Introduction
Public encounters are dyadic spaces where frontline professionals and citizen-clients purposefully interact to negotiate the allocation of resources and are characterised by the power asymmetry that comes with the actors’ specific roles (Goodsell, 1981). Frontline professionals act as gatekeepers to potential offerings and hold bureaucratic- and legal power, whereas citizen-clients want to obtain a resource and have little choice but to comply with set demands to secure benefits (Silver, 2010; Auyero, 2012). Although existing literature studies public encounters on a micro-level, their focus lies on the behaviours of either the citizens or the bureaucrats (i.e. Nielsen et al., 2021; Zacka, 2017; Tummers et al., 2015). These studies, thus, rarely emphasise the interactional dynamics between the two, which is problematic since both parties are resourceful and engage actively with the other, influencing and being influenced by the other during the process (Döring et al., 2024).
When we consider public service delivery as a co-production situated in the public encounter (Bartels, 2013), a successful outcome depends upon the quality of interaction between frontline professionals and citizen-clients since consensual and direct conversations between frontline professionals and citizen-clients are found to result in more favourable administrative outcomes for the citizen-client (Raaphorst et al., 2018). Studies found that prior knowledge about citizen-clients and their life circumstances influences a frontline professional’s perception of trustworthiness (Ekenaar et al., 2016), which affects their treatment (Schmidt et al., 2024). However, citizen-clients are often reluctant to give up such personal information when they do not trust the frontline professional (Zacka, 2017).
Problem statement
A first challenge is that, so far, studies on the public encounter have omitted to introduce a conceptual framework for the study of the quality of the interaction between frontline professionals and citizen-clients. Although various kinds of literature introduce concepts that relate to the interaction quality in power-asymmetric relationships and are found to facilitate desirable outcomes comparable to those of the public encounter, we provide two examples to illustrate why this conceptualisation is necessary. An often-used concept in Patient-Therapist literature is rapport, which describes ‘’a ’good’ interaction’’ (Kritzer, 1990). Studies found rapport to be an antecedent for trust (Leslie & Lonneman, 2016), and have a positive impact on patient outcomes (Duchan & Kovarsky, 2011) and satisfaction (Leach, 2005). However, a concrete definition, conceptualisation, and studies on lived experiences of rapport or how rapport affects desired outcomes are still lacking (English et al., 2022). A second concept is psychological safety, or ‘’a belief that an environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking’’ (Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990). Psychological safety can facilitate trust and voice in dyadic relationships (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Tynan, 2005). Therefore, it could be an antecedent for consensual and direct conversations between frontline professionals and citizen-clients, which can result in beneficial administrative outcomes for the citizen-client (Raaphorst et al., 2018). Although extensively researched, the concept is mainly studied as a shared experience in an organisational context and not yet in the public encounter.
A second challenge is that academic inquiry of interaction quality must take into account that public encounters can differ with regards to, among others, who initiates the encounter, its purpose, the amount of control and constraint, the duration and scope, and the setting and medium (Goodsell, 1981, pp. 5-7). These characteristics may determine the suitability of concepts to assess interaction quality. Consider trust. Trust is mutual, reciprocal, and necessary for collective action (Yang, 2005). Actors in the encounter, thus, first need to establish a certain degree of trust before the focus can shift to the actual service delivery (Schmidt, et al., 2024). Since establishing trust over a single encounter is unlikely, it is less suitable to assess the quality of the interaction of an episodic encounter. Rapport, however, might fit better since establishing rapport is an expected outcome of the first meetings between patients and healthcare professionals (English, et al., 2022).
Research question
These research challenges lead to the following research question: To what extent can concepts from social psychology be used to study the quality of the interaction between frontline professionals and citizen-clients in the context of the public encounter?
Methodology
To answer this question we conduct a conceptual study based on existing literature. This paper first identifies the characteristics of the public encounter and the dimensions on which they can vary to create a typology of public encounters. Secondly, this paper aims to conceptualise the quality of interaction between frontline professionals and citizen-clients in the public encounter by identifying concepts from social-psychology that define the quality of social relationships in various settings. Based on existing theory on the quality of relationships in dyadic power asymmetric relations we expect to elaborate on the concepts of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), feeling heard (Roos et al., 2023), (mutual) trust (Yang, 2005), and rapport (English et al., 2022). We then analyse the conceptual relationships between several elements of these concepts and the characteristics of the public encounter, so that the suitability of concepts for different types of pubic encounters can be assessed and we lay the conceptual foundations for an empirical investigation of interaction quality in the public encounter.
Challenges
The first challenge is the interdisciplinary nature of this project. Collaborating with researchers across academic fields stresses the importance of learning each other’s language. This leads to our second challenge: we need to be mindful of conceptual profusion and stretching. We expect an abundance of theoretical concepts that could apply to studying the quality of interaction in the context of public encounters. Moreover, we could find that concepts with different names have similar conceptualisations across various kinds of literature; or, that similarly named concepts are conceptualised differently. Lastly, we are limited to existing literature. Not all concepts might be studied equally extensively from the perspectives of frontline professionals and citizen-clients. This is a consideration when assessing the suitability of social-psychological concepts as measurement of the quality of interaction for specific public encounters.
