Narratives of Collaborative Governance:
An Exploration of the National Innovation Council of Sweden
Kayla Van Cleave
Uppsala University
Abstract
Governance is a predominant paradigm in political science, characterizing how current regimes are increasingly steered by multiple societal actors and structures. The specific purpose and processes of such arrangements however, remain vague in theory and in practice. This thesis relies on narratological and ethnographic methods to describe how motivations, goals, and interactions of collaborative governance arrangements advance theoretical and empirical definitions. The focus of this paper is the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC), which provides a rare case of collaborative governance at the national government level. By interpreting the active narratives of this council, theoretical definitions of collaborative governance are stabilized. I rely on semi-structured elite interviews and document analyses to gain access to the council’s otherwise exclusive arrangement. I find that this constructivist approach adds sociopolitical dimensions to the concept of collaborative governance, including a deeper understanding of collaboration, change and contribution. These theoretical findings are grounded on empirical observations, including my concept of ‘bilateral opportunism,’ the semantics presented in the concept of change, and the reconceptualization of public service. The will to improve expressed by the NIC has political and democratic implications that this thesis will discuss.
Keywords: governance, collaborative governance, ethnography, narratology, stakeholder,
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 5
1.1 Outline of the Thesis 7
2.0 Theoretical Field and Position 8
2.1 Historical Frameworks 8
2.2 Governance: a collaborative, participatory, representative engagement 8
2.3 My Theoretical Position & Contribution 10
2.4 On Actor-Networks & Organizing 12
2.5 Analytical Concerns 14
3.0 Methodological Tools 16
3.1 The National Innovation Council of Sweden 16
3.2 Ethnography & Narratology 17
3.3 Accessing the Inaccessible 19
4.0 Analysis of the Arrangement 21
4.1 Motivations & Goals 21
4.1.1 To Collaborate: ‘When people meet up over borders...Christmas music comes!’ 21
4.1.2 To Change 23
4.1.3 To Contribute 26
4.2 Explanations of Work 27
4.2.1 The Inventor 30
4.3 Participation & Interaction 30
4.3.1 ‘A network of individual advisors’ 31
4.3.2 ‘Bilateral Opportunism’ 31
4.4 Language Use & Meaning Making 32
4.4.1 Innovation is a fashionable, homeless, technology and method to improve society 33
4.4.2 ‘Sweden is a small country’ 38
5.0 Implications: fitting form to content 40
5.1 From Goals & Motivations to Values & Purpose 40
5.1.1 Making the Most of the Music 41
5.1.2 The Semantics of Change 42
5.1.3 Individual vs. Sectoral Stakeholderism 44
5.2 New Forms, Old Rules 45
5.2.1 Steering & Rowing 45
5.2.2 Democratic Representation 47
References 49
Official Documents 49
Scholarly Sources 51
Interviews 54
1.0 Introduction
Stefan1 and I sat in an IVA project2, where we discussed how to strengthen Sweden’s competitiveness and such. One of the ideas there was that we should have a National Innovation Council, that it would be a very good way to strengthen collaboration and strengthen Sweden’s innovation climate, simply put. When Stefan became the chair of the party I started working for him at the Social Democrats [office] in January or February 2012. And when you have your First of May speech, you always have to have a promise. So his first promise as the chair of the party was to establish a national innovation council, which was a bit of a weird First of May promise because it’s not what regular people maybe think about. But it was anyways how it began. Surely it was born out of his work with IVA… and then Stefan and I tossed the idea around when he started as the party leader… we took this up as a proposal, and then we presented it as an election promise. So that’s how it began actually! And then when we won the election 2014 we started to work with it, and I was responsible for actually carrying that out.3
This is the story of how the National Innovation Council of Sweden (Nationella innovationsrådet) began, told by the Prime Minister’s former Political Secretary, who became the head of the NIC office. It grasps intimate knowledge that motivated the establishment of an executively steered government body in a way that is not portrayed in other informational channels. This narrative illustrates how connections between events, actors and ideas are translated into actions and organizations. Which are then abstracted and recorded in documents. By asking the inventor about his invention, a deeper meaning manifests. I argue this narratological knowledge is necessary to define newly emerging forms of governance.
1 Prime Minister Stefan Löfven
2 Engineering Science Academy (Kungl. Ingenjörsvetenskapsakademien)
3 Jag och Stefan hade suttit I en IVA projekt, där man diskuterade hur man kan stärka Sveriges konkurrenskraft
Although governance is not new, it continues to develop in new forms that require scrutiny from political scientists. The paradigm shift from government to governance traces back to New Public Management ideas of the ‘80s, claiming government should be transformed to an innovative apparatus. This assumes that traditional top-down government bureaucracy is inefficient, outdated, and inflexible in the face of new societal and technological advancements. Thus, Government was to be reinvented to an entrepreneurial organization influenced by business models and market forces (Osborne, 1993). This shift actively involved new stakeholders to procure public service, allocate resources and make governmental decisions. All resting on the assumption of better, more efficient policy implementation. In sum, government should ‘steer not row’ (Osborne, 1993).
However innovative such ideas are, merging notions from the private into the public sector has practical consequences. Bureaucratic processes grew disaggregated and complicated. Private stakeholders took control over central governmental processes. Costs, paradoxically increased. As a result, legitimacy in political institutions and their function was questioned and doubted (Hood and Dixon, 2015).
Traces of this entrepreneurial government reside in the notion of governance where networks of stakeholders steer in a horizontal fashion (see Ansell and Gash 2008, Pierre 2009, Pollitt and Hupe 2011). As such, government deliberations depart from the previous bureaucratic rigidity into more complex processes. In turn, political scientists rightly ask how decisions are made and what motivations and goals undergird them; what indicates the various forms of governance? What is meant by effectivity? and at what cost? In the aftermath of reformed public process, questions about how participating stakeholders affect policy and democracy are imperative.
Governance scholars Klijn (2008), Fung (2008), Ansell and Gash (2008) argue that emergent forms of governance should be scrutinized with a political science and ethnographic lens to disentangle complexity in such processes. An approach that understands how participant stakeholders make meaning in context and through interactions is necessary to interpret what kinds of values, goals, and motivations exist in such arrangements. And further, to uncover the implications this change in steering has on democratic notions of political representation and power.
governance arrangements rest on. Like Czarniawska (2008), I argue that by closely following the narratives and objects that construct organizations, one can better understand the local knowledge that stabilizes them. And in this case, uncover the implications of new forms of governance on existing ways to make policy and maintain democratic values.
