Participant Satisfaction in two European local collaborative networks: Process and results
(2024) Conference on Policy Process Research — Location: Syracuse, New York (15.May.2024)
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Environmental governance is increasingly collaborative (Andrea Gerlak et al. 2018; Baird et al. 2019). Stakeholders’ satisfaction emerges as an important feature of collaborative governance processes as it is directly related to the perceived legitimacy, and consequently to the acceptance of the decisions the result from such processes (Matti, Lundmark & Ek 2017). Yet, some uncertainty remains about the reasons making a collaborative experience satisfactory (see Lu, Sajiki, & Yagi 2020 for an exception). How does participant satisfaction build up over a collaborative governance process? The paper addresses this research question with a thematic analysis (Paillé & Mucchielli 2016) of 19 semi-structured interviews of participants to two collaborative networks in Schaerbeek (Belgium) and in Delft (the Netherlands). Participants’ preferences are also compared with the final decisions made by these networks to measure the extent to which these decisions match with participants’ individual preferences. The results stress that subjective satisfaction is related to both participants’ perceptions of the collaborative process and outputs. As far as the process is concerned, interpersonal relationships, leadership and learning opportunities stand out as components of stakeholders’ satisfaction. As far as the decisions are concerned, (dis)satisfaction is mostly related to the (lack of) outcomes. Participants’ satisfaction is also clearly related to the objective fit between their preferences and the final decisions, which demonstrates the relevance of a subjective approach to collaborative governance.
- Affiliations
Citations
Carlier, N., Aubin, D., & Moyson, S. (2024). Participant Satisfaction in two European local collaborative networks: Process and results. Conference on Policy Process Research, Syracuse, New York. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/213563