Talk:Collaborative governance

Untitled

ekh 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hap22, Mrk34, Lindsey1024988, Ashtonet1, Dng21. Peer reviewers: Mr.Haynes30, Abtrahan, TrishaTidwell, JonathanARodriguez, Denalikervella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

This article presents incomplete and bias information. A more clear definition and multiple sources need to be added for this to be considered a viable resource. A history would be a useful resource as well.

Tkc21 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Old afd

Please note: The previous article which was deleted via afd was substantially different from this one. -- œ^™ 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

This article provides no specific information about the nature of its topic, nor provides any meaningful definition. It appears to be describing the process of representative democracy with extra buzzwords. The fact that it is a WP:Neologism does not help its case for notability. If someone can find a narrow well-sourced definition that explains what "collabarative" means in this context, this article might be salvageable, but "people in government interacting" is far too vague. Forbes72 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just unprodded. Given this Google Books search I incline to think the article shouldn't be deleted without more ado, and doesn't seem to be a neologism. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I just hope it can get a more clear definition. Take this paper, which says:

The field of public administration has undergone a shift in emphasis over the last two decades. Whereas public administration has traditionally been somewhat synonymous with government bureaucracy, that is no longer the case. An emphasis on hierarchy, command-and-control, and top-down management has given way to an emphasis on networks and collaboration...The overarching label that is increasingly used to describe this new paradigm is collaborative governance.

I am concerned that a change in emphasis that has no criteria for what is and is not collaborative governance makes it very difficult to source. Perhaps this is best explained as a political theory about what good governance looks like, rather than a specific form of governance? Forbes72 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly looks more like a theoretical construct than an actual system. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzy.vin. Peer reviewers: Celinewherritt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

This article's introduction needs to be rewritten completely. The writing is very biased and not at all informative. The article could also use section topics that link it to other ideas to make it more relate-able to the readers. Right now because the wording is in a persuasive manner if I would not have previously studied the subject I probably would not know what it is referring to.

Maybe using these articles would help future wikipedians edit the article and do the topic justice.

http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/543.short

and

Title: An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance Authors: Emerson, Kirk; Nabatchi, Tina; Balogh, Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale46txst (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Improvements

I changed some of the persuasive writing style that the article contained. This was a big flagged issue with the article by Wikipedia. I used the current sources to ensure that the information was valid. Ale46txst (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Further Improvements

There will be adding of sections like Advantages and Disadvantages of using collaborative governance practices as well as adding a small history of how collaborative governance came into common practice. The sections, Overview and Effects on Society, will be expanded further with more sited information. All additions will follow wikipedia guidelines and be as neutral and informative as possible. Hap22 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Citations to a new section that I will add - Collaborative Governance in a Developing Context

Murray, Jessica, et al. “Enhancing Participatory Governance and Fostering Active Citizenship: An Overview of Local and International Best Practices.” Politikon, vol. 37, no. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 45–66. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awn&AN=LEIDEN-339585927&site=ehost-live.

Speer, Johanna. “Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services?” World Development, vol. 40, no. 12, Dec. 2012, pp. 2379–2398. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.034.

Bano, Masooda. “Partnerships and the Good-Governance Agenda: Improving Service Delivery Through State–NGO Collaborations.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations: Official Journal of the International Society for Third-Sector Research, vol. 30, no. 6, 2019, p. 1270. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11266-017-9937-y.

Chanani, S, Waingankar, A, Shah More, N, Pantvaidya, S, Fernandez, A, Jayaraman, A. Effectiveness of NGO‐government partnership to prevent and treat child wasting in urban India. Matern Child Nutr. 2019; 15( S1):e12706. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12706

Waheduzzaman, Wahed, et al. “Bureaucratic Readiness in Managing Local Level Participatory Governance: A Developing Country Context.” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 77, no. 2, June 2018, pp. 309–330. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12256. Izzy.vin (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality Evaluation

This article has been rated by Wikipedia as stub-class. Articles with stub class ratings are rated so due to it providing very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. This article presents incomplete and bias information. A more clear definition and multiple sources need to be added and a brief history would be a useful resource as well. The language contains opinions and value statements that are located in the overview that lack a source to support them. There needs to be cited research and real life examples discussed to support the assertion the article makes that the emphasis of public administration has shifted also to support the assertion made about the impacts it has on society. Also to fix the bias in this article there needs to be a section that explores the valid criticism made about the effectiveness of this form of governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng21 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, the article looks very well put together, and organized. I wish that at the beginning it would look more inviting, and user friendly, this is an appearance thing, not a content thing. The opening definition of collaborative governance was clutch, I was able to understand what I was about to be reading, and the material that would be covered, great way to start out the content of the article! The article has a clear thesis saying that collaborative governance is focused on support, leadership, and forum. However, the wikipedia users did not go into much explaining of this. I like the two types of collaborative governance, but you could easily just put that in it's own section. The history section of this article I would say was very well explained and supported it was easy to see where collaborative governance began, and now where it is. There is a lot of sources used in this article which shows variety and diversity of opinion. The references seem to be valid and reliable, there are citations used,and used appropriately. I would say the biggest issue that needs to be addressed is the subjective language used to present the content, there is a message at the topic of the article that alerts readers, and I would say that you should address that before the last revisions and edits of the article. The article however is well written and understandable to readers. I would say just to address the formatting at the top of the article, to make it more inviting and welcoming, also just formatting it so that the different types are in their own sections. I noticed that there are now images on this page, but I think that it would be difficult to incorporate any images appropriately, so I would say it is good that there are none. Overall great job, and good luck making your revisions! Abtrahan (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Peer Review~~

a. Content

A. The article gives a brief overview of what governance entails, and explains how collaborative governance differs in its form of practice.

