Abstract
Organising ‘boundary spaces’ has become a practice for tackling wicked issues in societal planning. Such spaces bring together diverse actors to intentionally staged problem formulation and management processes. However, despite clear goals, boundary spaces face challenges. Moreover, the processes often generate dilemmas and paradoxes that participating actors are incapable of managing within the boundary space itself. In some situations, such tensions can amplify challenges or prevent results from impacting participating organisations. Using a transdisciplinary (TD) research approach, the aim of this article is to develop a better understanding of the different dilemmas and paradoxes that surround or arise within boundary spaces and thereby contribute to increasing their effectiveness in tackling the issues they were created to address.
This article originates from a TD research project that investigated four different boundary spaces of societal planning and research in Sweden. The project employed an iterative TD process that combined theoretical contributions from planning- and organisation studies with practical experiences from societal planning, and facilitation. The position of boundary spaces as being ‘between’ actors – ‘between’ in terms of representation and decision making – calls for further attention to the situatedness of dilemmas and paradoxes in space and time. Our approach resulted in an analytic framework where the dilemmas and paradoxes of boundary spaces were categorised as contextual, relational, process- or transformation-related. The results point at the relations between what we see as three interrelated tensions that ground the existence and functioning of boundary spaces: the mismatch dilemma, the commoning dilemma and the collaboration paradox.
Key messages
Boundary spaces are cross-stakeholder collaborations that focus on the ‘wicked’ parts of wicked problems.
Due to stakeholder heterogeneity, boundary spaces have inherent tensions in the form of dilemmas and paradoxes.
The dilemmas and paradoxes of boundary spaces are situated in time and space.
By understanding the situatedness of dilemmas and paradoxes, boundary spaces’ work could be more effective.
Introduction
In the now-daily Swedish media reports on spiralling gang-related violence, problems related to migration, or urban planning challenges, collaboration across different societal actors in common arrangements is increasingly seen as key to breaking the sectoral organisation of society and more effectively addressing resistant societal problems (Vickhoff, 2023). This approach of common collaborative contexts is echoed in public bodies as public administrations struggle to manage complex problems. Pesch and Vermaas (2020), for example, revisit the three planning dilemmas that Rittel and Webber point to in their seminal work on ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973). In Rittel and Webber’s original words: ‘We have neither a theory that can locate social goodness, nor one that might dispel wickedness, nor one that might resolve the problems of equity that rising pluralism is provoking’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973: 169). All three of these issues, Pesch and Vermaas argue, evolve around the interplay between a changing society and a fixed administrative apparatus. This ‘mismatch’ constitutes a fundamental dilemma describing society’s inability to manage wicked problems (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020). Current cross-sector approaches mirror an awareness of this dilemma and an ambition to find ways to, if not solve, at least manage the problems in a joint manner. In this article, we refer to such collaborative and cross-sector approaches between different participating organisations as ‘boundary spaces’.
The concept of a boundary space in relation to collaboration can be understood in different ways. First, the term ‘boundary’ in a collaborative situation implies a marker in relation to different contexts, knowledge and experiences. Boundaries as a phenomenon in collaborative practices have been widely investigated in the science policy and organisation studies literature on ‘boundary work’, which focuses on the practices of demarcating and crossing boundaries (Gieryn, 1983; Klein, 1996; 2021; Zietsma and Lawerence, 2010; Langley et al, 2019). ‘Boundary objects’ (Star and Griesemer, 1989) and ‘boundary organisations’ (Guston, 2001) have also been framed as ways to stabilise collaboration despite different values and interests. Second, the concept includes the term ‘space’. Although Klein, for example, refers to interdisciplinary collaborations as ‘spatializing practices’ (Klein, 2021: 22), there is an overall lack of literature that develops the role of space in relation to collaboration. In contrast, spatial metaphors are common in, for example, the transdisciplinary (TD) literature, where concepts such as ‘arenas’ and ‘platforms’ (for example, Felt et al, 2016; Deutsch et al, 2023) are used with reference to the creation of collaborative meeting places. However, such metaphors are seldom unpacked regarding their spatial implications: for example, what the spatial signification is of an arena or a platform, and what the operational conditions or the processes are that take place in, or in relation to, such a space.
The combination of the two words, ‘boundary space’, gives us yet another set of definitions and uses. For example, boundary space can be understood as a space formed in relation to existing boundaries (Mahony, 2013; Champenois and Etzkowitz, 2018). It can also be described as a space that forms a boundary (Stange et al, 2016). Other uses define boundary spaces as overlapping institutional spheres (Champenois and Etzkowitz, 2018), or in linking epistemic co-production to space and locality. Mahony, for example, describes boundary spaces as ‘epistemic landscapes’ that connects ‘objects, actors, spaces and discourses’ (Mahony, 2013: 30). In line with Mahony and the spatial theory he refers to (Lefebvre, 1991; Gieryn, 2002) we define boundary spaces as relational and dynamic, that is, that they both produce and are produced by social actions. Furthermore, we define boundary spaces as situated on the boundary of the participating organisations, where they exist simultaneously within and outside of them. Participants are thus involved in something that is both part of and separate from their ordinary activities, but which affects and changes themselves, their practices and organisations. These dynamic conditions constitute, as we shall discuss, the paradoxical nature of boundary spaces. We further argue that by uncovering the relationship between the boundary space and collaboration, in terms of situating the dilemmas that emerge spatially and temporally, we can create opportunities for transformation.
Collaborative and cross-sectoral public initiatives have been studied from a variety of fields and perspectives (for example Trist, 1983, on referent organisations in inter-organisational domains; Ansell and Gash, 2008, on collaborative governance; Huxham and Vangen, 2005, on collaboration theory; Polk, 2014; 2015, on TD research approaches; and Ostrom, 1990, on commoning and natural resources). Such initiatives are created to increase communication between different parties, widen scope and strengthen collective decision making among affected actors (McNamara, 2012; Hamann and April, 2013). However, these studies also show that cross-sectoral approaches rarely perform as expected. As spaces for collaboration, they are characterised by the emergence of different tensions. Pesch and Vermaas (2020) argue that we need to embrace such tensions as an occasion to discuss, defend or renegotiate administrative decisions. Paradox and dilemma researchers also focus on the transformative capacity of these dialectic phenomena.
In this article, we develop a conceptual framework to explore the situatedness of such tensions through a TD study of boundary spaces in four different cases of wicked problems in current Swedish planning practices. The overall aim of the research project is to better understand the challenges that boundary spaces face to increase their effectiveness for dealing with wicked problems. We used a TD research design to anchor the process and analysis in the target public, namely practitioners who work in boundary spaces. To explore this, our research question for investigating the conditions and capacity of boundary spaces is: which dilemmas and paradoxes occur in boundary spaces and where are they situated in time and space? In our analysis we identified dilemmas and paradoxes occurring in different spatial and temporal locations which, in turn, had different conditions and contingencies. The results of our analysis regarding the situatedness of dilemmas and paradoxes further point to three main interrelated tensions that ground the existence and functioning of boundary spaces: the ‘mismatch dilemma’, the ‘commoning dilemma’ and the ‘collaboration paradox’.
Theoretical framing
Dilemmas, paradoxes and tensions
As noted, different types of challenges such as tensions, paradoxes and dilemmas have been recognised from various fields as critical phenomena that either stall processes or, if managed consciously, can constitute moments of engagement and transformation. In planning literature, some scholars recognise that dilemmas are inevitable as well as conflictual, especially when planning for sustainable development (Campbell, 1996). Attempts to ignore conflictual dilemmas are argued to be missed opportunities (Abram and Cowell, 2004). Within the public administration literature, collaborations are seen as practices that embody tensions (Huxham and Beech, 2003; Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015; Vangen and Winchester, 2014) which can both undermine ambitions and create instances for ‘reflective awareness’ (Huxham and Vangen, 2005: 13). Similarly, dilemmas are discussed as opening up for engagement and action (Höijer et al, 2006). Organisation scholars have mapped paradoxes in organisations as evolving moments for transformation (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017), and as opportunities of individual and organisational creativity and development towards increased sustainability (Smith and Lewis, 2011). Because many boundary spaces are created to specifically engage with wicked problems and thereby contribute to societal transformations, it is important to understand how the dilemmas and paradoxes that occur in them support or stifle their transformative capacity.
Dilemmas, paradoxes and tensions are used in a wide variety of literature in different ways. Dilemmas appear most frequently in planning literature, defined broadly, and describe either the conflicting societal goals that planning must address (Campbell, 1996; Abram and Cowel, 2004; Chu et al, 2018; Metzger and Lindblad, 2020); constitute the ‘mismatch’ dilemma (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020); or describe dilemmas within the planning practice itself (Savini et al, 2014; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2017). The essence of the dilemma is defined as something that: ‘reveals two social goals that cannot be satisfied at the same time’ (Nieuwenburg, 2004, in Pesch and Vermaas, 2020: 972). Höijer et al deepen this definition by pointing to the causes and consequences of opposing goals, as either because ‘all available alternatives have undesirable consequences’, or because the dilemmas bring forward ‘incompatible demands that have to be fulfilled’ (Höijer et al, 2006: 356). They explain a ‘multidimensional dilemma’ as ‘a culturally embedded double-faced phenomenon in which a situation and/or discourse characterised by uncertainty, contradictions or conflicts, is related to cognitions and feelings of ambivalence in individual or institutional thinking’ (Höijer et al, 2006: 360). These two directions of the inward and outward views of a dilemma mirror the ‘mismatch dilemma’ – that the complexity of society is not matched by administrative arrangements (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020).
Paradoxes are particularly addressed in management and organisation studies (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011) but have lately expanded to a wide range of theoretical fields (Schad et al, 2019). Schad et al note that paradoxes appear in, and are relevant in contexts marked by ‘complexity, scarcity, and plurality’ (Schad et al, 2019: 109). Lewis writes: ‘“Paradox” denotes contradictory yet interrelated elements – elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously’ (Lewis, 2000: 760). She continues, ‘Unlike continua, dilemmas, or either/or choices, paradoxical tensions signify two sides of the same coin’ (Lewis, 2000: 761). Schad et al emphasise the persistent character of paradoxes and through its interrelated key elements – contradiction, interdependence and persistence – distinguish the paradox from other kinds of tensions (Schad et al, 2019). Smith and Lewis further develop their definition of paradox to also include a response to paradoxes, as a verb ‘that embrace tensions simultaneously’ (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 382).
Although tension is used as a broad term for contradictions, the concept has a more specific definition in collaborative theory. Where paradox theory focuses on organisations, collaborative theory focuses on the collaboration itself (Vangen and Winchester, 2014). While ‘tension’ is not clearly defined in this literature, it refers to tensions ‘as being concerned with the choice between alternatives forms of management practices’ (Huxham and Beech, 2003: 74). Huxham and Vangen have, within the ‘theory of collaborative advantage’ (Huxham, 1996) developed a ‘tension theory’, where tensions are described by the opposing poles that exist within the management of collaborations (Huxham and Vangen, 2004; 2005). As an example, Vangen and Winchester explore tensions due to cultural diversity in organisational collaborations, using the possible poles of flexibility versus rigidity where organisational cultures need to be both flexible, to accommodate differences, and rigid, to preserve the culture itself (Vangen and Winchester, 2014). Tension theory also constitutes a thinking technique with which to explore challenges that arise when organisations have to work together (Huxham and Beech, 2003).
Overall, the literature on dilemmas, paradoxes and tensions focuses both on how they play out in different planning and administrative practices as well as their transformative potential. In this article, we specifically analyse dilemmas and paradoxes of collaborative practices and situate them spatially and temporally in relation to boundary spaces, as distinct spaces of collaboration for dealing with wicked problems.
A framework for dilemmas and paradoxes of boundary spaces
As outlined, this article focuses on cross-sector approaches for managing wicked problems. Our analytical framework is based on two approaches. First, the categories for the analytical framework were inspired from the three dialectical categories in Basseches’s dialectical thinking (Basseches, 1984) developed by Laske (2009; 2023), where Laske suggests reading reality in terms of process, context and relations as a way to understand how transformation takes place. Second, seeing cross-sector collaboration as boundary spaces between organisations and stakeholder groups emphasises their location in time and space. From the literature presented earlier, we can identify three different spatial and temporal positions from which dilemmas, tensions and paradoxes are defined, analysed and managed. First, dilemmas are recognised as situated between society’s wicked problems and the planning agencies structured to deal with them (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020). Second, tensions are identified in the collaboration between different organisations as in the tension theory literature (Huxham and Beech, 2003; Vangen and Winchester, 2014). And third, paradoxes within organisations are identified in terms of relations between structures and individuals, and between individuals and groups (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Taken together, these three positions identified by the literature of outside organisations (dilemmas), between organisations (tensions) and inside organisations (paradoxes) form the contours of a framework for situating the dilemmas and paradoxes of boundary spaces spatially and temporally. Combining these two approaches, our analytical framework includes four categories: context, relations, process and transformation. Context describes the dilemmas that occur outside of boundary spaces and before they are initiated. Relations and process speak to the dilemmas and paradoxes within and during the boundary space as it is performed. And lastly, transformation describes the dilemmas and paradoxes occurring when transferring results to society, participating organisations or stakeholder groups, either in a time-and-space–wise immediate and close context to the boundary space, or in a longer time perspective, as actions well outside the designated boundary space (Figure 1).
