Advertisement

Abstract

The theoretical framework of Chapter 2 presented the looking glasses through which the challenge of metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets will be investigated. This Chapter presents the approach taken by the empirical part of this research. It introduces the central research question (3.1) and a section presenting the research framework (3.2). The research strategy is then developed (3.3). Section 3.4 explains the selection of cases, and 3.5 describes how the research strategy was applied.

Keywords

Ideal Type Public Management Research Framework Case Study Research Wicked Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 424.
    Kettl (2002: 10): The transformation of governance.Google Scholar
  2. 425.
    Boonstra (2004: 2): Dynamics of organisational change and learning. Introduction.Google Scholar
  3. 426.
    Teisman and Klijn (2002): Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme?Google Scholar
  4. 427.
    Meuleman (2003: 22): The Pegasus Principle.Google Scholar
  5. 428.
    Ferlie et al. (2003): Changing public service organisations: current perspectives and future prospects.Google Scholar
  6. 429.
    Müller (1986: 6): Die Innenwelt der Umweltpolitik.Google Scholar
  7. 430.
    Mayntz (1997: 127–131): Soziologie der öffentlichen Verwaltung.Google Scholar
  8. 431.
    Boonstra (2004: 1–2): Dynamics of organisational change and learning. Introduction.Google Scholar
  9. 432.
    In’ t Veld (1996: 12): Rapportage onderzoek besturingsconcepten VROM.Google Scholar
  10. 433.
    Kickert (2005: 33, Overheidshervormingen — lessen uit het verleden) states that organisational culture is at least as important as structure, as far as administrative reform is concerned.Google Scholar
  11. 434.
    Pollit and Bouckaert (2000: 152–153): Public management reform.Google Scholar
  12. 435.
    Kickert (2002: 1473): Public governance in small continental European states.Google Scholar
  13. 436.
    Yin (2003: 78 ff. Case study research) encourages applying the research design to pilot cases, before the actual cases are investigated.Google Scholar
  14. 437.
    Parts of this case description are taken from Meuleman (2003): The Pegasus Principle. See also Goris and Meuleman (1996): De Groene Hart-gesprekken: een interactief beleidsproces.Google Scholar
  15. 438.
    Van der Cammen and Witsen (1995): Tweeëntwintig vaak gestelde vragen over het Groene Hart.Google Scholar
  16. 440.
    Teisman and Klijn (2002: 201): Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric of governance schema?Google Scholar
  17. 441.
    Meuleman (2003): The Pegasus Principle.Google Scholar
  18. 442.
    Teisman (1999: 26): Pegasus. Een gevleugeld begrip en een voorbij vliegend verschijnsel. Paradepaard van een lerend ministerie of vooral een circusact.Google Scholar
  19. 443.
    These brochures were later translated, rewritten and illustrated with new examples in Meuleman (2003): The Pegasus Principle.Google Scholar
  20. 445.
    Eberhard (1999: 33): Einführung in die Erkenntnis-und Wissenschaftstheorie.Google Scholar
  21. 446.
    E.g. Rhodes (1997, Understanding governance), Peters (1998, Comparative politics. Theory and methods), and Kickert and Toonen (2006, Public Management in the Netherlands: Expansion, diversification and consolidation).Google Scholar
  22. 447.
    Bevir et al. (2003: 197): Comparative Governance: Prospects and Lessons.Google Scholar
  23. 448.
    Bevir et al. (2003: 199): Comparative Governance: Prospects and Lessons.Google Scholar
  24. 449.
    Van der Zijde (1998: 167). Over het managen van complexe projecten in politieke context.Google Scholar
  25. 450.
    March and Olsen (1989): Rediscovering institutions: Organisational factors in political life.Google Scholar
  26. 451.
    Peters (1998: 122): Comparative politics. Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  27. 452.
    Rhodes (2007: 1259): Understanding Governance — Ten years on.Google Scholar
  28. 453.
    Wollmann (2005: 505): Evaluierung von Verwaltungsmodernisierung.Google Scholar
  29. 454.
    Peters (1998: 29): Comparative politics. Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  30. 455.
    Doty and Glick (1994: 244): Typologies as a unique form of theory building.Google Scholar
  31. 456.
