered mode is far more likely to occur than vice-versa. Therefore, it is not expected that lead organisation-governed and NAO-led networks should shift to shared governance at any given time, primarily due to the level of formalisation and stability of the first forms.

The set of topics discussed by Provan and Kenis (2008) has been summarized in eight propositions that we present in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Propositions of Provan and Kenis (2008)

Source: Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness (p. 241). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.

Propositions regarding the four contingency and modes of governance: P1) The greater the inconsistency between critical contingency factors and a particular governance form (both in terms of the number of inconsistent factors and the extent to which these factors are inconsistent with characteristics of the governance form), the less likely that that particular form will be effective, leading either to overall network ineffectiveness, dissolution, or change in governance form. P2) Shared network governance will be most effective for achieving network-level outcomes when trust is widely shared among network participants (high-density, decentralized trust), when there are relatively few network participants, when network-level goal consensus is high, and when the need for network-level competencies is low. P3) Lead organization network governance will be most effective for achieving network level outcomes when trust is narrowly shared among network participants (low-density, highly centralized trust), when there are a relatively moderate number of network participants, when network-level goal consensus is moderately low, and when the need for network-level competencies is moderate. P4) NAO network governance will be most effective for achieving network-level outcomes when trust is moderately to widely shared among network participants (moderate density trust), when there are a moderate number to many network participants, when network-level goal consensus is moderately high, and when need for network-level competencies is high.

Propositions regarding the tensions in each governance mode: P5) Networks face a tension between the need for administrative efficiency and inclusive decision making. In shared-governance networks, the tension will favor inclusion; in lead organization–governed networks, the tension will favor efficiency; and in NAO-governed networks, the tension will be more balanced but favor efficiency. P6) Networks face a tension between the need for internal and external legitimacy. In shared-governance networks, the tension will favor internal legitimacy; in lead organization–governed networks, the tension will favor external legitimacy; and in NAO-governed networks, both sides of the tension will be addressed but in a sequential fashion. P7) Networks face a tension between the need for flexibility and the need for stability. In shared-governance networks, the tension will favor flexibility; in NAO- and lead organization–governed networks, the tension will favor stability.

Proposition regarding the evolution of the modes of governance: P8) Assuming network survival over time, as network governance changes, it is likely to evolve in a predictable pattern from shared governance to a more brokered form and from participant governed to externally (NAO) governed. Evolution from shared governance to either brokered form is significantly more likely than evolution from a brokered form to shared governance. Once established, evolution from an NAO to another form is unlikely (i.e., inertia is strongest when the governance form is more formalized).

This set of modes, key predictors and tensions reverberated positively in the studies of network governance, as evidenced by the fast growth in the number of citations received by the article since its publication in 2008. However, the impact of its propositions on the consolidation of the field of research had not yet been assessed. In the next section, the methodology that guided both this study and the procedures of the meta-study is presented.

Methodology

We decided to analyse the evolution of the research on network governance by means of a meta-study (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009; Dixon-Woods et al., 2005) supported on the theoretical propositions developed by Provan and Kenis (2008). We based this choice both on the aim of the article to structure the field of research and on its recent influence, which is denoted by the large number of citations it has received in the searched databases. We adopted two complementary approaches for the analysis of the articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008). By means of the quantitative approach, we carried out an egocentric social network analysis (SNA) (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). And by using the qualitative approach, we concentrated on the articles that indicated an intent to further the propositions of Provan and Kenis (2008). The procedures of collection and analysis used with the two approaches are described below.

We initiated the collection of articles by limiting our research base to the Web of Science. The type of material (article) and the database (main collection of the Web of Science) were defined as limiting search parameters. Our search, carried out in June 2015, found 224 articles published between the years of 2008 and 2015. In order to understand how the homogeneity in the field (Borgatti et al., 2013; Mizruchi & Marquis, 2006) is established, we carried out an SNA using the ego network of articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008) as a level of analysis. For the purposes of our study, ego networks were defined as networks consisting of a single actor (ego) together with the actors it is connected to (alters) and all the links among those alters (Everett & Borgatti, 2005). We organised a quadratic matrix with the 224 articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008) and connected the citations between them in a binary fashion. We utilised the software Ucinet v. 6.5 to analyse the degree of centrality of the articles, treating the data as directional (Freeman, 1978; Marsden, 2002). And we utilised the software Netdraw v. 2.15 to graphically represent the result. The resulting random sociogram excluded many articles of the network because they neither cited nor were cited by the others. For this reason, said articles were excluded from its presentation. We adapted the visualisation of the results, making each node’s size equivalent to its index of degree centrality in order to highlight the articles most referenced to in the ego network of Provan and Kenis (2008).