For the purposes of this thesis, I am interested in the National Innovation Council of Sweden. This advisory council was established by the Prime Minister who appointed members from political, civil society, business, and academic sectors. The NIC offers a concrete example of collaborative governance, where multiple stakeholders coordinate stances on national policy agendas. To analyze the role of this council as a unique case of collaborative governance, my research questions are:
1) What are the motivations, goals and values displayed by the NIC? And how do they relate to the concept of collaborative governance?
2) To what extent does the participation of such stakeholders have consequence on policy making and democratic representation?
1.1 Outline of the Thesis
In the following chapter two I explore existing theoretical discussions of governance and situate the NIC as a kind of collaborative governance arrangement. Then I discuss my interpretivist approach and analytical concerns in organizing the council.
Chapter three presents the case of the NIC and discusses the methodological
considerations taken to explore the narratives that define this elite council. This chapter includes a brief discussion on my ethnographic method choices and access to the field.
In chapter four I analyze the various narratives from documents and interviews that construct the NIC. This chapter focuses on my analytical concerns. This includes motivations and goals, explanations of work, participation and interaction, language and meaning harbored in this government arrangement.
2.0 Theoretical Field and Position
2.1 Historical Frameworks
The idea that the public administration is more effective in collaboration with private actors dominated New Public Management reforms and persist today. A common assumption underlying these reforms was that computerization transformed society and public administration needed to increase its capacity and flexibility to meet new societal challenges. Spokespersons of this ideology (Osborne, 1993), argue that government should steer with a vision that the bureaucracy should rise to meet, competition that drives results that incentivize efficient performance outcomes, and customer-satisfaction that forms public service.
In Hood and Dixon’s (2015) analysis of the outcomes of NPM reforms they find common trends like inter-departmental churn, increased public expenditure, intensified bureaucratic review and chaotic administrative function. Such changes contributed to citizens’ lack of trust in politics and political institutions. According to governance scholars, Pollitt and Hupe (2011), this problem reverberates the challenges posed in the age of computerization. The recent wave of digitalization and individualization has fragmented society, and led to wicked problems that are dynamic, persistent, and reemergent.
Governance thus grew as a popular paradigm out of this age of complexity. While government rule is marked by a national government that holds the monopoly of power over its citizens, governance, according to scholars Klijn (2008) and Pollitt and Hupe (2011) refers to modern regimes that are steered by horizontal coordination among multiple actors and networks. As such, governance is understood as a way to mitigate trust issues between the citizen and the state and improve implementation in the public sector, by involving more stakeholders into the political process (Klijn 2008, Pollitt and Hupe 2011). The salient notion in governance arrangements (see Klijn 2008, Sørensen and Waldorff, 2014, Lopes and Farias, 2020) is that public and private actors coordinate to enhance governmental capacity and address wickedness in a way that vertical top-down government could otherwise not achieve.
2.2 Governance: a collaborative, participatory, representative engagement
governance appears in civic and town hall situations (Fung 2006), while collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008) seems to refer to more selective and deliberative functions. Granted, these governance forms are critiqued for their vague purpose and structure (See Lopes and Farias, 2020). They exist in complex interrelated networks where political, legal, socioeconomic and environmental factors affect actors’ motivations and action (Emerson et al. 2012). Thus, horizontal network cooperation poses an important puzzle for Political Scientists to try and figure out.
For the purposes of this study, collaborative governance is my main focus. Collaborative governance arrangements, like the National Innovation Council, are determined by the formality of their structure, horizontal deliberations and effective agenda setting and problem-solving (Ansell and Gash 2008). In these arrangements, collective decision-making and open dialogue are prioritized as ways to create policy ideas. The ultimate goal is to broadly involve affected stakeholders in the various processes of policy understanding, drafting and implementation.
Participatory and collaborative governance terms are used somewhat interchangeably in the literature. However, participatory governance is an arrangement often confined to local or regional settings with specific political output goals. Whereas collaboration governance theorists (Sørensen and Waldorff 2014, Torfing 2019) emphasize coordination to improve the development and implementation of policy solutions and efficient use of government resources to improve administrative function. Collaborative arrangements are initiated by public authorities and invite non-state actors in various stages of policy creation and implementation. Deliberation occurs across sectoral and public-private boundaries and among various levels of government and civic spheres (Fung 2006, Ansell & Gash 2008, Klijn 2008, Emerson et al. 2012, Danielsson et al. 2017).
turn, this cross sectoral negotiation is thought to strengthen representative democracy. Hence, these endeavors rest on formal and informal interactions, role taking and relationships in place to facilitate co-creative policy.
According to Fung (2006) and Danielsson (2017), participatory governance is similar in its ambition and function, yet seems to work more directly with mitigating legitimacy and trust issues in representative democracies. Public authorities invite civil society members to participate and deliberate on policy or public that they themselves are affected by. As noted by Danielsson (2017), the government sponsors specific arrangements where local officials and citizens negotiate local politics. This arrangement is not necessarily routinized, as it often is in collaborative governance arrangements. Participatory governance aims to stimulate communication between the civil society and governments in order to reestablish a sense of trust and legitimacy for authorities in specific communities.
Unlike other phenomena that foster collaboration and cooperation in civil society, participatory and collaborative governance are formal and collective forums precedented on failed representative institutions4 (Fung 2006, Klijn 2008, Danielsson et al. 2017). Other examples of less formal arrangements include public-private partnerships (PPPs) and policy networks. Ansell and Gash (2008) explain that PPPs ensure coordination in both sectors, without discussing official decisions. This often manifests as bilateral agreements or tasks. Similarly, policy networks attempt to collaborate among various stakeholders and interest groups, although these processes and routines take place in non-formal agreements and interactions. Vestlund (2017) discusses network governance as a further concept that emerged in European studies as a way for European agencies and ministries to coordinate beyond national boundaries. However formal, this form of governance does not involve civil actors.
2.3 My Theoretical Position & Contribution
The aforementioned collective and collaborative forums occur in meetings where societal leaders simply, talk and exchange ideas. There is thus a need to better understand the talk and exchange in collaborative governance arrangements, considering the executive steering capacity they have. Practically, this means entering the organization as much as possible to understand what Czarniawska (2008) refers to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of these organizations, presented in narrative explanations.
Throughout governance and collaborative theory literature, central ideas hinge on the roles and interactions of the involved actors. The emphasis on horizontal rather than vertical governance departs from hierarchical and institutional governmental routine. As Fung (2006) and Klijn (2008) observe, the interactive processes of collaboration are complex, varied and difficult to indicate. This transforms straightforward routine and function to less structured interaction, dialogue and collaboration. Therefore, there is a need to better define the contextual narratives that dominate these forums. As such, Czarniawska (2004) maintains that narratives string together fragmentation through coherent recollection of events and actions. This, I argue, specifies theoretical ambiguity.
