Knowledge Integration with Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in Grand Challenge Programs
Keywords:
Knowledge Integration, Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration, Grand Challenges, Boundary Spanning, Grand Challenge ProgramsAbstract
Grand challenge programs represent large-scale, goal-oriented initiatives designed to address complex societal problems such as climate change, energy transition, and global public health crises. Solving these complex problems requires deep cross-disciplinary collaboration, yet bringing together diverse scientific domains does not automatically translate into successful knowledge integration. This paper investigates the mechanism linking cross-disciplinary collaboration to knowledge integration within grand challenge programs. Utilizing a qualitative comparative case study design, we analyze two major public-funded initiatives: a clean energy transition consortium and a global health security network. The findings show that while disciplinary diversity provides the cognitive variety necessary for complex problem-solving, successful knowledge integration depends heavily on active mediation mechanisms. Specifically, the deployment of structured boundary objects, the cultivation of cognitive proximity, and the establishment of formal boundary-spanning roles are critical to bridging epistemological differences. The comparative analysis reveals that social-relational mechanisms, such as psychological safety and mutual trust, are essential to unlock the potential of highly diverse teams, whereas overly formalized administrative structures can create new institutional silos. This study contributes to the innovation management and public policy literature by presenting an empirical framework that connects collaborative inputs, process-oriented boundary work, and integrated intellectual outcomes.References
1. Lubell, M. Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 2013, 41, 537–559.
2. Farmer, J.L. State-level influences on community-level municipal sustainable energy policies. Urban Aff. Rev. 2022, 58, 1065–1095.
3. Feiock, R.C.; Krause, R.M.; Hawkins, C.V. The Impact of Administrative Structure on the Ability of City Governments to Overcome Functional Collective Action Dilemmas: A Climate and Energy Perspective. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2017, 27, 615–628.
4. Curley, C.; Harrison, N.; Xu, C.K.; Zhou, S. Collaboration mitigates barriers of utility ownership on policy adoption: Evidence from the United States. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 124–144.
5. Mu, R.; de Jong, M.; Koppenjan, J. Assessing and explaining interagency collaboration performance: A comparative case study of local governments in China. Public Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 581–605.
6. Lee, H. Functional collective action dilemma. In Handbook of Collaborative Public Management; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2021.
7. Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 543–571.
8. Paliszkiewicz, J.; Koohang, A. Organizational trust as a foundation for knowledge sharing and its influence on organizational performance. Online J. Appl. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 1, 116–127.
9. Yi, H.; Cui, C. Coping with functional collective action dilemma: Functional fragmentation and administrative integration. Public Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 1052–1075.
10. Shrestha, M.K. How Do Bridging and Bonding Networks Emerge in Local Economic Development Collaboration? Int. J. Public Adm. 2022, 46, 889–901.
11. Scott, I.; Gong, T. Coordinating government silos: Challenges and opportunities. Glob. Public Policy Gov. 2021, 1, 20–38.
12. Song, M. Testing the forms and consequences of collaboration risk in emergency management networks. Soc. Sci. J. 2020, 60, 506–521.
13. Hansen, K.; Mullin, M.; Riggs, E.K. Collaboration Risk and the Choice to Consolidate Local Government Services. Perspect. Public Manag. Gov. 2020, 3, 223–238.
14. Lee, Y.; Lee, I.W. A longitudinal network analysis of intergovernmental collaboration for local economic development. Urban Aff. Rev. 2022, 58, 229–257.
15. Swianiewicz, P. An empirical typology of local government systems in Eastern Europe. Local Gov. Stud. 2014, 40, 292–311.
16. Fastiggi, M.; Meerow, S.; Miller, T.R. Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 1262–1285.
17. Feiock, R.C. The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud. J. 2013, 41, 397–425.
18. Trien, P.; Fischer, M.; Maggetti, M.; Sarti, F. Empirical research on policy integration: A review and new directions. Policy Sci. 2023, 56, 29–48.
19. Farmer, J.L. Connecting Theory with Practice: The Institutional Evolvement of U.S. Counties Functioning as Regional Service Providers. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 48, 808–821.
20. Noda, Y. Intermunicipal Cooperation, Integration Forms, and Vertical and Horizontal Effects in Japan. Public Adm. Rev. 2022, 83, 654–678.
21. Huber, G. A. (2007). The craft of bureaucratic neutrality: Interests and influence in governmental regulation of occupational safety. Cambridge University Press.
22. Kim, S. Elevating the Scale of Cross-Boundary Cooperation: Mechanisms for Cross-Regional Policy Coordination; Urban Affairs Review Forum: Chicago, IL, USA, 2021.
23. Lee, R.E.; Feiock, R.C. Local Government Roles in Filling the Sustainability Policy Vacuum: Insights from Local Government Managers. State Local Gov. Rev. 2020, 52, 266–276.
24. Jacobsen, D.I. Governance at the local level: A research agenda on cross-boundary coordination. In The Rise of Common Political Order; Trondal, J., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017.
25. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.
26. Bel, G.; Bischoff, I.; Blåka, S.; Casula, M.; Lysek, J.; Swianiewicz, P.; Tavares, A.F.; Voorn, B. Styles of inter-municipal cooperation and the multiple principal problem: A comparative analysis of European Economic Area countries. Local Gov. Stud. 2022, 49, 422–445.
27. Maser, S.M. Demographic factors affecting constitutional decisions: The case of municipal charters. Public Choice 1985, 47, 121–162.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.