/img/Blank.svg)
The different spatial positions of boundary space dilemmas and paradoxes
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 4, 1; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000027
Note: The spatial positions are marked as black dots, and relate to the four categories of context, relations, process and transformation.Method
Overall transdisciplinary research approach
This article is an exploratory study that uses a TD research approach to develop an analytical framework to better understand and analyse how boundary spaces can more effectively deal with different types of wicked societal problems. Here TD refers to our focus on mutual learning and knowledge integration, and exchange between practitioners and researchers. Concretely, this consisted of the joint design of the project in the TD project team which included an interdisciplinary group of researchers from human ecology, architecture, adult development, organisation, design and conflict studies, together with a cross-sector group of practitioners from the County Administration Board of Västra Götaland, with expertise in urban and strategic planning, and migration. A professional facilitator was also part of the TD project team. While a core group of researchers initiated the process, the focus of the study, choice of case studies, design of ‘learning dialogues’, and analytical framework were created and revised jointly in the TD project team. The TD approach in the first two years consisted primarily of meetings with the TD project team and of learning dialogues, which were four workshops where the TD project team and a group of representatives from the four boundary spaces met for five hours, to discuss the project results and their implications for their work. An additional goal with the project is to create pedagogical material to be used in supporting future boundary space work, which is currently being developed in the TD project team.
Data collection and analysis
The TD research process was organised in three main steps which recursively involved data collection and analysis, thus keeping an ongoing and open collaboration between researchers and practitioners. First, data collection occurred through a series of semi-structured interviews with members from the four cases (see description of case studies in the results section). These interviews were structured around challenges that occur when working with wicked problems, identified from practice and theory by the TD project team. Questions focused on issues concerning values (goals), multiple knowledge needs (expertise) and institutional conditions (organisational needs). The respondents from the different organisations involved were selected in dialogue with the practitioners of the TD project group to have had significant roles in the boundary spaces. We held 61 interviews with 40 respondents, who were interviewed one to three times, depending on their accessibility. We also analysed meeting notes and other documentation when available. Second, the interviews were all transcribed and coded thematically using NVivo software. The coding was based both on a theoretical understanding of the challenges of boundary spaces, and on an inductive approach where three researchers coded all significant issues that came up regarding the challenges that respondents faced in the boundary spaces. Overall, the analytic framework was developed through both deductive and inductive reasoning in an iterative TD process together with the TD project team. Third, the results of the analysis were then used to design the four learning dialogues in terms of identifying the dilemmas and paradoxes occurring in relation to the four situating categories (context, relations, process and transformation). These dialogues were also formulated and developed in the TD project team. Between 12 and 23 respondents attended the four learning dialogues, which started with a short insight on a topic related to the dilemmas and paradoxes to be discussed. This was followed by a presentation of the projects results for that category, and by group activities and reflections on their usability and relevance for their work. The analysis of the case study interviews was thus jointly reviewed and revised in both TD project team meetings and in practitioner-based dialogues.
Given the variety of cases and organisations involved, and testing of our results with the respondents themselves, we surmise that the identified dilemmas and paradoxes presented in the following section will resonate with a wide group of practitioners working in different types of cross-sector collaborations. The focus of our analysis in this article, thus, is on the patterns of dilemmas that were similar across the cases and, striving for generality, we rely on the validity of our TD and abductive research processes to analyse the relevance and situatedness of the dilemmas as generally concerning boundary spaces. This was confirmed by the practitioners in the dialogues, who highlighted the usefulness of these discussions in supporting their ongoing work with societal transformation.
Results
The case studies
Given that this is a TD project, the four cases of boundary spaces were chosen for their relevance to the practitioners within the TD team who were involved, as well as to fulfil the criteria for an explorative research project. A common denominator of the chosen boundary spaces was that they were all established by public actors with an aim to manage wicked problems. To capture some of the variety that boundary spaces represent, the cases also differ in their involved actors, problem focus, goals and organisation. First, they brought together different kinds of actor groups. Second, they were either permanent or temporary. Third, they had different kinds of internal organisation, with variations of core strategic and operational groups, connected to internal and external boards, or other types of steering mechanisms. One or more of the members of the TD project team were involved in, or connected to, one of the chosen boundary spaces. The four case studies presented here are: Mistra Urban Futures, safe communities in Rågsved, safe communities in Eskilstuna, and the Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue (Table 1). Mistra Urban Futures was an international research centre for TD research on sustainable and just cities, organised around five so-called local interaction platforms in Europe and Africa. Interviews were with actors from the centre secretariat and the Gothenburg local interaction platform. The two safe community dialogues were experimental municipality-driven citizens’ dialogues on urban safety, responding to a call from Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) to test and develop a specific dialogue method. And, finally, the Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue was a national initiative organised around a local urban planning conflict in Gothenburg.