In order to do so, it is important to note the contexts in which they exist. In fact, the existing roles of each stakeholder and their respective institutional routines remain intact in these collaborative governance arrangements. There is no structural change in governmental function, legislative process or representative mandate, although the literature stresses the formality of governance arrangements (i.e. formal invitations, regular meeting times, allocated resources). Do members of such governance arrangements represent themselves individually or sectorally? How do formality and individuality coexist?
The aforementioned governance theorists (Fung 2006, Ansell and Gash 2008, Emerson et al. 2012) express a common urge for ethnographic research and empirically-focused case studies in new contexts in order to investigate the complexities of contextual interactions in such arrangements. Thus, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding about the roles taken, interactions, and driving forces that manifest in collaborative governance arrangements. Furthermore, as Ansell and Gash (2008) point out, there is an overwhelming focus on sector-specific collaborative governance. This suggests that theoretical contributions to collaborative governance lack a national perspective on how various sectors interact and jointly deliberate among as opposed to within sectors.
Governance literature (Fung 2006, Ansell and Gash 2008, Emerson et al. 2012) indicate success factors, referring to starting conditions and incentives or mutual dependence collaborative capacity and authority. I interpret starting conditions and incentives to mean what encourages or discourages participation and on what terms. I understand what Emerson (2012) call ‘capacity for joint action’ as the ways dialogue and ideas circulate this governance arrangement. I understand the authority factor to refer to how trust and dialogue among stakeholders’ manifests and is facilitated, and additionally the relationship between members and the chair of the council (i.e. Prime Minister) works. By interpreting these so-called success factors through the explanations of members who work in collaborative governance arrangements, I aim to add theoretical depth and linguistic nuance to the field of governance.
2.4 On Actor-Networks & Organizing
In order to disentangle the complex interactions and processes at the NIC, I rely on Barbara Cziarnawska’s Theory of Organizing (2008). Actor-Network and Action-Net Theories are rooted in Science and Technology Studies, sociology5 and anthropology (Latour 2005, Czarniawska 2008). Actor-Network Theory (ANT) maintains a sort of social constructivism6 that understands the social as tightly interwoven with material objects, resulting in the assemblage of a social phenomenon. As such, both actors and objects have agency and are referred to as actants.7 A central focus of this theoretical approach is that actors and their reflective expertise on what they do provide the researcher with a theory of the organization. Hence, the kind of knowledge this theory contributes is socially embedded, rather than scientifically logical. It is also well-suited to vague structures, or in ANT language ‘networks,’ such as those found in collaborative governance arrangements. By following empirical explanations, the organization becomes stabilized in a way that is not predetermined by the confines of theoretical impositions. These empirical and local definitions thus become the theoretical, offering specification and depth.
5 ANT is influenced by critical sociologists like Gabriel Tarde and Harold Garfinkel. Tarde maintains that society
should be explained as the connecting link between other animals, atoms, objects, etc. and Garfinkel relies on ethnographic methods to understand how society is assembled, rather than imposing sociological principles onto sociological actions (Latour, 2005).
6 Bruno Latour, one of the founders of this theory, may disagree with me on this point as he proclaims himself a
“relativist” (Latour, 2005:12) but also provocatively expresses himself as a kind of realist that only sees social connections between material and other actors, rather than constructed connections. I choose to call ANT constructivist in the way that Czarniawska (2008) refers to social meanings constructed from relationships between material things that stabilize and organize groups.
My aim is to understand the narratives that stabilize this government arrangement. ANT presumes that social phenomena are complex and cannot be presupposed, but rather interpreted in context, through the narrative knowledge found in documents and language and with the interactions they have with others and the researcher (Latour 2005, Czarniawska 2005). After ethnographic investigation, the phenomenon of collaborative governance emerges in social network associations, or as actor-networks, according to Czarniawska (2004) and Latour (2005). This means that social phenomena can be represented as a singular actor or in a network of actants it consists of. In this case, a goal of this arrangement may be expressed by one informant, translated to a press release, found in a government investigation and produced as a government bill. As such, the various iterations of this goal exist as both an actor and a network of connections.
In ‘A Theory of Organizing’ (2008), Barbara Czarniawska uses ANT and constructivism to understand how organizations are defined and are governed in practice. She advances on ANT, adding a neo-institutional dimension where organizations are considered entities that are assembled to lead or govern (Corvellec and Zetterquist, 2017). Corvellec and Eriksson-Zetterquist (2017) observe that Czarniawska uses the term action-nets instead of actor networks to emphasize the actions performed by several organizations or actors are connected to other actants. This distinction emphasizes that acts which construct organizations and are subject to change. A central ontological claim here is that knowledge is subject to change and interact, rather than being understood as something with predetermined properties and actors (Czarniawska, 2008). Notably, Czarniawska (2008) defines organizing as an active verb rather than a noun.
organizing approach is to interpret the practices and roles that exist in the organization subjectively rather than to outline successful factors or principles. In this exploratory study, the aim is to understand how meaning is made in context to yield theoretical clarification.
In this Theory of Organizing (Czarniawska, 2008), there are some central theoretical concepts I will briefly cover and expand on in my analysis. First, Czarniawska coins the term translation to refer to a transmission of signals to new forms, as in linguistic translation. For example, an event or idea can be explained in other terms, which in turn interact within or outside of the organization (i.e. informal networks of communication, international agreements). Such terms can take on other expressions (i.e. dialogue, government documents). Translations can then be imitated or repeated in other factions that may lie within or beyond organizational bounds. Novel concepts that permeate many organizations and guide what is noticed in their context are deemed fashionable (Czarniawska, 2008). These three theoretical concepts are central to Czarniawska’s (2008) organizing theory, providing necessary connections to stabilize organizations.
2.5 Analytical Concerns
In my narratological and ethnographic orientation, the form and function of this collaborative governance example emerges by tracing connections that construct the organization in order to contribute depth and breadth in theoretical understandings. As such, my main analytical concerns are:
• Actors’ motivations and goals with participation in the council. • Kinds of participation and interaction with other actants.
• Actors’ definitions of their work and the common ideas that circulate. • Language use and meaning-making.
narratives that include multi-lateral as opposed to bilateral interactions between members and the political authorities present.
Their definitions of innovation may involve popular concepts found in innovation and governance theories, including public service innovation, governance innovation, social innovation, collaborative innovation, co-creation and so forth (Karo and Kattel, 2016). Within the field of innovation studies, innovation is generally split as either a way to contribute new technology and patents (i.e. public service innovation, governance innovation), or a way to interact and use knowledge (i.e. social, collaborative, governance innovation). Because this is a public appointment by the Prime Minister, I expect to hear how innovation should add value for society, which is a common theme in innovation governance and public innovation discussions (Bason 2018, De Vries et al. 2016, Pătraşcu 2018, Lopes and Farias 2020).
