Participative Democracy and Voice: Rethinking Community Collaboration Beyond Neutral Structures

References

• Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (2003a). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age, twentieth-anniversary edition, with a new preface (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, B. (2003b). Which democracy and which technology? In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and new media (pp. 33–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barge, J. K. (2002). Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barge, J. K. (2006). Dialogue, conflict, and community. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 517–544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, T. (2010). Hope and hard times: Communities, collaboration and sustainability. Gabriola Island: New Society.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coggins, G. C. (2001). Of Californicators, quislings, and crazies: Some perils of devolved collaboration. In P. Brick, D. Snow, & S. Van de Wetering (Eds.), Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American west (pp. 163–171). Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. R., & Shumate, M. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through the bona fide network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 62–654. doi:10.1177/0893318912462014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in the age of corporate colonization. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S. (2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. May, G. Cheney, and J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paper translated and republished in A. Peci (Ed.), Críticosem Administração. Brazil: Editoria Atlas.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S. (2008). Engagement as co-generative theorizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 289–297. doi:10.1080/00909880802172301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deetz, S., & Brown, D. (2004). Conceptualizing involvement, participation and workplace decision processes: A communication theory perspective. In D. Tourish & O. Hargie (Eds.), Key issues in organizational communication (pp. 172–187). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S., & Irvin, L. (2008). Governance, stakeholder involvement and new communication models. In S. Odugbemi & T. Jacobson (Eds.), Governance reform under real world conditions: citizens, stakeholders, and voice (pp. 163–180). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical organizational dialogue: Open formation and the demand of “otherness.” In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 141–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2000). Longer-term effects of Head Start. American Economic Review, 92, 999–1012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3083291 10.1257/00028280260344560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30, 58–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159095 10.5465/AMR.2005.15281426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, R. G. (2007). Rethinking community collaboration through a dialogic lens. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 145–171. doi:10.1177/0893318907306032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, R. G., & Frey, L. R. (2004). Ideal collaboration: A conceptual framework of community collaboration. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 28 (pp. 189–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Heath R. G., & Sias, P. (1999). Communicating spirit in a collaborative alliance. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 356–376. doi:10.1080/00909889909365545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of American Planning Association, 65, 412–427. doi:10.1080/01944369908976071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isbell, M. (2012). The role of boundary spanners as the interorganizational link in nonprofit collaborating. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 159–165. doi:10.1177/0893318911423641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyton, J., Ford, D. J., & Smith, F. I. (2008). A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration. Communication Theory, 18, 376–406. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00327.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyton, J., & Stallworth, V. (2003). On the verge of collaboration: Interaction processes versus group outcomes. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (pp. 235–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, M. A., (2013). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 61–89. doi:10.1177/0893318912449314
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, M., & Isbell, M. (2009). Toward a communicative model of interorganizational collaboration: The case of the community action network. Case Research Journal, 29, 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, M. A., Kuhn, T., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37, 332–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0314 10.5465/amr.2010.0314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann, M., & Laster, N. (2011). Communicative tensions of community organizing: The case of a local neighborhood association. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 28–51. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.536965
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 173–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, J. (2001). Exploring paradox in environmental collaborations. In P. Brick, D. Snow, & S. Van de Wetering (Eds.), Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American west (pp. 200–209). Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, J. (2003). Environmental collaboration and constituency communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (pp. 209–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 281–290. doi:10.2307/3069297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, T. B., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (1999). Watching whale watching: Exploring the discursive foundations of collaborative relationships. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 479–502. doi:10.1177/0021886399354008
   Google Scholar
• Leach, W. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, December, 66, 100–110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00670.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, L. (2006). Collaborative interaction: Review of communication scholarship and a research agenda. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 30, (pp. 197–247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, L., Isbell, M., & Koschmann, M. (2010). Collaborative tensions: Practitioners' experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication Monographs, 77, 460–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.523605 10.1080/03637751.2010.523605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lukensmeyer, C., & Brigham, S. (2005). Taking democracy to scale: Large scale interventions – for citizens. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 47–60. doi:10.1177/0021886304272656
   Google Scholar
• Mackin, D. (2007). The team building tool kit: Tips, tactics, and rules for effective working teams. New York, NY: American Management Association.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T. (2007). Muting the voice of the local in the age of the global: How communication practices compromised public participation in India's Allain Dunhangan environmental impact assessment. Environmental Communication, 1, 171–193. doi:10.1080/17524030701642595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, M. J. (2001). What do we mean by consensus? Some defining principles. In P. Brick, D. Snow, & S. Van de Wetering (Eds.), Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American west (pp. 33–40). Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, C. (2001). The Applegate Partnership: Innovation in crisis. In P. Brick, D. Snow, & S. Van de Wetering (Eds.), Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American west (pp. 102–111). Washington DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 39–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Renz, M. A. (2006). Paving consensus: Enacting, challenging, and revising the consensus process in a cohousing community. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 163–190. doi:10.1080/00909880600574088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873. doi:10.1177/0149206305279601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. (2004). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 13–33). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sheeran, M. J. (1996). Beyond majority rule: Voteless decisions in the religious society of friends. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
   Google Scholar
• Spano, S. (2001). Public dialogue and participatory democracy: The Cupertino community project. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
   Google Scholar
• Stohl, C., & Walker, C. (2002). A bona fide perspective for the future of groups: Understanding collaborating groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 237–252). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. [Special issue]. Public Administration Review, December, 66, 20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, G. B. (2007). Public participation as participatory communication in environmental policy decision-making: From concepts to structured conversations. Environmental Communication, 1, 199–110. doi:10.1080/17524030701334342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, K. L., & Stohl, C. (2012). Communication in a collaborating group: A longitudinal network analysis. Communication Monographs, 79, 448–474. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.723810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1946/1984). Bureaucracy. In F. Fischer & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Organization and bureaucracy (pp. 4–19). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zoller, H. M. (2000). “A place you haven't visited before”: Creating the conditions for community dialogue. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 191–207. doi:10.1080/10417940009373167
   Google Scholar