Networks in Public Administration Scholarship: Understanding Where We Are and Where We Need to Go
公共行政学术中的网络：理解我们所处的位置和未来的方向

INTRODUCTION 引言

In recent years, there have been several “retrospective” articles about network scholarship in other disciplines that facilitate academic naval gazing at what has been accomplished, what still needs to be done, and the connections between disparate strains of the literature (e.g., Brass et al. 2004; Provan, Fish, and Sydow 2007). However, each of the different disciplines involved in network studies has its own foci and emphases that are important to their brand of work. As such, we take this opportunity to provide a commentary on the development of network studies in Public Administration and suggest the main challenges that we face as a community.
近年来，关于其他学科网络研究的几篇“回顾性”文章促进了学术界对已取得成就、仍需完成的工作以及文献中不同领域之间联系的反思（例如，Brass 等，2004；Provan、Fish 和 Sydow，2007）。然而，参与网络研究的不同学科各自有其重要的关注点和重点，这对它们的研究方向至关重要。因此，我们借此机会对公共管理领域网络研究的发展进行评论，并提出我们作为一个学术共同体所面临的主要挑战。

The focus on networks in Public Administration has grown rapidly in the past decade and a half. The use of networks by practitioners has exploded as well as the number of scholars of public organizations who study them or who find the conceptualization useful. At the last National Public Management Research Conference held in Tucson, AZ, organizers noted the upsurge of submissions dealing with this topic. So we ask: How did we get from little network scholarship 20 years ago to such a preoccupation with the topic today?
在过去十五年中，公共管理领域对网络的关注迅速增长。实践者对网络的使用激增，同时研究公共组织的学者数量也在增加，他们认为这一概念化是有用的。在最近一次于亚利桑那州图森市举行的全国公共管理研究会议上，组织者注意到与这一主题相关的投稿激增。因此，我们要问：我们是如何从 20 年前对网络研究的关注甚少，发展到今天如此关注这一主题的？

The answer is not entirely straightforward. We can identify three main streams of research on networks that appear in the current literature. The oldest effort focuses on policy networks. Policy networks are a set of public agencies, legislative offices, and private sector organizations (including interests groups, corporations, nonprofits, etc.) that have an interest in public decisions within a particular area of policy because they are interdependent and thus have a “shared fate” (Laumann and Knoke 1987). The original conceptualization of policy networks concerned decision making about public resource allocation.
答案并不完全简单。我们可以在当前文献中识别出三条主要的网络研究方向。最早的研究集中在政策网络上。政策网络是指一组公共机构、立法办公室和私营部门组织（包括利益集团、公司、非营利组织等），它们对特定政策领域内的公共决策有兴趣，因为它们是相互依赖的，因此具有“共同命运”（Laumann 和 Knoke 1987）。政策网络的最初概念化涉及公共资源分配的决策。

Networks focusing on the provision and production of collaborative goods and services are the second important stream of literature. Collaborative networks are collections of government agencies, nonprofits, and for-profits that work together to provide a public good, service, or “value” when a single public agency is unable to create the good or service on its own and/or the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide the goods or services in the desired quantities (cf. Agranoff and McGuire 2001, 2003; Mandell 2001; Nelson 2001; O'Toole 1997a). Collaborative networks carry out activities on behalf of the public. They may be formal and orchestrated by a public manager or they may be emergent, self-organizing, and ad hoc, with many variants in between.
以提供和生产协作商品和服务为重点的网络是第二个重要的文献流。协作网络是由政府机构、非营利组织和营利性组织组成的集合，它们共同合作提供公共产品、服务或“价值”，当单一公共机构无法独立创造该商品或服务时，或者私营部门无法或不愿以所需数量提供商品或服务时（参见 Agranoff 和 McGuire 2001, 2003；Mandell 2001；Nelson 2001；O'Toole 1997a）。协作网络代表公众开展活动。它们可以是由公共管理者正式组织的，也可以是自发的、自我组织的和临时的，介于两者之间有许多变体。

The third stream of literature is on governance networks. Governance networks are entities that fuse collaborative public goods and service provision with collective policymaking—for instance, business improvement districts or some environmental mitigation efforts (Bogason and Musso 2006; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000; Klijn and Skelcher 2007; Rhodes 1997; Sørensen and Torfing 2005). These networks focus on the coordination of organizations toward a common goal rather than the policies or products that the networks actually produce.
第三类文献是关于治理网络的。治理网络是将协作公共产品和服务提供与集体决策相结合的实体——例如，商业改善区或某些环境缓解措施（Bogason 和 Musso 2006；Klijn 和 Koppenjan 2000；Klijn 和 Skelcher 2007；Rhodes 1997；Sørensen 和 Torfing 2005）。这些网络关注的是组织之间朝着共同目标的协调，而不是网络实际产生的政策或产品。

As Berry et al. (2004) note, each of these programs of research have their roots in other disciplines, though public administration scholars have written on all three (and sometimes have confused all three—see Börzel 1998). However, until the recent work on governance, scholars pursued programs of research that fell broadly into either the policy or collaborative literature.1
正如 Berry 等人（2004）所指出的，这些研究项目都根植于其他学科，尽管公共行政学者对这三者都有所研究（有时甚至混淆了这三者——见 Börzel 1998）。然而，在最近关于治理的研究之前，学者们所追求的研究项目大致上属于政策或协作文献。

Historical Roots 历史根源

As Kettl (1996, 2000), Salamon (1981, 2002), and others have pointed out, government no longer directly creates public “value” (to use Moore's [1995] phrase). Instead, nearly 19 of every 20 dollars of federal spending are funneled through third parties (Salamon 2002, 4). This rather startling movement toward third-party public goods production occurred over 30 or 40 years as a set of social and economic changes took hold in the United States and across the world. Though some movement away from bureaucratic service provision began earlier, a key component in this transformation was the reemergence of conservative parties in the United States, the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent in Europe. The Reagan and Thatcher Administrations in particular were swept into power by anti-tax/small government movements that reinvigorated debate on the proper division of labor between the public and private sectors. Reagan and Thatcher both began rapid programs of privatization and marketization of the public sector.
正如 Kettl（1996，2000）、Salamon（1981，2002）等人所指出的，政府不再直接创造公共“价值”（用 Moore 的说法[1995]）。相反，几乎每 20 美元的联邦支出中就有 19 美元通过第三方进行分配（Salamon 2002，4）。这种向第三方公共产品生产的相当惊人的转变发生在过去 30 或 40 年间，随着一系列社会和经济变化在美国及全球范围内的发生。尽管早期就开始有一些脱离官僚服务提供的趋势，但这一转型的一个关键因素是保守党在美国、英国的重新崛起，以及在欧洲的较小程度的影响。里根和撒切尔政府尤其是受到反税/小政府运动的推动而上台，这场运动重新激活了关于公共部门与私营部门之间适当分工的辩论。里根和撒切尔都开始了公共部门的快速私有化和市场化进程。