3.0 Methodological Tools
3.1 The National Innovation Council of Sweden
On May 5, 2011, the Swedish Secretary of State established the national council committee in order to “increase effectiveness and quality in the public administration”8 (SOU 2013: 40, 3). This form of the NIC was however a temporary council organized by the center-right alliance, which ruled Sweden until 2014 when the Social Democrats regained power. As such, the NIC persisted in its aim to address complex political issues by involving the relevant stakeholders in ongoing conversations that should lead to “holistic and long-term approaches in political decision making” (SOU 2013: 40, 12).
In 2015 the NIC was established as a permanent council chaired by the Social Democratic Prime Minister and attended by four ministers,9 and ten formally invited external members. In this permanent council, members are appointed by the Prime Minister on a personal mandate matching the four-year term of the government in power (Regeringskansliet, 2018).10 They convene however, from academic, business, political, and civil sectors (Regeringskansliet, 2018). The NIC meets collectively four times a year and makes two regional visits in Sweden attended by the Prime Minister, an accompanying minister, and select external representatives. Each meeting focuses on a few predetermined issues concerning for example, digitalization, environment, climate and life science (Regeringskansliet, 2018). Meetings begin with an invited guest expert in the topic to start the discussion. Notably, the formal council meetings occur behind closed doors, although documented by ministerial secretariats, who later publish press releases through the Government Offices.11 There is no external media coverage or access to these meetings otherwise. This is the Prime Minister’s decision to attempt to foster informal dialogue and collaboration among members (Regeringskansliet, 2018).
According to governance literature, the NIC serves as a unique case of collaborative governance because of its national executive position and scope. This case contributes a cross-sectoral example of collaborative governance prioritized by the Prime Minister himself, unprecedented in other national contexts (Edquist, 2019). Usually, the topic of innovation is confined to specific ministries (i.e. Research and Higher Education or Industry and Trade). This council fills an advisory function, although deliberate in concrete topics and proposals that it
8 höja effektiviteten och kvaliteten i offentlig verksamhet
9 Minister of International Development and Climate, Minister of Finance, Minister of Research and Higher
Education, Minister of Industry and Trade
produced as a result of the meetings. The case is furthermore unique in its emphasis on personal rather than sectoral appointments and the strong leadership presence from the Prime Minister. However, there are at least two limitations to the NIC serving as a clear example of collaborative governance. First, decisions are not drafted collectively. This process occurs in external proceedings by the state secretaries and relevant ministerial cabinets. Despite this formal difference, dialogue between experts, civil society leaders and politicians occur in these meetings and may indirectly influence political decisions. Second, the role of the members is somewhat ambiguous. According to collaborative governance literature, these members should represent their respective sectors, although the NIC clearly states that members are personally selected to contribute to innovation policy (Regeringskansliet, 2018). I will return to these ambiguities in chapters four and five.
3.2 Ethnography & Narratology
Without membership to the NIC, I cannot participate in the organization. Feasibly analyzing the outcomes or full collaborative processes that take place reach beyond the scope of this paper. However, this council is primarily built on dialogue among the members. Therefore, I rely on an interpretive analysis (Yanow, 2000) of the actants involved in the NIC to explore the narratological knowledge found in the roles, logics and interactions that occupy this council. As such, I adapt Czarniawska’s (2008) approach, uncovering the ‘what’ and ‘why’ in my questions that instead explore ‘what’ and ‘how’. Czarniawska has the access and resources to do more immersive studies where ‘why’ can be explained, whereas my study is confined by the exclusivity of the NIC and the scope of this master’s level thesis.
According to Latour (2005) and Czarniawska (2008) this approach emphasizes how people make sense of the events and processes they have experienced as experts in their role. According to Yanow (2000), interpretive analysis in policy settings considers spoken and written words, symbolic objects, acts, policy texts, and meaning these artifacts have for the actors that use them as central to meaning making. This means simply that the local knowledge of the NIC is central to developing meaning and logic about the role and purpose it serves. This deepened understanding of the roles and goals of these meetings is of particular importance to governance in a modern democracy that is grounded on principles of transparency, accountability and representation.
‘sensemaking’ processes that the members of the NIC experience and explain through narrative. More specifically, I rely on Czarniawska’s (2008) methodological approach to narrative, meaning texts and words that incorporate a time arc, fragmented and plotted with past and future events, and retroactive sensemaking. In the context of the NIC, a high ranking, governmental advisory body with multiple disciplines represented, fashionable terms and common logics facilitate interactions.
This study is exploratory, because I lack access to meetings and enter and exit workplaces without fully immersing myself in one context. According to Yanow’s ‘Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis’ (2000), my approach covers early stages in the field, namely (1) identifying various ‘communities of meaning’ in policy ideas and (2) the artifacts that communicate these ideas. I interpret Yanow’s ‘communities of meaning’ in my context to mean the various positions members take (i.e. definitions of innovation based on their sector). In order to uncover such communities, I rely on a snowball method, beginning with the secretariat of the NIC as a member who understands the organization in its entirety, and continuing interviews as per recommendation. Snowballing, according to Schwartz-Shea & Yanow (2012) refers to the process of one source leading to the next. By tracing the relations and recommendations received, communities of meaning or various positionalities often emerge.
Furthermore, this process lends robustness when the information accessed manifests in repeated and saturated narratives. As such, some narratives emerge as central, and others, peripheral positions in the arrangement. Document material often relays more in depth and carefully constructed information about the processes while interview material relays interactional understandings. On the one hand, documents that outline its work and describe process and outcomes delineate the situation in which meaning is made. On the other hand, these documents are government-issued and evoke a normative perspective.
To access full exposure of various perspectives within the council, I contact the full roster of current members and reach out to previous members from sectors that were more difficult to access (i.e. political and business leaders). This assists in access to internal documents that would otherwise not be readily available in my research (i.e. members own written articles on the NIC and references to them, presentations and informational documents on working process). In areas of the council that are less accessible, I rely on documents and press releases from those members (i.e. Prime Minister, Vice Prime Minister).
Furthermore, I rely on various scholarly articles12 on innovation in governance and the public sector to familiarize myself with existing research and logics that may be expressed in interviews. This additional research provided a deeper understanding of the terminology and theories concerning innovation that are represented in the goals and motivations of NIC.