Through the qualitative approach, a selection of the articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008) both in the introduction and in the discussion of results was carried out. This selection was based on two arguments key to the generation of relevant contributions to the subject: first, the problematisation put forward in the introduction should refer to one of the main issues raised by Provan and Kenis (2008); second, the discussion of results should provide an answer to the issue analysed, highlighting where and how the proposed contribution is presented. On the basis of these arguments, we postulated that articles that propose to further a specific topic developed by Provan and Kenis (2008) ought to present the chosen topic in the introduction and demonstrate their contributions in the results.

This approach identified 37 articles, which were then distributed to the authors of this study for the reading and analysis of contents in accordance with meta-study procedures (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005). Each researcher organised in a table the advances made by each article along with its objectives, theoretical bases, hypotheses, propositions, methods, procedures, results, contributions, research directions and limitations. The analyses were presented and debated during the four meetings of alignment and selection. From the 37 read articles, just 10 were selected for in-depth analysis because only these articles effectively advanced the propositions presented by Provan and Kenis (2008). Although the remaining 27 articles have met the criteria abovementioned, they have not presented any theoretical advance to the original propositions. The small number of selected articles makes us aware about the large number of articles that cited Provan and Kenis (2008) only as a “ceremonial citation” (Webb & Weick, 1979). A ceremonial citation is one that cited Provan and Kenis (2008) but engaged in no discussion of their work in the theoretical argument or empirical analysis.

The map of the recent evolution in the field of network governance, the advances regarding the propositions of Provan and Kenis (2008) and the modes, contingency factors and tensions of governance will be presented next.

Results

The result of the SNA enabled the detailing of the network governance field stemming from the article of Provan and Kenis (2008). The influence of the article has grown since 2008, as it was to be expected. It received 3 citations in 2008; 11 in 2009; 22 in 2010; 26 in 2011; 43 in 2012; 39 in 2013; 52 in 2014 and 28 until July 2015. This means that 72.32% of the citations of the article occurred between 2012 and 2015, which demonstrates the snowball effect of its influence in a similar fashion to other contexts (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015). The citation network comprises 103 of the 224 articles. This means that the remaining 121 articles cite Provan and Kenis (2008), but neither cite nor are cited by the other articles citing Provan and Kenis (2008). Thus, among the 103 articles that comprise the ego network of our study, 75 cite another article of the network, 41 are cited by other articles and 13 simultaneously cite and are cited by at least one of the 103 articles. Figure 3 illustrates the result of the connections between the 103 articles of the ego network.

Figure 3.
Social network of reviewed articles

The result of the SNA indicates that the field of network governance has evolved in a scattered fashion, given the low density of the network formed (D=0.002). Conversely, considering the small group of articles relatively more cited and the connections between the articles that cite them and are also cited, it is possible to assert that the field stemming from the work of Provan and Kenis (2008) has advanced significantly on the path of the governance of both public institution and civil society arrangements.

This advance is made clear by the indices of degree centrality of the articles. Two articles stand out, as it is possible to see by the sizes of their nodes in Figure 3. The first one is an article from the same authors (Provan & Kenis, 2008) which furthers the topic of public network performance evaluation. The second is fruit of the Minnowbrook III Conference and it debates the challenges that public network scholars face in the field, contemplating both theoretical and methodological issues (Isett et al., 2011). The other nine highly interconnected articles in Provan and Kenis (2008) ego network, which also discuss the network governance of public institutions, were published in periodicals such as the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory and the Public Management Review (Binz-Scharf, Lazer, & Mergel, 2012; Head, 2008; Milward, Provan, Fish, Isett, & Huang, 2009; Moynihan, 2009; Newig, Günther, & Pahl-Wostl, 2010; Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010; Provan, Huang, & Milward, 2009; Willem & Gemmel, 2013). Appendix 1 presents a synthesis of the most central articles in the ego network of Provan and Kenis (2008).

