Conference Agenda

In this paper we present the results from cross-national interviews conducted in various civil society organizations in four democratic societies: Canada, Poland, the UK and the US. These formed part of our Trans-Atlantic Platform project, Exploring Adaptive Capacity for Democratic Engagement. The semi-structured interviews delve into how the managers of various civil society organizations recall their performance and capacity to adapt to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employing adaptive capacity theory, we focus particularly on organizational structure and the notion of multiplexity. Multiplex relationships refer to the multifaceted interactions, emotions, roles, affiliations, and exchanges that occur within organisational settings (Methot and Rosado-Solomon, 2019). These relationships facilitate resource exchange, mutual support, and enhanced access to information, which collectively strengthen adaptability (Staber and Sydow, 2002; Bodin and Crona, 2009). They promote trust, mutual understanding, and stronger connections between organisations and their stakeholders, fostering resilience and improving responses to challenges.

We address a series of questions. For example, how did the COVID-19 pandemic change the way that civil society organizations serve the needs of their clients? Were there any service disruptions (and new challenges presented), and was the capacity to respond to the needs of patrons maintained? Were civil society organizations, and the people that work within them, capable of adapting to any challenges or changes that they may have been confronted with during the pandemic? And how did the pandemic affect the way that civil society networks activated and engaged? We conclude by looking at the organizational learning that emerged which might inform the handling of future crises.

LGBTQ+ rights have been under attack in many countries. This has been accelerated by political conditions that manipulate policy and public discourse, increasing discrimination through decisions against LGBTQ+ human rights (Galego, 2023; Mijatovic, 2021). Such attacks leave many LGBTQ+ people vulnerable and often misinformed about their rights. It is urgent to map and identify LGBTQ+ organizations working to preserve the rights of LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Social innovation literature has expanded in academic and empirical scope in recent decades. Empirically, civil society organizations have been creating initiatives to fulfill some of the lack of government services and policies. Academically, the association between social movements and social innovation has found common ground. However, there is still an underexplored academic and empirical case for analysis, the LGBTQ+ social innovation initiatives. Therefore, this paper fills this gap by asking: what are LGBTQ+ social innovation initiatives? How are LGBTQ+ organizations mobilizing against the LGBTQ+ rights backlash in the state of New Jersey, US? What are the LGBTQ+ social innovation initiatives focusing on protecting transgender rights in the state of New Jersey? To answer these questions, this paper presents a mapping strategy identifying LGBTQ+ social innovations in the 21 counties in the state of New Jersey. Organizations will be clustered based on their specific types of services. Consequently, it would allow for a network analysis of LGBTQ+ communities and organizations at the state level. This research also intends to explore collaborative governance dynamics between social and political actors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strongly impacted mental health (MH) services and access, intensifying pre-existing disparities and service inefficiencies. This study employs a stakeholder dialogue methodology grounded in participatory research principles to develop public health recommendations for addressing MH gaps in Switzerland. We engaged 32 stakeholders from diverse sectors (including healthcare professionals, policymakers, and community organizations), across urban and rural southern Switzerland, mapping their influence and interest in MH policy.

Data collection occurred through two structured dialogues, where stakeholders provided insights into evolving MH service needs, barriers to implementation, and potential solutions. Consequently, a thematic content analysis was conducted to identify and interpret patterns within the dialogues. We used multi-step coding to assign codes to text segments, grouping similar patterns into themes and subthemes while ensuring consistency and exclusivity.

Our findings underscore a significant shift in MH care. Stakeholders emphasized the necessity of adaptive service models, emphasizing flexibility in mental health care provision, integrated care approaches, and greater reliance on digital health solutions. Additionally, prevention and health promotion strategies were also highlighted as crucial, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Policy implementation challenges include cross-cantonal and regional service disparities, fragmentation between inpatient and outpatient care, and workforce shortages were identified as key obstacles to effective implementation. Despite these barriers, several enabling factors, were identified, such as political commitment, evolving reimbursement mechanisms for mental health services, and increased digital health investments, offer pathways for sustainable MH system reforms.

The study highlights the co-creation of public health policies through stakeholder-driven strategies, providing a framework for both policymakers aiming to develop resilient, adaptive services for future crises and for participatory governance paradigm in crisis response planning.