In response to the call for the “third-party governance” of Reagan and Thatcher, the “New Public Management” (NPM) emerged with its market-based prescriptions providing rationales and templates for the marketization of public goods and services and “privatized” (i.e., made voluntary) regulation. However, the NPM program in theory and practice ran up against several realities: many services cannot be sufficiently homogenized so that contracting out is possible, centralized regulation marched on as citizens continued to demand more governance but less government (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), and the problem of small numbers bargaining and transaction-specific capital (Williamson 1981) attenuated the expected efficiency benefits of marketization. Moreover, there were classes of problems—what Rittel and Webber (1973) had earlier termed “wicked problems”—to which markets seemed poorly suited for classic contracting. Wicked problems require experts from disparate fields to cooperatively construct a reasonable and feasible way to address the complexities inherent in the problem at hand. No one organization or individual possesses the tools needed to adequately address problems that do not respect political, disciplinary, and industrial boundaries (Kettl 2006). In these classes of problems—which are becoming increasingly common—NPM's prescriptions were insufficient.
为了响应里根和撒切尔对“第三方治理”的呼吁，“新公共管理”（NPM）应运而生，其市场导向的方案为公共产品和服务的市场化以及“私有化”（即自愿化）监管提供了理由和模板。然而，NPM 在理论和实践中面临着几个现实：许多服务无法充分同质化，以至于无法进行外包，集中监管继续推进，因为公民不断要求更多的治理但更少的政府（Osborne 和 Gaebler 1992），而小数量谈判和特定交易资本的问题（Williamson 1981）削弱了市场化所预期的效率收益。此外，还有一些问题——Rittel 和 Webber（1973）早先称之为“棘手问题”——市场似乎不适合经典合同的解决。棘手问题需要来自不同领域的专家共同构建合理且可行的方法，以应对所面临问题的复杂性。 没有任何组织或个人拥有足够的工具来妥善解决不受政治、学科和行业界限限制的问题（Kettl 2006）。在这些问题类别中——这些问题正变得越来越普遍——新公共管理的建议是不够的。

Networks, then, are in part a response to the insufficiencies of NPM in the face of complexity, mission expansion, government de-legitimization, and knowledge creation needs that are posed by wicked problems. Networks provide flexible structures that are inclusive, information rich, and outside the scope of direct bureaucratic control. These structures allow public agencies to manage public problems by leveraging expertise held outside its scope of authority. Thus as O'Toole (1997b), echoing earlier work on alternative forms of governance by Ostrom (1990) and other “sociologists and public choice specialists”, pointed out, networks are an alternative when markets and bureaucracies fail. As several commentators have noted (cf. McGuire 2006; O'Toole and Meier 2004), much of the research on collaboration has been optimistic about the quality and nature of resulting goods and services. However, another strain in the literature has been more skeptical of networks on performance and accountability grounds (e.g., Freeman 1965; Heclo 1977; Laumann and Knoke 1987; McCool 1989, 1990).
网络在一定程度上是对新公共管理（NPM）在面对复杂性、任务扩展、政府合法性削弱以及由棘手问题所带来的知识创造需求不足的回应。网络提供了灵活的结构，这些结构是包容的、信息丰富的，并且超出了直接官僚控制的范围。这些结构使公共机构能够通过利用其权威范围之外的专业知识来管理公共问题。因此，正如 O'Toole（1997b）所指出的，呼应了 Ostrom（1990）及其他“社会学家和公共选择专家”早期关于替代治理形式的研究，当市场和官僚体制失效时，网络是一种替代方案。正如几位评论者所指出的（参见 McGuire 2006；O'Toole 和 Meier 2004），关于合作的许多研究对所产生的商品和服务的质量和性质持乐观态度。然而，文献中还有另一种观点对网络在绩效和问责方面持更为怀疑的态度（例如，Freeman 1965；Heclo 1977；Laumann 和 Knoke 1987；McCool 1989, 1990）。

Preaching What Is Already in Practice
宣讲已经在实践中的内容

There is little doubt that practitioners have sprinted ahead of the academic research with regard to networks. Network forms of organization emerged and spread during the 1970s but seem to have flowered during the 1990s when the Clinton Administration embraced government reinvention in the face of renewed political resistance to expanded government. The primary program of academic research in public administration, however, can probably be dated to the late 1990s—though prescient scholars such as Salamon (1981) began to note the movement toward networks in the Reagan years. The emergence of network studies in public administration research, then, was playing catch up to the structures already put in place—from complex contracting structures, to networks created to build specialized defense hardware, to emergent social service networks rowing the deinstitutionalization movement, and to regional multisector schemes for environmental management. The degree to which these innovations were self-consciously constructed as networks is open to debate. Nonetheless, scholars are increasingly discovering public goods and service provision structures that meet current definitions of networks.
毫无疑问，实践者在网络方面已经远远领先于学术研究。网络形式的组织在 1970 年代出现并传播，但似乎在 1990 年代达到了巅峰，当时克林顿政府在面对对扩张政府的政治抵抗时，拥抱了政府重塑。然而，公共行政领域的学术研究主要程序可能可以追溯到 1990 年代末——尽管像萨拉蒙（1981）这样的有先见之明的学者在里根时期就开始注意到向网络的转变。因此，公共行政研究中网络研究的出现是在追赶已经建立的结构——从复杂的合同结构，到为建造专业防御硬件而创建的网络，再到推动去制度化运动的新兴社会服务网络，以及用于环境管理的区域多部门方案。这些创新在多大程度上是自觉构建为网络仍然存在争议。尽管如此，学者们越来越多地发现符合当前网络定义的公共产品和服务提供结构。

Network studies, then, are a response to a new administrative reality driven by social, political, and economic forces. The studies that have emerged over the last decade or so have their roots in earlier programs of research founded in political science, sociology, and the policy sciences—particularly in the programs of research on interorganizational networks (Galaskiewicz 1985; Rogers and Whetten 1982) and the concept of boundary spanning (Adams 1976; Aldrich and Herker 1977), as well as the lived experiences of master practitioners who drew academic attention to their innovations. Despite the rapid growth of the networks literature in Public Administration, the field is still in its early stages. Scholars remain faced with fundamental questions and challenges that make network studies a variegated undertaking where a variety of phenomena are described in multiple ways. We now turn to a discussion of these fundamental questions.
网络研究是对由社会、政治和经济力量驱动的新行政现实的回应。在过去十年左右出现的研究，其根源可以追溯到早期的研究项目，这些项目建立在政治科学、社会学和政策科学的基础上——特别是在关于组织间网络的研究项目（Galaskiewicz 1985；Rogers 和 Whetten 1982）以及跨界概念（Adams 1976；Aldrich 和 Herker 1977），还有那些吸引学术关注的创新实践者的生活经验。尽管公共行政领域的网络文献迅速增长，但该领域仍处于早期阶段。学者们面临着基本问题和挑战，使得网络研究成为一种多样化的工作，其中各种现象以多种方式被描述。我们现在转向对这些基本问题的讨论。

CHALLENGES FACING PUBIC ADMINISTRATION NETWORK SCHOLARSHIP
公共行政网络学术面临的挑战

General Theoretical Issues
一般理论问题

This section covers three fundamental issues in the current Public Administration network literature: definition of networks (and how the term “network” is used), unit of analysis, and terminology. These issues are all interrelated, but each pose important conceptual concerns that merit separate attention.
本节涵盖了当前公共行政网络文献中的三个基本问题：网络的定义（以及“网络”一词的使用方式）、分析单位和术语。这些问题相互关联，但每个问题都提出了重要的概念性关注，值得单独关注。

Definition 定义

Perhaps the most fundamental issue that faces network scholars today is the diverse definitions that are used for the term. The word “network” is used loosely throughout the literature and can refer to many different things, including (but not limited to) a gathering of actors with (a) different levels of coupling who may or may not be cognizant of their “corporateness” which are (b) operationalized at various levels of analysis (individuals, organizations, etc.) using (c) multiple conceptual approaches and agendas (metaphor/organizing concept, method, utilitarianist) and (d) an array of static versus dynamic and agency-based notions. Although all these forms may be networks of some sort, there is a lack of clarity with which scholars in Public Administration use the term. Thus, we have an amorphous set of studies that do not necessarily belong to a distinct intellectual tradition or even a clear understanding of what studies hang together as subsets of a broader tradition.
或许当今网络学者面临的最根本问题是对“网络”一词的多样定义。文献中“网络”一词的使用相对宽泛，可以指代许多不同的事物，包括（但不限于）一群具有（a）不同耦合程度的参与者，他们可能意识到或不意识到他们的“共同体”，这些参与者在（b）不同的分析层面（个人、组织等）上被操作，并使用（c）多种概念方法和议程（隐喻/组织概念、方法、功利主义）以及（d）一系列静态与动态及基于代理的概念。尽管所有这些形式可能在某种程度上都是网络，但公共行政领域的学者对这一术语的使用缺乏清晰性。因此，我们有一组模糊的研究，这些研究不一定属于一个独特的知识传统，甚至对哪些研究作为更广泛传统的子集相互关联也缺乏明确的理解。

