Cause maps are coded following many different conventions. It is therefore arguable that there can be no general approach to their analysis. Indeed the interpretation and meaning of the analysis can only be undertaken in relation to both the purpose of the research and the theoretical basis of the form of representation to be analysed, be it a cause map, network, or any other graphical picture. Given these reservations, this article outlines a number of techniques for the analysis of cause maps.In order to make the arguments about cause-map analyses concrete, the article suggests what the various analyses described might imply for an understanding and evaluation of cognitive complexity. It does not address the difficult issue relating to the status of cognitive complexity as measured in these ways but rather simply notes that they are each as plausible or more plausible than many others that are often used. Ultimately-the measures are to be taken as a portfolio of indicators of the complexity of the map itself.Aaifress fw reprints:

This text draws together a wide variety of research that makes up the study of inter-organizational relations (IOR). It includes many empirical settings and a range of disciplinary and theoretical bases as well as several specific topic areas. It is mainly concerned with representing the state of knowledge in the emerging field of IOR research; in addition, it seeks to suggest fruitful avenues for future research. IOR is concerned with relationships between and among organizations. The study of IOR is concerned with understanding the character and pattern, origins, rationale, and consequences of such relationships. The organizations can be public, business, or non-profit and the relationships can range from dyadic, involving just two organizations, to multiplicitous, involving huge networks of many organizations.

One of the more pleasant challenges associated with editing this kind of Handbook is being open to the very real likelihood that what we thought we knew, individually and collectively, about Inter-organizational relations would be seriously challenged in the work undertaken by our authors. We did indeed find 'ahas' in each chapter, but the insights also affirmed our a priori sense of IOR as evolving as a field of study. We begin our closing chapter with a review: this includes an appraisal of the 'state of the art' but we are more concerned to look forward, drawing implications of end p.719 This Handbook's assessment of current knowledge for future research into IOR. We then analyse whether the chapters in the Handbook suggest an optimistic picture in regard to the sense of a rather fragmented (silo-like) field structure that we reported in the introductory chapter. Drawing upon that analysis, we close the book by considering how IOR is developing as a field of study.

No abstract

No abstract