Home
P35 The Social Equity Puzzle: Technology, Innovative Research Methods, and Co-creation as Tools for Public Service Governance

P35 The Social Equity Puzzle: Technology, Innovative Research Methods, and Co-creation as Tools for Public Service Governance

Panel chairs

Corresponding and Review group chair

Ratna B. Dougherty II, PhD, Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of South Florida, rbdougherty@usf.edu

Co-Chairs

Paige L. Moore, PhD, MSW, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology and Social Work, Meredith College, plmoore@meredith.edu

Dr Temidayo Eseonu, Lecturer in Politics and Policy, Lancaster University, t.eseonu@lancaster.ac.uk

Anthony Noun, Associate Lecturer, University of Manchester, anthony.noun@manchester.ac.uk

We welcome contributions that advance our understanding of how technology can be effectively and equitable used to reduce disparities for marginalised populations. This panel also focuses on innovative approaches and research methods to integrating co-production and culturally competent co-creation into public management.

Digital transformation in today's landscape has become a crucial focus point in the field of public management in relation to citizen-government interactions, service provision, and their outcomes. As technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous in our daily lives, it's imperative to understand how it contributes to improved citizen outcomes while also remaining vigilant of potential unknown or unintended consequences ("silver bullet syndrome"). Technology should be viewed as a means to facilitate equitable public service interactions rather than an end in itself.

Innovative research methods matter in defining the extent of inequities, why they persist, and how public managers can use research to make equitable decisions in service provision that take steps forward to addressing disparities (Gooden & Berry-James, 2018). Addressing the wicked problem of complex inequities and broader public policy issues often relies on a deficit-based approach. Recent calls for a positive reframing of public policy scholarship advocate for the inclusion of interdisciplinary perspectives from social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organisational studies and positive evaluation (Douglas et. al, 2021, p.441). By focusing on strengths-based approaches and co-creation, research methods can dismantle power imbalances and engage in social equity (Eseonu & Okoye, 2022). Researchers and practitioners must seek to centre the voices and needs of marginalised groups to ensure they are adequately represented and included in the development and implementation of policy and public services. Policymakers and public administrators can catalyse meaningful and restorative change by engaging marginalised communities and placing value in indigenous knowledge in equitable, non-extractive and non-exploitative ways (Eseonu, 2022).

Co-creation is a collaborative process where public and private actors work together to solve shared problems by exchanging knowledge and resources in the commissioning, design, implementation and evaluation of public services (Torfing et al., 2019). Co-creation is viewed as the cornerstone for social innovation and social equity in the public administration and public management practice (Loeffler et al., 2021; Brandsen et al., 2018; Bovaird, 2007).However, there are existing obstacles to institutionalising co-creation and embedding equity-centred practice across a range of public services. These obstacles include challenges relating to governance, leadership, and power (Bovaird, 2007; Parrado et. al., 2013; Tuurnas, 2015; Voorberg et. al., 2015; Gheduzzi, et al., 2021; McMullin, 2021). Additionally, methods of citizen engagement under co-creation still largely exclude marginalised groups. For example, the use of Participatory Budgeting (PB), originally a tool to empower marginalised communities in Brazil, has spread widely across Europe (Gilman, 2019). Yet PB mechanisms applied tend to exclude participation from the most marginalised, because they lack resources to participate (Falanga et. al, 2018). Developing pathways to institutionalising equity-centred co-creation is therefore a pressing issue (Loeffler et. al., 2019, p.220).

We invite interdisciplinary scholars, researchers, and practitioners to submit for this panel and welcome theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contributions. Topics of interest may include:

The role of technology in co-production and co-creation of equitable governance
Innovative research that engages marginalised communities for equitable public service delivery methods
Measuring social equity with technology
Co-producing and co-creating equitable public services
Approaches for inclusion of marginalised community perspectives into public service design and implementation
Disproportionate impact of administrative burdens on marginalised communities’ inclusion in public service delivery and outcomes

References

Bovaird, T., 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review, 67(5), pp.846-860.

Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B., 2018. Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (p. 322). Taylor & Francis.

Douglas, S. et al. (2021) ‘Rising to Ostrom’s challenge: an invitation to walk on the bright side of public governance and public service’, Policy Design and Practice, 4(4), pp. 441–451. doi: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517.

Falanga, R., 2023. Scaling participatory budgets. Pitfalls and potentialities from multiple scales in Portugal. Local Development & Society, pp.1-17.

Gheduzzi, E., 2021. Framing the mechanism of co-production of public services with vulnerable citizens.

Gilman, H. and Wampler, B., 2019. The difference in design: Participatory budgeting in Brazil and the United States. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 15(1).

Gooden, S., & Berry-James, R. (2018). Why research methods matter: Essential skills for decision-making. Irvine, CA: Melvin and Leigh Publishers.

Loeffler, E. (2021). Co-delivering Public Services and Public Outcomes. In: Loeffler, E.,

Bovaird, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0_20

Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. (2020). Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in public services: the case of policing and criminal justice. International public management journal, 23(2), pp.205–223.

McMullin, Caitlin . 2024. “ “We're Not there to Lead”: Professional Roles and Responsibilities in “Citizen-Led” Co-Production.” Public Administration Review 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13770

Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G.G., Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E., 2013. Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), pp.85-112.

Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the Public Sector Into an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795-825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057

Tuurnas, S., 2015. Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), pp.583-598.

Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J. and Tummers, L.G., 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), pp.1333-1357.