We suggest that there are three general ways in which “networks” are used in the public administration literature2. One way the term is generally used is as a metaphor or an organizing concept. Here we see studies that invoke a network conceptualization of a social phenomenon that may not necessarily have a structure or corporate entity that defines the network, but the network metaphor provides a useful and powerful way to understand what is going on in the social context under examination. This use raises the important and critical issue of whether the actors in an attributed network (meaning a group where the network paradigm is applied) must acknowledge and accept that they operate in a network for it to actually be a network. This approach is probably best typified by the research program of networks by Meier and O'Toole (e.g., Meier and O'Toole 2003; O'Toole and Meier 2004) and much of the European and Asian networks literature.
我们建议在公共行政文献中，“网络”有三种一般的使用方式。该术语的一种一般用法是作为隐喻或组织概念。在这里，我们看到一些研究引用了社会现象的网络概念化，这些现象可能并不一定具有定义网络的结构或法人实体，但网络隐喻提供了一种有用且强大的方式来理解所研究的社会背景。这种用法提出了一个重要且关键的问题，即在一个被归因的网络中（指应用网络范式的群体），参与者是否必须承认并接受他们在网络中运作，才能使其真正成为一个网络。这种方法可能最能代表 Meier 和 O'Toole 的网络研究计划（例如，Meier 和 O'Toole 2003；O'Toole 和 Meier 2004）以及许多欧洲和亚洲网络文献。

A second way the term is used is to refer to the methods and methodological paradigm that surrounds networks, social network analysis. In this use, structure and the measurement of structural dynamics is the focus. Although most network scholars use some sort of network methodology in their studies, the “method” approach is really focused on the development of tools, the refinement of measures, and the appropriateness of usage. Here, network structure is paramount to the meaning of those structures or the practical uses of those applications. Many of the articles found in the journal Social Networks would fall into this category, as well at the scholarship of the “Dutch School” (e.g., Snijders and Bosker 2000) who are pioneering many of the stochastic techniques that are emerging currently.
第二种用法是指围绕网络的网络方法和方法论范式，即社会网络分析。在这种用法中，结构和结构动态的测量是重点。尽管大多数网络学者在研究中使用某种网络方法，但“方法”方法实际上侧重于工具的开发、测量的完善和使用的适宜性。在这里，网络结构对这些结构的意义或这些应用的实际用途至关重要。许多在《社会网络》期刊中找到的文章都属于这一类别，以及“荷兰学派”的学术研究（例如，Snijders 和 Bosker 2000），他们正在开创许多当前出现的随机技术。

The third way that networks are used in the Public Administration literature is mainly utilitarian—as an approach or as a tool to understand public service provision. Here, networks are used to get something done, such as the service delivery networks studied by the “Provan school” of scholars (Huang and Provan 2007; Isett and Provan 2005; Provan, Milward, and Isett 2002) and local collaborative governance as studied by the “Agranoff school” (Agranoff 2007; Agranoff and McGuire 2001, 2003) (and as extended by Feiock and his colleagues, particularly with their use of social network analysis [see, e.g., Feiock 2004, 2007; Feiock and Scholz 2009]). From these efforts, we have begun to understand how networks may deliver and create services in a coordinated way. However, most of these studies tend to focus on formal networks—those networks officially set up by some convening body where membership may either be coerced or have some compelling normative or resource incentives to participate—thereby leaving important classes of networks, emergent and informal, underexplored.
在公共管理文献中，网络的第三种使用方式主要是功利性的——作为一种方法或工具来理解公共服务的提供。在这里，网络被用来完成某些任务，例如“普罗万学派”学者研究的服务交付网络（黄和普罗万 2007；伊塞特和普罗万 2005；普罗万、米尔沃德和伊塞特 2002）以及“Agranoff 学派”研究的地方协作治理（Agranoff 2007；Agranoff 和麦圭尔 2001, 2003）（并由费伊克及其同事扩展，特别是他们使用社会网络分析的研究[参见，例如，费伊克 2004, 2007；费伊克和肖尔茨 2009]）。通过这些努力，我们开始理解网络如何以协调的方式交付和创造服务。然而，这些研究大多倾向于关注正式网络——那些由某个召集机构正式设立的网络，其成员资格可能是被强迫的，或者有某种强制性的规范或资源激励来参与——因此，重要的网络类别，如新兴和非正式网络，仍然未得到充分探索。

All these perspectives are meaningful and provide one part of the networks landscape. However, the implications of networks differ depending on how they are conceptualized and studied. Importantly, scholars to date have not self-consciously placed their studies in a subsection of the literature, so there are few opportunities to determine whether findings are commensurate with one another and thus cumulative in their effect on the literature. It is curious that much of the older work was completed in the utilitarian mode, whereas much of the newer work seems to be metaphorical, with little original work in Public Administration being done on methodology.
所有这些视角都是有意义的，并提供了网络景观的一部分。然而，网络的含义取决于它们如何被概念化和研究。重要的是，迄今为止，学者们并没有自觉地将他们的研究置于文献的一个子部分，因此很少有机会确定研究结果是否相互一致，从而在对文献的影响上是累积的。令人好奇的是，许多较早的研究是在功利模式下完成的，而许多较新的研究似乎是隐喻性的，在公共管理领域关于方法论的原创性研究很少。

Unit of Analysis 分析单位

An issue in the networks literature that has yet to be resolved is the appropriate unit of analysis for a network study. Fundamentally, a network can be defined as a group of goal-oriented interdependent but autonomous actors that come together to produce a collective output (tangible or intangible) that no one actor could produce on its own (Alter and Hage 1993; Isett and Provan 2005; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). Interorganizational arrangements within this rubric are often nonhierarchical and participation is noncoercive, but that is not always the case. Network analysts often assume that the relationships embedded within a network are predicated on all the other relationships in that network. That is, new relationships are dependent upon the structure of relationships that already exist in the network and the degree of reachability and redundancy that is desired within the network (Burt 1992; Granovetter 1985; Isett and Ellis 2007). The debate about unit of analysis comes into play with regard to whether “whole networks” must be studied or if there is leverage in studying component substructures. The answer is that both perspectives have merit. However, there has been a lack of systematic work on networks as a whole, hindering our ability to understand just how the whole functions separately from its parts (Provan, Fish, and Sydow 2007). The key to the study of network substructures is to be conceptually and analytically clear as to whether the unit of analysis is actually a network substructure or whether the unit of analysis is just a free standing dyad, cluster, or the like. Although intellectually we can expect that these two things (a freestanding cluster or an embedded network substructure) are related, we also need to understand what it is about networks that make dyads, for example, different when they are in networks and when they are not. The assumption here is that a network is more than just a collection of atomistic relationships. This assumption is not trivial as it conditions a range of dynamics among members, such as the effect of transactions costs and reputation (Isett and Provan 2005).
网络文献中尚未解决的一个问题是网络研究的适当分析单位。从根本上讲，网络可以定义为一组目标导向的相互依赖但自主的参与者，他们聚集在一起以产生一个任何单一参与者都无法独自产生的集体产出（有形或无形）（Alter 和 Hage 1993；Isett 和 Provan 2005；Koppenjan 和 Klijn 2004）。在这一框架下的跨组织安排通常是非等级制的，参与是非强制性的，但情况并不总是如此。网络分析师通常假设嵌入网络中的关系是基于该网络中所有其他关系的前提。也就是说，新关系依赖于网络中已经存在的关系结构以及网络中所期望的可达性和冗余程度（Burt 1992；Granovetter 1985；Isett 和 Ellis 2007）。关于分析单位的辩论涉及到是否必须研究“整体网络”，或者研究组成子结构是否具有杠杆作用。答案是这两种观点都有其价值。 然而，关于网络整体的系统性研究仍然不足，这阻碍了我们理解整体如何独立于其部分运作的能力（Provan, Fish, 和 Sydow 2007）。研究网络子结构的关键在于在概念上和分析上明确分析单位究竟是网络子结构，还是仅仅是一个独立的二元关系、集群或类似的东西。尽管在智力上我们可以预期这两者（一个独立的集群或一个嵌入的网络子结构）是相关的，但我们也需要理解网络中使得二元关系在网络中与不在网络中时有所不同的因素。这里的假设是，网络不仅仅是原子关系的集合。这个假设并非微不足道，因为它影响着成员之间的一系列动态，例如交易成本和声誉的影响（Isett 和 Provan 2005）。

