Centre de recherche en santé publique (CReSP), Université de Montréal et CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 7101 Ave du Parc, Montréal, QC H3N 1X7, Canada.
Chaire de recherche du Canada Approches Communautaires et Inégalités de santé, 1301 Sherbrooke, Montréal, QC H2L 1M3, Canada.
Health Promot Int. 2022 Feb 17;37(1). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daab051.
The objective of this article is to document the strategies developed by actors from different sectors during the processes of intersectoral governance. As a case study, the article focuses on the process of renegotiating the Terms of Reference of the Montreal Initiative for Local Social Development, a regional intersectoral intervention with the mission of guiding and supporting the actions of local intersectoral coalitions referred to as Neighbourhood Round Tables. The renegotiation process was marked by crisis in intersectoral governance. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 16 actors representing the four sectors involved in the intersectoral governance process, about four systematically selected critical incidents. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using QDAMiner software. Interpretive and cross-sectional thematic analysis was conducted to assign meaning to the results. Results show that the actors developed intersectoral (shared or mediated) strategies and intrasectoral (creative unilateral, power-based unilateral or multilateral) strategies to influence collective decisions. The strategies, presented in a proposed typology, were distinguishable by their goals, their organizational origin, the actors involved and their fundamental mechanisms. Intersectoral strategies were developed at the regional level and aimed to promote or defend collective interests. In contrast, intrasectoral strategies sought to protect sectoral interests. The findings illustrate how actors' strategies operate within intersectoral governance processes. They show that collective decisions are shaped by the strategies created both at the boundaries of, and within, sectors. The proposed typology, if validated and applied to other cases, may help better understand how partners interact to influence collective decision-making.
本文的目的是记录不同领域的行为者在跨部门治理过程中制定的策略。作为一个案例研究，本文重点关注重新谈判蒙特利尔地方社会发展倡议职权范围的过程，这是一个区域性跨部门干预措施，其使命是指导和支持被称为邻里圆桌会议的地方跨部门联盟的行动。重新谈判过程标志着跨部门治理的危机。对 16 名代表参与跨部门治理过程的四个部门的行为者进行了半结构化的个人访谈，访谈内容涉及四个有系统选择的关键事件。访谈内容逐字转录并使用 QDAMiner 软件进行编码。采用解释性和横断面主题分析方法赋予结果意义。结果表明，行为者制定了跨部门（共享或调解）策略和部门内（创造性单边、基于权力的单边或多边）策略来影响集体决策。这些策略以提出的类型学为区分，其目标、组织来源、涉及的行为者和基本机制各不相同。跨部门策略是在区域一级制定的，旨在促进或捍卫集体利益。相比之下，部门内策略旨在保护部门利益。研究结果说明了行为者的策略如何在跨部门治理过程中运作。它们表明，集体决策是由在部门之间和内部制定的策略塑造的。如果该类型学得到验证并应用于其他案例，它可能有助于更好地理解合作伙伴如何相互作用以影响集体决策。
