Revisión sistemática descriptiva de los métodos empleados para investigar la confianza ciudadana en la coproducción de servicios públicos
Resumen
El presente artículo trata de explicar la falta de consenso acerca de la relación ambivalente entre los conceptos de confianza ciudadana y de coproducción de servicios públicos desde una perspectiva metodológica. Mediante una revisión sistemática descriptiva de la literatura tratando de la confianza ciudadana como causa y consecuencia de la coproducción de servicios públicos, este trabajo buscó conocer los métodos empleados por la investigación para examinar dicha relación, saber si estos están asociados a resultados específicos e identificar las oportunidades y límites que cada método presenta. Gracias a los hallazgos obtenidos, se pudo observar que no existe una relación significativa entre los métodos empleados y los resultados encontrados por la literatura. No obstante, esta revisión permitió plantear la necesidad para futuras investigaciones de combinar métodos cuantitativos y cualitativos, así como técnicas vinculadas a las neurociencias para analizar esta relación compleja.
Citas
Alsaawi, A. (2014). A critical review of qualitative interviews. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(4), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819536
Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2013). Social Capital, Management Capacity and Public Service Performance. Public Management Review, 15(1), 19-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662445
Barrows, C. W. (2000). An exploratory study of food and beverage training in private clubs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3) 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110010320751
Bastien, C. J. M. (2010). Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(4), e18-e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
Bockmeyer, J. (2000). A Culture of Distrust: The Impact of Local Political Culture on Participation in the Detroit EZ. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2417-2440. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43196507
Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokysz, C., Nosek, B.A., Flint, J., Robinson, E.S.J., & Munafò, M.R. (2016). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Canel, M. J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2020). Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication. En V. Luoma-aho, & M.J. Canel (Eds.), The Handbook of Public Sector Communication (pp. 277-287). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Canel, M. J., Piqueiras, P. & Ortega, G. (2017). La comunicación de la Administración Pública: conceptos y casos prácticos de bienes intangibles. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública.
Cené, C. W., Aker, A. Y., Llyod, S. W., Albritton, T., Powell Hammond, W., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2011). Understanding Social Capital and HIV Risk in Rural African American Communities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 737-744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1646-4
Cheng, Y. (2018). Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision: Moving from Coproduction to Cogovernance. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12970
Den Broeder, L., Lemmens, L., Uysal, S., Kauw, K., Weekenborg, J., Schönenberger, M., Klooster-Kwakkelstein, S., Schoenmakers, M., Scharwächter, W., van de Weerd, A., El Baouchi, S., Schuit, A.J., & Wagemakers, A. (2017). Public health citizen science: perceived impacts on citizen scientists. A case study in a low-income neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.89
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – Long live digital era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Filkowski, M. M., Anderson, I. W., & Haas, B. W. (2016). Trying to trust: Brain activity during interpersonal social attitude change. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 325-338. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0393-0
Fledderus, J. (2015a). Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 550-565. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118
Fledderus, J. (2015b). Does User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery Increase Satisfaction and Trust? Evidence From a Vignette Experiment. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 642-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.952825
Fledderus, J., & Honingh, M. (2016). Why people co-produce within activation services: the necessity of motivation and trust – an investigación of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1) 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566006
Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2014). Restoring Trust Through the Co-production of Public Services: A theorical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance – Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4) 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., & y Enquist, B. (2010). Value Co-Creation as a Determinant of Success in Public Transport Services: A Study of the Swiss Federal Railway Operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality, 20(6), 511-530. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521011092866
Gorman, G. E., & Clayton, P. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional (2a ed.). Londres: Facet.
Güemes, C., & Resina, J. (2019). ‘Come together?’ Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12377
Harrel, M.C., & Bradley, M.A. (2009). Data Collection Methods. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Santa Mónica: RAND Corporation & National Defense Research Institute. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512853.pdf
Hughes, R. (1998). Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(3), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00107
Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1921/17466105.11.1.36
Jakobsen, M. (2012). Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036
Jingwei He, A., & Ma, L. (2020). Citizen Participation, Perceived Public Service Performance, and Trust in Government: Evidence from Health Policy Reforms in Hong Kong. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(3), 471-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1780138
Kang, G. J., & Pakr, E. H. (2018). Effects of Expectation-Disconfirmation regarding the Role of Government on Trust in Government and the Moderating Effect of Citizen Participation. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 33(3), 1-22. https://hdl.handle.net/10371/146811
Kang, S., & Van Ryzin, G. (2019). Coproduction and trust in government: Evidence from survey experiments. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1646-1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619812
Kenning, P., & Linzmajer, M. (2011). Consumer neuroscience: an overview of an emerging discipline with implications for consumer policy. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 6, 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-010-0652-5
Kiecolt, K. J., & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. Newburry Park: Sage Publications.
Kim, C., Nakanishi, H., Blackman, D., Freyens, B., & Benson, A. M. (2017). The effect of social capital on community co-production: Towards community-oriented development in post-disaster recovery. Procedia Engineering, 180, 901-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.251
Lam, B., Chen, Y. P., Whittle, J., Binner, J., & Lawlor-Wright, T. (2015). Better Service Design for Greater Civic Engagement. The Design Journal, 18(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630615X14135446523224
Lau, P. H., & Ali, K. (2019). Citizen participation in crime prevention: a study in Kuching, Sarawa, Malaysia. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 5(2), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-01-2019-0005
Lekti, N., & Steen, T. (2020). Social-Psychological Context Moderates Incentives to Co-produce: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment on Park Upkeep in an Urban Setting. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 935-950. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13340
Luoma-aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124-143. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550043
Moon, J. M. (2018). Evolution of co-production in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society, 37(3), 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1376475
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). Finding Open Access Articles Using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR. Online Information Review, 32(6), 709-715. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810923881
Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2003). Una perspectiva del capital social desde las ciencias sociales: capital social y acción colectiva. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 65(1), 153-233. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rms/v65n1/v65n1a5.pdf
Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and Co-Production of Welfare Services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022882
Piqueiras, P. (2017). El bien intangible compromiso (engagement: los beneficios de la coproducción. En M.J. Canel, P. Piqueiras, & G. Ortega (Eds.), La comunicación de la Administración Pública: conceptos y casos prácticos de bienes intangibles (pp. 75-94). Madrid: Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42. http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/590/Readings/Putham%201993%20Am%20Prospect.pdf
Ramírez-Vega, A., & Meneses-Guillén, P. (2017). Google Scholar y su importancia en la visibilidad de la investigación del Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. Investiga. TEC, 28, 13-17. https://revistas.tec.ac.cr/index.php/investiga_tec/article/view/3028
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 815-823. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sudhipongpracha, T. (2018). Exploring the effects of coproduction on citizen trust in government. A cross comparison of community-based diabetes prevention programmes in Thailand and the United States. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(3), 350-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2018.1429237
Suebvises, P. (2018). Social capital, citizen participation in public administration, and public performance in Thailand. World Development, 109, 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.007
Thijssen, P., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). Who you are/where you live: do neighbourhood characteristics explain co-production? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 88-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315570554
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, n°45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq092
Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas, 23, 1083-1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L.G. (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007
Weaver, B. (2019). Co-production, governance and practice: The dynamics and effects of User Voice Prison Councils. Social Policy & Administration, 53(2–Special Issue), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12442
Webster, C. W., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Yen, C., & Chiang, M. C. (2021). Trust me, if you can: a study on the factors that influence consumers’ purchase intention triggered by chatbots based on brain image evidence and self-reported assessments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(11), 1177-1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1743362
Derechos de autor 2021 Louis Pierre Philippe Homont
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.