Terminology 术语

Throughout the Public Administration literature, we see references to networks with regard to coordination, collaboration, and cooperation. Although networks can serve these functions, these functions can also exist outside of networks. However, all these terms are used interchangeably. This often leads the reader to assume that networks are coordinative mechanisms or are cooperative mechanisms. However, this may simply not be the case.
在公共行政文献中，我们看到关于协调、合作和协作的网络的引用。尽管网络可以发挥这些功能，但这些功能也可以存在于网络之外。然而，所有这些术语是可以互换使用的。这常常使读者假设网络是协调机制或合作机制。然而，这可能并非事实。

There is a basic agreement among scholars that networks serve some collective action function. But the form this function takes may be varied and widely arrayed on a plane of options. So, although networks may serve to facilitate cooperation or coordination, they do not necessarily have to do so. They could simply exist to facilitate social exchange or to decrease transactions costs for a defined membership group without coordinating at all. Moreover, there is nothing to stop interested actors from forming networks for the express purpose of frustrating political or collaborative activities. Again, we call for increased clarity in future network studies regarding the degree to which a given network exists to facilitate coordination, cooperation, or collaboration and to think carefully about non-networked instances of cooperative behavior. Conversely, we call for more studies that examine networks that are not explicitly built to foster the three predominant collective action functions. Such studies could better establish the range of functions networks fulfill and serve as a basis of comparison for the evaluation of cooperative networks.
学者们基本上达成共识，网络在某种程度上发挥着集体行动的功能。但这种功能的形式可能多种多样，并在选项的平面上广泛排列。因此，尽管网络可能有助于促进合作或协调，但它们并不一定必须这样做。它们可能仅仅存在于促进社会交换或降低特定成员群体的交易成本，而根本不进行协调。此外，没有任何东西可以阻止有兴趣的参与者为了挫败政治或合作活动而形成网络。再次，我们呼吁在未来的网络研究中增加清晰度，以明确特定网络在多大程度上存在以促进协调、合作或协作，并仔细考虑非网络化的合作行为实例。相反，我们呼吁更多研究那些并非明确建立以促进三种主要集体行动功能的网络。这类研究可以更好地确立网络所履行的功能范围，并作为评估合作网络的比较基础。

Disconnect between Formal and Informal Network Research
正式与非正式网络研究之间的脱节

In this section, we highlight the existing work on both formal and informal networks. Although our discussion focuses on formal networks, this is merely an artifact of the existing work on networks in the field. In fact, we believe there to be considerable merit in further developing the set of studies that look at less formally created networks, as well as informal relationships within formal networks. Formal and informal networks differ primarily by the explicitness of their origins. Formal networks are consciously created with some sort of binding agreement for participation, whereas informal networks are more organically derived—an outgrowth of organizational contingencies that multiple actors come together to address.
在本节中，我们强调了关于正式和非正式网络的现有研究。尽管我们的讨论主要集中在正式网络上，但这仅仅是该领域网络研究的一个产物。事实上，我们认为进一步发展研究较少正式创建的网络以及正式网络内的非正式关系的研究具有相当大的价值。正式网络和非正式网络的主要区别在于其起源的明确性。正式网络是通过某种参与的约束性协议有意识地创建的，而非正式网络则更具有机性——是多个参与者为应对组织环境而共同形成的结果。

Formal Networks 正式网络

Formal networks are multiactor arrangements explicitly constituted by public managers to produce and deliver public services. Explicit constitution could take a number of forms including contracts, enabling legislation, memoranda of understanding, joint agreements, etc.3 Formal networks now serve as the preferred service delivery method for many forms of health and human services provision including public mental health (Provan and Milward 1995), child welfare (Romzek and Johnston 1999), adult basic education (Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008), and housing/homeless services (Hoch 2000). Local governments also rely on formal networks for managing economic development (Agranoff and McGuire 2003), public safety (Andrew 2009), the environment (Lubell et al. 2002), and a host of other municipal services such as fire protection, parks and recreation, sewerage, and solid waste management (Shrestha and Feiock 2004).
正式网络是由公共管理者明确构建的多方参与安排，旨在生产和提供公共服务。明确构建可以采取多种形式，包括合同、授权立法、谅解备忘录、联合协议等。正式网络现在成为许多健康和人类服务提供形式的首选服务交付方式，包括公共心理健康（Provan 和 Milward 1995）、儿童福利（Romzek 和 Johnston 1999）、成人基础教育（Rethemeyer 和 Hatmaker 2008）以及住房/无家可归者服务（Hoch 2000）。地方政府还依赖正式网络来管理经济发展（Agranoff 和 McGuire 2003）、公共安全（Andrew 2009）、环境（Lubell 等 2002）以及其他一系列市政服务，如消防保护、公园和娱乐、污水处理和固体废物管理（Shrestha 和 Feiock 2004）。

Service delivery networks are typically made formal by contractual relationships between each network actor and a convening organization, the Network Administrative Organization (Provan and Kenis 2008; Provan and Milward 2001). Contracts serve to legally bind network actors together and specify the roles and responsibilities of participants. Although many formal networks in public administration are bound by contractual relationships, contracts are not the only tool for formalizing a network. Mutual aid pacts and memoranda of understanding also create formal networks where actors share a set of collective goals, have clearly defined roles, and display sustained commitment to these roles over time, even in the absence of legal obligations to fulfill network responsibilities.
服务交付网络通常通过每个网络参与者与一个召集组织，即网络管理组织之间的合同关系而正式化（Provan 和 Kenis 2008；Provan 和 Milward 2001）。合同的作用是将网络参与者合法绑定在一起，并明确参与者的角色和责任。尽管公共管理中的许多正式网络是通过合同关系绑定的，但合同并不是正式化网络的唯一工具。互助协议和谅解备忘录也创造了正式网络，在这些网络中，参与者共享一套共同目标，拥有明确定义的角色，并在没有法律义务履行网络责任的情况下，随着时间的推移持续承诺于这些角色。

For the past 15 years, the study of formal networks has been a central focus of public management research. During this time, empirical network studies have produced important insights for the practice of managing complex, multiorganizational arrangements. This research has been instructive in many ways: it has revealed the power structures that contribute to network effectiveness (Milward and Provan 1998) and how network participants overcome unexpected obstacles in mitigating public emergencies (Moynihan 2005); it has highlighted the skills required for successful network management (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004) and generated criteria for assessing network performance (Provan and Milward 2001), and it has explored how public managers’ expectations and interactions with network contractors impact performance (Romzek and Johnston 2002).
在过去的 15 年里，正式网络的研究一直是公共管理研究的核心焦点。在此期间，实证网络研究为管理复杂的多组织安排的实践提供了重要的见解。这项研究在许多方面都具有启发性：它揭示了有助于网络有效性的权力结构（Milward 和 Provan 1998），以及网络参与者如何克服意外障碍以缓解公共紧急情况（Moynihan 2005）；它突出了成功网络管理所需的技能（Agranoff 和 McGuire 2003；Koppenjan 和 Klijn 2004），并生成了评估网络绩效的标准（Provan 和 Milward 2001），还探讨了公共管理者对网络承包商的期望和互动如何影响绩效（Romzek 和 Johnston 2002）。