The four cases described by their background, purpose, participation and organisation
| Case | Background | Purpose | Participants | Organisation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mistra Urban Futures | Established by the winning research application to the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, Mistra. Financed by Mistra and Sida and co-financed by seven Swedish partners that formed the Gothenburg consortium, 2009–19. | Ten-year programme (2010–19) for transdisciplinary research on sustainable urban development and just cities. | Gothenburg Municipality, Region Västra Götaland, the Gothenburg Region, the County Administrative Board, University of Gothenburg, Chalmers University of Technology, and Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL). | International governing board, consortia council, local interaction platforms, research project groups and administrative and process support. |
| Safe communities in Rågsved | A citizens’ dialogue around safety, in the Stockholm suburb of Rågsved. Part of a politically initiated organisation for ‘place-based collaborations’ within the city of Stockholm. One of four pilots for Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), testing a model for citizens’ dialogue on complex social issues. Started in 2021. | 1To ‘strengthen management structures and create a common goal for collaboration in Rågsved, and to ensure that such work takes place in dialogue with those who live and work within the area’. 2To enhance a ‘collective capacity’ and ability for co-creation among all local participants; to enhance local safety. |
District administrations: the urban planning office, the sports administration, the cultural administration, education administration, social services, the development office, and a communicator. The local police, the traffic office, a public transportation operator, property owners, local associations, residents and local politicians. An external facilitator and a researcher. | Two management groups: strategic and operational. A design team for setting up the citizens’ dialogue. Under this, a dialogue team with interlocutors (public officials) for thematic working groups. The working groups invited local citizens and associations. |
| Safe communities in Eskilstuna | A citizens’ dialogue around safety, in the Eskilstuna suburb of Fröslunda. The municipality of Eskilstuna had ongoing work on safety issues in prioritised neighbourhoods, called Safety and Strategic Neighbourhood Work (since 2018). One of four pilots for SALAR testing a model for citizens’ dialogue on complex social issues. Started in 2020. | 1To increase security in selected city districts. 2To develop the municipality’s way of working regarding complex social issues, especially in relation to residents, civil society and other social actors. 3To develop the process model proposed by SALAR. |
Participants from the municipal management office and administrations: culture and leisure, the urban development administration, the municipal administration office’s department for social sustainability, department for communication. Residents representatives of churches, local associations and businesses. An external facilitator and a researcher. | Two management groups: a process management group with local area managers and managers from the various administrations together with a process leader. A dialogue team of dialogue leaders from local municipal programmes with local actors. The process group reported to a decision-making management group. |
| The Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue | Over several years, the city of Gothenburg has been interested in developing the city district of Högsbo-Frölunda, including the extension of Linnégatan and the transformation of a highway to an inner-city street. This combination of urban development and national highway engages planners and financing on three decision-making levels and organisations in Sweden. A ‘dialogue arena’ was established in 2019 to facilitate collaboration across these three levels. | In a wider national strategy to promote housing provision, a representative from the national government initiated a dialogue arena to discuss and support the development of the city district of Högsbo-Frölunda. A partner’s agreement on the future development of the arena was the final product of this two-year dialogue. | Three units from the city of Gothenburg, the Swedish Transport Administration, Region Västra Götaland, Västtraffik and the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland. Facilitated by the Office of the National Government. | The arena was led by representatives of the Office of the National Government and the City of Gothenburg. It consisted of nine meetings and two workshops with one or two representatives from the participating agencies. |
Dilemmas and paradoxes
Many dilemmas and paradoxes came up in our four different analytical categories. In the following, we present and discuss the main dilemmas and paradoxes that were experienced across the four case studies and that resonated with the practitioner participants in the learning dialogues.
Context
Several dilemmas were actualised between the boundary spaces and the particular time and place within which they were initiated, here referred to as their context. Our four cases showed that the main contextual dilemma was between the organisational focus of the participating agencies verses the ubiquitous nature of the problem area itself. The interviews and the TD project group meetings gave a more nuanced understanding of the challenges that arose from this mismatch dilemma. What is most clear is that even though boundary spaces are designed to transcend the mismatch between how we organise society and wicked problems, they are still fully entrenched and contingent upon the organisational goals and cultures that they are expected to solve or replace. This entrenchment leads to a number of dilemmas that arise from the heterogeneity of the involved organisations and the resultant clash between different goals, mandates and work cultures of the participating organisations.
Complexity itself is also a challenge in that it isn’t possible to work that way. Complexity is a part of different types of issues. That is, if we are talking about segregation or other issues, which are complex in themselves, but complexity also arises when the municipal organisation is affected by various issues that do not fit into their established structures. (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Eskilstuna)
What does [the conflict] look like and in these complex contexts, how can we manage it at all, so we don’t get stuck in the fact that the city and the state are on opposite sides, asserting their positions? The provision of housing cannot be carried out because the Swedish National Transport Administration puts a stop to it and stands in the way and says: ‘No, this won’t work’. The city says we need housing, and they say: ‘Too much traffic’. (Civil servant, Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue)
Beside the goal conflicts embedded in the different organisations participating in the boundary space, the context dilemmas emerging in the collaboration were also complicated by changes in the surrounding society. As a member of the County Administration Board pointed out during one of our project group meetings, ‘it is clear that the dilemmas outside the boundary space are mirrored in the boundary space’ and that societal polarisation is felt inside the boundary space and makes the collaboration more challenging (TD project group meeting, December 2022).
Initiation
The complexity surrounding the wicked problems also led to specific tensions when initiating these boundary spaces. Another contextual dilemma that came up included the specific goals of the agency that initiated the boundary space, versus the goals or expectations of the participating organisations. The initiators’ goals did not always merge with the goals or expectations of the participating organisations, as they arose within other processes with other aims. For example, in the Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue, the priority of the governmental representative, who facilitated the process, was a signed agreement for collaboration around building transport infrastructure between the participating organisations. The participants wanted to collaborate but could not sign anything that was not already approved within their individual political and administrative mandates. In the example of Mistra Urban Futures, the funding agency Mistra, which initiated and stood for half of the funding of the centre, had demands around governance and results that were not always accepted or understood by the partners. The public partners, especially, had their own reasons for participating in the centre that focused on their practical needs and not on outputs such as academic publications, a main focus of Mistra.
Multiple goals and cultural diversity
The obstacle was partly the centre management, that [the funder] Mistra wanted leadership that wasn’t compatible with our leadership. And that there were slightly different cultures at the university and Chalmers, and in the municipality and so on. So, it’s difficult here to get different cultures to come together around common issues without taking the cultures into account. You have to be very aware of that. And it takes a while before you understand it. (University representative, Mistra Urban Futures)
In the Eskilstuna case, as in the other examples, while the organisations within the municipality wanted to collaborate around community safety, creating joint planning and activities was inherently problematic: ‘But it’s still like this, getting this joint planning and real progress from both the physical and social aspects of safe communities don’t always work. It doesn’t quite succeed. We have different planning horizons’ (civil servant, Safe Communities, Eskilstuna). Overall, all boundary spaces faced challenges related to the contextual contingency of the boundary space. The dilemmas present in the wider social organisation are highly consequential for both how work was carried out in the boundary spaces and how this work was able to impact the problem area.
Relations
This category of dilemmas, emerging within the boundary spaces, concerns the formal organisational elements of the space, that is, the organisational design in different units, groups, functions and roles, and how they affected relations among members of that space. Many of the dilemmas analysed here concern the boundary space as a space for a common interest that is distinct from the participating organisations and their own interests, roles and ways of working, while at the same time being formed and performed by those participating organisations. By ‘formal organisation’ we refer to the formal division of work and responsibility in the boundary space among its members. All boundary spaces of our cases were designed with a formal structure that entailed different hierarchical levels within the space and a division of labour in different areas of decision making. The work with the structure of the boundary space was a way to give the space a certain degree of autonomy with respect to the participating organisations while also maintaining a connection with them in terms of resources and results. In other words, the boundary spaces in our study, with their own structures and processes, were formed as spaces dedicated to a common interest rather than to the sum of each organisation’s own interest.
