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

• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Author: Suyeon Jo,Tina Nabatchi
• Date: 01 January 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13272

Research Article

Different Processes, Different Outcomes? 137

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.

Evidence for Practice

• This study provides practitioners with theoretical and applied insights about the connections between

participatory designs and outcomes that can inform their decision-making about which forms of

participation to use under what circumstances.

• The nature and intensity of participant interactions shape individual-level outcomes. Thus, when possible,

practitioners may look for ways to provide participants with opportunities to listen as spectators, express

preferences, develop preferences, engage in aggregation and bargaining, and use deliberation and negotiation.

even small changes in participant interactions may lead to meaningful changes among the participants.

• The results encourage practitioners to attend not only to macro process design choices (e.g., forms, purposes,

targeted issues, information provision) but also to micro design choices (e.g., roles of moderators and

facilitators, content and form of information).

Around the world, public administration

scholars and practitioners are giving increased

attention to the issue of public participation

(e.g., Avritzer2012; Dryzek and Tucker2008; Kim

and Lee2012; King, Feltey, and Susel1998; Rowe

and Frewer2000; Wang and Van Wart2007; see

also www.participedia.net). Some of this attention is

driven by normative concerns (e.g., Denhardt and

Denhardt2000), some of it by practical concerns (e.g.,

Bryson et al.2013; Irvin and Stansbury2004), and some

of it by legal concerns (e.g., Nabatchi and Amsler2014).

While arguments for and against public participation

are readily available in the literature (see Nabatchi2012;

Roberts2008), recent attention has turned to the

design of public participation processes, with scholars

calling for more research on the connections between

different participatory designs and outcomes (Abelson

et al.2003; Bryson et al.2013; Delli Carpini, Cook,

and Jacobs2004; Fung2003, 2006; Nabatchi2012;

Nabatchi and Amsler2014; Rowe and Frewer2000).

This article responds to those calls, offering one of

the first (if not the first) empirical investigations of

the connection between the designs and outcomes

of public participation.1 Specifically, this article

explores whether and how three forms of direct

public participation (public meetings, focus

groups, and citizen juries) affect four individual-

level participant outcomes (issue awareness,

competence, empowerment, and trust in public

service professionals). We conduct this test in the

context of health care using a slice of data from a

research project that engaged the public in developing

recommendations to reduce diagnostic error—an

issue of public interest worldwide. The results not

only shed light on the relationship between processes

and outcomes but also provide practical insights for

public managers who must choose how to use public

participation to meet various objectives.

The article proceeds as follows: First, we briefly define

public participation and distinguish direct public

participation from indirect public participation.

We also explain the three forms of direct public

participation examined in this study. Second, we

explain the theorized individual-level outcomes of

Suyeon Jo

Tina Nabatchi

Different Processes, Different Outcomes? Assessing the

Individual-Level Impacts of Public Participation

University of Arizona

Syracuse University

Tina Nabatchi is Joseph A. Strasser

Endowed Professor in Public Administration

and director of the Program for the

Advancement of Research on Conflict and

Collaboration in the Maxwell School of

Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse

University.

Email: tnabatch@maxwell.syr.edu

Suyeon Jo is assistant professor in

public management in the School of

Government and Public Policy at the

University of Arizona. Her research interests

include public participation, collaborative

governance, volunteerism, coproduction,

and democratic public administration.

Email: suyeonjo@arizona.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 1, pp. 137–151. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13272.