Despite the intellectual progress the field has made in the study of networks, there are still many aspects of network management and performance that are not well understood. We face significant limitations in our knowledge of how networks perform over time (see the article by Moynihan et al. [2010] in this issue for an outline of the challenges facing measurement of network performance). Although there is some emerging work that examines the factors that promote network stability over time (Isett and Provan 2005) and the characteristics of public goods and services that shape the evolution of network participants’ interactions (Andrew 2009), the field stands to benefit substantially from additional time-series investigations of formal networks. Such research would be especially useful if it were undertaken with the goal of identifying factors that contribute to successful network outcomes over time.
尽管该领域在网络研究方面取得了智力进展，但网络管理和性能的许多方面仍然不够清楚。我们在了解网络随时间表现的知识上面临重大限制（请参见本期 Moynihan 等人[2010]的文章，概述了网络性能测量面临的挑战）。尽管有一些新兴研究考察了促进网络随时间稳定性的因素（Isett 和 Provan 2005）以及塑造网络参与者互动演变的公共产品和服务特征（Andrew 2009），但该领域仍然可以从对正式网络的额外时间序列研究中获得实质性收益。如果这些研究的目标是识别有助于成功网络结果的因素，那么它们将特别有用。

Further, scholars still confront methodological dilemmas in examining formal networks, particularly with regard to network boundary specification. Although network boundaries are often delineated for the purposes of empirical analysis, discovering the limits of networks in reality can be quite difficult. For example, many government contractors who produce and deliver services through a network rely themselves on an extensive network of subcontractors to whom they delegate authority and some degree of discretion in service implementation. In addition to subcontractors, network participants may make referrals or enter into partnerships with community or voluntary organizations that are not part of the formal network but are essential to network outcomes nevertheless. These common scenarios give rise to fundamental questions about where the boundaries of networks should be drawn, further blurs the boundaries of the “public,” and diffuses accountability (Romzek 2008).
此外，学者们在研究正式网络时仍面临方法论困境，特别是在网络边界的界定方面。尽管网络边界通常为了实证分析而被划定，但在现实中发现网络的限制可能相当困难。例如，许多通过网络生产和提供服务的政府承包商，自己依赖于一个广泛的分包商网络，将权力和一定程度的裁量权委托给他们。在分包商之外，网络参与者可能会向社区或志愿组织进行推荐或建立合作关系，这些组织虽然不属于正式网络，但对网络的结果却至关重要。这些常见情境引发了关于网络边界应如何划定的基本问题，进一步模糊了“公共”领域的边界，并稀释了问责制（Romzek 2008）。

Another challenge in network research lies in arriving at conclusions that can be generalized. Networks are embedded in a specific policy context, and the behavior of network actors is defined by that context (Heikkila and Isett 2004). Therefore, much of what we know about managing networks from studies of mental health providers has questionable applicability to other types of networks. Formal networks arise from diverse institutional forms that subsist on diverse funding streams that carry differing regulations and rules for implementation. Networks are thus shaped and constrained by institutional rules as well as regulatory procedures and norms that are specific to the policy arena.
网络研究中的另一个挑战在于得出可以推广的结论。网络嵌入在特定的政策背景中，网络参与者的行为由该背景定义（Heikkila 和 Isett 2004）。因此，我们从心理健康提供者的研究中了解到的关于管理网络的许多知识在其他类型的网络中适用性存疑。正式网络源于多样的制度形式，这些形式依赖于不同的资金来源，这些资金来源具有不同的实施规定和规则。因此，网络受到制度规则以及特定于政策领域的监管程序和规范的塑造和限制。

The decision to rely on networks as a service delivery method also creates a new set of political dynamics that network administrators must manage. Bringing multiple organizations into the service delivery process creates new types of interest group pressures, strengthens providers’ lobbying power, and may even lead to provider collusion (Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008). Whether motivated by resource dependence, political change, or something else, network participants grow to have an increasingly large stake in policy outcomes (Hatmaker and Rethemeyer 2008). For all these reasons, network studies must account for the ways the policy context influences network outcomes.
依赖网络作为服务交付方式的决定也创造了一套新的政治动态，网络管理员必须加以管理。将多个组织纳入服务交付过程会产生新类型的利益集团压力，增强提供者的游说能力，甚至可能导致提供者之间的勾结（Rethemeyer 和 Hatmaker 2008）。无论是出于资源依赖、政治变革还是其他原因，网络参与者在政策结果中所拥有的利益越来越大（Hatmaker 和 Rethemeyer 2008）。基于以上所有原因，网络研究必须考虑政策背景如何影响网络结果。

Formal networks may be somewhat easy to manage because they are fairly stable. Their relatively closed structure leads to greater levels of trust among participants. Trust reduces transaction costs for both network managers and network participants. Informal relationships among network actors often strengthen formal network ties and may give rise to other types of cooperation. For example Thurmaier and Wood (2002) found that social networks among city managers and municipal department heads were the underlying force creating and sustaining the use of interlocal contract networks among municipalities in the Kansas City metro area. They credit the formation of these contractual service networks to high levels of trust and norms of reciprocity, which in turn reinforce the contractual agreements.
正式网络可能相对容易管理，因为它们相对稳定。其相对封闭的结构导致参与者之间更高的信任水平。信任降低了网络管理者和网络参与者的交易成本。网络参与者之间的非正式关系往往加强正式网络的联系，并可能产生其他类型的合作。例如，Thurmaier 和 Wood（2002）发现，城市管理者和市政部门负责人之间的社会网络是创造和维持堪萨斯城大都市区市际合同网络使用的基础力量。他们将这些合同服务网络的形成归因于高水平的信任和互惠规范，这反过来又强化了合同协议。

Although the notion that trust enhances network effectiveness is a generally accepted principle, there are again important variations in policy contexts that shape actors’ commitment to network goals and their incentives to participate. Nonprofit organizations comprising a contract network of child welfare providers have a financial incentive to work together to achieve network goals. Fire chiefs from multiple cities in a metro area may trust each other just as much as the child welfare directors. However, without the same financial incentives as child welfare networks, fire chiefs may be less likely to display high levels of commitment to the goals of the emergency management network of which they are a part. This is because each emergency management network participants’ primary obligations are to their own city, and therefore collective network goals can easily become displaced by an individual participant's own organizational priorities (see Chisholm 1998). This is one reason networks might perform poorly. Current network research does not speak to the problem of “free riders” nor has it provided us with a set of heuristics about how to elicit participation from less-than-active participants or the shape and limits of trust in networks.
尽管信任增强网络有效性的概念是一个普遍接受的原则，但在政策背景中仍然存在重要的差异，这些差异塑造了参与者对网络目标的承诺及其参与的激励。由儿童福利提供者组成的合同网络中的非营利组织有财务激励共同合作以实现网络目标。来自大都市区多个城市的消防局长可能与儿童福利主任一样互相信任。然而，由于缺乏与儿童福利网络相同的财务激励，消防局长可能不太可能对他们所参与的应急管理网络的目标表现出高度的承诺。这是因为每个应急管理网络参与者的主要义务是对自己的城市负责，因此集体网络目标很容易被个别参与者自身的组织优先事项所取代（见 Chisholm 1998）。这就是网络可能表现不佳的一个原因。 当前的网络研究并未涉及“搭便车”问题，也没有为我们提供一套关于如何引导不太活跃参与者参与的启发式方法，或网络中信任的形成与限制。