Size
In setting up the organisational structure of these spaces, a salient dilemma concerns the size of the group involved. On the one hand, enlarging the number of participant organisations and their representatives might give the boundary space a stronger anchoring in organisation outside the space and a larger sense of ownership, on the other hand enrolling a smaller group strengthens the sense of commitment of the participants, to the cohesion of the group and the capacity to act in the boundary space.
The strength is that we have many people who have wanted to go in the same direction. This has been the strength. And also, the weakness. [laughs] Because when there are many people, it’s hard to get anything done, and it takes a very long time to get everyone to agree on something. But on the other hand, you then have the strength that if you agree, then it will be carried out just as it was agreed. And that is the strength. And that you have a common goal, sort of, where you’re going. (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Rågsved)
So, you probably have built up trust in the group, you got to know each other, you got to understand how you worked in different ways. Yes, that’s the point … for me as a project manager as well. It is about gaining trust in this group, which should not be too large, and which should not have a large turnover. (Civil servant, Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue)
Roles
The second area of dilemmas concerning relations in the boundary space revolves around the role of the members of the boundary space, especially in relation to their position as representatives of participating organisations. The dilemmas regarding roles are connected to their structure as spaces in common dedicated to joint interests; the active making of the boundary space as its own common space was not without friction for members’ professional and organisational roles. The issue of representation is connected to both the professional and personal relations in the boundary space, and to the decision-making processes in and outside the boundary space.
The first dilemma concerning roles in the boundary space is about mandate. Representing a participating organisation often stretches employees’ own roles in the organisation and might expand their area of action and influence outside their regular work responsibilities and expertise. Several practitioners in our project group emphasised that it is often unclear whether members of the boundary space act on an organisational mandate or on their own, and whether it is their personal will to strive for change or their organisation’s formal decision to engage in change. Members of our boundary spaces in fact swing between being experts and, at the same time, newcomers to the boundary space and its practices; between speaking the voice of their participating organisation and speaking their own voice. Therefore, members of the boundary space might find themselves in a dilemma about their own acting, whether and when they act on an organisational mandate versus acting as individuals.
The mandate is very important, that the right people from the right administration are active [in the boundary space], because you must have a mandate to make decisions, otherwise it will be wrong. We had some organisations where there is a coordinator [that is, the representative in the boundary space], and then … the coordinators have no responsibility, but they are only supposed to coordinate that things get done. Then they have to take it further in their organisation, and then there will be a delay. So, it is very important that those who are part of collaborative groups and forums like this must have decision-making mandates. (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Rågsved)
So, in the beginning it was the top managers … and then it kind of went one manager level down … and it wasn’t the managers who have a lot of mandate. So, things were constantly being pushed up and it was asked [by those managers] between meetings to get some kind of mandate. And then, towards the end, when it was time for that agreement, then it was pushed up again. And then the heads of departments were involved, and it was signed by the directors at the time, by the top managers so that then they all got it at the end. (Civil servant, Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue)
The second dilemma concerning roles is about what the members of the boundary space, who have a representative function for the participating organisations, actually represent. In particular, some organisations by their very nature and size are very diverse professionally and culturally and, thus, understanding what representing them means and implies is not trivial. Some of the interviewees expressed doubts about the very possibility to represent, for example, a large municipality or a whole university. Thus, we see a dilemma in the boundary space between involving members on the basis of representing an entire organisation versus representing part of it.
Process
Process here relates to the management of wicked problems within the boundary space. In our cases this includes a combination of governing structure and process models. The governing structure entails ‘internal’ meetings at different operational levels, while the more dynamic process models often include ‘external’ and explorative meetings in the form of wider stakeholders’ dialogues or workshops. Where internal meetings tend to be managed by a chairman or designated leader, a facilitator or a process leader often leads the external meetings. The dilemmas addressed here apply to the full boundary space process including both types of stakeholder meetings, together with the process of transferring information, knowledge and results between these two. The selection of dilemmas considers two topical themes – relevance and knowledge – that become evident within the process.
Relevance
it’s hard to get people to respond, and it’s hard to get people to participate. That’s how it is. And many see this as: ‘Yes, the municipality only talks, the municipality does nothing’. And we have had this happen … that people experience no trust in civil servants, but say: ‘You only talk about collaboration, but you don’t want to collaborate anyway’. (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Rågsved)
The relevance dilemma also concerns the motives for individual participation. Where some participants see these in terms of specific outcomes, such as researchers aiming for published articles, others participate to jointly frame the motives of the process. When participants experience different motives for participation among themselves, it can undermine the relevance of the process. The relationship of time and relevance was also recurring in several of the interviews. Time is one of the biggest investments that both organisations and individuals make in boundary spaces. Thus, participation must be perceived as immediately relevant. If a satisfying experience of relevance does not occur early in the process, participants will be reluctant to invest more time going forward. An investment that, in turn, is crucial in making participation relevant for all.
Knowledge
to some extent, I thought that some of those who represented the municipality, in slightly different positions, perhaps to a greater extent suggested things that they knew were already in the pipeline. So, it wasn’t super innovative. And I think some residents felt that. It should be realistic, but at the same time it should be a bit creative. One should not kill the proposals too early. Yes, so it is quite difficult. (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Rågsved)
Too-high-flying ideas are not likely to find a home or a stakeholder in charge with an assigned mandate to act upon them, while too much business-as-usual thinking creates fatigue and distrust among participants, undermining the purpose and the process of the boundary space.
I like to bring in people who are objective, like moderators for example. I think it’s great to have them if you want to collaborate – to get ahead. But I think that this is also about directing the way forward. And if so, the city must be involved in a better way, to guide and state where it wants to be. This is really important. As a moderator, I guess it is fine if you want to participate and contribute to the work yourself. [But] it is very difficult to stand in the front and direct the common work, and at the same time, to participate and contribute … it becomes very difficult. (Governmental facilitator, Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue)
The dilemma between substantive knowledge and process knowledge related to the problem issue, shows the existence of two knowledge systems that are both needed but tend to be played out against each other. In fact, this is a central paradox of boundary spaces. Both knowledges are deemed important but each one of them seem purposeless without the other. This is a paradox that appears in many disguises, reappearing also as within transformation as we will see next.
