Existing research show that volunteers assisting with service provision in public organizations may lead to concerns about the quality of service and ambiguity about volunteer roles among paid staff (Jensen and Thomsen 2023; Thomsen and Jensen 2020). Such detrimental effects have been associated with staff resistance towards volunteers (Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney 2018), which may harm service quality – the very thing volunteers are intended to help improve.

In this light, it is surprising that we lack knowledge about whether and how management of volunteers may reduce role ambiguity and turn resistance towards volunteers among paid staff into willingness to collaborate with volunteers. In this paper, we argue that the use of different volunteer management practices may reduce perceptions of ambiguity about volunteer roles among paid staff as well improve their perception of volunteer-staff collaboration.

We examine these hypotheses among staff at nursing homes in Denmark, who draw extensively on volunteers to assist paid staff with various tasks. We collect survey data among around 800 health assistants working at nursing homes in Denmark. In our questionnaire we ask health assistants about the use of six different volunteer management practices at their workplace. We also ask them questions about ambiguity about volunteer roles as well as their perception of the volunteer-staff collaboration. The study also includes detailed background information about the respondents and their workplace.

In a context of increasing individual citizen participation in policy making (Elstub and Escobar 2019), the question rises whether old, institutionalised forms for participation in policy making remain relevant and under which circumstances. The turn to individual citizen participation is supported by the promise that it would enhance trust in citizens and increase governability (Kübler et al. 2020; Smith 2009). Worldwide, support for democratic norms has risen, but trust in democratic institutions, such as elections, political parties etc. is in decline (Ryan 2021; Dalton and Welzel 2014). Similarly, institutionalised participation is said to fail in creating inclusion, not to provide useful advice anymore for policymaking, and to have only little influence on government (Hendriks, Bolitho, and Foulkes 2013; Sintomer and De Maillard 2007). However, institutionalised participation provides CSOs a forum for advocacy, and to delivers expertise and support to policymakers (Rico Motos and Alarcón 2022; Van Damme, Brans, and Fobé 2011).

To understand the current relevance of institutionalised participation, we answer the research question: under which circumstances and by whom is institutionalised participation in policy making still considered relevant? We study the relevance of institutionalised participation through advisory councils (ACs). They are instruments that include CSOs, civil servants and policymakers, have a formal existence, permanent character and are institutionalised in a public administration (Fobé et al. 2013; Reinholde, Stučka, and Āboliņa 2022).

We gather data with a survey to obtain a preliminary understanding of the perceived relevance and functioning of advisory councils as insititutionalised participation. In a second step, we select cases in which we qualitatively research CSOs', civil servants' and policy-makers' perceptions to understand by whom and under which circumstances ACs are still considered relevant.

If institutionalised participation is merely kept afloat, adjusting it to better serve different interests, or to facilitate individual citizen participation may be desirable. Otherwise, the current concerns around the functioning of institutionalised participation may be put in perspective.

For about a decade, co-creative processes have received special attention from public policy, urban planning, and environmental researchers to address the acceleration, proliferation, and complexity of wicked problems (Head, 2022). Defined as the organizational capacity to collaboratively work with relevant stakeholders to develop innovative solutions to our most pressing societal challenges (Ansell & Torfing, 2021), co-creative processes are currently being analyzed in terms of public value (Osborne & al., 2021) and the democratic quality of the process (Ansell & Torfing, 2022). While the variety of methods and their democratic contributions are discussed, few studies analyze their inner workings and dynamics to understand how and why a co-creative process can transform the public policy system in which it is embedded. By public policy system, we mean the institutional and legal system, the norms, objectives and values of a public policy, its human and financial resources, as the eco-system (the set of stakeholders).

To tackle this question, we set up an original theoretical framework using tools from policy learning and policy transfer literature to open the black box of co-creation processes. It argues that co-creative processes can transform one or more dimensions of the public policy system in which they are embedded, if these processes allow for collaborative leadership, shared ownership, and collective learning capacity. By collaborative leadership, we mean the stakeholders' and policymakers' legitimacy, roles, and postures as their agility capacity to run the process. By shared ownership, it is a shared vision, equal functions, and access to information between all stakeholders and policymakers. Finally, by collective learning, we mean the types and contents of stakeholders' and policymakers' exchanges based on a common understanding rather than individual experiences (Goyal & Howlett, 2024).

To operationalize and test these conditions for the realization of co-creative processes, we mobilize three in-depth qualitative case studies of three co-creative processes we have carried out. All three took place in French-speaking Belgium between 2021 and 2024. Our analyses will be based on participant observations, stakeholder interviews, and documentary research. We will demonstrate the significance of collaborative leadership, shared ownership, and collective learning conditions for policymakers and stakeholders, emphasizing its role in integrating co-creation outcomes in the public policy system.

This paper aims to understand citizens' anticipated outcomes of co-creation by studying the relative effect of four attributes of such initiatives, using a conjoint experiment with a representative sample of Belgian citizens (N=1116) between 16 and 89 years old. These attributes include (1) the channel of co-creation (digital, analogue, or hybrid), (2) the impact (advising or binding), (3) the level (local or regional), and (4) the co-creation phase of the initiative (co-deciding, co-thinking, co-discussing).

Results indicate that the co-creation level has the largest influence (41.7%) on expected overall outcomes, with citizens expecting better outcomes from local initiatives compared to co-creation initiatives at higher levels of government. The kind of channel used for co-creation (analogue, digital or hybrid) has the second largest influence on overall outcomes, with 26.8%, and most expect more positive results from analogue initiatives. While the type of impact (i.e. advisory or binding) was found to be a less decisive factor (18.7%), there was a clear preference for binding initiatives. The co-creation phase in which citizens are involved (co-thinking, co-discussing or co-decision) had the smallest influence on the overall expected outcomes (12.9%) and none of the differences between the three co-creation phases was significant in terms of how these phases contribute to the overall outcomes. On average, citizens perceive the highest outcomes from co-creation initiatives that have analogue, local, and binding attributes.

We also make a distinction within types of co-creation outcomes: (1) product outcomes, which are the direct goals, measured by how good respondents rate the results of an initiative, (2) process outcomes, measured by how good the co-creation process was organized and experienced by participants, and (3) institutional outcomes, which are long-term changes in participants beliefs or behaviors, measured by how an initiative affected respondents’ trust in government. The three outcome types show to be influenced differently by some of the four co-creation attributes. While institutional outcomes are significantly better in analogue initiatives compared to hybrid or digital ones, this difference in effect is less clear in product outcomes and process outcomes. The process outcome is rated similarly in binding and advising initiatives, while the product and institutional outcomes are rated higher in binding initiatives, with only the institutional outcomes being significant.

This paper sheds light on the nuanced perception of citizens regarding the design and implementation of co-creation initiatives, and the relative importance of this design and implementation in yielding good substantive results, good processes and more trust in government. Understanding these preferences and perceptions can inform the development of more effective strategies for citizen engagement and collaborative governance, ultimately enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of public decision-making processes.