Informal Networks 非正式网络

From task forces, to coalitions, to ad hoc committees, public and nonprofit organizations participate in a wide range of interorganizational networks that do not bind its members together through formal means. Despite the preponderance of these informal networks, the gap between research and practice is wider for informal networks than formal networks. There is no distinct body of literature on informal networks. Consequently, there has been very little advancement of our understanding of this pervasive mechanism of governance.
从工作组、联盟到临时委员会，公共和非营利组织参与了广泛的跨组织网络，这些网络并不通过正式手段将其成员绑定在一起。尽管这些非正式网络占据主导地位，但对于非正式网络而言，研究与实践之间的差距比正式网络更大。关于非正式网络的文献并没有明确的体系。因此，我们对这一普遍治理机制的理解几乎没有什么进展。

In contrast to formal networks, which are typically designed, informal networks tend to be emergent structures used for information sharing, capacity building, problem solving, and service delivery (Agranoff 2007; Provan and Milward 2001). Although some informal networks emerge for the single purpose of information sharing, all networks must engage in some degree of information sharing to accomplish their stated purposes. Interagency information sharing is viewed as a way to reinforce valued relationships (Dawes 1996), is considered reliable because of shared history (Powell 1990), and may be more consequential than information sharing that happens outside networks. Therefore, it is important to understand the role that informal networks play in the public sphere because they have a significant impact on what and with whom information is shared.
与通常设计的正式网络相比，非正式网络往往是用于信息共享、能力建设、问题解决和服务交付的自发结构（Agranoff 2007；Provan 和 Milward 2001）。尽管一些非正式网络的出现仅仅是为了信息共享，但所有网络都必须在某种程度上进行信息共享，以实现其既定目标。跨机构的信息共享被视为加强有价值关系的一种方式（Dawes 1996），由于共享的历史而被认为是可靠的（Powell 1990），并且可能比网络外发生的信息共享更具影响力。因此，理解非正式网络在公共领域中所扮演的角色是重要的，因为它们对信息的共享内容和对象有着显著的影响。

Informal networks are important tools for problem solving, capacity building, and service delivery as well. Describing the efforts of six watershed management programs engaged in collaborative problem solving, Imperial (2005, 296) notes that “collaborative activities such as work groups, task forces, advisory committees, and other formal and informal staff interactions were frequent occurrences. These interactive processes are important because they help network members find ways to work together, generate new ideas, share knowledge, solve problems, build relationships, and develop trust.” When service delivery is achieved in an informal network, it tends to be a function of service coordination or what Agranoff (2007, 10) calls “outreach” networks in which network members “come together to exchange information and technologies, sequence programming, exchange resource opportunities, pool client contacts, and enhance access opportunities that lead to new programming avenues.”
非正式网络是解决问题、能力建设和服务交付的重要工具。Imperial（2005，296）描述了六个参与协作解决问题的流域管理项目的努力，他指出“工作组、特别工作组、咨询委员会以及其他正式和非正式的员工互动等协作活动是频繁发生的。这些互动过程很重要，因为它们帮助网络成员找到合作的方式，产生新想法，分享知识，解决问题，建立关系并发展信任。”当在非正式网络中实现服务交付时，这往往是服务协调的结果，或者如 Agranoff（2007，10）所称的“外展”网络，在这些网络中，网络成员“聚集在一起交流信息和技术，安排项目顺序，交换资源机会，整合客户联系，并增强通向新项目途径的获取机会。”

What many informal networks have in common is their tendency to become formalized over time (Abram et al. 2005; Imperial 2005). This transition from informal to formal networks has been noted outside of public administration as well (MacKenzie 2008; Minoglou 2002). Whether this is the dominant tendency for informal networks to formalize over time or whether this process is what attracts the notice of researchers is unknown. What most authors agree on is that formalization is a good thing in that it increases the capacity of the network and moves it beyond personal relationships (Imperial 2005) and increases accountability (Thacher 2004). Because formal networks are more likely to garner and share financial resources, participation in informal networks may be an important step for securing grants and contracts for organizations.
许多非正式网络的共同点是它们随着时间的推移倾向于正式化（Abram et al. 2005；Imperial 2005）。这种从非正式到正式网络的转变在公共管理之外也有所注意（MacKenzie 2008；Minoglou 2002）。目前尚不清楚这种非正式网络正式化的趋势是否占主导地位，或者这一过程是否吸引了研究者的关注。大多数作者一致认为，正式化是一件好事，因为它提高了网络的能力，使其超越个人关系（Imperial 2005），并增加了问责制（Thacher 2004）。由于正式网络更有可能获得和分享财务资源，参与非正式网络可能是组织获得资助和合同的重要一步。

Because much of the research on informal networks has been approached through the lenses of cooperation, coordination, and/or collaboration rather than from a network perspective, many critical questions have not been asked. Fortunately, there is a long history of studying informal networks in the field of sociology (Marsden 1990; Wellman 1983). Many of the lessons learned and methods developed in this sociological subfield have been applied to the study of informal networks occurring within organizations. For instance, drawing upon an intraorganizational study exploring interpersonal trust conducted by Ferrin, Dirks, and Shaw (2006), Lambright, Mischen, and Laramee (2010) show that trust among public and nonprofit organizations is a function of personal (propensity to trust), dyadic (perceived trustworthiness of another), and third-party (trust transferability) influences. Similar future studies should investigate the role of power, the emergence of leaders, and the effects that trust, power, and leadership have on information sharing and the willingness to collaborate in the future.
由于对非正式网络的研究大多是通过合作、协调和/或协作的视角进行的，而不是从网络的角度出发，因此许多关键问题尚未被提出。幸运的是，在社会学领域对非正式网络的研究有着悠久的历史（Marsden 1990；Wellman 1983）。在这个社会学子领域中获得的许多经验教训和发展的方法已被应用于组织内部非正式网络的研究。例如，基于 Ferrin、Dirks 和 Shaw（2006）进行的关于人际信任的组织内部研究，Lambright、Mischen 和 Laramee（2010）表明，公共和非营利组织之间的信任是个人（信任倾向）、二人（对他人可信度的感知）和第三方（信任可转移性）影响的函数。类似的未来研究应探讨权力的作用、领导者的出现，以及信任、权力和领导对信息共享和未来合作意愿的影响。

Understanding relational dynamics is one step toward understanding the effectiveness of informal networks. Although strength of relationships is one way to measure effectiveness at the level of the network itself (Provan and Milward 2001), in emergent informal networks, these relationships ultimately have an impact on the network's overall structure (Monge and Contractor 2003), and this dynamic has yet to be explored. It will also be important to consider whether the structure that works best for a particular network is a function of the purpose of the network (e.g., information sharing, capacity building, problem solving, and service delivery). By studying the structure of optimally performing emergent networks, we may gain some insights into how best to design more formal networks.
理解关系动态是理解非正式网络有效性的一个步骤。尽管关系强度是衡量网络自身有效性的一种方式（Provan 和 Milward 2001），在新兴的非正式网络中，这些关系最终会影响网络的整体结构（Monge 和 Contractor 2003），而这一动态尚待探索。考虑到某一特定网络最有效的结构是否取决于网络的目的（例如，信息共享、能力建设、问题解决和服务交付）也将是重要的。通过研究表现最佳的新兴网络的结构，我们可能会获得一些关于如何更好地设计更正式网络的见解。

Importantly, the lack of formal structure in some networks has critical implications for governance. Although one of the potential benefits of networks is that they allow for multiple stakeholders and perspectives to participate in the policy and implementation process, this is no guarantee that they will be representative or that certain voices or perspectives will be included. In designing formal networks, diversity of participation can be a requirement. Informal (socially based) networks, on the other hand, tend to exhibit high levels of homophily (Monge and Contractor 2003). If informal networks emerge from existing social ties, the evolution from informal to formal network may institutionalize discriminatory inclusion/exclusion criteria. More research into the evolution of networks from social networks, to informal interorganizational networks, to formal networks, and in some cases back to informal networks (Mulroy and Shay 1998) is needed to fully understand the role they play in governance.
重要的是，一些网络缺乏正式结构对治理具有重要影响。尽管网络的一个潜在好处是它们允许多个利益相关者和观点参与政策和实施过程，但这并不能保证它们具有代表性，或者某些声音或观点会被纳入。在设计正式网络时，参与的多样性可以成为一项要求。另一方面，非正式（基于社会的）网络往往表现出较高的同质性（Monge 和 Contractor 2003）。如果非正式网络源于现有的社会关系，从非正式到正式网络的演变可能会使歧视性纳入/排除标准制度化。需要更多关于网络从社会网络到非正式跨组织网络，再到正式网络，在某些情况下又回到非正式网络（Mulroy 和 Shay 1998）演变的研究，以全面理解它们在治理中所发挥的作用。