Transformation
Dilemmas of transformation, of course, reflect the original Rittel and Webber dilemma of wicked problems, that is, that wicked problems cannot be solved (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Yet, boundary spaces have requirements, from funders or from initiating organisations, to reach specific results. Participating organisations, asking for boundary spaces to report on results, often ask for tangible outcomes. In this section we will highlight three themes around results and their transformative capacity. The first one addresses dilemmas of what counts as results. The second focuses on learning as a result, and the third speaks to difficulties for results to become actionable due to their ‘homelessness’.
What counts as results?
Maybe we need to think a little more about what we actually mean when we talk about results. For example, not as something simplistic or anything like … ‘well, we have certain resources, and we expect the result to be this, and therefore we evaluate against what we had expected’. But rather like this: the result is the process. And then things happen based on the process. Some, we could predict, others not. And a lot of things are rather, like, happy surprises. (Civil servant, Safe communities, Eskilstuna)
The X project, that I was part of, maybe didn’t contribute in the same concrete way. But I think that, over time, it created new insights for a lot of people. New ways of looking at and talking about issues. And also new ways of thinking within the organisations.
Informants, however, said that convincing funders, municipalities and citizens alike that such a changed practice would result in concrete outcomes like reducing violence or new scientific findings, was not easily done.
Learning
So, there is learning when you are involved in this. And that also applies to the actual collaboration between us as societal actors. There will be a lot of learning, and you create relationships, and all that. But it is not so easy to bring this back to the organisations. It’s a huge challenge, which we’ve talked very little about. How do we do this? Everyone takes it for granted. Everyone knows that we must collaborate. In fact, it says everywhere that we must collaborate. But there is very little talk about how we make use of the collaboration that we do, and how do we provide added value from it, back to our organisations? (Civil servant, Safe Communities, Rågsved)
Homelessness
But we do want to achieve something – that there will be real change. Or a common commitment, or a real commons. And then, when we have to move from words to action, it becomes difficult, because then these silos and planning systems – then they are already there. (Representative from the City, Högsbo-Frölunda Dialogue)
Concluding discussion
Through a TD research design, our analysis unpacks four categories of dilemmas and paradoxes of boundary spaces – context, relations, process, transformation – and situates them spatially in different positions, and temporally in relation to the formation and the performing of the boundary space. Building upon practitioner and researcher input, our analytical framework was both theoretically grounded and based on practical insights and needs, including a wider focus on transformation. More specifically, we focused on what impacts the transformative capacity of boundary spaces, including the position of the encountered dilemmas and paradoxes. Where context dilemmas are situated outside of and before the boundary space’s initiation, relations and process dilemmas are situated within and during the boundary space. Transformation dilemmas, in turn, are situated outside the boundary space and after its initiation and unfolding, both close, short term, and far away, long term, in time and space. We believe that this situated sorting of dilemmas and paradoxes makes them recognisable for boundary space participants, hence more actionable and proactive, than if confronting them as unique and free-floating. We further consider that the positioning of dilemmas and paradoxes in time and space is not only useful for boundary spaces, as we have defined them here, but will be supportive in TD research processes in general. While TD processes discuss many of the same issues that occur in the public management and governance literature, they do not formulate the challenges in terms of paradoxes and dilemmas. We believe that our approach, by specifically focusing on identifying not just problems, but their contradictory characteristics and challenges, can increase the capacity to deal with wicked problems in different types of boundary spaces, both TD and other (Figure 2).
The identified dilemmas and paradoxes positioned in relation to the four different categories: context, relations, process and transformation
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 4, 1; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000027
Notes: Their positions are also marked in relation to time. The dilemmas belonging to the category of transformation could be located both near and far away from the boundary space. The green zone represents the position of results which could be directly related to the boundary space, while others are located further away from the boundary space, both in time and space, hence more difficult to detect in relation to the boundary space involvement.By analysing the situatedness of dilemmas and paradoxes in our selection of boundary spaces, an overall pattern emerges. First, the ‘mismatch dilemma’ (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020) permeates the context of the initiation of the boundary space. Despite intentions to overcome the mismatch by organising boundary spaces, it conditions the boundary space since its initiation includes both the demarcation of new boundaries, for example around the boundary space, and the crossing of existing boundaries, such as organisational and professional. When different partners come together to form an overlapping but, at the same time, separate space dedicated to a common interest, they have to step outside of their experiences, expertise and interests to collaborate (Hansson and Polk, 2018). This leads to different paradoxes as participants are both part of their organisations and part of the boundary space. However, the boundary space has no clear form or solution for dealing with the heterogeneity of the organisations involved. Reaching common aims therefore becomes inherently paradoxical. Our results show that encountering different goals and cultures across the participating organisations gives rise to ‘cognitions and feelings of ambivalence in individual or institutional thinking’ (Höijer et al, 2006: 360), a sort of sense of dissonance (Stark, 2009), that manifests the mismatch between the wickedness of the joint problem and the established arrangements of societal planning (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020).
This sense of dissonance that can arise from such a situation becomes explicit if a participating organisation in the boundary space does not receive what was promised in an initial agreement regarding their benefits. In such a case, this partner might defend its own position in the collaboration instead of generating new themes, understandings and management strategies. This exemplifies a lack of acknowledgement of ‘complexity, scarcity and plurality’ (Schad et al, 2019: 109; see also Vangen and Huxham, 2010) as productive and relational conditions of the space. Notably, the mismatch dilemma also compromises the transferability of results. What we have identified as a homelessness dilemma is due to the sectoral organisation of society, based on principles of functionality and efficiency. Organisations are bound to their own mandate and jurisdiction and, although the decision of participating in the boundary space might stretch them, transferring results from the boundary space to the participating organisations sometimes bounces back at the very boundaries that the new space tried to overcome (Polk, 2014). In our cases, all of the public administration employees expressed the view that their organisations could not use the results produced by the boundary space that stretched beyond their own mandates.
The second overarching dilemma concerns what we have defined as a ‘commoning dilemma’. This dilemma captures some of the themes emerging in the categories of both relations and process. This dilemma echoes the metaphor of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin, 1968), which describes an inability of commons to function. This, Hardin argues, is due to the inevitable desire of individuals to exploit their ‘rights’ at the expense of the common good, which in turn will deplete the commons as a resource.1 Further, this dilemma captures the practice of the boundary space as being part of ordinary duties or a shared and productive work of commoning (Stavrides, 2016; Nightingale, 2019).