- The key points as I understand them are: what collaborative governance is, the different type of forms that fall within collaborative governance, the history and what it is derived from, what the upside, and the effects it has in society.

- Yes, the advantages, criticisms, and effects go into sufficient detail in how the leadership and structure of relationships is crucial in these three categories.

- The points described have the proper reference embedded in the article.

B. Yes

- Yes

C. Yes, when observing the references used there are 15 different ones.

- Yes, it gives an unbiased and appropriate tone when discussing the criticisms of collaborative governance. Yes

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

All claims and information seem to be documented and referenced.

The articles has enough references from scholastic journals.

Yes

Yes, there is no ambiguity to it.

No, it has the information from references.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Yes, there is no underlying context or tone that may deem it leaning towards one side or the other.

The article avoids billing opinions as facts.

Yes

The information available that may seem shorter or longer is placed in the appropriate area and where needed. Example are the criticisms and advantages.

Readability

Written well, but one suggestion is possibly given a clear cut definition even though it coincides with the understanding of governance.

Sentences are crafted in clear manner.

Seems to be, but editing more always helps.

I believe it is.

Readability seems to fall in line with recommended level.

B. Yes structure is highlighted by the subheadings.

Well organized

Some info could be broken up into paragraphs to avoid a long statement.

C. Yes,

Yes

D. Don't know personally where in illustration could be appropriate

N/a

N/a

I like how the information has been slated as facts and are given the proper reference to documents. It gives the reader of this page the notion that this info has credible sources.

Just structure the article into a few more paragraphs to avoid reading a long statement.

Jonathan Rodriguez JonathanARodriguez (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article of Collaborative Governance does a great job of explaining how Collaborative Governance evolved and within the overview it allows the reader to understand the difference between Governance and Collaborative Governance. The overview however does not give a clear definition of what Collaborative Governance actually is. Although the overview gives detailed examples it fails to reveal to the reader what Collaborative Governance is. All around the article is phenomenal. During the course of my reading I was able to find three key points: The history, the advantages and the criticisms. These points play a major role in the creating of the article because it allows the reader to understand 1. How Collaborative Governance evolved 2. Why Collaborative Governance has become successful and 3. The criticism behind Collaborative Government because there is always a down side to everything. The contribution to the article definitely includes a sufficient amount of information and core materials that is relevant to this subject. The points are well supported and cited with sufficient references and analysis. This Wikipedia page is a solid foundation of a clear, concise and informative article. TrishaTidwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

The Wikipedia article of Collaborative Governance does a great job of explaining how Collaborative Governance evolved and within the overview it allows the reader to understand the difference between Governance and Collaborative Governance. The overview however does not give a clear definition of what Collaborative Governance actually is. Although the overview gives detailed examples it fails to reveal to the reader what Collaborative Governance is. All around the article is phenomenal. During the course of my reading I was able to find three key points: The history, the advantages and the criticisms. These points play a major role in the creating of the article because it allows the reader to understand 1. How Collaborative Governance evolved 2. Why Collaborative Governance has become successful and 3. The criticism behind Collaborative Government because there is always a down side to everything. The contribution to the article definitely includes a sufficient amount of information and core materials that is relevant to this subject. The points are well supported and cited with sufficient references and analysis. This Wikipedia page is a solid foundation of a clear, concise and informative article. TrishaTidwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is clear in defining Collaborative governance and well sourced. The History section is short and could provide more information on the Consensus Building and Collaborative Network and where these ideas came from. All sections have potential to have links to other Wikipedia pages that are related to this article such as "Collaborative Network" or "Public Administration". This article is well balanced the Advantages section and the Criticisms section both capture different points of view well on this topic as well as the Effects on Society section which seems to be the crossroad of the two prior sections. The article could benefit from having examples of good and bad governance from governments all over the world as well as in the United States. The organization is simple and subsections within sections for clarifying could be used to provide examples. Thus far the article is strong in defining Collaborative governance and different points of view but needs more history of the topic and links to related pages. Mr.Haynes30 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Content: The introduction of this article is very strong, and gives a clear but thorough explanation of a topic I had never heard of. I do think, however that the introduction should begin immediately with the definition of Collaborative Governance rather than a few sentences in. It describes the different types of Collaborative governance, provides a concise history, the pros and cons, and the effect that collaborative governance has on society which I found well researched and interesting although maybe a bit in favor of the concept of collaborative governance. The points are well supported and it appears very well researched. It supports a thesis, which is to explain collaborative governance and includes scholarly support.

Sourcing: All of the facts that needed sources seem to be referenced. After reviewing their references they all look to be both scholarly and legitimate. The language seems to be precise and not misleading and does not conttain any un-sourced opinions that I caught

Neutrality: The article had a neutral point of view and contained both positive interpretations of collaborative governance, and also scholarly criticisms. They did not state assertions as facts, they made sure to indicate that certain points were the opinions of their sources. The advantages and disadvantages of collaborative governance sections were almost the exact same length, helping the article to be neutral.

Readability: I thought that this article was very well written and if anything could be simplified in some areas. I did not notice any grammatical errors or typos, indicating that it was proof-read very well. I think that perhaps this article could be a bit more accessible and less complex, while there is nothing that I did not understand some things could perhaps be explained a bit more or written less formally perhaps. The structure is strong and everything is in its place, if anything there could be more paragraphs and it is formatted properly to WIkipedia. THere were also at least five links that I noticed, which seemed to be sufficeint.

Open Ended Questions: Question 1- I liked their writing, it was really sophisticated and intelligent, definitely seemed to be researched well because it sounded intelligent Question 2- I think that this article could perhaps be longer and I would not mind seeing more real-world examples of collaborative governance, the ones included were interesting.

Denalikervella (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ReasonRank

A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria.

This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.

Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting.Myclob (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Myclob (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References