Methodological Issues 方法论问题

Sampling of Public Sector Networks
公共部门网络的抽样

As the unit of analysis in most network research is, per definition, the complete network, collecting network data is a lengthy process usually requiring several waves of surveys or application of snowballing techniques to identify all relevant actors. It is therefore usually easier to access formal networks instead of informal networks, where respondents might be more reluctant to reveal their perceptions of their connections. Nonetheless, identifying a network and understanding who the relevant actors are poses a challenge for network researchers. Specifying the boundaries around a network may induce bias through faulty recall of actors, omissions on the part of the researcher, or artificial boundaries that can misrepresent the actual network. If researchers let actors define their network themselves, recall issues that are mostly unintended (caused by impaired self-perception of individual importance or unintended forgetfulness) might emerge (Bernard, Killworth, and Sailer 1982). Researcher-imposed boundaries, however, usually lack the insights that insiders gain regarding the “true” membership of a network but may have the advantage of being theory driven. In either case, this poses important accuracy issues for the data.
由于大多数网络研究的分析单位按定义是完整网络，收集网络数据是一个漫长的过程，通常需要多轮调查或应用滚雪球技术来识别所有相关参与者。因此，通常更容易接触到正式网络，而不是非正式网络，在非正式网络中，受访者可能更不愿意透露他们对自己关系的看法。然而，识别一个网络并理解相关参与者是谁，对网络研究者来说仍然是一个挑战。界定网络的边界可能会通过对参与者的错误回忆、研究者的遗漏或人为的边界而引入偏差，这些偏差可能会误导实际网络的表现。如果研究者让参与者自己定义他们的网络，可能会出现主要是无意的回忆问题（由于个体重要性的自我感知受损或无意的遗忘所导致）（Bernard, Killworth, and Sailer 1982）。然而，研究者施加的边界通常缺乏内部人士对网络“真实”成员资格的洞察，但可能具有理论驱动的优势。 无论哪种情况，这对数据提出了重要的准确性问题。

To combat these sampling issues, new sampling and data collection methods are currently being developed in computer science and physics. These new methods might help to overcome the flaws in the existing approaches, but they also stretch the computational and analytic capacities of our existing models and analysis methods. One example of innovative sampling techniques is Barabasi's network analysis of cell phone records with multimillion data points (González, Hidalgo, and Barabási 2008). This data set consists of recorded interactions between cell phones from which the researcher can deduce the network structure. The data in these studies are not derived from individual perceptions and thus avoids recall issues. Further, the use of online data collection tools or data mining techniques may make it easier to capture network data previously impossible to obtain (e.g., large friendship networks on social networking sites such as Facebook). However, these advances create both opportunities and challenges since they generate data sets of unknown dimensions and of a size that can be overwhelming.
为了应对这些抽样问题，计算机科学和物理学目前正在开发新的抽样和数据收集方法。这些新方法可能有助于克服现有方法的缺陷，但它们也扩展了我们现有模型和分析方法的计算和分析能力。创新抽样技术的一个例子是 Barabási 对手机记录的网络分析，该分析涉及数百万个数据点（González, Hidalgo 和 Barabási 2008）。该数据集由手机之间的记录互动组成，研究人员可以从中推导出网络结构。这些研究中的数据并非源于个体感知，因此避免了回忆问题。此外，使用在线数据收集工具或数据挖掘技术可能使捕获以前无法获得的网络数据变得更加容易（例如，社交网络网站如 Facebook 上的大型友谊网络）。然而，这些进展既带来了机遇，也带来了挑战，因为它们生成了未知维度和规模庞大的数据集，可能会令人不知所措。

Generalizability of Single-Case Studies in Network Research and Lack of Data
网络研究中单一案例研究的普遍性及数据缺乏问题

One characteristic of the public sector is the division of government authority into natural boundaries: networks can be found within and across the federal, state, and local levels. The permutations of agencies and levels within substantive policy arenas make the public sector a unique research setting. Therefore, we often cannot generalize from single network case studies in one specific sector, agency, or state to other contexts in the public sector. Instead, we need to be more attentive to the specificity of the processes and dynamics in those substantive areas and be clear about what aspects transfer to new contexts. Unfortunately, at this time, little work has been completed that is comparative in nature, leaving the field with small pots of useful information rather than a universal theory of networks.
公共部门的一个特征是政府权力的划分遵循自然边界：网络可以在联邦、州和地方各级之间以及内部找到。在实质性政策领域中，各机构和级别的排列组合使公共部门成为一个独特的研究环境。因此，我们往往无法将单一网络案例研究的结果从一个特定的部门、机构或州推广到公共部门的其他背景。相反，我们需要更加关注这些实质性领域中过程和动态的特异性，并明确哪些方面可以转移到新的背景中。不幸的是，目前在这一领域完成的比较性研究很少，导致该领域只有少量有用的信息，而没有一个普遍的网络理论。

We do note, however, an exciting new paradigm toward more systematic data sharing and information dissemination developed in different research communities and funding agencies. The journal Nature, for instance, has called for more transparency through the publication of data sets and analysis steps together with final articles (Helly 1998). Likewise, the Journal of Peace Research and the Journal of Conflict Resolution are asking authors of quantitative empirical articles to make their data—along with computer programs, recodes, codebooks and exploratory files—available together with their article submission. Steps such as these would begin to allow our field to build a broader understanding of network (and other) phenomena without the expense of extensive data collection by making existing datasets more readily available.
然而，我们注意到，在不同的研究社区和资助机构中，出现了一种令人兴奋的新范式，旨在实现更系统的数据共享和信息传播。例如，《自然》杂志呼吁通过与最终文章一起发布数据集和分析步骤来提高透明度（Helly 1998）。同样，《和平研究杂志》和《冲突解决杂志》要求定量实证文章的作者在提交文章时提供他们的数据，以及计算机程序、重编码、代码本和探索性文件。这些步骤将开始使我们的领域能够在不需要大量数据收集的情况下，建立对网络（及其他）现象的更广泛理解，从而使现有数据集更易于获取。

In some cases, funding agencies require grantees to give other researchers access to collected data sets to reduce redundant data collection efforts and to save resources for newer projects. As a contractual requirement, funding organizations regard collected data sets as a public good for the research community. We have noticed that even though contractual requirements are in place, access to federally funded data are still limited and the rules are not enforced. With the exception of the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) data library, social science data still remains predominantly “proprietary.”
在某些情况下，资助机构要求受助者向其他研究人员提供收集的数据集，以减少重复的数据收集工作并为新项目节省资源。作为合同要求，资助组织将收集的数据集视为研究社区的公共资源。我们注意到，尽管有合同要求，但对联邦资助数据的访问仍然有限，相关规则并未得到执行。除了政治与社会研究跨大学联盟（ICPSR）数据图书馆外，社会科学数据仍然主要是“专有”的。