By means of the qualitative approach of our research, the 37 selected articles were analysed in search of evidence that indicated advances regarding the propositions of Provan and Kenis (2008). Of this set, only 10 articles effectively made contributions related to the modes of governance, critical contingency factors, tensions and evolution of governance. In this group of articles, the analysis of networks of the public sector, such as policy networks, health care networks and crisis response networks also prevailed. These articles, much in the same way as the ones identified by the SNA, were published mainly in journals with emphasis on public administration such as the Public Administration Review, the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, the Public Administration, Policy and Society and the Health Care Management Review.

Some of these 10 studies expanded the comprehension of the governance modes proposed by Provan and Kenis (2008). Among them, Newig et al. (2010) verified that while networks with highly centralised governance are well suited for the efficient transmission of information, they are also less resilient in cases of abrupt changes. More recently, Duncan and Schoor (2015) extended the concept of shared governance to the context of distributed organisations. A distributed organisation is an organisation that works across temporal, geographic, political, and cultural boundaries. This was an actual contribution to Provan and Kenis (2008) because their concept was extended to a context in which it had not originally been considered.

Other authors decided on confronting the governance mode adopted by a given network with its effective characteristics (Binkhorst & Kingma, 2012). On the basis of the problems found in the analysed network, the study of these two authors concluded which other modes of governance would be best suited to deal with the reality of the network. In this same line, Howlett and Ramesh (2014) put forth the concept of “governance failures” to describe situations that arise when the essential requirements of a governance mode are not met or when a mode is fundamentally misaligned with the problem that it is meant to tackle. The results of these two studies also generate indirect contributions to the understanding of the critical contingency factors that have to be considered for the adoption of the governance mode best suited to each network, in accordance with Provan and Kenis (2008). A more specific contribution on this subject was presented by Ysa, Sierra and Esteve (2014). The authors verified, by means of a model of structural equations, that network management has a strong effect on network outcomes.

The tensions of governance were only addressed by three studies. In the first one, Casey and Lawless (2011) use governance tensions as a lens to observe a critical failure event in a food inspection network in Ireland. The authors concluded that the problems of the network were caused by communication failure resulting from the tension generated by the search for legitimacy. In the second study, Enqvist, Tengo and Bodin (2014) describe the functioning of a citizen network engaged in environmental issues in India. Their research showed that the activities of the network had been influenced by tensions between inclusiveness and efficiency, and between internal and external legitimacy. The results of these two studies reinforce the existence of tensions in governance – as foreseen by Provan and Kenis (2008) – and show the impact of said tensions on the effectiveness of networks. Furthermore, Saz-Carranza and Ospina (2010) identified a fourth tension (unity versus diversity) and showed that the staff of network administrative organisations use three mechanisms to address this tension: bridging, framing and capacitating.

Finally, some of the studies also contributed for a better understanding of governance evolution. Provan, Beagles and Leischow (2011) examined how collaborative networks of health organisations are formed and evolve. Their results show how the emergence of the network and its formalisation into an NAO-governance structure occur through a process of coevolution. Provan and Huang (2012) analysed how whole networks evolve and whether distinct structures of relationship remain stable over time. The results demonstrate that the tangibility of the resources predicts the extension of interactions in the network, and that network performance increases as the control of resources becomes more centralised. The study of Moynihan (2009) presented results different from the ones foreseen by Provan and Kenis (2008) regarding the evolution of governance. The author analysed Incident Command Systems (ICS) – crisis response networks – in the USA and identified that ICSs alternate between more or less centralised forms of governance, consistent with the demands of the task. Network governance did not evolve gradually, as foreseen by Provan and Kenis (2008), but cyclically, changing rapidly in response to the environmental conditions that originated the tasks. Appendix 2 presents a synthesis of the contributions of these ten articles to the theoretical propositions of Provan and Kenis (2008).

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Provan and Kenis made a significant effort in attempting to organise the complex and diversified field of network governance and guide future advances and contributions. Our results revealed, however, that most of the articles that cite them only do it to refer to the term “network governance” or to indicate the mode of governance used by the researched networks. Even the articles that demonstrate centrality in this analysis did not advance consistently in proposing frameworks to analyze network governance. Contributions to the original proposal, identified in our meta-study, are limited to specific aspects of the modes, tensions, and evolution of governance. Strong emphasis was verified in the study of networks linked to the public sector, likely resulting from the publication of the original paper in a journal– the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory – with this very orientation.

