Networked dynamics of knowledge integration in strategic spatial planning processes: a social network approach

REFERENCES

• Balducci, A., & Mäntysalo, R., eds. (2013). Urban planning as a trading zone. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bellotti, E. (2016). Qualitative methods and visualizations in the study of friendship networks. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhard, S. (2018). Analyzing meaning-making in network ties – A qualitative approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), Article 1609406918787103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918787103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2017). Network ethnography: A mixed-method approach for the study of practices in interorganizational settings. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116633872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidart, C., & Lavenu, D. (2005). Evolutions of personal networks and life events. Social Networks, 27(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, E. L. (2001). Practitioners and the art of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0102000403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelens, L. (2009). The urban connection: An actor-relational approach to urban planning. 010.
   Google Scholar
• Bolíbar, M. (2016). Macro, meso, micro: Broadening the ‘social’ of social network analysis with a mixed methods approach. Quality and Quantity, 50(5), 2217–2236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0259-0
   Google Scholar
• Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, G. (1978). A systems view of planning. Towards a theory of the urban and regional planning process (2nd ed.). Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Cherven, K. (2013). Network graph analysis and visualization with Gephi. Packt.
   Google Scholar
• Contractor, N. S., & Monge, P. R. (2002). Managing knowledge networks. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237238
   Google Scholar
• Corsaro, D., & Snehota, I. (2012). Perceptions of change in Business relationships and networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coviello, N. E. (2005). Integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques in network analysis. Qualitative Market Research, 8(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510575435
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, N. (2010). The social world of the network. Combining qualitative and quantitative elements in social network analysis. Sociologica, 4(1). doi: 10.2383/32049
   Google Scholar
• Cvetinovic, M., Nedovic-Budic, Z., & Bolay, J. C. (2017). Decoding urban development dynamics through actor–network methodological approach. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 82, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2015). Planning as practice of Knowing. Planning Theory, 14(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215575919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. (1997). In at the deep end: Conducting processual research on organisational change. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00025-0
   Google Scholar
• de Roo, G. (2012). Spatial planning, complexity and a world ‘out of equilibrium’: Outline of a non-linear approach to planning. In G. de Roo, J. Hillier, & J. van Wezemael (Eds.), Complexity and planning: Systems, assemblages and simulations (pp. 141–176). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dempwolf, C. S., & Lyles, L. W. (2012). The uses of social network analysis in planning: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211411092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enberg, C., Lindkvist, L., & Tell, F. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of knowledge integration: Acting and interacting in project teams. Management Learning, 37(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606063440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eräranta, S. (2019). Memorize the dance in the shadows? Unriddling the networked dynamics of planning processes through social network analysis [Doctoral dissertation]. Aalto University.
   Google Scholar
• Fallan, K. (2011). Architecture in action: Traveling with actor–network theory in the land of architectural research. Architectural Theory Review, 16(2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2011.601545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973). Planning theory. Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Fischler, R. (2000). Case studies of planners at work. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854120022092980
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2008). Understanding planning practice. In J. Hillier & P. Healey (Eds.), Contemporary movements in planning theory (pp. 35–76). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2012). Learning to improve practice: Lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analyses (or why only the loons show up). Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.649905
   Google Scholar
• Fruchterman, T. M., & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganis, M., Minnery, J., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2016). Planning people–places: A small world network paradigm for masterplanning with people in mind. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515602260
   Google Scholar
• Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing. The range of techniques. New York Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graute, U. (2016). Local authorities acting globally for sustainable development. Regional Studies, 50(11), 1931–1942. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1161740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24003-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, B. W. (2015). Relationships between policy academics and public servants: Learning at a distance? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1992). A planner’s day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P., & Shaw, T. (1993). Planners, plans and sustainable development. Regional Studies, 27(8), 769–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409312331347955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2009). Chasing shadows: Defining network boundaries in qualitative social network analysis. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (1994). What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. American Planning Association.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, M. (2012). Is integrated planning any more than the sum of its parts? Considerations for Planning Sustainable Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X12449483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hrelja, R. (2015). Integrating transport and land-use planning? How steering cultures in local authorities affect implementation of integrated public transport and land-use planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J. C., & Newell, S. (2003). Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context of cross-functional projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00091-1
   Google Scholar
• Hull, A. (2008). Policy integration: What will It take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E. (2005). Networks and planning thought. In L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network society: A new context for planning (pp. 57–61). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2016). Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i157–i173. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N., Hu, Q., & Khosa, S. (2017). The state of network research in public administration. Administration and Society, 49(8), 1087–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714555752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Koglin, T. (2015). Organisation does matter – Planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy, 39, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latapy, M., Magnien, C., & Del Vecchio, N. (2008). Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks. Social Networks, 30(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.743577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyles, W. (2015). Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 1961–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.973478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majchrzak, A., More, P. H., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I. L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19(12), 2109–2126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCulloh, I., Armstrong, H., & Johnson, A. N. (2013). Social network analysis with applications. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• McIver, D., Fitzsimmons, S., & Lengnick-Hall, C. (2019). Integrating knowledge in organizations: Examining performance and integration difficulties. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 17(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, A., & Mehta, N. (2018). Knowledge integration and team effectiveness: A team goal orientation approach. Decision Sciences, 49(3), 445–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Rotolo, D. (2010). Leveraging learning behavior and network structure to improve knowledge gatekeepers’ performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(5), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011074818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, J. (2014). Revisiting the ‘two communities’ metaphor of research utilisation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(7), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2014-0056
   Google Scholar
• Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00020-1
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of Cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2012). Complexity and transition management. In G. de Roo, J. Hillier, & J. van Wezemael (Eds.), Complexity and planning: Systems, assemblages and simulations (pp. 177–198). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207075161
   Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. (2013). Using actor–network theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory, 12(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212455494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schipper, D., & Spekkink, W. (2015). Balancing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of social network analysis to study complex social systems. Complexity, Governance and Networks, 2(1), 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.7564/15-CGN23
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis (4th ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday Currency.
   Google Scholar
• Siciliano, M. D. (2017). Ignoring the experts: Networks and organizational learning in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stead, D. (2008). Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies. Transport Policy, 15(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokman, F. N., & Doreian, P. (1997). Evolution of social networks: Processes and principles. In P. Doreian & F. Stokman (Eds.), Evolution of Social Networks (pp. 233–250). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2010). Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation, 37(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9221-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tell. (2011). Knowledge integration and innovation: A survey of the field. In C. Berggren & A. Bergek (Eds.), Knowledge integration and innovation: Critical challenges facing international technology-based firms (pp. 20–38). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tell, F., Berggren, C., & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (2017). Managing knowledge integration across boundaries. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tornberg, P. (2011). Making sense of integrated planning: Challenges to urban and transport planning processes in Sweden [Doctoral dissertation]. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-48968
   Google Scholar
• van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigar, G. (2009). Towards an integrated spatial planning? European Planning Studies, 17(11), 1571–1590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903226499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Measuring segregation between rural migrants and local residents in urban China: An integrated spatio-social network analysis of kecun in Guangzhou. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317710658
   Google Scholar