Overall, the material collected includes document analysis of governmental reports and bills, informational publications, scholarly articles, press releases, and ten recorded and fully transcribed interviews of actors currently or previously involved in the NIC. The interviews include former members: Political Strategist to the Prime Minister, Minister of Higher Education and Research and one business leader. Current members interviewed include: three academics, one business leader, one union leader, the head of a sub-committee to the NIC and the Head of the NIC government office. Practically, this meant fully recording, translating and transcribing from Swedish to English within a 24-hour period to ensure valid captivations of our interactions, and other observations that occurred during the interview, as suggested by interpretivist policy analyst Yanow (2000). English is my native language and Swedish my second language. In difficult translations, I provide the original Swedish version.
3.3 Accessing the Inaccessible
According to Harvey’s (2011) ‘Strategies for conducting elite interviews,’ elites refer to skilled, highly professional and distinct members of society, often difficult to access without proper preparation. Approaching this group therefore requires methods that instill a sense of trust throughout the process (Harvey, 2011). I both call and email all of my informants, realizing that initial access required persistency and proof of legitimacy. I provide a standard informative email13 explaining the purpose of my study and ask for a 30-minute timeslot to suit their busy lifestyle. I begin interviews by divulging some personal information, to foster more open dialogue. I ask open-ended questions and terminological clarifications as needed, which according to Harvey (2011) instills a sense of agency over their answers. This is a group of societal leaders who are accustomed to speaking and in some cases, media-trained. Therefore, I expect respondents to be able to explain and expand in open-ended in-depth narratives without much constraint.
As such, elite interviews focus on encouraging respondents to open up and share their personal motivations and involvement with the NIC, as well as their work in other capacities with innovation in the national administration. Introducing myself to these members through
their personal contacts seemed to instill an initial sense of trust with my informants. According to Yanow (2000), this snowballing method relies on recommendations for me to move from one informant to the next. This required some additional communication before and after interviews. According to Harvey (2011), elite interviews require supplementary research concerning respondents’ position in the topic. Furthermore, as Harvey (2011) warns, it was common for the interviewee to pose questions to me, switching our roles somewhat.14
According to Schwartz-Shea & Yanow (2012), when specific information and terminology is expanded on in dialogue, documents, and exchanges, a kind of meaning and centrality is fixed on the concepts. This analysis of written language in documents, notes and transcriptions of spoken language uncover the various meanings and logics that construct the substance of what national innovation and collaboration consist of. Furthermore, this reverberation yields a deepened understanding of the knowledge and theory that undergird this collaborative governance arrangement. In some instances, this leads to contention in meanings and roles, which I will further discuss in the following chapters.
14 Oftentimes this provided me the opportunity to further instill a sense of trust, ensuring informants that nothing
4.0 Analysis of the Arrangement
As previously mentioned in section ‘2.5 Analytical Concerns,’ the main topics of this study of the NIC as a collaborative governance arrangement include; (1) actants’ motivations and goals, (2) actants’ explanations and definitions of the work that they do (3) kind of participation and interaction with other related actants that manifest in central narratives and (4) the language and meaning-making that stabilize this organization. This chapter proceeds by laying bare my empirical findings in regards to collaborative governance arrangements, relying on the organizing principles of translation, imitation and fashion outlined in chapter two.
4.1 Motivations & Goals
Actors’ motivations to join the NIC were often explicated in the personal mandate from the Prime Minister. Upon deeper investigation however, additional explanations emerged. Main motivations and goals include the belief that collaboration leads to better policy, a need for change and the will to contribute.
4.1.1 To Collaborate15: ‘When people meet up over borders...Christmas music comes!’16 The subtitle to this section is a quote from a Medical Professor and Senior Physician who emphasized working across sectors in different capacities throughout her career. This reflects how many of my informants’ motivations were attached to their current and previous work and education experience. Specifically, they expand on collaborative experiences in policy making, education, and technology and product development.17 One central lesson they expanded on from previous collaborations is its improved outcomes. Specifically, coming up with better solutions that they themselves could not have come up with individually. This is otherwise referred to as an added value for society. The Swedish Government Official report (SOU 2013:40) finds that adding value to various sectors is a central activity at the NIC.
Furthermore, the NIC’s emphasis on collaboration and innovation imitates the national administration’s new direction in the past decade. In 2009, the newly elected Moderate right-wing government proposed one of three historic changes to the National Administration Policy Goals in the government bill ‘Offentlig förvaltning för demokrati, delaktighet och tillväxt’ (Government Bill 2009/10:175). This bill established that,
15 Titles in sections 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 are written in infinitive form to indicate that motivations and goals are active.
This choice reflects Czarniawska’s approach (2004, 2008), and emphasizes that this council serves on a four-year mandate, prone to change over time.
16 (Wennberg Larkö, 2020-03-04)
[t]he overall goal for Public Administration Policy will be an innovative and collaborative national administration that is law abiding and effective, to have a well-developed quality, service and access and thereby contributes to Sweden’s progress and an effective EU cooperation18.
In this reform, the words ‘innovation’ and ‘collaboration’ are used for the first time in Swedish history as goals for the national administration. As such, this bill works as an actant, actively inviting participation from civil society actors and businesses to work together with the government.
The need to work collaboratively in order to solve the complex problems we face today is a common motivation and goal of the NIC. As the Head of the NIC Office says, 19
I’ve always worked with cross-sectoral questions…Our system is built on silos and drain-pipes, and it has to be this way because the Government Offices represent the whole society and all the special interests. There has to be a spokesperson for every special interest…At the same time you have to work crossways to find possibilities that can be done together.
Here, the Head of the NIC is a spokesperson for working ‘crossways.’ The organizers of the NIC20 reflect on their work experience within or among various government departments where interactions work in “silos and drainpipes.”21 This is a common term used by my informants referring to how the Government Offices work within closed sectoral boundaries that are difficult to transgress. The term is often used with frustration connected to their previous work experiences, unable to communicate or solve problems that affected two or more sectors. Others imitate and translate this idea in their discussions about horizontal and vertical systems.
The former Political Secretary concludes that his frustration working in silos and drainpipes motivated him to build this innovation council fostering “implementational power”22 in complex issues. In other words, communication over various sectoral borders to provide common problem formulations and solutions. The concept of implementational power is translated in press releases (Statsrådsberedningen, 2018) in messages that emphasize finding concrete solutions and creating the necessary conditions to make progress. Implementation is
18 Det övergripande målet för förvaltningspolitiken ska vara en innovativ och samverkande statsförvaltning som är
rättssäker och effektiv, har en väl utvecklad kvalitet, service och tillgänglighet och därigenom bidrar till Sveriges utveckling och ett effektivt EU-arbete.
19(Lönberg, 2020-02-20)
20 (Lönberg 2020-02-20, Birksten 2020-03-10) 21 (Lönberg 2020-02-20)
thus used dexterously, both to improve internal working methods and in reassuring external messages to the general public.
