探索环境正义委员会的合作动态和代表性

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Public Administration Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1111/padm.12969
Graham Ambrose
{"title":"探索环境正义委员会的合作动态和代表性","authors":"Graham Ambrose","doi":"10.1111/padm.12969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A collaboration's ability to convene diverse stakeholders and knowledge is often associated with success. However, a more nuanced evaluation of representation is needed to understand if meeting‐level factors (e.g., who attends as well as including facilitators or external technical experts) influence representation. This article examines representation via two‐way communication in meetings to explore: (1) patterns of discussion across sectors (i.e., appointed citizens, agency delegates, and external stakeholders), (2) how patterns of discussion change given attendance differences across sectors, and (3) how meeting‐level factors associate with observed discussion patterns. Using meeting‐level data, across three US, state‐level, legislatively‐mandated environmental justice councils, results suggest: (1) sectors have different patterns of how much and with whom they discuss, (2) retreat meetings increase discussion for all, and (3) other meeting‐level factors and discussion patterns are narrowly focused to specific sectors. The discussion applies the findings of this study to the broader field of collaborative governance.","PeriodicalId":48284,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring collaboration dynamics and representation in environmental justice councils\",\"authors\":\"Graham Ambrose\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/padm.12969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A collaboration's ability to convene diverse stakeholders and knowledge is often associated with success. However, a more nuanced evaluation of representation is needed to understand if meeting‐level factors (e.g., who attends as well as including facilitators or external technical experts) influence representation. This article examines representation via two‐way communication in meetings to explore: (1) patterns of discussion across sectors (i.e., appointed citizens, agency delegates, and external stakeholders), (2) how patterns of discussion change given attendance differences across sectors, and (3) how meeting‐level factors associate with observed discussion patterns. Using meeting‐level data, across three US, state‐level, legislatively‐mandated environmental justice councils, results suggest: (1) sectors have different patterns of how much and with whom they discuss, (2) retreat meetings increase discussion for all, and (3) other meeting‐level factors and discussion patterns are narrowly focused to specific sectors. The discussion applies the findings of this study to the broader field of collaborative governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12969\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12969","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一个协作的能力召集不同的利益相关者和知识往往与成功有关。然而,需要对代表性进行更细致入微的评估,以了解会议层面的因素(例如,谁出席以及包括协调员或外部技术专家)是否会影响代表性。本文通过会议中的双向沟通来考察代表性,以探索:(1)跨部门的讨论模式(即指定的公民、机构代表和外部利益相关者),(2)讨论模式如何在不同部门的出席率差异下发生变化,以及(3)会议层面的因素如何与观察到的讨论模式相关联。使用美国三个州一级立法授权的环境司法委员会的会议级数据,结果表明:(1)各部门在讨论的数量和与谁讨论方面有不同的模式,(2)闭会会议增加了所有人的讨论,(3)其他会议级因素和讨论模式只局限于特定部门。讨论将本研究的发现应用于更广泛的协作治理领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring collaboration dynamics and representation in environmental justice councils
Abstract A collaboration's ability to convene diverse stakeholders and knowledge is often associated with success. However, a more nuanced evaluation of representation is needed to understand if meeting‐level factors (e.g., who attends as well as including facilitators or external technical experts) influence representation. This article examines representation via two‐way communication in meetings to explore: (1) patterns of discussion across sectors (i.e., appointed citizens, agency delegates, and external stakeholders), (2) how patterns of discussion change given attendance differences across sectors, and (3) how meeting‐level factors associate with observed discussion patterns. Using meeting‐level data, across three US, state‐level, legislatively‐mandated environmental justice councils, results suggest: (1) sectors have different patterns of how much and with whom they discuss, (2) retreat meetings increase discussion for all, and (3) other meeting‐level factors and discussion patterns are narrowly focused to specific sectors. The discussion applies the findings of this study to the broader field of collaborative governance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
17.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Public Administration is a major refereed journal with global circulation and global coverage. The journal publishes articles on public administration, public policy and public management. The journal"s reach is both inclusive and international and much of the work published is comparative in nature. A high percentage of articles are sourced from the enlarging Europe and cover all aspects of West and East European public administration.
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic formalization: Impacts on administrative processes Making nonpunitive accountability matter: Exploring behavioral effects of nonpunitive accountability in a conjoint experiment Why do politicians perceive the same financial conditions differently? How to extend pilot innovation in public services: A case of children's social care innovation Street‐level bureaucrats' perceptions of “the job”: Deviation from professional particularities and micro creation of public value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1