Changes over Time and Dynamic Network Methods
随时间变化的动态网络方法

Current network studies in Public Administration are mainly focusing on static networks, capturing interaction at one moment in time and not taking into account changes that might occur in the social structure over time. We need to move toward dynamic network studies to understand the evolution of networks (see, e.g., Burk, Steglich, and Snijders 2007). So far there are only a few studies out of the Dutch school that are widely accepted in the research community as model studies for dynamic network research. Examples ripe for dynamic modeling in the public sector include: the network effects of public opinion making and deliberation processes over time; impacts of external events on networks (e.g., crisis situations such as Hurricane Katrina and its effect on the resilience network of a community) and social and human capital programs and their impact on existing social networks over time. In this context, we also see a need for within-network and between network studies, which would allow us to compare network structure and changes over time. Another potential application of evolutionary or dynamic models are evaluations of “before and after” impact analysis. So far it is problematic to capture the impact of an event such as an innovation or an intervention as we often do not have access to a comparable data set of the time before the network was created or the time after the event.
当前公共管理领域的网络研究主要集中在静态网络上，捕捉某一时刻的互动，而未考虑社会结构随时间可能发生的变化。我们需要向动态网络研究转变，以理解网络的演变（参见，例如，Burk、Steglich 和 Snijders 2007）。到目前为止，来自荷兰学派的只有少数研究在研究界被广泛接受，作为动态网络研究的模型研究。公共部门中适合动态建模的例子包括：公共舆论形成和审议过程随时间的网络效应；外部事件对网络的影响（例如，飓风卡特里娜及其对社区韧性网络的影响）以及社会和人力资本项目及其对现有社会网络随时间的影响。在这种背景下，我们还看到对网络内部和网络之间研究的需求，这将使我们能够比较网络结构及其随时间的变化。进化或动态模型的另一个潜在应用是“前后”影响分析的评估。 到目前为止，捕捉创新或干预等事件的影响仍然存在问题，因为我们通常无法获得网络创建之前或事件发生之后的可比数据集。

THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION NETWORK RESEARCH
公共行政网络研究的未来

The research program on networks within our discipline is gaining momentum. At this juncture, it is important to “take stock” of where we have been and determine future directions that might be useful for the field. Throughout this article, we have outlined the major issues existing in the literature and discussed the challenges that still face us. Although we attempted to be as comprehensive as possible in our treatment of networks in the Public Administration literature, we of course, could not address every relevant topic of concern to our field. One such issue is the role of the State with regard to networks. Although this is an extremely relevant issue, we have decided that this issue was too broad and merited more attention than we could afford in this critique. Instead, we invite readers to look at the January 2010 special issue of JPART on “The state of agents” (Milward, Heinrich, and Frederickson, eds.) for a thorough treatment of this issue.
我们学科内关于网络的研究项目正在获得动力。在这个时刻，重要的是“盘点”我们所走过的道路，并确定未来可能对该领域有用的方向。在本文中，我们概述了文献中存在的主要问题，并讨论了我们仍面临的挑战。尽管我们在处理公共行政文献中的网络时尽量做到全面，但当然无法涵盖我们领域内所有相关的关注主题。其中一个问题是国家在网络中的角色。尽管这是一个极为相关的问题，但我们认为这个问题过于广泛，值得更多的关注，而不是我们在这篇评论中所能提供的。相反，我们邀请读者查阅 2010 年 1 月的《公共行政研究杂志》特刊“代理人的状态”（Milward, Heinrich, 和 Frederickson 主编），以便对这一问题进行深入探讨。

In conclusion, we offer four areas of concern, in addition to those already discussed earlier, that ought to be considered as the field moves forward. First, other disciplines are farther along in the study of networks (e.g., management, sociology, statistical physics) than Public Administration. Our field needs to be more cognizant of the network literatures in other disciplines and to employ this research to advance our own understanding of network issues in public sector contexts. One approach to creating a general theory of networks would be to think of the term “network” as a universal algorithm, rather than as a metaphor or specific functional form. This would avoid the “too much loose analogizing” (Beinhocker 2007, 12) that our field is experiencing at the moment with disparate uses of the term.
总之，除了之前讨论的内容外，我们还提出了四个需要关注的领域，以便在该领域向前发展。首先，其他学科在网络研究方面（例如，管理学、社会学、统计物理学）比公共管理学更为成熟。我们的领域需要更加关注其他学科的网络文献，并利用这些研究来推动我们对公共部门背景下网络问题的理解。创建网络通用理论的一种方法是将“网络”一词视为一种普遍算法，而不是隐喻或特定功能形式。这将避免我们领域目前在该术语的不同用法上所经历的“过于松散的类比”（Beinhocker 2007, 12）。

Second, Public Administration scholars need to foster closer ties with technical disciplines that are developing new methods and measures, such as computer science and statistical physics. The toolsets that emerge from technical fields are not always appropriate to study of the public sector. Fostering ties would aid in the development of more appropriate tools for the phenomena we study. Conversely, Public Administration network scholars also need to take the time to understand the technical aspects of the software and analytic tools they use, including the difference between social network measures and the visual representation of networks. Although structural analysis of networks is not the only way to study networks, structure does matter and is a critical element to understanding this increasingly ubiquitous form of organization. Enhanced understanding of analytic approaches will aid in the appropriate use of existing tools and measures as well as facilitate the development of theoretical linkages between public administration concepts and social network measures.
其次，公共行政学者需要与正在开发新方法和新测量的技术学科建立更紧密的联系，例如计算机科学和统计物理学。来自技术领域的工具集并不总是适合研究公共部门。促进联系将有助于开发更适合我们研究现象的工具。相反，公共行政网络学者也需要花时间理解他们使用的软件和分析工具的技术方面，包括社会网络测量与网络可视化表示之间的区别。尽管网络的结构分析并不是研究网络的唯一方法，但结构确实很重要，是理解这种日益普遍的组织形式的关键要素。对分析方法的深入理解将有助于适当使用现有工具和测量，并促进公共行政概念与社会网络测量之间理论联系的发展。

Third, the field needs to complete metastudies of network cases. Understanding what you understand is an important step in any young field of inquiry. Although traditional meta-analyses are not statistically possible within this field as of yet, it is still important to systematically evaluate the existing literature to describe the consistent findings that do exist and areas that seem to clash with one another. Currently, metastudies must be qualitative in nature but can later be quantitatively verified as the number of cases grows and as statistical methods are created to handle meta-analyses of dependent data sets.
第三，该领域需要完成网络案例的元研究。理解你所理解的内容是任何新兴研究领域的重要一步。尽管在该领域传统的元分析目前尚不可行，但系统地评估现有文献以描述存在的一致发现和似乎相互冲突的领域仍然很重要。目前，元研究必须是定性的，但随着案例数量的增加以及统计方法的创建以处理依赖数据集的元分析，未来可以进行定量验证。

Finally, Public Administration scholars need to become more engaged with practitioners. Engaged scholarship ought to address the real problems that practitioners face, rather than questions driven solely by theoretical interests. Theory strongly grounded in the experience of practitioners equals relevance—something that many in our field would like to achieve. Strong practitioner-researcher linkages will likely result in practitioners posing thorny issues that academics have not thought of, opening a whole new universe of intellectually interesting questions to our scholarly community.
最后，公共行政学者需要与从业者更加紧密地互动。参与式学术研究应当关注从业者面临的实际问题，而不是仅仅由理论兴趣驱动的问题。扎根于从业者经验的理论等同于相关性——这是我们领域中许多人希望实现的目标。强有力的从业者与研究者之间的联系可能会导致从业者提出学术界未曾考虑的棘手问题，为我们的学术社区开启一个全新的智力有趣问题的宇宙。

This work is the product of group discussion from the Minnowbrook III New Scholars workshop held in September 2008. The authors gratefully acknowledge the input of the other group members who chose not to be included on the work of this article, Charlie Schweik, and Maja Holmes. We would also like to acknowledge the participants of the breakout discussion at the Minnowbrook conference and their stimulating discussion to refine some of our initial ideas.
这项工作是 2008 年 9 月在 Minnowbrook III 新学者研讨会上小组讨论的成果。作者衷心感谢其他选择不参与本文工作的组员 Charlie Schweik 和 Maja Holmes 的贡献。我们还要感谢 Minnowbrook 会议分组讨论的参与者及其对我们初步想法的激发性讨论。

References 参考文献