The joint analysis of the articles enables us to assert that, in spite of their growing influence, the ideas set forth in Provan and Kenis (2008) article have not yet produced the effect of consolidating the envisioned field. Three pieces of evidence support this affirmation: First, the results of the SNA reveal that most of the articles that cite Provan and Kenis (2008) do not form a dense co-citation network. This shows that the contributions of these articles are not strongly connected. Second, the works analysed qualitatively do not attempt to further the propositions introduced by Provan and Kenis (2008), indicating that the evolution of research on network governance has not followed the path proposed by the authors. Third, the concepts developed by Provan and Kenis (2008) have received marginal attention, which can be an indication that their work serves as reference to subjects foreign to the concepts formulated by them. A fourth possible evidence of the non-consolidation of the field is the scarcity of works that oppose, question or offer alternatives to the propositions presented by Provan and Kenis (2008). Rather than signalling the consolidation of a field, the scarcity of criticism of a given work indicates that it did not invite a critical, in-depth examination. The absence of investigations of this type, common to other works that guide academic communities, also demonstrates the need for consolidation of the network governance field.

On the basis of the analyses carried out, we suggest topics that could contribute for advances in the field of network governance for future research. Regarding the forms of governance identified by Provan and Kenis (2008), there are still no studies on the existence of hybrid modes. Moreover, the pieces of research examined were concentrated upon the three modes of governance and their effectiveness. Other variables that could be affected by governance, such as inter-organisational learning (Mariotti, 2012; Verschoore & Balestrin, 2011), collaborative innovation (Dagnino, Levanti, Minà, & Picone, 2015; Howard, Steensma, Lyles, & Dhanaraj, 2015) and social innovation (Franz, Hochgerner, & Howaldt, 2012), were not considered. The literature was also practically silent regarding the effectiveness of governance by a lead organisation. We suggest, therefore, that studies enabling the expansion of the understanding of this governance mode be carried out. This gap in literature also raises the following question: could the State or public institutions act as lead organisations for public or public-private networks? If so, which similarities and differences would there be in relation to networks governed by lead organisations in the private context?

There is also scope for further investigation of the critical contingencies that determine the choice of the most effective mode of governance. The results of our research show that no integrative study testing the four factors indicated by Provan and Kenis (2008) in respect to the modes of governance was carried out. Thus, new questions such as the following can be raised: How are these four factors interrelated and do they affect the effectiveness of the network governance? Are there other contingency factors that explain the effectiveness of the modes of governance? Does the effect of these factors vary according to the form of the network? There is also a clear potential for research on network tensions. Our evidence indicates that these tensions have not been thoroughly addressed in the examined studies, deserving, therefore, more attention from researchers. Thus, we raise other questions to be studied: Do the three types of tension reveal themselves simultaneously in inter-organisational networks? Do governance tensions truly represent an obstacle for the effectiveness of the network? How can the negative effect of governance tensions on the effectiveness of networks be minimised?

Finally, we recommend that research in network governance be directed to more specific levels of analysis, with the detailing (and understanding) of the mechanisms that inter- organisational networks use to operationalise each of the three modes of governance. Research at this level of analysis can generate significant contributions for network governance, indicating how networks effectively implement a shared governance mode, a network administrative organisation or a governance by lead organisation. We believe that, as well as generating theoretical contributions, studies in this direction can bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners, indicating more specific manners of governing public and private networks and increasing their effectiveness. In view of the complexity of networks and their playing an increasingly important role in the most varied sectors, enhancing the comprehension of network governance remains a relevant challenge for the organisational field.

We also have to recognize some limitations of our study. Firstly, our research focused solely on articles published until July 2015. It is reasonable to believe that since then new studies have advanced with regard to the modes of network governance. We strongly recommend other researchers to analyse the studies that cited Provan and Kenis (2008) after 2015 and discuss the results they achieved. Second, the ego network approach on the article of Provan and Kenis (2008) is also a limitation of this study. In spite of the great relevance of their article for this subject, we recognise that research on network governance is developing beyond Provan and Kenis (2008) contribution. As we highlight in the introduction, there are different conceptions of governance and different conceptions of network that widen the possibilities of study in this field. However, the consolidation of a field of research is usually strengthened by articles that attempt, in one way or another, to organise it. Although the results of our research do not attest to such consolidation, the advance of knowledge in the area is undisputed, especially in respect to public network governance. Further research can apply different strategies to show how network governance subject path develops, such as bibliometric approaches, citation/co-citation analysis, meta-analysis and research synthesis. We hope that the results analysed here contribute to a better understanding of this topic and assist in directing future research.

