Sign Up
ENعربي
All articles

governance

Collaborative Governance in Digital Education

  • Introduction

Collaborative governance has emerged as an indispensable approach in the realm of public policy, particularly when addressing complex issues that necessitate the pooling of diverse resources, expertise, and perspectives. This collaborative model is increasingly crucial in contemporary governance, where the scale and complexity of challenges often surpass the capabilities of individual organizations or sectors. The rise of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has further amplified this need, as governments are compelled to adopt innovative solutions that often require the collaboration of state and non-state actors. Within this context, digital education stands out as a particularly pertinent area where collaborative governance has become essential. The implementation of digital curricula and the development of digital skills are increasingly recognized as critical for preparing citizens for the demands of modern society. However, governments frequently lack the necessary in-house expertise to effectively design and implement such programs, making reliance on external partners essential. This review aims to synthesize the existing research on collaborative governance in digital education, to highlight key themes, debates, gaps, and methodologies, and to provide critical insights on the subject matter.

  • The Need for Collaborative Governance in Digital Education

The integration of digital technologies in education has become a pressing issue due to the pervasive role of ICTs in society. This integration requires a paradigm shift in how educational systems are designed and implemented. Governments often find themselves lacking the necessary technological and pedagogical know-how to successfully navigate this shift. Consequently, they must turn to external partners who possess the specialized knowledge and experience needed for the provision of digital education expertise. This dependence on external actors transforms the organizational structures of digital education programs into collaborative governance regimes with distinct roles assigned to specific stakeholders.

Digital education projects are frequently described as "wicked problems," characterized by their dynamic and complex nature, involving multiple levels, actors, and sectors. These problems cannot be effectively addressed by single organizations or through traditional hierarchical methods. Instead, they demand collaborative, multi-faceted approaches that bring together diverse stakeholders with different perspectives and resources. Moreover, the mastery of digital skills is no longer an optional extra, but a fundamental requirement for individuals to navigate modern society and secure future career prospects. This places additional pressure on educational systems to adapt and innovate, making collaborative governance a necessity, rather than an option. The evaluation of collaborative structures in digital education projects is a novel area, with the introduction of digital curricula taking place only recently. This novelty underscores the importance of understanding how these collaborations are structured and managed.

III. Typologies of Collaborative Governance

The landscape of collaborative governance is diverse, encompassing a variety of arrangements and structures. These arrangements can be categorized based on the intensity of interaction, commitment, and resource-sharing among participating organizations. Mandell and Steelman (2003) distinguished between five types of collaboration based on these factors. Agranoff (2007) further categorized collaborative networks by their purpose, identifying informational, developmental, outreach, and action networks.

  • Informational networks involve actors exchanging information and making independent decisions.
  • Developmental networks are focused on providing training, research, and other services.
  • Outreach networks develop strategies for change, involving an exchange or coordination of resources, but decision-making and implementation remain with individual actors.
  • Action networks engage in collaborative strategies to develop and deliver services in a coordinated manner.

Diaz-Kope and Miller-Stevens (2015) emphasized the importance of governance structures by distinguishing between interagency, cross-sector, and grassroots governance.

  • Interagency governance is characterized by the dominant role of government agencies in decision-making and resource provision.
  • Grassroots governance relies minimally on government funding, with decision-making primarily conducted independently of government agencies.
  • Cross-sector governance, which is particularly relevant to digital education, involves the reliance on financial, technical, and human capital from government entities, as well as community resources and social capital. It includes decision-making processes conducted in cooperation with all involved state and non-state actors. The DigEd project is classified as a cross-sector governance structure due to the joint decision-making processes, the reliance of government agencies on the expertise of non-state actors, and the reliance of non-state actors on government resources.
  • Key Elements Influencing Collaborative Governance

Several key elements influence the effectiveness of collaborative governance in digital education. These elements can be categorized into institutional, organizational, and individual aspects.

  • Institutional Environment: A clear understanding of a collaboration’s objectives is essential for defining each partner’s role, typically through a written convention. Clarity of roles and responsibilities is crucial for building trust, encouraging participation, and increasing job satisfaction. Inter-institutional information sharing, boundary objects, and the diversity of participating organizations facilitate the understanding of roles and responsibilities.
  • Organizational Level: Leadership plays a vital role in the collaborative environment. Clearly designated leaders unify different parties, underline each partner’s specific contributions, and resolve tensions. Sponsors and champions are also key to the success of collaborative projects. Internal characteristics of organizations, relationships, tools for citizen participation, and managerial practices all play a role in fostering successful collaboration. Rules, project structures, and standard operating procedures are particularly important in the initial phases of collaborative projects, while leadership skills become more critical in later phases.
  • Political Support: Political support can be a double-edged sword. While it can provide funding, prioritize projects, connect stakeholders, and resolve conflicts, political pressure can also lead to the confusion of policy objectives, loss of neutrality, and obstruction of projects.
  • Individual Level: Effective collaboration requires individuals who can work across boundaries, involve stakeholders, and participate in teamwork. The ability to take risks and the presence of incentives to participate are also important. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a useful method to map out interactions between actors and illustrate how a network impacts policy outcomes. Tensions can arise from differences in interests and beliefs.
  • Evaluation of Collaborative Governance

