Conference Agenda

In the last decade there has been a growth in the use of personal stories by civil society campaigners to try and persuade policymakers to change positions. This form of narrative evidence follows a storytelling logic that appeals to emotions of the listener. At the same time there has been an increasing focus on democratic listening in innovations in citizen engagement and deliberative democracy, which draw attention to whether and how storytellers are heard. More recently, “storylistening” has emerged as a new way of theorising how narrative evidence is used to collectively make sense of the world. These three developments have significant implications for how governments engage citizens in governing, create spaces for citizen voice, and are genuinely responsive to complex policy issues.

We focus on four recent independent public inquiries in Australia and the UK to examine the story-driven shift in citizen engagement: Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2022-2023); Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2019-2023); Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (2014-2022); and Poverty Truth Commissions (2009-ongoing). Our key research questions are:

1. How do inquiries provide fora for different points of view, stories and lived experience of marginalised citizens; and use listening to form collective identities?

2. How do inquiries foster narrative models that enable reasoning about systems change and imagine an inclusive future state for policymaking?

We find that the use of personal narratives and story-based evidence in public inquiries is important, both implicitly and explicitly in creating new spaces for citizen engagement and focusing attention on marginalised voices. However, not all of these inquiries have led to significant redress or policy change. We also point out that creating space for storytelling without insuring either democratic or collective forms of responsive listening are also undertaken, is often tokenistic or exploitative. Future initiatives for increasing the engagement of marginalised citizens need to focus more intensively on: policymakers’ capabilities for listening to narrative forms of evidence, synthesising the collective impact of stories, and increase the possibility for significant change in policymaking direction.

Citizen participation plays a critical role in democratic governance and societal resilience, yet its distribution remains uneven across socio-spatial contexts. This disparity manifests as the socio-spatial governance dilemma, where urban centers benefit from well-established participatory ecosystems, while structurally weaker rural regions face engagement deficits despite greater needs (Hofstad, 2024; Matyushkina et al., 2024; Nadler, 2017). Such regional disparities in citizen engagement reflect broader structural inequalities in co-production capacity, where disadvantaged communities often face greater demands while lacking the institutional support to engage meaningfully (Loeffler, 2021). Amidst poly-crises, governance systems are increasingly challenged by economic instability, geopolitical shifts, and environmental disruptions, making inclusive participation vital for resilience. However, existing models often reinforce socio-spatial inequalities, leaving many regions democratically disengaged (Simon, 2021; Schlappa, 2017).

This paper examines the Tetralemma as a theoretical framework that broadens decision-making beyond binary policy choices. Originating from Buddhist philosophy and widely applied in management studies and organizational development, the Tetralemma heuristic offers a structured approach to navigating complex decision-making dilemmas (e.g. Roth et al., 2023). When applied to participatory governance, it provides researchers with a method to analyze governance paradoxes and refine participatory models, while offering policymakers a perspective to explore adaptive engagement strategies in different regional and crisis contexts. This perspective is consistent with co-production research that emphasizes the role of institutional and contextual conditions in shaping engagement practices and outcomes (Cepiku et al., 2020) The Tetralemma heuristic structures governance paradoxes, refining participation theories while supporting context-sensitive policymaking. This study contributes to participatory governance research by moving beyond conventional dichotomies and offering a framework for adaptive engagement strategies. We propose a fourfold governance framework to strengthen democratic resilience through citizen engagement:

1. Empowering structurally weak regions by fostering local participation infrastructures.

2. Leveraging engagement from structurally strong regions to support cross-regional knowledge transfer.

3. Developing hybrid models that link strong and weak regions through participatory networks.

4. Expanding participation formats through digital platforms and AI-supported engagement to overcome geographical constraints.

Building on Paradox Theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011; Schad et al., 2016), Wicked Problems Theory (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Head & Alford, 2015), and Policy Dilemmas (Steen & Tuurnas, 2018; Hofstad, 2024), the Tetralemma integrates these frameworks to analyze participatory governance. Advancements in digital and AI-supported participation tools influence participatory processes by shaping accessibility, governance structures, and the distribution of decision-making authority. These technological developments intersect with existing socio-spatial disparities, affecting how participation unfolds across different governance contexts. As part of broader structural changes, they shape the conditions under which the socio-spatial governance dilemma unfolds. By applying the Tetralemma, this study examines governance tensions, considers competing priorities, and explores approaches to fostering inclusive and context-sensitive participation. It contributes to the discussion on participatory governance by examining engagement dynamics, addressing disparities, and considering implications for crisis resilience. For policymakers, it outlines considerations for designing engagement frameworks that are adaptive and sensitive to regional contexts.

References

Cepiku, D., Marsilio, M., Sicilia, M., & Vainieri, M. (2020). The co-production of public services. Springer Books.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.

Hofstad, H. (2024). Co-creation challenges to public leadership: Tensions, dilemmas and coping mechanisms. In A. Røiseland, E. Sørensen, & J. Torfing (Eds.), Advancing co-creation in local governance (pp. 150-177). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Loeffler, E. (2021). Co-production of public services and outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

Matyushkina, A., Borgne, S. L., & Matoga, A. (2024). Overcoming the limitations to co-production in shrinking cities: insights from Latvia, France, and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 32(4), 720-738.

Nadler, R. (2017). The Elephant in the Room. On the Relation of Demographic Change, Public Services and Civic Engagement in Germany. Raumforschung Und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning, 75(6), 499-512.

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.

Schlappa, H. (2017). Co-Producing the Cities of Tomorrow: Fostering Collaborative Action to Tackle Decline in Europe’s Shrinking Cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24, 162-174.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Simon, D. (2021). Co-Productive Tools for Transcending the Divide: Building Urban–Rural Partnerships in the Spirit of the New Leipzig Charter. Land, 10, 894.

Steen, T., & Tuurnas, S. (2018). The roles of the professional in co-production and co-creation processes. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services (pp. 80-92). Routledge.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., Valentinov, V., & Kleve, H. (2023). Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy. European Management Journal, 41(2), 191-198.

The aim of our study is to explore what kind of coordination mechanisms can facilitate citizen participation in the fight against cross-border organized crime. The topic of public security is not new in the co-production literature. Ostrom & Ostrom (1977) and Rich (1981) already highlighted that public security is such a public good where, without the efforts and active participation of other actors, like citizens, law enforcement agencies and the state cannot fully succeed—cooperation between the actors is essential. There are several ways on which this cooperation can take shape, as demonstrated by Loeffler and Bovaird (2020) in the production of public security.

Over the past decade, the issue of organized crime has gained increasing importance within the broader field of public security as well as law enforcement. This is reflected, for example, in the latest Eurobarometer survey, which shows that citizens expect the most progress and stronger action from the European Union specifically in the areas of defence and security (Eurobarometer, 2025). The threat of organized crime on public safety became particularly evident during the mid-2010s with the rise of terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling, and cybercrime (see, e.g., EU TE-SAT reports over the years). Moreover, this entire “industry” is constantly evolving by incorporating the latest technologies such as Artificial Intelligence. As Europol states, “The very DNA of organized crime is changing rapidly (…)” (European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, 2025, p.6), threatening the very foundations and with it the institutions of the EU.

In our paper, we seek to answer the question: What kind of coordination mechanisms are needed between national and international organizations in order to strengthen citizen participation in the fight against organized crime? Ostrom (1979) identified four necessary conditions for effective co-production: (i) technological feasibility, (ii) legal feasibility, (iii) trust between actors, and (iv) appropriate incentive structures. We argue that current responses, where international organizations (e.g., Europol) mainly collect information from member states and take on limited coordination tasks, are insufficient and do not foster citizen participation. Our hypothesis is that a more empowered international organization with appropriate legal authority is needed within this multi-level European model to effectively utilize citizens' information and resources and to establish active citizen participation in combating organized crime—as can already be observed in some local cases through neighbourhood watch schemes (van Eijk, 2018) or organizations such as Crimestoppers.

Decision-makers and citizens alike must be open to cooperation (Bovaird, 2007). However, organized crime remains a field where, in many cases, the state does not yet fully recognize the value of active citizen engagement.

In our research, we examine three specific areas in detail: terrorism, drug trafficking, and cybercrime, selected by the guidance of European Union serious and organised crime threat assessment, published by Europol. To explore the possibilities for citizen participation and the necessary coordination mechanisms, we conduct interviews with representatives from both the Hungarian National Police and Europol. The aim is to present how the current coordination mechanism operates and its limitations regarding citizen participation. We also analyse the impact of recent centralization efforts and the coordination between member states and the coordinating body, focusing on the conditions necessary for coproduction.

We believe that the results of our study will contribute to strengthening citizen participation in the fight against organized crime and, thereby, improving European public security.