References

Agranoff, R., & MCguire, M. 2001. Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 59–59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

Binkhorst, J., & Kingma, S. F. (2012). Safety vs. reputation: risk controversies in emerging policy networks regarding school safety in the Netherlands. Journal of Risk Research, 15(8), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.686049

Binz-Scharf, M. C., Lazer, D., & Mergel, I. (2012). Searching for Answers Networks of Practice Among Public Administrators. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011398956

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Casey, D. K., & Lawless, J. S. (2011). The parable of the poisoned pork: Network governance and the 2008 Irish pork dioxin contamination. Regulation & Governance, 5(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2011.01113.x

Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dagnino, G. B., Levanti, G., Minà, A., & Picone, P. M. (2015). Interorganizational network and innovation: a bibliometric study and proposed research agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(3/4), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2013-0032

Dal Molin, M., & Masella, C. (2016). Networks in policy, management and governance: a comparative literature review to stimulate future research avenues. Journal of Management & Governance, 20(4), 823-849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9329-x

Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal Of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110

Dollet, J.-N., & Matalobos, A. D. (2010). Network orchestration in response to customized mass markets of premium wines and spirits. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 11(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2010.11517226

Duncan, C. M., & Schoor, M. A. (2015). Talking across boundaries: A case study of distributed governance. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(3), 731-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9453-2

Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z

Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., & Bodin, Ö. (2014). Citizen networks in the Garden City: Protecting urban ecosystems in rapid urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.007

Everett, M., & Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Ego network betweenness. Social Networks, 27(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.007

Franz, H.-W., Hochgerner, J., & Howaldt, J. (Eds.). (2012). Challenge social innovation: Potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4

Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

Head, B. W. (2008). Assessing network-based collaborations: effectiveness for whom? Public Management Review, 10(6), 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802423087

Howard, M., Steensma, H. K., Lyles, M., & Dhanaraj, C. (2015). Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), 2092-2103. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2424

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.002

Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., Leroux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq061

Jones, C., HESTERLY, W. S., & BORGATTI, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022109

Klijn, E.-H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802263954

Klijn, E.-H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x

Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00103

Marafioti, E., Mariani, L., & Martini, M. (2014). Exploring the effect of network governance models on health-care systems performance. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(13), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.944993

Mariotti, F. (2012). Exploring interorganizational learning: a review of the literature and future directions. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(4), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1395

Marsden, P. V. (2002). Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Social Networks, 24(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00016-3

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024273

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Milward, H. B., Provan, K. G., Fish, A., Isett, K. R., & Huang, K. (2009). Governance and collaboration: An evolutionary study of two mental health networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(suppl_1), i125-i141. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup038

Mizruchi, M. S., & Marquis, C. (2006). Egocentric, sociocentric, or dyadic?: Identifying the appropriate level of analysis in the study of organizational networks. Social Networks, 28(3), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.06.002

Möller, K. K., & Halinen, A. (1999). Business relationships and networks:: Managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00086-3

Moynihan, D. P. (2009). The network governance of crisis response: Case studies of incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 895–915. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun033

Newig, J., Günther, D., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010). Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03713-150424

Ospina, S. M., & Saz-carranza, A. (2010). Paradox and collaboration in network management. Administration & Society, 42(4), 404–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710362723

Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G., & Wilson, H. (2012). The governance of supply networks: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management, 17(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211246512

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.

Provan, K. G., Beagles, J. E., & Leischow, S. J. (2011). Network formation, governance, and evolution in public health: The North American Quitline Consortium case. Health care management review, 36(4), 315. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e31820e1124

Provan, K. G., Huang, K., & Milward, H. B. (2009). The evolution of structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed health and human services network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun036

Provan, K. G., Isett, K. R., & Milward, H. B. (2004). Cooperation and compromise: A network response to conflicting institutional pressures in community mental health. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004265718

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393698

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00045

Raeymaeckers, P., & Kenis, P. (2016). The influence of shared participant governance on the integration of service networks: A comparative social network analysis. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 397–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1062443

Ruffin, F. A. (2010). Collaborative network management for urban revitalization: The business improvement district model. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 459–487. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576330308

Ysa, T., Sierra, V., & Esteve, M. (2014). Determinants of network outcomes: The impact of management strategies. Public administration, 92(3), 636-655. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12076