    Peters (1998: 30): Comparative politics. Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  32. 457.
    Yin (2003: 5–9): Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  33. 458.
    Yin (2003: 13): Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  34. 459.
    Yin (2003: 47): Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  35. 460.
    Yin (2003: 42–43): Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  36. 461.
    Scholz and Tietje (2002: 9): Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge.Google Scholar
  37. 462.
    Yin (2003: 98) Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  38. 463.
    Peters (1998: 146): Comparative politics. Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  39. 464.
    Glaser and Strauss (1967): The discovery of grounded theory.Google Scholar
  40. 465.
    Yin (2003: 28): Case study research. Design and models.Google Scholar
  41. 466.
    Goulding (1999: 7): Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions.Google Scholar
  42. 467.
    Eisenhardt (1989): Building theories from case study research.Google Scholar
  43. 468.
    Goulding (1999: 17): Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions.Google Scholar
  44. 469.
    E.g. in Strauss and Corbin (1999): Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques.Google Scholar
  45. 470.
    Glaser (1992): Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence versus forcing.Google Scholar
  46. 471.
    Charmaz (2000: 510): Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. Cited by Goulding (1999).Google Scholar
  47. 472.
    Glaser (2002: Constructivist Grounded Theory?) relecting on Charmaz: “So we can see that constructivism-joint build of an interactive, interpreted, produced data-is an epistemological bias to achieve a credible, accurate description of data collection-sometimes. But it depends on the data. If the data is garnered through an interview guide that forces and feeds interviewee responses then it is constructed to a degree by interviewer imposed interactive bias. However, as argued above, with the passive, non-structured interviewing or listening of the grounded theory interview-observation method, constructivism is held to a minimum. It appears that constructivism is an effort to dignify the data and to avoid the work of confronting researcher bias.”Google Scholar
  48. 473.
    Goulding (1999: 17): Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions.Google Scholar
  49. 474.
    Peters (1998: 83–86): Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods; Niestroy (2000: 49): Die Strategische UVP als Instrument zur Integration von Umweltbelangen in andere Politikbereiche.Google Scholar
  50. 475.
    Peters (1998: 69): Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  51. 476.
    Héritier (2002): New Modes of Governance in Europe: policy making without legislating?Google Scholar
  52. 477.
    Ismayr (2003: 472): Das politische System Deutschlands. Lepszy (2003: 376). Das politische System der Niederlande.Google Scholar
  53. 478.
    Christiansen (1996: 86), cited in Malek and Hilkermeijer (2001: The European Commission as a learning organisation? Theoretical considerations and empirical ideas).Google Scholar
  54. 480.
    Bovens et al. (2001: 648): The state of governance in six European states.Google Scholar
  55. 482.
    Kickert (2002: 1473): Public governance in small continental European states.Google Scholar
  56. 483.
    Wollmann (2001:4): Public sector reforms and evaluation in Germany — advances and lags.Google Scholar
  57. 484.
    Kickert (2003: 127): Beneath consensual corporatism: Traditions of governance in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  58. 485.
    Raadschelders and Rutgers (1996: 86–87): The evolution of civil service systems.Google Scholar
  59. 486.
    Van der Meer et al. (1997): The Dutch civil service system.Google Scholar
  60. 487.
    Knill (2001: 12): Institutionelle Indikatoren für die Entwicklungsdynamik nationaler Verwaltungen: Administrative Reformkapazität in föderalen und unitarischen Systemen.Google Scholar
  61. 488.
    Term coined by Lijphart (1968): Typologies of Democratic Systems.Google Scholar
  62. 489.
    Kickert (2002: 1474–1475): Public governance in small continental European states.Google Scholar
  63. 490.
    Ismayr (2003: 471): Das politische System Deutschlands; Lepszy (2003: 375): Das politische System der Niederlande.Google Scholar
  64. 491.
    Knox (2002, Review of public administration. Briefing paper public service reform) places the Netherlands in the incrementalist group and Germany in a ‘limited reform’ group with Norway and Switzerland. However, other authors point out that Germany is a typical incrementalist reform country (e.g. Knill, 1999: Autonomous and instrumental bureaucracies: institutional indicators for the explanation of administrative change).Google Scholar
  65. 492.
    Oppen (2002): From ‘New Public Management’ to ‘New Public Governance’. Restructuring the public administration of tasks in Germany. An international comparison. Wollmann (2003): Public-sector reform in Germany, between continuity and change — in international perspective.Google Scholar
  66. 494.
    Wollmann (2003): Public-sector reform in Germany, between continuity and change — in international perspective.Google Scholar
  67. 495.
    Wollmann (2003): Public-sector reform in Germany, between continuity and change — in international perspective.Google Scholar
  68. 496.
    Terms coined by Olsen (1988), cited by Wollmann (2003): Public-sector reform in Germany between continuity and change — in international perspective.Google Scholar
  69. 497.
    Trondal (2001: 21): The ‘parallel administration’ of the European Commission. Towards a framework for analysis.Google Scholar
  70. 498.
    Dimitriakopoulos and Page (2000: 317): Paradoxes in EU Administration.Google Scholar
  71. 499.
    Cassese (1987: 13, cited in Dimitriakopoulos and Page, 2000: 317), describes the organisation and working rules of the EC as “halfway between a French ministry and the German Economics Ministry”.Google Scholar
  72. 500.
    E.g. Dimitriakopoulos and Page (2000: 317): Paradoxes in EU Administration.Google Scholar
  73. 501.
    Page and Wouters (1994: 445): Bureaucratic politics and political leadership in Brussels.Google Scholar
  74. 502.
    Peters (1998: 83–86): Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods.Google Scholar
  75. 503.
    Allison (1979, Public and private management: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant aspects), cited in Jann (2000: 89).Google Scholar
  76. 504.
    Jann (2000: 89): Public management reform in Germany: a revolution without a theory?Google Scholar
  77. 505.
    Peters (1998: 83–86): Comparative politics.Google Scholar
  78. 506.
    Sartori (1970; 1991), cited in Peters (1998: 86).Google Scholar
  79. 507.
    Kickert (ed.) (1997): Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe.Google Scholar
  80. 508.
    Hesse et al. (2003): Paradoxes in public sector reform. An international comparison.Google Scholar
  81. 509.
    Pollit and Bouckaert (2000): Public management reform. A comparative analysis.Google Scholar
  82. 513.
    Interview 19, 30 March 2007.Google Scholar
  83. 514.
    E.g. Bauer (2002: 2, Reforming the European Commission: A (missed) Academic opportunity) describes the management deficit (including the missing strategic capabilities for managing EU policy networks) of the European Commission as an important research gap.Google Scholar
  84. 515.
    Sørensen (2002: 8): Democratic theory and network governance.Google Scholar
  85. 516.
    Ferlie et al. (2003): Changing public service organisations: current perspectives and future prospects.Google Scholar
  86. 517.
    E.g. Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan (1997): Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector; Rhodes (1997): Understanding governance.Google Scholar
  87. 518.
    Damgaard (2006: 673, Do policy networks lead to network governing?) found that — in Danish employment policy nationally mandated local policy networks are dominated by hierarchical governing.Google Scholar
  88. 519.
    Klijn, Koppenjan and Van Bueren (2003): Dealing with wicked problems in networks: analysing an environmental debate from a network perspective.Google Scholar
  89. 520.
    Jänecke (2005: 137): Trend-setters in environmental policy: the character and role of pioneer countries.Google Scholar
  90. 521.
    Héritier (2003: 3): New Modes of Governance in Europe: policy making without legislating?Google Scholar
  91. 522.
    Lipsky (1980): Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.Google Scholar
  92. 523.
    Taylor and Kelly (2006: 639): Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky.Google Scholar
  93. 524.
    Meuleman (2006): Internal metagovernance as a new challenge for management development in public administration.Google Scholar
  94. 525.
    Niestroy (2005): Sustaining sustainability.Google Scholar
  95. 526.
    Goulding (1999: 10): Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions.Google Scholar
  96. 528.
    Meuleman (2008): Reflections on metagovernance and community policing: The Utrecht case in the Netherlands and questions about the cultural transferability of governancer approaches and metagovernance.Google Scholar
  97. 529.
    Glaser and Strauss (1967): The discovery of grounded theory.Google Scholar
  98. 530.
    Mintzberg (1979: 587): An emerging strategy of “direct” research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations