Case Study Analysis of Hermeneutic Boundary Spanning During Policy Change and Transition

Published date01 July 2021
Date01 July 2021
DOI10.1177/0095399720976529
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720976529
Administration & Society
2021, Vol. 53(6) 872 –906
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0095399720976529
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Article
Case Study Analysis of
Hermeneutic Boundary
Spanning During Policy
Change and Transition
Nicholas C. Zingale1 and Alexandra Higl1
Abstract
Working through a lens of administrative governance, hermeneutics, and
boundary spanning, we spent 18 months studying the Ohio Children’s
Trust Fund (OCTF) as it began its transition from a county to a regional
funding model. Using observations and interviews of regional directors and
administrative teams, we were interested in learning more about the role
of boundary spanning and hermeneutics during the transition process. In
other words, attempting to answer the question on what makes boundary
spanning work at the level of the boundary spanner? The case study research
produced four primary findings: (a) state and regional administrators desired
a transitional approach that meant dispersing and distributing power and
decisions to regional leaders; (b) political, time, and budget constraints
worked against these desires; (c) boundary spanning efforts failed to
produce a resource network; and (d) seeking understanding between the
macro deterministic goals of the state to the micro regional and local needs
produced an exercise in philosophical hermeneutics—particularly at the
boundaries of the region and the state, as actors interpreted what they
saw, read, and thought. We concluded that public administrators might
better cope with the uncertainties associated with program transitions
by more fully developing a hermeneutic mind-set for exploratory bias
over confirmatory bias when engaging in boundary spanning and forming
collaborative networks.
1Cleveland State University, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Nicholas C. Zingale, Associate Professor, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State
University 2121 Euclid Avenue, UR 320, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.
Email: n.zingale@csuohio.edu
976529AASXXX10.1177/0095399720976529Administration & SocietyZingale and Higl
research-article2020
Zingale and Higl 873
Keywords
boundary spanning, exploratory bias, governance, hermeneutics, policy
transitions
Introduction
Administrators must contend with government programs and policies that
change all the time. These changes often influence the institutional structure
of organizations that work with state and local administrators to carry out
tasks when achieving policy goals. When programs are restructured, an
opportunity arises to not only establish new collaborative networks, but also
redress administrative functions designed for knowledge formation and
information sharing. Administrators are primary to these efforts, particularly
when tasked with spanning across existing and new institutional structures,
organizations, and people involved. This case study research blended the
boundary spanning and hermeneutics literature to examine the political
dynamics involved in such a change. In 1984, the Ohio state government cre-
ated the county-funded Ohio Children’s Trust Fund (OCTF), to be discussed.
In 2016, the decision was made to transition to a regionally funded model
(OCTF, n.d.). This case study documents this process through the hermeneu-
tic lens, which concerns people interpreting what they see, hear, and think so
they can make sense of their experiences (Gadamer, 2004).
Boundary Spanning
Natural separations or boundaries exist between intersecting organizations
and entities within and between fields and disciplines, and sectors. Each
autonomous entity “possesses its own internal logic [or] implicit rules” that
governs or motivates it and makes it unique (Kislov et al., 2017, p. 1423).
Fortunately, boundary spanning (i.e., straddling or iteratively moving across
borders) aids in helping people to recognize commonalities, learn from one
another, and benefit from collaboration and shared understanding (Bourdieu,
2005; Kislov et al., 2017; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Boundary spanning
involves a set of tools and mechanisms, including technology, the movement
of people and resources, mentoring, training, trust building, networking, and
knowledge management (tacit and explicit; Beechler et al., 2004; J. D.
Johnson & Chang, 2000; Tushman, 1977).
The concept of boundary spanning also relates to transferring knowledge
within an organization, outside organizations within the same field, or to
different organizations with varying scopes of practice while building trust
(van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, 2014). Administrators need to gain a good
874 Administration & Society 53(6)
understanding of boundary spanning and execute sound judgment “of when
to step in and out of different intra- and inter-organizational boundaries, so
as to solve problems, prevent potential conflicts, and promote better collabo-
ration” (Leung, 2013, p. 447). Hustad (2017) argues that, in situations of
change, it is essential “to establish dedicated network leadership with
resources to facilitate and coordinate the networks” (p. 36). We contend that
these network leaders should serve as boundary spanners.
The Role of the Boundary Spanner
Boundary spanners are crucial to organizational effectiveness because they
serve as the bridge or missing link in the communication and idea-sharing
chain between experts positioned both within and outside the organization
(Cross & Parker, 2004; Levina & Vaast, 2005; van Meerkerk & Edelenbos,
2017). They “enable translation, coordination and alignment between differ-
ent perspectives and facilitate translations between previously separated
practices” (Kislov et al., 2017, p. 1423).
Broadly speaking, boundary spanners bridge the gap between boundaries.
The metaphorical bridge they build not only connects partners and like-
minded entities but also competitors (Scott, 2016). The boundary spanner’s
role includes “cultivating the organizational ability to deal with the chal-
lenges of managing across boundaries” (Levina & Vaast, 2005, p. 338).
However, the exact role of a boundary spanner is still under debate, compli-
cated by the possibility of boundary spanners not always being a “stable,
identifiable, unitary entity” (Friedman & Podolny, 1992, p. 28). Furthermore,
they can serve many roles including gatekeeper, representative, advice giver,
trust broker, scout, ambassador, and sentry or guard (Ancona & Caldwell,
1992; Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Levina & Vaast, 2005; van Meerkerk &
Edelenbos, 2017).
That being said, the boundary spanners’ specific role(s) is contingent on
the context; they provide the missing pieces of support vital to the organiza-
tion or program (e.g., information, technical expertise, socio-emotional
advice, advocacy work, and community engagement). Boundary spanners
must also recognize that these roles are dynamic and ever changing—varying
with each situation—especially in times of organizational change and transi-
tion, which requires responsiveness, flexibility, and openness to change.
Boundary spanners set the tone for transitions (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;
Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Levina & Vaast, 2005).
Within organizations, formal roles often dictate who serves as a boundary
spanner. Traditionally, executive directors or high-level managers assume
this role; when this happens, organizations tend to be managed or governed

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT