User:Lolizzie/sandbox

peer review: The lead section was great! Great opening lead section. Even though it wasn't said clear cut, I pulled it out pretty well what seemed as if it was the lead section. The key points are also very clear, straight to the point. The contribution was not sufficient at all. I could not quite make out whether this was the whole wiki page or just a section of the page? There is definitely room to add more information. Article topic is clear, references are included also. The contribution does consider a variety of perspectives, but I would suggest when talking about the different degrees, the user uses that as an opportunity to break that area down and expand more! Open it up into brief sections. But things were very neutral. The wikipage was too short to decide whether there was nuances and subtle distinctions. The claims supported are appropriate for the references included along with the information, it is reliable. Because they are from an academic journal. Sources are used and presented well. The wikipage came from a neutral standpoint. I didn't see any opinions stated at all. It was balanced well. But needs to be expanded! It is way too short! The entry is written well, no grammatical errors spotted. It is simple cut and dry! There wasn't any images at all. For the open-ended questions: The wikipage is very clear cut. But way tooo short! Im wondering where exactly is the rest of the page? it is not bias at all. Two improvements would be expand the article! because it has a good start but its like where is the rest of the article! break down some areas such as the degrees to allow room for expansion and more development.

Proposal Group W(Collaborative Governance)
Alexandra Estes (ale46txst), Elizabeth Berecin (lolizzie), Turner, German, Sean Section 1: Article Evaluation- “Collaborative Governance” Our article on wikipedia does not really go into much detail about our subject. It has little to no sources and is very biased/subjective. The article also has not been edited since 2010, which leads our group to believe that it has been neglected and left behind. Our first goal of bettering this article will be to rewrite everything that has been published in a non-subjective manner. We would also like to research the overview that the previous author published to make sure the information is up to date. We would also like to add more information on the subject so that the subject can be easier to grasp by any education level. We will add sections like the history, benefits, problems, effects on society and what are the different models. The existing article addresses a number of topics, but never clearly defines them or explains to the reader exactly what they mean. This can make researching the subject or any of the subtopics the author never clearly addresses confusing and stressful. The layout of the existing article does not even suggest that there is subtopics, but the author addresses these topics in manner where they should be considered subtopics. If our team was to rate this article based on the Wikipedia grading scale, the article would fall under the stub category rating because it is very short and talks about the subject in a subjective matter rather than descriptive. This inhibits the reader from learning anything other than the author’s opinion and that the author believes collaborative governance is a good idea. It will need to be expanded to get to the goal of “B” on the rating scale.

Section 2: NEEDS TO ADD MORE DETAIL…

What we are adding... Overview

Stages of Collaborative Governance
Collaborative Governance is explain into five different phases of stages that collectively help accomplish the task at hand. The first stage is co-commit, co-define dilemma, co-design process, co-create solutions and finally co-deliver actions.

Stage One- Co-commit
To commit to collaborating leaders in their respective positions need to first consider complexity of the situation they are approaching. That it has many aspects and their is no simple way to solve it by themselves. Then they must appreciate and value the insight of their peers, who have a position in both the solution and the dilemma. And finally they must acknowledge that a wise decision needs the ownership of those who actually have to make such decisions. And they also need to have a willingness to cooperate with their stakeholders/peers.

Stage Two- Co-define dilemma
The importance of Stage two centers around a necessity for the party to have a shared understanding of the dilemma. Without such tactics you often have solutions that would not completely resolve the dilemma because of the lack of knowledge on the subject itself. Another critical aspects in this stage centers around understanding the views of the respective stakeholders/peers on this particular issue.

Stage Three-Co-design process
This stage explains that in order for individuals to be comfortable with the task and the way it is being handled that it is necessary for them to directly be involved in the process or be comfortable with the process in which the dilemma will be solved. This stage is the point in which collaboration is most evident, in this step it requires that stakeholders ideas all come together to fix the dilemma.

Stage Four- Co-create solutions
This stage emphasizes that stakeholders are involved in the solutions, have a common understanding of all the possible solutions that have been discussed. Without this process it is common that stakeholders grow a resentment and a sense of untruest for the individuals who made the decisions. The goal of this stage is to make sure participants don't feel as if they are being socially shaped to choose an option that somebody has already predetermined.

Step Five -Co-deliver actions
For this stage it centers around that stakeholders need to be active in the action of the solution. This like stage four can build trust between the stakeholders. It could be something as small as analyzing the research itself but it can be an effective method to make stakeholders gain a sense of ownership of the solution.

History of Collaborative Governance
Collaborative Governance in practice is a fairly new policy method in terms of the other tools commonly utilized by public administrators. The first document of collaborative governance was in 1905 with the Interstate Commerce Commission. This group was the first independent agency of collaborative governance and was created to provide rate management and regulation for the burgeoning and out of control railroad industry. The ICC was a product of an innovative method which saw mandatory, statutory regulation blossom at all levels -- federal, state and local to the point where virtually all private activities today have to deal with some form of regulatory management. Since then collaborative governance has been used in a variety of forms all over the global. Even in our everyday life collaborative governance is present. For example, charter schools have sprung up all over the country to make up for the failures in public school education with collaborations between the two sectors involving money, school buildings, standards and again shared decision-making.

Here is a list of a few events in history that has reflected the policies and ideas behind collaborative governance:

•	The Smithsonian Institution was begun in 1846 with a private monetary gift to the United States government from an English benefactor, James Smithson, and has been since then a genuine collaboration between both sectors, with an independent board, both public and private funds and shared decision-making between the sectors.

•	The Lewis and Clark expedition to explore the far West between 1804 and 1806 was a joint undertaking between private explorers and government's money, which opened the wonders of the West for the benefit of the whole country. It was a remarkably effective collaboration in which there was an abundance of shared decision-making.

•	The Manhattan Project in 1941 to 1945 harnessed skills and money from both the private and public sectors to collaborate in the research and development that led to atomic energy and atomic weapons. This later ended WWII and, in the opinion of many, has helped keep peace (of a sort) in the world since then. Also, atomic energy is also providing a lot of electricity today in many parts of the globe.

•	In 1905 the New York Public Library became a major institution with a public/private board and public and private financial support as well as shared decision-making.

•	Beginning in the early 1990's the great Central Park of New York was restored to its earlier glory and magnificence by collaboration between the city's parks department and a new private Parks Conservancy, again with shared resources and shared decision making.

Benefits Of Collaborative Governance
Collaborative governance can be a very pleasant outcome. If you govern collaboratively you can steer clear of high costs of adversarial policy making. Another great benefit is the increase of democratic participation. Collaborative governance also helps with making individuals engage in more productive discussions. Another key benefit is the relationship that builds with public managers and stakeholders. Collaborative governance can help with innovative forms of collective learning and problem solving methods.

The implementation of collaborative governance leads to the challenges of poverty, inequality, and environmental insecurity being addressed. The now President Lula during his time in office has stabilized the Brazilian currency,which has led to inflation and interest rates falling to a modest rate. The Brazilian economy has seen stability that it had not seen for quite some time. There is a renewed confidence in businesses since the economy has stabilized.(jdhkjnsdl)

Problems with Collaborative Governance
Few people agree with collaborative governance because it is seen to have many problems. Duke University published a paper in which they argue that collaborative governance is a way for people with power to hunger for more power. This is seen as a problematic situation because the government could start to be ran by larger corporations instead of just by elected officials. Power imbalances are also seen as a problem within collaborative governance because some of those who would like to participate are not exactly equipped to be leaders so they receive less responsibility/power than others. This sometimes leads to the demise of the entire collaborative governance system. Another factor that is essential for collaborative governance to work would be communication. If communication is not present within the system, it will fail. Cooperation is also essential. If there has previously been cooperation issues within an organization, it has been proven to fail within collaborative governance as well. If anyone lacks commitment, this will also cause problems. In most cases, collaborative governance has only worked in instances that those working together worked as a team. There are several ways that collaborative governance could fail, which make it seem impossible in some instances.

Effects on Society
Collaborative governance is of key significance because the effects of it are lasting. Many governments that have taken on collaborative governance have seen a lasting effect. The results of collaboration are highly unlikely to be reversed within a year, they are said to be able to withstand the test of time. In addition the decisions made using collaborative governance are effective, and can actually be used. Collaboration helps prevent ideas from being made in a vacuum, by this the ideas that are implemented are actually practical which makes them more effective. Citizens that partake in collaborative governance not only see more effective policies but also have a chance to buy into their community. If all have some sort of say you are unlikely to have ideas that only benefit one group of people, as with more buy-in also comes more diversity, this leads to all lives improving within a community.

OVERVIEW
Collaborative Governance is a form of leadership in which the leaders effectively communicate with all sectors to achieve more than what any one sector could achieve on its own. Governance is different from government because governance is a term for both the informal and formal relationships for use in problem solving and decision-making, and government is a formal authority. Collaborative Governance requires 3 things which are support, leadership, and a forum. The support identifies the problem to be fixed. The leadership gathers the forum. Then the members of the forum collectively form an answer.

Timeline of Due dates

4/23/2015: Rough Draft 4/26/2015: Edit based on peer review 4/27/2015: More finalized draft 4/28/2015: Final Draft due

Google doc where most of the work can be found. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yJnijEPGml2UaOKWL1XlBb6ahgs6rDrpa6_vw3EkjHQ/edit

== Rough Draft ==

Bibliogrape of a combinehy
1.	Chris Ansell and Alison Gash,Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. J Public Adm Res Theory (2008) 18 (4): 543-571 first published online November 13, 2007doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 2.	Weil, F. (2005, August 16). The Best of Both Worlds: Collaborative Governance. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-a-weil/the-best-of-both-worlds-c_b_873104.html 3.	J Newman, M Barnes, Journal of social studies; June 25, 2004 4.	J Freeman, UCLA Law Review, 1997 5.	GP Pisano, Research Policy, 1991, Elsevier

"What Is Collaborative Governance?" PCI NPCC -. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. Wear, Andrew (2012). "Collaborative Approaches to Regional Governance – Lessons from Victoria". Australian Journal of Public Administration 71 (4): 469. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12002. Jump up ^ Roger Sidaway, 2005. Resolving Environmental Disputes: From Conflict to Consensus. London: Earthscan Jump up ^ Fung, A. (2002), "Collaboration and Countervailing Power: Making Participatory Governance Work" (PDF), Am. Sociol. Assoc., Chicago, Ill., Aug 17, retrieved 2010-06-12