Verschoore, J. R., & Balestrin, A. (2011). Outcomes in small-firm networks: a quantitative study in the Southern Brazilian context. In: Johanson M., Lundberg H. (eds) Network Strategies for Regional Growth. (pp. 79-99). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299146_5

Verschoore, J. R., Wegner, D., & Balestrin, A. (2015). The evolution of collaborative practices in small-firm networks: a qualitative analysis of four Brazilian cases. International Journal of Management Practice, 8(2), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2015.071691

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478

Willem, A., & Gemmel, P. (2013). Do governance choices matter in health care networks?: an exploratory configuration study of health care networks. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-229

Williams, T. (2005). Cooperation by design: structure and cooperation in interorganizational networks. Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00497-6

Appendix 1: Central articles identified by the SNA

Article	Objective	Object of analysis	Method	Contributions
(2) Head (2008)	To offer alternatives for the assessment of public network performance.	Public networks/governance networks	Theoretical essay	It criticises the literature on the assessment of public network performance based on service outcomes and proposes an assessment based on the network processes and their relationships. It defends flexible forms of assessment of governance networks.
(7) Moynihan (2009)	To categorise networks of Incident Command Systems (ICS) regarding their organisational form and to identify how network characteristics influence their operations.	Incident Command Systems (ICS), crisis response networks	Secondary data on crisis management such as the attack to the Pentagon, hurricane Katrina and urban fires in the USA	ICSs alternate between more or less centralised forms of governance, consistent with the demands of the task. Network governance does not evolve gradually, as foreseen by Provan and Kenis (2008), but cyclically, changing rapidly in response to the environmental conditions that originate the tasks.
(8) Provan et al. (2009)	It examines the relationship between network and social outcomes (organisational trustworthiness, reputation, and influence). It extends the work of Huang and Provan (2007a).	Health and human services network	Quantitative longitudinal	Network embeddedness is positively related to social indicators (trustworthiness, reputation and influence)
(10) Kenis and Provan (2009)	To offer insights into the complexity of assessing the performance of public networks.	Public networks	Theoretical essay	It organises the literature on the assessment of public networks and presents three exogenous factors of assessment: type of network governance, type of inception, and developmental stage of the network.
(16) Ospina and Saz-Carranza (2010)	To understand how leaders of successful networks manage the challenges of collaboration.	Two successful urban immigration networks in the United States	Qualitative interpretative research with narrative inquiry	It demonstrates how the leaders of the coordinating units of immigration networks promote common objectives while stimulating collaboration by means of internal and external activities. By giving simultaneous attention to internal and external activities, the leaders faced the tensions inherent to the contradictory interests of network collaboration.
(18) Newig et al. (2010)	To defend the argument that ‘whether or not governance is conducted in networks makes a crucial difference’ for individual and collective learning and, indirectly, for the ‘quality’ of governance outcomes.	Networks in the field of environmental management	Theoretical essay	Characteristics of the network, such as density, centralisation, or the strength of ties can have different effects on learning. Networks with highly centralised governance are well suited for the efficient transmission of information, but are also less resilient in cases of abrupt changes.
Milward et al (2009)	To verify if the sector, the level of trust between collaborating agencies, and differences in the structure and evolution of networks generate, over time, a variation in the performance level.	Two mental health care networks in the USA	Longitudinal study	Although the two networks were governed by NAOs with distinct characteristics (a non-profit agency and a private firm), there were no significant differences in performance.
(47) Isett et al. (2011)	The article is centred on the challenges that network scholars face in the discipline, discussing basic theoretical questions, knowledge of formal and informal networks and methodological issues.	Governance networks	Theoretical essay	It proposes four directions for research: to include contributions of other fields (sociology/admin); to approach technical disciplines such as statistics; to carry out meta- studies of network cases; and to seek greater involvement with practitioners.
(66) Binz- Scharf et al. (2012)	It examines when and how informal interpersonal networks emerge from the need for knowledge, and how public managers make use of these networks.	Public sector networks	Interviews with 33 individuals from 30 government DNA labs	It identifies that the informal network is strong, but that it also has a powerful link to the existing hierarchic structure (FBI possesses intense control). The informal network is limited by this hierarchic structure.
(11) Willem and Gemmel (2013)	To explore the type and importance of governance structure and governance mechanisms for network effectiveness.	22 health networks	Multiple case study	Governance mechanisms (relational, contractual and hierarchical) appear to be complementary rather than substitutes (no conflict). Low levels of legitimacy or of relational governance seem to occur frequently in less efficient networks.