Additionally, collaboration (samverkan) and coordination (samordning) are central concepts in my document analysis. The terms of reference (2011:42) outlines the aim of NIC to coordinate the public sector with streamlined local, regional and national processes that have a value-creating (värdeskapande) purpose. This value is defined (2011:42) as “[m]eaningful improvements for citizens, companies and effectivization of existing processes.”23 The terms of reference (2011:42) specify the vertical processes that need to improve, including accounting, reviewing and mapping out impact analyses in order to create policy instruments for innovation capacities in public agencies. The terms of reference also specify that the council should assess which areas or processes should be developed, based on the NIC’s collaborative recommendations (2011:42). The Swedish Government Official Report of the NIC (SOU 2013:40), finds that in order for the public administration to maintain its resilience in a changing political climate, there needs to be open inclusion among civil society and businesses. As such, collaboration is synonymous with new horizontal channels of communication that lead to vertical changes in public processes.
Governance and collaboration theorists (Emerson et al. 2012, Sørensen and Waldorff 2014, Torfing 2019), NIC members and the terms of reference all emphasize and reiterate the importance of horizontal processes, or collaboration. NIC actants and collaborative governance scholars (Ansell and Gash 2008, Torfing 2019) affirm that working over sectoral borders leads to an improved understanding of societal issues and more effective problem solving and policy implementation. While the specification of public process and procurement is not discussed in governance theory, empirical material (see 2011:42) affirms the importance of public process that occur in vertical structures.
4.1.2 To Change
The terms of reference (2011:42) outline the NIC’s aim to “support and stimulate innovation and change management.”24 The Swedish Government Official Report on the NIC (SOU 2013:40) claims that the council aims to foster change and innovation in order for Sweden to be able to maintain a strong welfare state and face new emerging challenges. They (SOU 2013:40) define such challenges as social issues often managed at municipal and regional levels, as well as within business and civil societies. This Official Report (SOU 2013:40) maintains that
in today’s tumultuous political times, characterized by decreased levels of trust and changing values, this council provides a forum to maintain important values in society through constant dialogue.
The need for change in society was a clear motivation among my informants. Yet the meaning of change differed vastly. One professor explains that,
[f]rom a national perspective, it is important that a country develops more or less at the same pace. Polarizing gaps, not just in innovation but in social, cultural, economic—everything! If they get too big, conflicts come about.25
He emphasizes the need to reorient the national conversation on innovation to incorporate regional and local perspectives. This is connected to the need to fix ‘polarizing gaps’ in society. This stance is imitated broadly, expressed as a need to understand the social relationships and knowledge sharing processes that undergird societal development and that lead to new kinds of businesses, organizations and financial investments.
Another member aims to change the understanding of innovation from technology and patents to understanding the dynamic and complex social processes from a broad and interdisciplinary perspective. Here, change is in the status quo of education systems, emphasizing education “in complexity rather than specialization.”26 She explains this happening in multiple dimensions, where schools are able to assess various skills that exceed formal educational requirements (i.e. a self-learned programmer or lecturers who have working instead of academic experience). She wants to achieve “disciplinary literacy” or “educat[ion] over discipline borders”27 as a way to further change the system from ‘specialization’ to ‘complexity’.
Additionally, academic and political members28 discuss how policy instruments need to promote a kind of leadership that can grasp various sectors and promote interaction among them. This is translated in the official documents (SOU 2013:40, Regeringskansliet 2018) as a comprehensive and systematic change throughout sectors, regions and the nation. This goal translates the idea of disciplinary literacy to policy-making and government priority.
Another view of change is expressed by a business leader who emphasizes his desire to change the traditional relationship between civil society and political institutions. He affirms, “[t]here’s a need to think about democratic reform and connectivity between the citizen and
25 (Westlund, 2020-02-19) 26 (Schwaag Serger, 2020-03-04) 27 (Schwaag Serger, 2020-03-04)
the system.”29 He finds short-term exchanges (i.e. lobbying) problematic and is motivated to work towards reliable and trustworthy political institutions, fostering a long-term relationship between ‘the citizen’ (or business) and ‘the system’. The same notion is imitated in the government press release (Statsrådsberedningen, 2020) covering the NIC’s latest meeting. This publication (Statsrådsberedningen, 2020) highlights the Financial Market Minister Per Bolund and another business leader’s discussion on how private finance can reinforce climate policy with sustainable green investments. This discussion (Statsrådsberedningen, 2020) both concretizes and imitates the former definition of change, highlighting that change management (förändringsarbete) must happen in financial investments and in connection to international agreements and regulations (i.e. EU Sustainable Finance and the Paris Climate Agreement).
Furthermore, the Swedish Government Official Report of the council (SOU 2013:40) names change management in four of five criteria in their framework for an innovative public sector. Throughout this report (SOU 2013:40), change is used synonymously with renewal, innovation, newness and development.30 Such change management includes direct and indirect interaction. On the one hand, this official report (SOU 2013:40) emphasizes directly adding value for the civil society and changing behaviors in order to implement novel ideas. On the other hand, this official report (SOU 2013:40) underlines providing support for other organizations to make change and necessary conditions for change to improve societal service. In an attempt to concretize this framework, the report provides a list31 of components that the council finds necessary to change in the public sector. Here, change is further translated and used as an instrument for the public sector.
Indeed, Lopes and Farias’ (2020) critique that collaborative governance arrangements have vague purposes manifests here. The above descriptions of change include the need to improve societal, geographic, political, cultural and economic and financial inequities. As such, Emerson’s (2012) claim that complex interrelated political and socioeconomic structures influence members’ participation in collaborative arrangement is supported. The empirical findings elucidate these complexities in my informants’ explanations of change as interdisciplinary understanding and education, new policy instrument and use and citizen ‘connectivity’. There is a clear overall focus on ‘the system’ and ‘management’ of change. In sum, this is a discussion about new ways to solve problems and understand policy-making, which is a main objective of collaborative governance theory according to Ansell and Gash (2008).
29 (Sachs, 2020-03-25) 30 Förnyelse, nya, utveckling
4.1.3 To Contribute
Contributing experience and knowledge to Sweden and society was expressed as a central goal by my informants. For some,32 this contribution meant spreading ideas to be implemented as policy innovations, a kind of translation process. For the following academic leader, the contribution permeates various actions in her work.
Me: What do you see as your main focus working with innovation?
