{"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}
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.
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