In the relations and process dilemmas we identify several that speak to the commoning dilemma – whether the boundary space is something to benefit from, or if it is a relational space to be built in common, as a shared resource, with unforeseen insights and benefits. Some of our informants were perplexed about whether they had really got a satisfactory return on their investment in terms of money and time. What they expressed was a way of calculating the return in relation to their own benefits rather than in relation to an emerging common interest. As argued, the very initiation of the boundary space across organisational boundaries is an act of making a common space and resource that, while requiring each participant’s engagement, has a relative autonomy from each participant organisation’s own interest and gain. As our cases show, many members of the boundary spaces work across the internal units of the participating organisations. This gives them motivation to participate, at the same that it also underlines a struggle to uphold the particular interest of their own organisation while maintaining common interests. Vangen and Huxham (2010) formulate a similar idea regarding the attitudes that arise from ‘heterogenous partners’ in terms of being selfish, sharing or sidelining. A sharing attitude can be either exchanging or exploring, where a sharing–exploring attitude of collaboration implies a mutual exchange and common learning to ‘explore innovative solutions to problems at hand collaboratively’ (Vangen and Huxham, 2010: 176).
The third overall tension is a paradox that we have chosen to call the ‘collaboration paradox’. It surfaces in the categories of process and transformation. This paradox underpins how the results of the collaborative processes of the boundary spaces are intertwined with and inseparable from those very processes as ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Lewis, 2000: 761). Struggling to point out the results of the boundary space that would be worth accounting for, many of our respondents state that the process is the result. While this may appear an encouraging message for a completed process that stands without other results, this might express de facto a deeper understanding of boundary spaces’ capacity. Because of the mismatch dilemma, by which the results of the boundary space are both preconditioned by the contextual societal organisation and bounce back to the pre-existing organisational internal boundaries, experiencing co-production in a common space might be the way in which these organisational boundaries get permeated and, from this, transform. In other words, experiencing collaboration around the management of wicked issues, by the joint members of the boundary space, might improve the participating organisations’ capacity for collaboration, co-production and commoning as this collective experience from boundary spaces are applicable in the regular operations of the organisations bridging internal divisions (Palmer et al, 2020). In addition to this, as one informant expressed, experiences of collaboration and co-production also led to new insights, in the form of new ways of doing and talking about things. To accept the collaboration paradox as a mechanism for bridging the mismatch and commoning dilemmas could be the start of a mind shift and, through that, contribute to a transformation of society’s silo-like structuring and inability to engage with wicked problems.
Our analysis of the situatedness of dilemmas of boundary spaces has led us to two overarching dilemmas and one paradox whose integrated and mutual relationships ground boundary spaces and their functioning (Figure 3). While our spatial and temporal positioning of dilemmas and paradoxes offers a typology and analytical lens to understand boundary spaces and thus more consciously use their dialectic potential for transformation (Höijer et al, 2006; Smith and Lewis, 2011; Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017), further research is needed to investigate the unfolding of the spatial dimensions of boundary spaces and their intersection with different societal and organisational boundaries. Boundary spaces are dependent upon their physical parameters. Yet, boundary spaces are not solely limited to the materiality of space. Our analytical framework contributes to the start of a better understanding and further exploration of how space is intimately connected to process, where the production and the producing of space are intertwined (Massey, 2004). The organisation of societal planning is indeed performed in space both globally and locally: Thus, the mismatch dilemma’s spatial dimensions, which condition the initiation and functioning of boundary spaces, need to be more fully explored. Understanding boundary spaces as commons would motivate an analysis of them from the spatial properties of commons, which could be defined as physical, relational or institutional (Palmer, 2021) or as imaginative (Lefebvre, 1991; Stavrides, 2016).
The relationship between the four categories of dilemma relate to two overarching dilemmas and one paradox
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 4, 1; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000027
Notes: How the dilemmas of the four categories: context (C), relations (R), process (P) and transformation (T) follow upon each other, and relate to overarching (1) mismatch dilemma, (2) commoning dilemma and (3) collaboration paradox. The first two dilemmas are connected to each other by the collaboration paradox, in that it overcomes the ‘homelessness dilemma’ of the results, by accepting the boundary space practice as a result, as this way of working could potentially transform organisational compartmentalisation.Overall, our interdisciplinary analysis in combination with our TD approach to understanding the challenges that arise in boundary spaces dealing with wicked problems resulted in a novel perspective on cross-sector collaborations. Besides the spatial analysis noted earlier, we suggest two additional areas for future research. One, there is clear value in using the literature on dilemmas, tensions and paradoxes to theoretically develop the current work in TD research which focuses on both understanding the challenges in collaborative spaces as well as improving their effectiveness in contributing to societal transformation. Second, the TD methods used here also enable a closer relationship between researchers and practitioners where theoretical approaches can be tested in real time in practice. We think that this could be valuable for further developing the ongoing work in organisation and administrative studies with engaged research. A further unfolding of the spatial dimensions of boundary spaces could contribute to the transformative capacity of boundary spaces as common spaces, where difference rather than homogeneity flourishes, and where institutionalising and imaginative capacities can be better put into action.
Note
Hardin’s concept ‘the tragedy of the commons’ has since been put forward, received criticism and has not always been proven to be valid, something that also formed the basis of Elinor Ostrom’s seminal work (Ostrom, 1990). In the cases of boundary spaces analysed here, we have found a dilemma between their definition as commons and the participating organisations’ expectations of return on their investment in different ways. This means that sometimes these spaces are explicitly treated as commons and other times organisations refer to ‘their rights’ as individual organisations, rather than referring to the ‘rights’ of the boundary space.
