Through a systematic literature review conducted with the PRISMA method (Liberati et al., 2019), our aim in this paper is to explore the various roles, levels and forms of conflicts in collaborative governance literature. We seek to offer an in-depth understanding about the practices of collaborative governance, complementing the paradigm of collaborative governance and contributing to various to the streams of literature where collaborative governance is explored in practice, such as co-production and co-creation, as well as boundary-work and professionalism. 

Collaborative governance is one of the fuzzy concepts in the field of public administration, and it has been used both as a policy as well as an academic concept (Batory & Svensson, 2019). Ansell and Gash (2008, p. 544) describe collaborative governance as “a governing arrangement where … public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders”. Following Emerson et al., (2012, p. 2) collaborative governance is seen as a construct that emerges when people are transcending ‘the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished’. Yet, the conceptual discussion could still benefit from a systematic understanding about the practices of collaborative governance, which often include conflicting aims and practices (Bianchi, Nasi & Rivenbark, 2021).

We view conflicts are an inseparable aspect of collaborative governance, where various and multiple stakeholders with different backgrounds, values and motivations are brought together to meet increasingly complex phenomena, such as austerity in ageing societies, or societal exclusion. This creates a need for decision-makers, public managers and scholars to deal with a profound paradox: on one hand, there is a strong quest for collaboration, but on the other hand, the more there are stakeholders collaborating, the more there are conflicts (Rossi & Tuurnas 2021). Thus, conflicts are integral to multi-actor collaboration and organizational life, foster development and even innovation, and should not be avoided or tamed down (Rossi, 2021). 

Through a systematic literature review we aim to identify practices underlying conflicts in collaborative governance, contributing to understanding on how to ‘successfully lead, manage and govern’ collaboration between different sets of actors (Cristofoli, Meneguzzo, and Riccucci 2017). Accordingly, we contribute to the panel theme, especially concerning Drivers and barriers to success in cross-sectoral relations and collaborations as well as The relevance of network leadership, governance, and/or management for successful public value cocreation; and The relations between network contextual, structural, functioning features, and network leadership.

Biodiversity loss is one of the most important challenges of our time. Agricultural practices are a major contributor to biodiversity loss, and thus will need to transform if we are to address it. For instance, through agricultural practices, natural habitats are converted into intensely managed monocultures, including pollutants and overdoses of fertilizers (McLauglin and Mineau, 1995; Dudley and Alexander, 2017). To effectively change these practices, we argue that innovations need to be developed in close collaboration with involved stakeholders, rather than implement policy measures in a top-down fashion. In effect, changes in agricultural practices need to be the result of social innovations. We approach social innovation as a process that aims to create outcomes through an open participation, exchange, and collaboration process with relevant stakeholders, thereby crossing traditional boundaries between organizations and jurisdictions (e.g. Hartley 2005; Bason 2010; Osborne and Brown, 2011). However, organizing such an open and collaborative process to address complex societal issues (such as biodiversity loss) may be very challenging. This paper explores how such a process can be organized. In our case, we focus on the regeneration of biodiversity in the Alblasserwaard, an agricultural area in the Netherlands. One of the proposed measures is to invest in an ecological Green-Blue Infrastructure (GBI). This measure implies a different agricultural management than farmers are used to. In practice, this means in particular, investing in the ecological quality of ditches in agricultural fields (e.g. tailor-made mowing, keeping ditches clear of manure, preserving 2-meter margins on each side of the ditch).

We propose that to change agricultural practices, we need to understand how a configuration of different factors affect whether these practices will change or not. These may include economic factors, cultural factors, and institutional factors. To identify these factors and understand the interplay among them, we have organized participatory workshops with a variety of involved stakeholders (N=25), such as farmers, policymakers, nature organizations, academic experts, and civil servants. Using an approach called participatory system mapping (PSM: Barbrook-Johson and Penn, 2012) our goal was to 1) identify factors that directly influence the ecological quality of ditches; 2) identify factors that indirectly influence this ecological quality (i.e. factors, that influence other factors); 3) identify relationships between these factors. By combining the results of these different workshops, we were able to create a comprehensive intersubjective overview of how different types of factors are influential; we were able to show the interplay among the different factors; we were able to identify feedback loops that may have an undermining effect on the willingness of farmers to invest in the ecological quality of ditches.

In this paper, we report on these PSM sessions as a possible way of organizing social innovation, particularly creating a shared problem analysis that can serve as the foundation for addressing public challenges (in our case biodiversity loss) collaboratively. We elaborate on the benefits of such an approach (e.g. creation of a comprehensive, systemic diagnosis; a way of making different stakeholders understand each other), as well as on the challenges of this approach (e.g. the challenge of weighing different factors; the social construction of the problem analysis; variation among stakeholders). We also discuss how the outcomes of PSM sessions can be translated into actions towards bringing about social innovation.

Over the past few decades, there has been a growing scholarly and policy interest in co-creation (Torfing et al., 2016; Brandsen et al., 2018; OECD, 2011; Sancino, 2022). Co-creation is defined as a process through which two or more state and non-state actors attempt to enhance public value by sharing and integrating knowledge, resources, and competencies (Torfing et al., 2016). Commonly associated with the New Public Governance reforms, co-creation has been increasingly advanced as a promising approach for responding to some of the most pressing societal challenges, often referred to as ‘wicked problems’ (Grub & Vitus, 2021; Woezick et al., 2016; Van Bueren et al., 2003; Bentzen, 2021; Osborne, 2006). Immigrant integration is often considered as an example of such problems (Brunner, 2022; King, 2021; Poppelars & Scholten, 2008).

However, in the literature, the ‘wickedness’ of immigrant integration is weakly conceptualized, and the ‘viability’ of co-creation for addressing ‘wicked problems’ is little empirically investigated. This study aims to fill this gap by exploring 1) whether immigrant integration is a wicked policy problem, and 2) whether wicked problems need co-creation as a governance strategy. Drawing upon evidence from of a co-created project (between state and non-state actors) aimed primarily at fostering immigrant integration in Bergen (Norway), the paper conceptualizes immigrant integration as a wicked problem and discusses the potential of co-creation for addressing wicked problems. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.

As migration keeps shaping urban societies, the ways in which cities deal with increasing population heterogeneity has become a salient issue. Much literature addressing immigrant integration policymaking has focused on recent policy ideas circulating, whilst literature on urban governance has highlighted the role of collaboration between state and civil society actors in urban policymaking. To date, however, limited research has taken a combined view at how municipalities forge coalitions with civil society under the header of diversity.

This paper draws on and combines immigrant policymaking and (urban) governance literatures and takes the coinciding of two larger developments (a diversity and a governance turn) as its starting point. It asks if and how these trends of diversity and governance combine in urban immigrant policymaking. At hand of a single case study in Mannheim, the article shows how three initiatives that have evolved there (the “Immigrant council”, the “Alliance for living together in diversity” and the “Migration forum”) reflect a combination of a shift towards diversity and governance. By positing the emergence of an “urban diversity regime” in Mannheim, the article reflects on the opportunities and limitations of this notion, on insights from this empirical case for urban governance and immigrant policymaking literatures, as well as on the need for larger and comparative studies for future research.