The evaluation of collaborative structures in public policy development and implementation has become increasingly important due to the multiplication of collaborative settings and the challenges they face. Evaluative processes can reveal critical junctures that either enhance or impede project developments. The objectives of these evaluations are to investigate how collaborative processes should be organized to support innovation and public value creation. Existing research suggests that external and internal conditions characterizing collaborations are critical and generate drivers and barriers to collaborative governance. It is necessary to evaluate collaborative processes, and not just project outcomes. The quality of collaboration directly impacts the achievement of policy objectives. SNA is a useful method to map interactions between actors, illustrating how a network can impact policy outcomes.

  • Case Study Analysis (Based on the DigEd Project)

The DigEd project is an initiative by a Swiss local government to introduce digital skills training in its compulsory and post-compulsory school systems. The project's objective is to develop the digital and transversal skills of students, increasing their capacity to become active and enlightened citizens. The project is being implemented over a decade with pilot phases in each school cycle, allowing for adjustments before full-scale deployment. This project was developed as a response to the "wicked problem" of digital education, requiring the involvement of non-state actors due to a lack of in-house know-how.

The study used a mixed-methods approach, including a standardized online questionnaire and Social Network Analysis. The questionnaire focused on the structure, processes, and dynamics within each project partner. The SNA explored the links between key partners and collaborators. The response rate for the survey was 83%.

The internal management aspects of the project revealed that while most respondents assessed their own institution positively, some differences existed among partners. There were lower rates of agreement on the sufficiency of project-related resources among Partner C and State respondents. Similarly, Partner C and State respondents also indicated a lower clarity of roles and responsibilities. Communication about the project was also rated lower by Partner A, Partner C, and State respondents.

The SNA revealed the centrality of Partner B, State B and Partner A in the sociocentric network, indicating their importance in teacher training and educational content. The egocentric analysis highlighted the central position of some individuals affiliated with Partner B, and State project managers, acting as hubs for information flow. This analysis also revealed the presence of a power imbalance, with a limited number of influential actors controlling the network. The lack of a clear collaborative convention, coupled with power asymmetries and an absence of clear leadership, led to conflicts and tensions. The recent change in governance with the introduction of a project managers group was generally welcomed, though its impact was still difficult to assess.

VII. Synthesis and Critical Insights

The literature review and the case study highlight several crucial aspects of collaborative governance in digital education. Effective collaborative governance requires the alignment of individual, organizational, and institutional aspects. Effective leadership, clear roles, and shared objectives are essential for the success of such collaborations. The case study of the DigEd project revealed that a lack of clear responsibilities, coupled with ineffective leadership, can lead to communication breakdowns, task management issues, and conflicts between stakeholders. Continuous evaluation is also necessary for optimizing collaborative structures.

The diverse research on collaborative governance emphasizes the complex nature of these arrangements, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach that considers the specific context. The reviewed research contributes to our understanding of the various aspects that influence collaborative dynamics, from the institutional environment to individual behavior. It underscores the importance of establishing formal agreements, promoting shared leadership, and fostering trust among stakeholders. However, gaps remain in the understanding of the internal functioning of collaborative partnerships. The use of secondary data and the lack of in-depth analysis of the nature of interactions represent further limitations in the research.

The body of work on collaborative governance in digital education aligns in its emphasis on the necessity of collaboration for addressing complex challenges, but it diverges in the specific focus and methodologies employed. While some research focuses on typologies of collaborative arrangements, others delve into the impact of leadership, political support, and individual factors. The case study of the DigEd project provides an empirical example of how these factors interact in a real-world setting. It underscores the need for a holistic approach to the evaluation of collaborative governance, one that considers both formal structures and informal dynamics.

VIII. Conclusion

In conclusion, the literature on collaborative governance in digital education emphasizes the importance of multi-faceted approaches that bring together diverse stakeholders. Governments around the world find themselves in situations where they cannot develop and implement public policies without the help of non-state actors. The reviewed studies underscore the importance of institutional, organizational, and individual aspects of collaboration for the achievement of policy objectives. Continuous evaluation of collaborative structures, using methods such as SNA, is essential for identifying areas of improvement and ensuring that projects stay on track. The DigEd case study reveals the challenges that can arise from unclear roles, ineffective leadership, and power imbalances, highlighting the need for well-defined governance structures.

Key recommendations for effective collaborative governance in digital education include:

  • Clearly define the responsibilities of each stakeholder and the leadership of the project at the beginning of every collaboration.
  • Establish formal agreements that frame collaborative relationships, leading to reduced transaction costs and more stable and predictable collaborations.
  • Foster inclusive leadership that is able to take risks, face adversity, and be present at all governance levels.
  • Conduct continuous evaluations of collaborative structures, approaching collaborations as learning processes.
  • Use SNA to map interactions and identify dominant actors that may hinder collaborative dynamics.

