2011
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1881674
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tying the Network Together: Evaluating the Impact of an Intervention into the Advice Network of Public Managers

Abstract: Networks are often see as emergent and self managed; and yet much of the research on networks examines how networks affect the effectiveness of systems and individuals. Is it possible to intervene in the configuration of a network to improve how it functions? Here we evaluate the impact of an intervention to change the array of relationships connecting a set of distributed public managers-State Health Officials (SHOs). SHOs were brought together for a one week executive educational program near the beginning o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 31 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a point of comparison we compare the results found here to two other studies that have similarly structured data. The first involves the diffusion of practices among state and local forensic DNA laboratories (Mergel, Lazer, and Binz-Scharf 2008;Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel, forthcoming); the second knowledge sharing among state health officials (SHOs) (Lazer and Mergel 2011). Both cases involved a similar combination of quantitative and qualitative data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a point of comparison we compare the results found here to two other studies that have similarly structured data. The first involves the diffusion of practices among state and local forensic DNA laboratories (Mergel, Lazer, and Binz-Scharf 2008;Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel, forthcoming); the second knowledge sharing among state health officials (SHOs) (Lazer and Mergel 2011). Both cases involved a similar combination of quantitative and qualitative data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%