Funding
This work was supported by Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, FORMAS, grant: 2021-00103.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
We like to thank the participants of our TD project team: Michael Cullberg, Birgitta Guevarra and Nina Kiani Jansson from the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland, Bernard LeRoux from Dialogues and Thomas Jordan from University of Gothenburg.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abram, S. and Cowell, R. (2004) Dilemmas of implementation: ‘integration’ and ‘participation’ in Norwegian and Scottish local government, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(5): 701–19. doi: 10.1068/c0350
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 543–71. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032
Arnstein, S.R. (2019) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1): 24–34. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
Basseches, M.A. (1984) Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3): 296–312. doi: 10.1080/01944369608975696
Champenois, C. and Etzkowitz, H. (2018) From boundary line to boundary space: the creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation, Technovation, 76–7: 28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002
Chu, E., Schenk, T. and Patterson, J. (2018) The dilemmas of citizen inclusion in urban planning and governance to enable a 1.5°C climate change scenario, Urban Planning, 3(2): 128–40. doi: 10.17645/up.v3i2.1292
Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C. and Michel, A. (2023) Transdisciplinary transformative change: an analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there, Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11): 3569–94. doi: 10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0
Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A. and Völker, T. (2016) Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice: between imaginaries of collective experimentation and entrenched academic value orders, Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(4): 732–61. doi: 10.1177/0162243915626989
Gieryn, T.F. (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists, American Social Review, 48(6): 781–95. doi: 10.2307/2095325
Gieryn, T.F. (2002) What buildings do, Theory and Society, 31(1): 35–74. doi: 10.1023/A:1014404201290
Guston, D. (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4): 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401
Hamann, R. and April, K. (2013) On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary organisations in urban sustainability transitions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50: 12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.017
Hansson, S. and Polk, M. (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact, Research Evaluation, 27(2): 132–44. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvy004
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons, Science, 162(3859): 1243–8. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hargrave, T.J. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2017) Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations, Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 319–39. doi: 10.1177/0170840616640843
Höijer, B., Lidskog, R. and Uggla, Y. (2006) Facing dilemmas: sense-making and decision-making in late modernity, Futures, 38(3): 350–66. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.007
Huxham, C. (ed) (1996) Creating Collaborative Advantage, London: Sage.
Huxham, C. and Beech, N. (2003) Contrary prescriptions: recognizing good practice tensions in management, Organization Studies, 24(1): 69–93. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024001678
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2004) Doing things collaboratively: realizing the advantage or succumbing to inertia?, Organizational Dynamics, 33(2): 190–201. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.006
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage, Abingdon: Routledge.
Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2015) Collaborating across sector boundaries: a story of tensions and dilemmas, Voluntary Sector Review, 6(3): 285–302. doi: 10.1332/204080515x14448338369886
Klein, J.T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Klein, J.T. (2021) Beyond Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work, Communication, and Collaboration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B.E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E. and Walter, L. (2019) Boundary work among groups, occupations, and organizations: from cartography to process, Academy of Management Annals, 13(2): 704–36. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0089
Laske, O. (2009) Measuring Hidden Dimensions of Human Systems, Medford, MA: Interdevelopmental Institute Press.
Laske, O. (2023) Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, Volume 1: Approaching Real-World Complexity with Dialectical Thinking, 2nd edn, Cham: Springer.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space, D. Nicholson-Smith (trans) Oxford: Blackwell (first published in French, 1974).
Lewis, M.W. (2000) Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide, Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760–76. doi: 10.2307/259204
Mahony, M. (2013) Boundary spaces: science, politics and the epistemic geographies of climate change in Copenhagen, 2009, Geoforum, 49: 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.005
Massey, D. (2004) Politics and space/time, in M. Keith and S. Pile (eds) Place and the Politics of Identity, London: Routledge, pp 139–59.
McNamara, M. (2012) Starting to untangle the web of cooperation coordination, and collaboration: a framework for public managers, International Journal of Public Administration, 35(6): 389–401. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.655527
Metzger, J. and Lindblad, J. (2020) Introduction: a practice-centered approach to dilemmas of sustainable urban development, in J. Metzger and J. Lindblad (eds) Dilemmas of Sustainable Development: A View from Practice, New York: Routledge, pp 1–20.
Nieuwenburg, P. (2004) The agony of choice: Isaiah Berlin and the phenomenology of conflict, Administration & Society, 35(6): 683–700. doi: 10.1177/0095399703256778
Nightingale, A.J. (2019) Commoning for inclusion? Commons, exclusion, property and socio-natural becomings, International Journal of the Commons, 13(1): 16–35. doi: 10.18352/ijc.927
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, H. (2021) Co-production as a spatial practice, in K. Hemström, D. Simon, H. Palmer, B. Perry and M. Polk (eds) Transdisciplinary Knowledge Co-production: A Guide for Sustainable Cites, Rugby: Practical Action, pp 47–51.
Palmer, H., Polk, M., Simon, D. and Hansson, S. (2020) Evaluative and enabling infrastructures: supporting the ability of urban coproduction processes to contribute to societal change, Urban Transformations, 2: art 6. doi: 10.1186/s42854-020-00010-0
Pesch, U. and Vermaas, P.E. (2020) The wickedness of Rittel and Webber’s dilemmas, Administration & Society, 52(6): 960–79. doi: 10.1177/0095399720934010
Polk, M. (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving, Sustainability Science, 9(4): 439–51. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0247-7
Polk, M. (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving, Futures, 65: 110–22. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy Sciences, 4(2): 155–69. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
Savini, F., Majoor, S. and Salet, W. (2014) Dilemmas of planning: intervention, regulation, and investment, Planning Theory, 14(3): 296–315. doi: 10.1177/1473095214531430
Schad, J., Lewis, M.W. and Smith, W.K. (2019) Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development, Strategic Organizations, 17(1): 107–19. doi: 10.1177/1476127018786218
Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Stange, K., van Leeuwen, J. and van Tatenhove, J. (2016) Boundary spaces, objects and activities in mixed-actor knowledge production: making fishery management plans in collaboration, Maritime Studies, 15: art 14. doi: 10.1186/s40152-016-0053-1
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J. (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39, Social Studies of Science, 19(3): 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001
Stark, D. (2009) The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stavrides, S. (2016) Common Space: The City as Commons, London: Zed Books.
Trist, E. (1983) Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains, Human Relations, 36(3): 269–84. doi: 10.1177/001872678303600304
Uitermark, J. and Nicholls, W. (2017) Planning for social justice: strategies, dilemmas, tradeoffs, Planning Theory, 16(1): 32–50. doi: 10.1177/1473095215599027
Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. (2010) Introducing the theory of collaborative advantage, in S. Osborne (ed) The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, London and New York: Routledge, pp 163–84.
Vangen, S. and Winchester, N. (2014) Managing cultural diversity in collaborations: a focus on management tensions, Public Management Review, 16(5): 686–707. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.743579
Vickhoff, A. (2023) Våldsvåg på flera orter svår utmaning för polisen, Dagens Nyheter, 1 October, https://www.dn.se/sverige/valdsvag-pa-flera-orter-samtidigt-unik-provning-for-polisen/.
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vols 2., G. Roth and C. Wittich (trans), E. Fischoff, H. Gerth, A.M. Henderson, F. Kolegar, C.W. Mills, T. Parsons, et al (eds) Berkeley: University of California (first published in German, 1921).
Westberg, L. and Polk, M. (2016) The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach, Sustainability Science, 11(3): 385–97. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0358-4
Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2010) Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: the interplay of boundary work and practice work, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2): 189–221. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.189
