Boundary Spanning in Local Governance: A Scoping Review

• Published date: 01 February 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231219262
• Author: William Stephens,Ronald van Steden,Linda Schoonmade
• Date: 01 February 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231219262

Administration & Society

2024, Vol. 56(2) 99 –144

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231219262

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Boundary Spanning in

Local Governance:

A Scoping Review

William Stephens1, Ronald van Steden2,

and Linda Schoonmade2

Abstract

Complex societal challenges require collaboration between organizations, often

with conflicting priorities and ways of working. Connecting organizations has

come to be referred to as boundary-spanning. There is a need to understand

the features of boundary-spanning at the local level, since policy-makers and

practitioners from different sectors need not only to work together but

also to relate to the recipients of their interventions. Addressing this gap,

a scoping review was conducted. The review highlights the need to carve

out a contextualized conceptualization of boundary-spanning that accounts

for the distinctive features of this work when embedded in local community

context.

Keywords

collaboration, community, local governance, boundary-spanning, wicked

problems

Background

While societal challenges are often rooted in complex, global, and interacting

factors, many of these challenges find expression in and require a response at

the local level. To consider just a few: poverty, (juvenile) offending, public

1Utrecht University, The Netherlands

2Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

William Stephens, Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS

Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Email: w.d.stephens@uu.nl

1219262AAS0010.1177/00953997231219262Administration & SocietyStephens et al.

research-article2024

100Administration & Society 56(2)

health crises, and terrorism all can trace causes back to complex global and

systemic issues; yet, a significant feature of responding involves practitioners

and policy-makers tackling these issues in villages, neighborhoods and cities.

Given the mismatch between the complex and convoluted nature of these

challenges and the fragmentation and specialization in policy and practice,

most professionals tasked with addressing such challenges find themselves

called upon to collaborate, often through “whole-of-government” and “whole-

of-society” approaches (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007; Papademetriou &

Benton, 2016). Although the need for holistic and complex responses to com-

plex challenges can seem self-evident, it is widely acknowledged that the real-

ity of collaborative governance is problematic.

For example, a significant proportion of offenders suffer from mental

health problems; thus prevention and rehabilitation require, at the very least,

collaboration between the justice and health sectors (van Dijk et al., 2021).

Similarly, preventing radicalization to extremism calls for collaboration

among youth workers, police, social care, and schools—actors operating

within different institutional systems and with different responsibilities, for

whom the prevention of radicalization typically is not their primary objective

(Stephens & Sieckelinck, 2019). The different internal logics and telos of

these sectors means that collaboration has to overcome differences in goals,

practices, priorities, and language. For those operating at the frontline, such

as youth workers, district nurses and community police officers, the chal-

lenge extends not only to ensuring a smooth collaboration but also to ensur-

ing that the fruits of that collaboration benefit the recipients of their

interventions. That is to say, success cannot be viewed only from the vantage

point of how well information and experience flow across sectoral boundar-

ies, but also by the extent to which the exchanges actually connect with and

respond to the challenges faced in a local community (Turrini et al., 2009).

This scoping review complements scholarship employing concepts like

“intergovernmental relations,” “cross-sector collaborations,” and “gover-

nance networks” (e.g., Bryson et al., 2006; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016; Stoker,

1995). Although significant thought and attention have focused appropriately

on the models, systems and structures that can facilitate such collaboration,

there is a need to take seriously that in the end it is people who are doing the

work of crossing sectoral and disciplinary boundaries (van Meerkerk &

Edelenbos, 2018; Williams, 2002). This focus on the individual is useful to

accentuate several dimensions of local governance, specifically boundary-

spanning between and beyond formal organizations. Policy-makers and prac-

titioners from different sectors (e.g., justice, health, education) need not only

to work together but also to relate to people and families that are the recipients

of their interventions.

Stephens et al. 101

Boundary-Spanners as Local “Fixers”

The concept of boundary-spanning has its roots in organizational studies

and business management, addressing the spanning of boundaries within

and between companies (e.g., Marrone, 2010; Schotter et al., 2017). A rich

and extensive literature has developed examining the characteristics of suc-

cessful boundary-spanners, the challenges of boundary-spanning and the

type of institutional context and leadership that enable boundary-spanning.

More recent work has developed the concept outside of business settings,

including examining its application in governance and public management

(e.g., van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2018; Williams, 2012).

While much can be drawn from the business and organizational literature

on boundary-spanning, it is clear from this more recent work that there are

distinct features of boundary-spanning in the public context. For example,

van Meerkerk and Edelenbos (2018) point to the likelihood of public bound-

ary spanners having less autonomy than in the private sector, embedded in

hierarchical and political environments, and needing to deal with a variety of

constituencies, often with conflicting demands.

In their work, van Meerkerk and Edelenbos (2018) suggest that the vari-

ous contexts give rise to a need for different profiles of boundary-spanners:

no single form meets the varying needs and social realities of differing con-

texts. Of particular relevance to the work in bounded geographic settings

such as neighborhoods is the notion of “Boundary Spanners as Fixers.” They

describe the characteristics of these boundary spanners as being rooted in

formal institutional organizations while aiming to fit with local communities

and neighborhoods; viewing their role as more than just a job; and having

strong personal relationships.

Such professionals present an interesting and important category. Not only

are they embedded in hierarchical and political work contexts, but they also

are embedded deeply in a local context and connected to local communities.

Given the central role of this category of boundary spanners in the day-to-day

work of local governance and the extent to which current challenges require

“joined-up” responses at the grassroots, it is imperative to understand this

role in more depth. That is to say, it is timely to develop a more comprehen-

sive conceptualization of the particularities of boundary-spanning in local

contexts. To this end, we aim to build on the work of van Meerkerk and

Edelenbos (2018) by mapping the existing knowledge on what may be a

nuanced set of elements to consider for boundary-spanning in local contexts.

In order to do so, this scoping review addresses two questions: (a) How is

boundary spanning conceptualized in relation to local governance? (b) What