Different Processes, Different Outcomes? Assessing the Individual‐Level Impacts of Public Participation

Abstract

This article empirically investigates the relative efficacy of different direct participation processes. Specifically, it compares the effects of three types of participatory processes (public meetings, focus groups, and citizen juries) on participants' issue awareness, competence, empowerment, and trust in service professionals. The authors hypothesize that all three participatory processes will positively affect these individual outcomes but that the magnitudes of effects will differ across the three processes. Using data from field experiments, the authors test and find general support for the hypotheses. This study contributes to understanding of public participation, particularly in terms of the relationship between participatory design and outcomes.

Peer Workers in Co-production and Co-creation in Mental Health and Substance Use Services: A Scoping Review

“…Peer workers’ involvement has demonstrated benefits for organizations and current service delivery priorities, particularly in facilitating recovery-oriented values and practices (Byrne et al, 2021b ; Mutschler et al, 2021 ; Walker & Bryant, 2013 ). Furthermore, research confirms that peer workers’ roles and responsibilities may also benefit the individuals in these positions (Agrawal et al, 2016 ; Barrenger et al, 2020 ; Debyser et al, 2018 ; Jo & Nabatchi, 2021 ; Moran et al, 2012 ) by increasing their competence and self-efficacy. However, peer workers’ involvement is usually described as a means to provide personal value and benefits to service users (Bocking et al, 2018 ; Castellanos et al, 2018 ; Cleary et al, 2018 ; Kidd et al, 2021 ), while their activities also are considered to have positive impacts on reducing societal problems and tackling social needs (Aminawung et al, 2021 ; Jones & Pietilä, 2020 ; Nelson et al, 2016 ; Tookey et al, 2018 ).…”

Priming citizens to think about public participation initiatives: Does it impact their view of government?

“…An important distinction within public participation research is between direct and indirect public participation (Jo & Nabatchi, 2020; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). The direct form of public participation takes place when the public are “personally involved and actively engaged in providing input, making decisions and solving problems” (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015, p. 14), whereas the indirect form takes place when the public vote for elections (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015).…”

Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service

“…This more accurate picture stems from the direct expression of the public in reference to their policy preferences and choices, assuming that an appropriate range of F I G U R E 1 Comparison of ideal accountability for bureaucrats perspectives and interests, especially those that have been normally excluded from decision-making (i.e., racial/ ethnic minorities; people from relatively low socioeconomic classes) (Bryson et al, 2013;Schlozman et al, 2012), are sincerely integrated into policy deliberations. Moreover, direct participation has been observed to individually benefit participants by increasing issue awareness, competence, trust in government, and selfempowerment depending on which way individuals are allowed to participate (Jo & Nabatchi, 2020). While it is important to understand how public participatory designs can elicit relatively more accurate depictions of public interest, attention needs to be given to creating a representative participatory process as a means of achieving socially equitable goals.…”