Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The American Review of Public Administration
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0275074007311889v1
39/1/60    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Why do Some Boundary Organizations Result in New Ideas and Practices and Others only Meet Resistance?

Examples From Juvenile Justice

Anne L. Schneider

Arizona State University, Tempe

This study compares two federal grants, both from the same agency and both utilizing a national "boundary organization," to assess how and why one was better able than the other to integrate divergent perspectives and produce new approaches to juvenile justice in multiple local jurisdictions. Results confirm the utility of boundary organizations but also show that not all organizations that bring together divergent perspectives necessarily result in anything new or better. Four factors stand out: (a) a different philosophy of evaluation research, (b) the grass-roots emergence of an inclusive rationale for the program that was orthogonal to the traditional "treatment versus punishment" ideology, (c) management strategies and agenda-setting arrangements at meetings that facilitated horizontal, upward, and downward information exchange, and (d) a different approach to knowledge and knowledge production that emphasized user-defined knowledge needs and diverse research methods. The case studies provide a wide range of insights for collaborative management practices, research—practitioner relationships, and implementation success.

Key Words: boundary organization • juvenile justice • collaborative management • governance • democracy • public—private partnerships • implementation • research-practitioner relationships

This version was published on January 1, 2009

The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 39, No. 1, 60-79 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0275074007311889
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?