Respondent: From my position and knowledge, to be able to contribute to the nation, but also to our region and our staff and patients most of all... [It’s] really really important for the country and for job opportunities! We are already leading as a country, and I just want to be involved and contribute in my way.33
Her concrete contributions include inventing a medical lamp to detect facial skin cancer, establishing science hubs and participating in intersectoral projects. Here, an actor-network emerges, where her contribution to the nation through her participation with the NIC is the main actor in this instance yet built upon a network of situational actions and connections. Other members34 imitate this idea that their practical contribution is the active work that they do outside of the council. These contributions include employing people in start-up companies, voicing the union’s opinion, contributing to regional growth and changing the concept of innovation from technical to social.
This description aligns with the terms of reference (2011:42) where knowledge and experience contribute new political possibilities and ways to work in the Government Offices. The council’s Swedish Government Official Report (SOU 2013:40) defines this contribution more concretely as a capacity to create new working and problem-solving methods between and within societal sectors.
For other informants, contributing is a civic responsibility. One professor35 explains that his contribution is researching and fostering social innovations that engage the society in improving welfare services (i.e. security and health) through social relations. One business leader36 adds that financial systems should contribute to civil society’s developments that
32 (Walerud 2020-02-26, Wennberg Larkö 2020-03-04) 33 (Wennberg Larkö, 2020-03-04)
34 (Westlund 2020-02-19, Schwaag Serger 2020-03-04, Engblom 2020-03-06, Simonsson 2020-03-16,
Sachs 2020-03-25)
improve quality of life and democratic institutions. Both of these informants explain how social innovation provides value for society by relieving some work from public institutions. Another business leader explicitly states that her contribution is “a kind of public service,”37 as it improves citizens lives by providing satisfying jobs in society.
Documents that represent the NIC promote the many ways it contributes to Sweden. Press releases promote how the NIC provides solutions in a growing complex world, including sustainable development, increased exports and jobs (Regeringskansliet, 2019). Specifically addressing “new knowledge” (ny kunskap) in policy creation (Statsrådsberedningen, 2019), innovation in various public sectors (Miljödepartementet & Statsrådsberedningen, 2019) and maintaining a leading role as an innovative and knowledge-based country (Näringsdepartementet 2018, Miljödepartementet & Statsrådsberedningen 2019, Statsrådsberedningen 2019). Unsuprisingly, government press releases aim to promote the nation and provide many examples of what this national council contributes.
The members of the NIC signal to a larger network of contributions than what happens within the council itself. This extends the concept of added value to societal contributions empirically anchored in the members’ engagements beyond the NIC’s formal meetings. In addition, these experiences presumably yield a vast amount of input for problem understandings and policy agendas. According to Sørensen and Waldorff (2014), this input is a necessary resource in collaborative governance arrangements. Collaborative governance, conforming to Ansell and Gash (2008), is founded on the notion that multiple channels beyond government structures support public goods and services. The members explain this notion as their contribution to Sweden and society at large.
4.2 Explanations of Work
In this context of societal leaders advising the Prime Minister, it is important to orient the kind of work one may expect within the meeting room. In the ‘The Study of Power and Democracy in Sweden’ (1987), Czarniawska-Joerges claims that reforms exist in two realms, “the world of ideas” and “the real world.” The former provides abstract, platonic forms and descriptions of ideological things that may or may not exist, whereas the real world provides concrete ground occurrences (i.e. stated problems, services produced). These two worlds are constructed in different kinds of speech, timeframes and goals. Where ideas drive change of
mind, the implementation of real-world changes effect concrete outcomes. Interestingly, these two worlds coexist in the NIC.
To illustrate more concretely, I turn to a previous political leader. As someone who writes policy and regulations, she says
…we have to make sure that regulations protect what should be protected, but not be too narrow…we need to make sure there are several ways to find the right solution…[and] procure services that allow the public sector to look outside of the box and try options not yet on the market [to find] the best solution.38
She explains how writing a regulation that properly serves the public sector is connected to political and democratic ideas of ‘what should be protected’. At the same time, this public service procurement is connected to market-based solutions. The minister emphasizes the need to balance space to find procurements that serve the common good, while at the same time foster creative and novel ideas. The head of the NIC office furthers this idea of making time and space for proper agenda setting by adding a time dimension, where some issues “have good timing”.39 She expands on this phrase to mean issues that are vague enough for the various NIC members can contribute their ideas, yet specific enough for the various government departments to work with to implement policies.
In her Government Bill (2016/17:50), Hellmark Knutsson presents research priorities in order to maintain Sweden’s position as a leading innovative country.40 The perception of global leadership is reiterated among other political members and in the NICs informational documents (Regeringskansliet, 2018). The imitation of this idea promotes a positive international image and competitive advantage for the nation. Practically, this government bill (2016/17:50) establishes Collaboration Programs (Samverkansprogram) and increased funding for research initiatives within climate, health, digitalization and sustainability issues. In this mandate period, the Collaboration Programs cover climate, competence and lifelong learning, digital restructuring and health and life science (Näringsdepartementet 2019, Regeringskansliet 2020).
The aforementioned topics are discussed at the NIC meetings although worked on operatively in separate working groups (Näringsdepartementet, 2019). These groups imitate the NIC’s structure, assembling societal leaders from business, academics, civil society and the
public sphere to advice policy in each specific topic (Regeringskansliet, 2020). Unlike the four-year mandate for the NIC, the collaboration groups serve a two-four-year term. These working groups consist of 20 members and temporary external members upon invitation whom attend workshops and meetings to deliberate on the issue in focus (Regeringskansliet, 2020). As such, the collaboration groups imitate the NIC’s program translated into increased resources, topic specification and participation.
To further explore how the NIC is connected to the processes of policymaking, I turn to the Committee for Technological Innovation and Ethics (Komet). Komet is explained as “a result of NIC…we are one of the tools”41 responsible for implementing laws and regulations that foster more and faster innovation in the national administration. The process is explained in their working model (Kommittén för teknologisk innovation & etik, 2019) and by the Chair of the committee42 in terms of three “deliverables.” The first deliberable is to translate reports on innovation in the public administration from other contexts (i.e. OECD, UK, Germany) to fit the Swedish context. The second he explains by referring to their collaborative working model43 that tries to make the pre-conditions to test and change the working processes in the public sector (influenced by the UK, Stanford design labs, and OECD). The third deliberable is to draft new methods to change the process of policy making with the help of technological innovation.44
Thus, in order to enter Czarniawska’s ‘real’ world of policy, budgets and government bills, we must exit the NIC. As emphasized by both the members of this council45 and informational documents (SOU 2013:40, Regeringskansliet 2018), this is formally a context to discuss and exchange ideas. As such, the council’s ideas are their concrete outcomes. Hence the worlds of ‘reality’ and ‘ideas’ are merged in this executive setting. Therefore, the involved participants’ narratives constitute the substance and operations of this council. This distinction also strays from collaborative governance literature’s emphasis on collective decision making while maintaining other notions including horizontal deliberation, developing new understandings of old concepts (i.e. innovation) and fostering better understandings of the topic
41 (Simonsson, 2020-03-16) 42 (Simonsson, 2020-03-16)
43 See index for Komets samverkansmodell
44 Some examples to illustrate what he means include “…artificial intelligence in treatment of drug addicts for
example to see what works or not in treatment therapy, or GoogleTranslate instead of physical people in interpretation services, some people have a difficult time with this. If you find an interpreter that can speak Serbian-Croatian, often they know everyone else who speaks Serbian-Serbian-Croatian, and it’s hard to create neutrality” (my translation) (Simonsson, 2020-03-16)
45 (Lönberg 02-20, Walerud 02-26, Wennberg Larkö 03-04, Engblom 03-06, Birksten
areas (Emerson et al., 2012). In the forthcoming sub-sections I delve into the members’ explanation of their work as a way to organize this collaborative, ideating arrangement.
