Over the past few decades, patterns of governing in public administration have evolved into more polycentric systems, with a variety of actors engaged in local decision -making processes. This change is described as a shift from government to governance (Denters 2011), or as the governance turn (Gilardi and Radaelli 2012), defined as placing less emphasis on hierarchy and the state, and giving more prominence to markets and networks (Bevir 2011; Rządca and Strumińska-Kutra 2016). A shift towards governance implies the creation of new institutions that enable democratizing processes (Ansell 2011; Bevir 2007). Governance , understood as a specific approach to public management, supplements the traditional channels of representation built upon elections, with more direct and deliberative forms of consent building focused on problem-solving (Ansell 2011). When performing governance, public agencies build democratic consent through collaborative and strategic problem-solving with stakeholders. Democracy here is ‘not just a moral value’ but is essential for a successful inquiry into the complexity of the problems addressed. Ideally speaking, governance turn makes public management both effective and democratic.

If governance turn is to bring democratizing change, public administration needs to learn to cooperate with citizens and organized interest groups. The governance turn and attempts to design procedures, policies, and legal regulations implementing the idea of inclusiveness and participation might be well-intentioned, but the process of learning and change is refracted through practicalities embedded in existing institutions and power struggles between diverse actors involved in governance processes.

The main aim of this book is to propose a theoretical framework elucidating these changes through focusing on the many forms that the governance turn takes at the level of public agencies. I inquire into perceptions and practices of public officials and public agencies’ stakeholders struggling to resolve diverse public disputes. Four case studies illustrate the process of learning and institutionalization of governance as a complex and messy phenomenon infiltrated by original, deeply embedded ways of thinking and acting upon public issues, influenced by power asymmetries between actors within and outside public agencies, and pushed forwards by pressures from a wider organizational environment. Theoretical framework emerging from the cases links structural and constructivist moments of governance practice, explaining how structures are changed or maintained by consciously acting individuals (Rhodes 2012). The framework delivers an epistemologically and practically useful method in which to investigate the phenomenon of learning in the public sector, as it focuses on core questions: Why and how does learning unfold? How does governance practice develop, as opposed to the ideal model? The framework provides information on ‘critical junctures’, configurations of influences making a difference in terms of how governance is learnt and institutionalized. This knowledge can provide us (academics and practitioners) with skills that allow turning spontaneous and adaptive practices based on critical reflection and experimentation into a planned effort to institutionalize learning, above all learning in its explorative, double-loop form. It is claimed here that such an institutionalization is necessary in order to ensure good governance, since governance learning is not about transition from traditional, bureaucratic approaches to public administration, to market-based approaches, for example, New Public Management and, eventually, to collaborative and participatory approaches such as New Public Governance. It is about learning how to use and improve each mode and how to switch between these options and balance them in response to problems that constantly evolve and reappear.

So, I claim that the practice-based framework is potentially useful for academics and practitioners who wish to understand, design, and introduce changes into public administration agencies. In particular, for those who plan to transform the mode of cooperation that public agencies apply with respect to external stakeholders in their attempt to manage public issues and solve various problems of public life. However, I also believe that a general, practice-oriented reflection on governance should include two other areas—first, an area of prescriptive and normative considerations and second, an area of methodological considerations. The connections between the three areas are illuminated below.

It is argued here that practice-oriented reflection on governance, that is, reflection-enhancing good governance in practice, needs to relate to the three interconnected issues. First of them is of a prescriptive and normative nature. If we want public management and governance to be effective and democratic—what kind of governance models, institutional and organizational designs can we deploy? Which of them deliver on the promise of achieving these qualities? We need these models in order to envision the desired change and discuss where we intend to go. They are useful when thinking about institutional design and about the general qualities of organizational structures and procedures enabling good governance. The second aspect of the practice-oriented reflection is descriptive and focuses on the question—how are the desired changes executed? How do institutional conditions influence processes of change, in particular how do they enhance or impede governance learning processes? This descriptive aspect of practice-oriented reflection on governance is invaluable for illuminating realities of the implementation. Within these realities institutions matter and power structures matter. They set the stages on which governance practitioners act. History matters as well: participants of governance processes will remember the failures of past promises and past leaders. Within and outside public agencies, those involved in governance processes will be plural and have diverse values and interests, and hence diverse perceptions of good governance. Those trying to implement ideal-type models while ignoring the complexity of the setting will discover that reality does not listen. In order to resonate with practitioners experience, research, and theoretical considerations on governance needs to presume complexity, not hide it (Forester 2017; Sandberg and Tsoukas 2011).

The third important aspect of practice-oriented reflection on governance is of methodological nature and can be encapsulated in a question: How to make social research matter for public governance? What types of research are useful and relevant for governance practitioners and why? In the academia, the discussion about the relevance of social research for practice naturally gravitates towards discussions of ontology, epistemology and methodology. Without saying that it is redundant, it is suggested here that the discussion could be reframed. In a practice-oriented reflection on governance, practitioner and his perceptions of utility should play a primary role, while onto-epistemologic...