Further research should focus on the internal functioning of collaborative partnerships and explore strategies for improving communication, trust, and conflict resolution. By doing so, it will be possible to make collaborative governance an effective instrument for digital education and public policy.

(Bonny & Cahlikova, 2025)

References

Bonny, S., & Cahlikova, T. (2025). Evaluating the effects of collaborative governance: Case of a digital education project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102522

Frequantly Questions and Aanwers:

1. What is collaborative governance and why is it increasingly important in public policy?

Collaborative governance involves the participation of multiple public agencies and non-state actors in formal, consensus-oriented decision-making processes to create or implement public policy. It's becoming increasingly vital because many modern issues, like digital education, are complex, exceeding the capacity of any single state entity. Collaboration allows governments to tap into external expertise, resources, and local knowledge, increasing support for public policies, facilitating implementation, and creating public value that might not be achievable otherwise.

2. What are the key challenges in implementing collaborative governance, particularly in digital education projects?

Challenges include a lack of clear leadership, poorly defined roles and responsibilities for each partner, inadequate resources, and inconsistent communication. These issues can result in a lack of a shared understanding and purpose among stakeholders, leading to the domination of a few influential actors and hindering the overall effectiveness of the project. Moreover, differing priorities and values between state and non-state actors can also cause tensions and hinder the collaborative process. Power imbalances and insufficient formal agreements can create instability and uncertainty.

3. How can the success of collaborative governance be evaluated, especially when focusing on the collaborative structures themselves?

Evaluation of collaborative governance should go beyond just project outcomes and focus on the internal collaborative structures. This includes analyzing the clarity of roles, the quality of communication and information sharing, resource allocation, leadership effectiveness, and the level of participation from all stakeholders. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a useful tool for mapping interactions and influence within the network, helping to identify key actors and potential bottlenecks or imbalances. It's crucial to assess how these structures impact the achievement of policy objectives, not just the goals of the individual partners.

4. What is Social Network Analysis (SNA) and how was it used in the DigEd project study?

SNA is a method to map and analyze relationships between actors in a network. In the DigEd study, it was used to visualize and understand the interactions between different institutions and individuals involved in the project, both sociocentrically (looking at overall network connections) and egocentrically (focusing on individual connections). This helped identify influential stakeholders, assess the flow of information, and pinpoint potential areas of conflict or weak points in the network. SNA helps in understanding how the structure of relationships impact collaboration and project outcomes.

5. What were the main findings of the DigEd project evaluation related to its internal project management?

The evaluation revealed that while most collaborators found internal organization satisfactory, there were significant differences in resource allocation, role clarity, and communication between different partner institutions, particularly with the state actors and one of the non-state academic partners. Issues were reported with poorly defined processes, unrealistic deadlines, and a general lack of formal collaborative agreements. These issues contributed to conflict and stress. A recent governance change and an inclusive process around one of the project’s sub-initiatives were seen as positive, indicating potential improvements in these areas.

6. How did the Social Network Analysis reveal issues within the DigEd project's collaborative network?

SNA showed that a few core actors, particularly from a non-state partner, held significant influence over the project's network and acted as key information hubs, and the state’s project managers have quickly gained a central role after being introduced to the initiative. While non-state expertise is necessary, this concentration of power and influence, coupled with lack of a clear agreement, created imbalances, limited collaboration and created the conditions for gatekeeping of information and other resources. The egocentric SNA revealed a less cohesive network with several actors having few connections, relying heavily on the central hubs to relay information. Overall, it highlighted how poor leadership and lack of clarity were translating into a network prone to uneven communication and potential exclusion of parts of the network.

7. What is the significance of written collaborative conventions, and what impact did their absence have on the DigEd project?

Written collaborative conventions are essential for formalizing the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of all stakeholders involved in collaborative governance. Their absence in the DigEd project led to significant issues including a lack of clarity, inconsistent communication, conflicts, and difficulties in achieving project objectives. The lack of these conventions made it harder to establish trust, manage resources fairly, and work effectively together. The absence of such documentation resulted in power asymmetries between partners and made it harder to develop a common vision for the project.

8. What lessons were learned from the DigEd project experience that could be applied to other collaborative governance projects?

The DigEd project highlights that the quality of collaborative governance structures is crucial to the success of projects and that evaluation should assess both the outcomes and internal collaborative processes. Clearly defining responsibilities, establishing strong, inclusive leadership, and documenting collaborative processes are crucial to ensure success. Continuous evaluation is essential, as collaborative processes evolve over time. Collaborative governance projects should not allow a few actors to dominate and information asymmetries should be minimized to avoid the undermining of collaborator commitment. Finally, collaborative arrangements should be viewed as learning processes that need ongoing assessment and improvement