Appendix 2: Articles that contributed for the discussion on Provan and Kenis (2008)

Article	Objective	Object of analysis	Method	Contributions
Raab et al. (2015)	To explore how the structure, the context and the governance of a network relate to its effectiveness.	39 crime prevention networks (safety houses) in the Netherlands	Ten cases were subjected to in- depth analysis through documentation reviews, interviews, observations, and a survey among network participants. In the other 29 cases, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the network managers.	The field requires new research models that consider the complexity of networks and identify causal combinations which can explain the outcomes. The effectiveness of their model needs to be researched in other types of network.
Ysa et al. (2014)	To evaluate the effect of management strategies on the results of the networks.	119 urban renewal public policy networks in Spain	Survey with 342 individual stakeholders involved in the networks	Network management and trust directly affect network results. A facilitating leadership positively affects management and trust. Complexity negatively affects trust and does not affect management.
Howlett and Ramesh (2014)	To revisit the concept of governance and propose a framework that highlights the role played by context, capacity and design in the effectiveness of each mode.	Governance networks	Theoretical essay	The article puts forth the concept of ‘governance failures’, which is useful to describe the situations that occur when the essential requirements of a governance mode are not met or when a mode is fundamentally misaligned with the problem that it is meant to tackle.
Binkhorst and Kingma (2012)	To analyse how school safety can actually be assessed and managed within the policy network.	Policy networks for school safety in the Netherlands	case study - 16 interviews with the network of organisations involved in the policy-making and construction of risks in relation to school safety	The article identifies the form of governance adopted by the network (participant-governed network), confronts it with the ideal setting for the application of the mode of governance in effect, and , on the basis of the existing issues, concludes which other form of governance would be better suited to the network’s reality (lead organisation network or NAO).
Duncan and Schoor (2015)	To examine governance in distributed organisations.	Distributed non- profit organisations	Case study ; a distributed organisation is an organisation that works across temporal, geographic, political, and cultural boundaries	It carries the concept of ‘shared governance’ from Provan and Kenis (2008) to the context of governance in distributed organisations. It can be seen as a theoretical contribution, given that it extends Provan and Kenis’s (2008) concept to a context in which it was not conceived.
Casey and Lawless (2011)	The paper addresses the question of why governance networks can fail.	Governance networks	Case study of the 2008 contamination of Irish pork with dioxins	The tension between internal and external legitimacy appeared to have a significant effect on why important yet incomplete information had not been exchanged at an earlier stage of the incident.
Enqvist et al. (2014)	This paper describes a citizen network engaged in environmental issues in Bangalore, India, where rapid urbanisation puts pressure on conventional management structures as well as the ecosystems providing benefits for the city’s inhabitants.	A citizen network created in Bangalore, India	Qualitative interviews and social network analysis	The network’s activities are influenced by internal tensions between inclusiveness and efficiency, and between internal and external legitimacy.
Provan et al. (2011)	How collaborative networks of health organisations are formed and evolve, especially outside a local, community-based setting.	NAQC case	The research draws on data from interviews, documents, and a survey with NAQC members	The paper shows how the emergence of the network and its formalisation into an NAO governance structure occur through a process of coevolution. This conclusion is generally consistent with the findings of Human and Provan (2000)
Provan and Huang (2012)	It analyses how whole networks evolve and whether distinct structures of relationship remain stable over time, as changes occur in the environment and despite the growth and maturing of the network.	A mandated mental care health network in the USA	social networks analysis - Two data collections with a four-year gap between them	The tangibility of the resources can be used to predict the standard and the extension of interactions in the network. There is evidence that the performance of the network increases when the control of resources becomes more centralised.
Saz-Carranza and Ospina (2010)	The study aims to identify what activities the members of NAOs perform to address the unity-diversity tension when effectively governing the whole network.	Four case studies of non-profit networks that promote immigrant rights in the USA	Study one was based on in-depth interviews with staff and stakeholders of member organisations of two immigrant networks (12 persons interviewed); Study two collected additional data on the same networks and added two new cases	The study indicates a fourth tension in network governance (unity versus diversity) and shows that the staff of network administrative organisations use three mechanisms to address this (network level) managerial tension: bridging, framing and capacitating.

Author notes