4.2.1 The Inventor
Returning to the notion of asking the inventor about his invention, let us revisit the former Political Secretary’s story of how he and the Prime Minister started the NIC. It began with a project suggestion from the Engineering Science Academy (Kung. Ingenjörsvetenskapsakademien, 2014) to gather the national stakeholders to steer collaboration and strengthen national competitiveness and welfare. As an involved member in this project, the chair of the Social Democratic party, Stefan Löfven, made this idea into a political party promise in his ‘First of May Speech’ (Löfven, 2012), where innovation policy was connected to employment levels and expert-based professions and development. Afterwards, Stefan Löfven was elected as Prime Minister and his Political Secretary tested the innovation council idea with multiple other stakeholders at a luncheon meeting at the parliament.46
However, the idea existed in the previous moderate-right wing government (Government Bill, 2011: 06). After translations provided in the above narrative, the NIC was re-authorized in a committee designation (2015: 850). This established that the government would “strengthen Sweden’s innovation power” 47 (2015: 850) through intersectoral and inter-regional dialogue. This decision (2015: 850) permanently established that the NIC would be housed in the Prime Minister’s State Secretary as a council secretariat.48 Collaboration Programs (Samverkansprogram) were authorized to draft concrete proposals in smaller working groups (Government Budget Bill, 2016/17:50). In order to make sure this machinery ran smoothly, the Political Secretary explains how he worked as an extension of the Prime Minister responsible for meeting the NIC office every week, preparational and follow up meetings with relevant departments in the Government Offices, and updating the Prime Minister. In this process of translating the idea of the NIC into a government bill, a deeper understanding of how this organization is stabilized surfaces. I will revisit this in the following and final chapter.
4.3 Participation & Interaction
Members’ recollection of their experiences at the NIC offer fragmented and contradictory understandings of the participation and interaction that take place. On the one
46 (Birksten, 2020-03-10)
hand, there is a general notion that the meeting room offers a collaborative exchange for all members to interact collectively. On the other hand, there is a strong emphasis on the bilateral interaction between the government and the representatives. I suggest my own concept of ‘bilateral opportunism’ to describe the latter dimension.
4.3.1 ‘A network of individual advisors’49
Throughout the official documents (Regeringskansliet 2018, 2019: 00955/INRÅD) and interviews, there is a general notion that this advisory council improves policy development due to the exchange of ideas that take place in the meeting room. This is fostered by a fixed agenda with a few topics released to members in advance. One business leader from the current mandate period recalls the meetings as
[g]ood discussions, immersive, concrete. But again, we don’t work as a group. It’s more like a network of individual advisors. We react and reflect on something that is in front of us and we do that individually. I mean I give my thoughts…there is material, a presentation, and then everyone kind of reacts at once.50
This impression was reiterated among other members. The meeting room interactions are responses and conversations about the agenda topics, partly planned and partly spontaneous. Members recall pushing their own sectoral agenda, sharing personal experience or exchanging dialogue to come up with new ideas. Notably, these reactions are individual. This is apparent in the above informant’s choice of words, where the members act as ‘individual advisors’. There is a broad consensus among my informants that this forum fosters broad input to create and spread ideas and learn and engage with various societal sectors. However, consulting is not the same as collaborating and input is not the same as co-creation.
4.3.2 ‘Bilateral Opportunism’
None of my informants explain collaborating or co-creating in these meetings. Upon further inquiry, this notion of the individual responses reckons a rather bilateral relationship. One civil society member explains,
[t]his is a context where I can have a totally different question in mind because I know I will get a minute with the Minister for Higher Education and
Research and I want to say something to her or her secretary. So that’s a dimension, taking up things when you are already there.51
What I call ‘bilateral opportunism’ emerges as a way for the representatives to push their personal or sectoral agendas with politicians in this forum, regardless of the set agenda. Although this respondent is more explicit with his intentions than others, there is a salient notion that the Prime Minister and four other ministers’ presence influences members’ participation. Others report that the Prime Minister’s focus on the council makes them more alert and engaged in the meetings and conversations. Still, respondents insist that NIC conversations yield learning and genuine exchange52 because they are there appointed as individuals instead of sectoral representatives and are not exposed to the pressure of the media. This fosters more informal exchanges. As such, this concept addresses the question posed in chapter two, concerning the reconciliation between formality and individuality in this arrangement.
However, without participant observations or minutes of the council meetings, it is difficult to fully analyze the interactions and participation of the members in this council. Although this exploratory ethnography does offer some insight. Clearly, co-ordinative behavior (Klijn, 2008) does not exclusively dominate this arrangement. While some joint action (Emerson et al. 2012) is inspired by common agenda items and common interest among participating stakeholders, the power dynamic between societal and political leaders also yields opportunistic bilateral exchanges rather than collaboration.
According to governance scholars Ansell and Gash (2008), working horizontally, overcoming institutional boundaries, and involving relevant private and public stakeholders are core features of collaborative governance arrangements. Similarly, the ambition to improve policy identification and implementation for society and social innovation possibilities prevails in collaborative governance theories (Ansell and Gash 2008, Sørensen and Waldorff 2014). And, despite the emphasis on NIC’s collaboration strength in official documents (Regeringskansliet, 2018), direct input from individual stakeholders to authorities is a common way for stakeholders’ experience to serve as policy input, according to the governance scholar Fung (2006).
4.4 Language Use & Meaning Making
As emphasized in ANT (Latour, 2005) and Organizing theory (Czarniawska, 2008), the researcher must pay close attention to the narratives and language of the actors53 as they are
51 (Engblom, 2020-03-06) 52 högt i tak
53 This group of societal leaders are aware of their language and the power it holds. This interpretation grew
