The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science presents two special issues in which nine research-based articles and two overviews address various theoretical and empirical perspectives on the process of collaboration and the forms of collaborative alliances. In the first overview, the articles are mapped onto six theoretical perspectives according to how they address the preconditions, process, and outcomes of collaboration. In this overview, the research findings are analyzed in terms of the following overarching issues essential to a comprehensive theory of collaboration: (a) a definition of collaboration, (b) the auspices under which a collaboration is convened and the role of the convener, (c) implications of the collaboration for environmental complexity and participants' control over the environment, and (d) the relationship between individual participants' self-interest and the collective interests of all involved in the collaborative alliance. This theoretical analysis indicates several fruitful avenues for future research.

There is a growing need to promote collaborative problem solving across various sectors of society, e.g., among business, government, labor, and communities. Organizing such collaborative efforts requires focusing on the interorganizational domain or set of interdependencies which link various stakeholders rather than on the actions of any single organization. Moreover, effective collaboration at the domain level is predicated on several preconditions. This paper synthesizes research findings from organization theory, policy analysis, and organization development, and proposes conditions that are essential to achieving collaboration during each of three successive phases of the process. Designing optimum conditions for collaboration depends on the presence and strength of these factors at appropriate points during the collaborative process.

This article reports a comparative case study of four joint ventures between partners from the United States and the People's Republic of China. The bargaining power of potential partners affects the structure of management control in a joint venture, which affects venture performance. Several informal control mechanisms interacting with formal control structure and influencing performance are identified. We also investigated the joint ventures' evolution over time. An integrative model of management control in joint ventures is presented. International joint ventures are a rapidly growing organizational form that has received increasing interest from researchers in a variety of academic disciplines. Despite this attention, academic understanding of joint ventures is still limited in scope and in depth. Previous studies have reported high failure and instability rates among joint ventures (Franko, 1971; Harrigan, 1986; Kogut, 1989; Levine & Byrne, 1986), and the factors predictive of successful venture performance remain unclear (Geringer & Hebert, 1991; Parkhe, 1993a). In addition, the empirical studies that have been done to test existing conceptual models have either produced contradictory results or been difficult to compare because of differences in how variables were measured. This study adopts an interpartner negotiations perspective on joint venture formation. We envisioned joint ventures as mixed motive games between partners who cooperate and compete simultaneously (Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Hamel, Doz, & Prahalad, 1989). According to the negotiations perspective, the relative bargaining power of each joint venture partner shapes the pattern of management control that a venture adopts. In addition, parent control is hypothesized to be a critical factor that determines performance. Although previous researchers have empirically investigated the first rela-We would like to thank Martin Kilduff, James Thomas, and two anonymous reviewers for this journal for their insightful comments on the earlier versions of this article.

Divergent theoretical approaches to the construct of framing have resulted in conceptual confusion in conflict research. We disentangle these approaches by analyzing their assumptions about 1) the nature of frames — that is, cognitive representations or interactional co-constructions, and 2) what is getting framed — that is, issues, identities and relationships, or interaction process. Using a meta-paradigmatic perspective, we delineate the ontological, theoretical and methodological assumptions among six approaches to framing to reduce conceptual confusion and identify research opportunities within and across these approaches.

We examine the evolution of a new population of organizations (state offices of dispute resolution) in an emerging institutional field, focusing on how actions at multiple levels interact recursively to enable multiple logics to diffuse. Logics became institutionalized as organizational practices within the field of alternative dispute resolution through four diffusion mechanisms: transformation, grafting, bridging, and exit. By describing the interplay among entrepreneurial efforts, strategic responses to resource dependencies, and mechanisms of institutionalization over 22 years, we identify the conditions that enabled multiple practices supported by conflicting logics, rather than a single, dominant organizational form, to be institutionalized.