Ingmar van Meerkerk, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Anka Kekez, University of Zagreb

Jurian Edelenbos, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Public governance practice today is increasingly confronted with complex, turbulent, and societal challenges that cross organizational, scalar, sectoral, and community boundaries. Wicked problems such as sustainability transitions, social inequality, rapid digitalization and democratic backsliding demand collaboration between public, private, and societal actors. In addition, community-based initiatives and growing demands for co-production have further stimulated cross-boundary working in public service delivery and governance.

Recent strands of governance theory have pointed at the turbulence of nowadays societal challenges and their implications for the dynamic, transformative and unstable nature of collaborative forms of governance. This increasing turbulence has important implications for boundary spanning agents at the frontlines trying to make various forms of cross-boundary collaboration and service delivery work. Recent studies show that such boundary spanning workers face various institutional challenges and tensions in trying to move public engagement and cross-boundary collaboration forward.

This special issue aims to advance the research agenda on collaborative governance and public service delivery by going deeper into how boundary spanners deal with various tensions, managing different interfaces while they try to make cross-boundary collaboration and service delivery work, and what this means in relation to their environment. These tensions are compounded by broader features of contemporary governance. Fragmentation in the form of sectoral silos, organizational and political discontinuities, fragile trust relations, uneven capacities and diverging institutional logics are pervasive conditions of collaborative settings.

Research in the field of network governance has produced rich insights into the forms, conditions, and barriers of collaborative governance, as well as the managerial strategies required to organize such collaboration. Moreover, studies on boundary work and boundary spanning at the front-lines of collaborative governance and public service-delivery have focused on the competencies and practices that enable collaboration across boundaries. In this regard, several studies have unpacked the different roles of individual boundary spanners, various boundary spanning activities and competences relevant for moving public engagement and collaborative processes forward.

However, we know too little about how boundary spanning agents at the frontlines cope with various tensions, try to sustain collaborative momentum, and try to implement collaboration between state and non-state actors in turbulent and fragile governance environments. Moreover, the implications for boundary spanners themselves, including how they continue their work under conditions of cumulative pressure and role strain, remain insufficiently understood. Several avenues offer promises to advance the research agenda and to bring collaborative and network governance theory more in conversation with street-level scholarship.

Research on boundary spanning in collaborative governance and service delivery can be enriched by engaging more closely with insights from street level scholarship. Street level studies show that collaboration is enacted through everyday and relational practices that unfold both in public view and behind the scenes. These practices include improvised coordination, informal calibration of routines, continuous maintenance of interpersonal connections, translation of roles and expectations and shared interpretation of user needs. Such work stabilizes collaboration through trust building, pragmatic problem solving and accumulated interpersonal knowledge, often compensating for incomplete formal structures. These insights enrich boundary spanning research by shifting attention from role descriptions to the situated practices through which coordination is actually produced and sustained in turbulent settings.

Integrating insights from recent collaborative governance studies using bricolage theory can further deepen understanding of how boundary spanners cope with turbulence, trying to sustain collaborative momentum, and trying to craft robustness in fragile governance environments. Bricolage theory draws attention to how bricoleurs use whatever resources, relationships, and institutional patches are at hand to craft workable solutions and maintain robustness within collaborative governance. Learning from bricolage theory, contributions in this special issue can shed light on underexplored aspects of boundary spanning practices, such as improvisation, patchwork problem-solving, creative recombination of institutional rules, and adaptive reframing.

The capacity to span boundaries is fundamentally shaped by organizational and institutional conditions. Boundary spanning takes place in contexts marked by fragmented mandates, uneven resources, narrow accountability regimes and weak coordination infrastructures, all of which influence which relational and interpretive practices are possible or legitimate. These conditions increasingly also include digital infrastructures and data practices that mediate information exchange and decision-making, offering for instance new opportunities for participatory practices, but also new constraints related to access, transparency and professional discretion. Together, these structural features generate the need for boundary spanning yet simultaneously might constrain or overload those who perform it. Street level research highlights that practitioners often compensate for systemic deficits through relational labor and improvisation, although these efforts are highly vulnerable to staff turnover, political shifts and the absence of managerial backing. Advancing research on boundary work therefore requires careful attention to the dynamic interplay between everyday collaborative practices and organizational, institutional and technological scaffolding, and to how these configurations shape both boundary spanning itself and its implications for public value creation and collaborative governance.

Drawing on role theory and coping with different role stressors, the next step is to better understand how boundary spanning front-line workers experience role tensions and how they develop certain coping strategies and practices to deal with these tensions. In bringing joint value creation and collaborations between state and non-state actors into practice, boundary spanning persons are confronted by different role expectations and role ambiguity that arise from diverging logics, conflicting demands and loyalties from within and outside their organizational context. Understanding how they cope with these role challenges is crucial for both advancing theory and improving collaborative practices in public governance.

There is a growing need to consider the possible dark sides of boundary spanning. Reliance on individual boundary spanners can mask structural deficiencies, reproduce inequalities in emotional and relational labor and generate expectations that are unsustainable in the long run. Boundary spanning might be used to mask structural shortcomings within public organizations assigning them with too heavy unrealistic tasks. In addition, overburdening boundary spanners can lead to burnout, withdrawal and a narrowing of collaborative space, particularly in volatile governance environments. Carefully built up relationships by the boundary spanner might turn into dust once the boundary spanner leaves the public scene and makes the work by them very precarious. These tensions deserve more systematic attention to avoid overly idealized depictions of boundary spanning work.

An important and often underexplored challenge emerges at the political interface of collaborative governance and public service delivery. Boundary spanning does not occur solely among administrative and societal actors in deliberative settings, but unfolds under conditions shaped by political authority, electoral incentives, media attention, and shifting mandates. Research shows that political signaling, institutional histories, and bureaucratic politics strongly influence whether collaborative initiatives are interpreted as legitimate, peripheral, or even risky by frontline actors, with direct consequences for participation and coordination. Although previous research on the democratic legitimacy of governance networks and the sometimes complicated relationship with representative democracy has generated valuable insights, we need a better understanding of how boundary spanners enact political astuteness in their practices, navigate the interface with political representatives and cope with the political dimension in its broader sense.

This special issue focuses on how boundary spanners deal with various tensions in turbulent times, managing different interfaces while they try to make cross-boundary collaboration and service delivery work. Boundary spanning persons – whether labelled boundary spanners, facilitators, intermediaries, bridgers, 'best persons', or exemplary practitioners – operate in multiple organizational positions and institutional contexts, often as frontline workers, street-level managers, district managers, community leaders or community builders. What unites these roles is that these professionals are able to coordinate their efforts horizontally and vertically, thereby mobilizing different forms of bonding, bridging and linking social capital, while navigating dilemmas that arise from diverging logics, practices, and role expectations.

Potential topics

• Dilemmas, paradoxes and dark sides of boundary spanning - What dilemmas and paradoxes do boundary spanners face in managing the front- and backstage of collaborative practices under pressure? How are they supported or constrained by their environment? What risks, unintended and unwanted consequences emerge in boundary work and how to mitigate or prevent these 'dark sides' of boundary spanning?
• Role tensions and coping practices - How do boundary spanners (emotionally) experience and cope with various role tensions? How and when do they sustain, persist or give up in doing their boundary work?
• Dealing with the political interface, multiple accountabilities and logics - How do boundary spanners deal with political conflicts and challenging circumstances? How do they manage clashing accountabilities and institutional logics across organizational, scalar, sectoral, and community contexts?
• Boundary spanning practices of different agents in the state, market and civil society and their implications for joint public value creation and transformational governance - How do boundary spanning practices of different boundary spanners in the state, market and civil society shape collaborative outcomes in joint value creation and transformational governance? What are differences and similarities in the capacities and contributions of these boundary spanning agents and when are these practices aligned?

Timeline

• March 6, 2026: Submission of abstracts
• March 30, 2026: Abstracts will be reviewed
• August 20, 2026: Submission of draft papers to Guest Editors for workshop
• September 10, 2026: Workshop hosted by the University of Zagreb, Croatia (tentative date)
• January 15, 2027: Submission of final papers

Carmine Bianchi, University of Palermo

Greta Nasi, Bocconi University

Bin Chen, Baruch College

Gabriela Lotta, FGV-São Paulo School of Business Administration

Governments today face increasingly complex challenges in public service delivery, including social inequality, climate change, public health crises, and rapid digital transformation. Traditional models of public management often fall short in addressing wicked problems due to their standardized and inflexible nature. A linear and static approach remains widespread in strategic planning across both public sector and business organizations, though the limits and risks of this approach have long been discussed in the literature.

Developing a 'memory of the future' – the ability to elicit mental models and use scenario planning to prepare for change – has been viewed as a foundational capability for strategic foresight. Related work emphasizes learning processes that support organizational evolution by design, based on feedforward rather than solely feedback-driven reasoning. Recent contributions increasingly argue for framing public strategic planning and goal formation as a design process, suggesting that planning should aim not only to anticipate the future but to help create it, recognizing that organizations and their surrounding ecosystems evolve together.

This special issue focuses on how organizations – when facing dynamic and wicked problems – can design the future by fostering place-based value creation. Such an approach supports the development of shared strategic resources and enhances sustainable and place-responsive outcomes. Wicked problems are inherently place-based, shaped by local socio-economic, cultural, and environmental conditions that require context-sensitive responses. Traditional models of public management – typically centralized, linear, and standardized – frequently fail to respond effectively to such complexity. There is growing recognition of the need for dynamic, adaptive, and pluralistic frameworks that embed governance within specific local contexts and engage multiple stakeholders across levels and sectors.

Public value creation produces outcomes that enhance a community's shared, place-based strategic resources. These outcomes typically emerge from collaborative policymaking involving both public and private actors, aimed at advancing core democratic values such as equity, accountability, transparency, trust, and social cohesion. Public value creation may require critically reassessing prevailing societal norms, enabling value shifts that support sustainable, context-sensitive collective well-being. Building on recent contributions, value in public services is created within complex, nested ecosystems shaped by both spatial ('locus') and cultural/social ('habitus') dimensions of place, where locus emphasizes the significance of physical, spatial, and geographic conditions, and habitus refers to the ingrained habits, dispositions, and modes of perception that individuals develop through their social experiences. In a place, both locus and habitus are dynamically interconnected.

Place-based strategy involves designing public service interventions that are contextually grounded in the characteristics of a specific area. It requires understanding the spatial, cultural, and institutional dimensions of a context, engaging local stakeholders, leveraging place-based strategic resources, and dynamically adapting strategies to the evolving needs of the community to enhance pervasive and sustainable value creation. Strategy is no longer a top-down prescription, but rather a co-creative, iterative process sensitive to local diversity and complexity. This approach may benefit from a dual perspective on value creation, framed as the interplay between 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' strategies. The inside-out perspective emphasizes strategy design driven from within public service organizations, prioritizing internal capabilities and goals, while the outside-in perspective places emphasis on the external context – social, territorial, and institutional – in which organizations are embedded.

While both inside-out and outside-in approaches to strategy design have been explored independently in the literature, a gap remains in understanding how their integration can produce deeper insights into public service value creation. Inside-out approaches risk overlooking the complex, evolving needs of the broader ecosystem, while outside-in strategies may underappreciate the organizational capabilities and constraints that shape public service delivery. Integrating these perspectives may allow for a richer understanding of how internal strategic intent, external societal demands, and territorial attributes interact, align, or conflict – enabling the design of more context-sensitive, adaptive, and democratically grounded public services.

Adopting an outside-in orientation supports the development of collaborative platforms as facilitative mechanisms of systemic, place-based value co-creation. These platforms foster theme-focused service ecosystems – such as those dedicated to sustainable mobility, urban design, or eco-innovation – which operate as meta-governance structures that allow distributed yet coordinated decision-making. These modular ecosystems support scalable and resilient development processes even when decisions occur outside traditional institutional frameworks. The design and implementation of collaborative platforms requires a deliberate and often iterative approach to governance and orchestration.

Value is not always created in public service ecosystems; poor design or delivery can lead to value destruction – a risk particularly salient in place-based settings. Understanding the dynamics of value-in-use (benefits realized during service use), value-in-context (value shaped by local circumstances), and value-in-society (societal-level outcomes) becomes crucial. A place-based approach emphasizes how these types of value are interpreted and experienced differently across communities, reinforcing the need for adaptive, participatory performance management systems.

Potential topics

• Frameworks for place-sensitive strategic planning in public services
• How public value (or dis-value) emerges within complex, nested ecosystems shaped by spatial ('locus') and cultural/social ('habitus') dimensions of place, including their role in strategy adoption and success
• Methods for enhancing collaborative policy design and implementation to address the inherent complexity of place-based ecosystems
• The role of local knowledge, culture, and beliefs in shaping strategy
• Interactions between 'inside-out' (organizational) and 'outside-in' (contextual) strategy perspectives, including if and how their integration may offer more comprehensive insights into value creation than when applied in isolation
• Synergies and tensions between internal capabilities and external demands in the co-design of public service strategies
• Adaptive and 'intelligent' performance management systems
• Indicators and metrics for value-in-context and value-in-society
• The role of citizen perception in evaluating public service outcomes
• How collaborative policymaking can generate value outcomes aligned with equity, accountability, transparency, trust, and social cohesion, and support shifts toward sustainable, context-sensitive collective well-being
• The dynamics of value destruction in public service ecosystems, including how poor service design, implementation, or governance may undermine place-based value creation and community culture, as well as strategies to prevent or mitigate such outcomes
• Collaborative platforms for cross-sector governance
• Orchestration of theme-focused ecosystems for modular place development
• Meta-governance and boundary-spanning leadership
• Governance responses to turbulence (e.g., COVID-19 case studies)
• Building robust, place-based public services through learning-oriented systems
• Interplay of formal/informal knowledge in ecosystem adaptation
• Digital platforms enabling citizen engagement and real-time data use
• Role of AI and digital twins in place-based ecosystem visualization
• Evaluating digital interventions for ecosystem development

Timeline

• Invalid DateTime: Special issue publication
• May 31, 2026: Deadline for abstract proposals
• December 1, 2026: Feedback from guest editors
• April 30, 2027: Full paper submission deadline