共同生产、公共部门创新和治理:系统文献综述

Julia Viezzer Baretta, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann, Luciana Militao, Josivania Silva Farias
{"title":"共同生产、公共部门创新和治理:系统文献综述","authors":"Julia Viezzer Baretta, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann, Luciana Militao, Josivania Silva Farias","doi":"10.1108/ijis-05-2023-0107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.\n\n\nFindings\nThe papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.\n\n\nPractical implications\nConsidering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nDespite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.\n","PeriodicalId":44643,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Innovation Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coproduction, public sector innovation and governance: a systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Julia Viezzer Baretta, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann, Luciana Militao, Josivania Silva Farias\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijis-05-2023-0107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nConsidering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nDespite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Innovation Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Innovation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-05-2023-0107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Innovation Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-05-2023-0107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是探讨共同生产是否自发地出现在有关公共部门创新和治理的文献中、公民在共同生产中的作用以及公民参与创新网络治理的意义。在 Ebsco、Scopus 和 WOS 数据库中进行了检索。作者分析了2017年至2022年发表的47篇论文。在 MAXQDA 的支持下,作者采用了主题分析和内容分析。然而,只有 20% 的论文讨论了共同生产,这表明与组织间合作相关的治理概念占主导地位,但不一定与公民参与相关。作者还证实,与公共创新相关的治理概念存在多义性,"合作治理 "一词占主导地位。"研究局限性/影响 "对 "共同生产 "的重视程度较低,这可能是搜索策略的结果,考虑到研究目的,搜索策略有意不将其作为描述符。正如 Österberg 和 Qvist(2020 年)以及 Campomori 和 Casula(2022 年)所建议的那样,考虑到合作治理是一种治理安排,公共机构直接与非国家利益相关者共同参与正式的、以共识为导向的集体决策过程(Ansell 和 Gash,2007 年),公民参与的论坛应由公共机构或组织发起并正式组织。尽管公共创新具有协作性质,需要适当的治理特征,公民在创新过程中也很重要,但大多数研究都是泛泛地讨论协作关系,侧重于组织间的协作,很少关注公共创新治理中的具体行为者,如公民。因此,我们假定,讨论公共创新和治理的文献包括对共同生产的讨论。本研究的独创性和贡献在于验证了这一假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Coproduction, public sector innovation and governance: a systematic literature review
Purpose The purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks. Design/methodology/approach The review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA. Findings The papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.” Research limitations/implications The small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation. Practical implications Considering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017). Originality/value Despite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.30%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Innovation Science publishes fundamental and applied research in innovation practices. As the official journal of the International Association of Innovation Professionals (IAOIP), the journal is a forum for the exchange of advanced knowledge in innovation, including emerging technologies and best practices, tools and techniques, metrics, and organization design and culture; as well as the stakeholder engagement, change management, and leadership skills required to ensure innovation succeeds. Areas of Coverage: -Innovation processes, methods, techniques- Individual''s role in Innovation- Improvements in HR, marketing, finance, or other disciplines that enable innovation- Innovation practices in specific industries or countries- Innovation centers, incubators, labs...- Regional or national economic development/policies related to innovation- Innovation competency, skills- Innovation conventions, competitions, or training- Innovation for entrepreneurs-Regional impacts on innovation- Growing innovationthrough university programs- Attracting innovative companies and entrepreneurs
期刊最新文献
Transition in the mist: firm-level uncertainty perception and imitative innovation Transition in the mist: firm-level uncertainty perception and imitative innovation Be a rainbow in own cloud: applying trait activation theory to trigger personality using conflict handling styles for intrapreneurial behaviour Intrapreneurship research: What have we learned and where can we go from here? Does innovative behaviour intervene between budgetary participation and performance in the public sector?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1