Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Political Theory and DemocracyPublic Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and Political Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas

Open access
Vrydagh, Julien·2022·Policy Sciences
DOI 10.1007/s11077-022-09450-wPMC PMC8869347
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As academic and political interest in citizen participation and democratic innovations is growing, the question of their impact on public policy remains essential to assess their genuine contribution to the normative project of democratization. Impact assessments of consultative participatory mechanisms are commonly conducted with a congruency approach-a desk-based research method which assesses impact based on the textual correspondence between a citizen-created idea and public policy documents. This method, however, lacks reliability and uniformity, and this paper therefore seeks to standardize its application and ways to improve the accuracy of its results by proposing two methodological add-ons. First, a sequential impact matrix that considers the preferences of decision-makers before a consultative participatory mechanism to see the extent to which decision-makers take up citizen ideas that align with or diverge from their own agenda. Second, a mixed method that combines a congruency approach with interviews of actors involved in the follow-up of the participatory process to balance their experiences with the congruency approach's main findings. The variants of the congruency approach are then applied to a deliberative minipublic-the citizen panel 'Brussels-Make Your Mobility'. This analysis shows how these methodological strategies alter the impact assessment's results, and its findings suggest that the use of a sequential impact matrix with a mixed method not only produces an accurate and reliable measurement but also generates valuable insights into the diffuse ways in which minipublics can exert substantial influences on the institutional structures and the political decision-making. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 239–251. · DOI
  2. Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2014). Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics & Society, 42(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329213512978 · DOI
  3. Barrett, G., Wyman, M., & Schattan, P. C. V. (2012). Assessing the policy impacts of deliberative civic engagement. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement, 181–204. · DOI
  4. Beierle, T. C. (2010). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Routledge.
  5. Bherer, L., Gauthier, M., & Simard, L. (2017). The professionalization of public participation. Routledge. · DOI
  6. Blondiaux, L., & Fourniau, J.-M. (2011). Un bilan des recherches sur la participation du public en démocratie: Beaucoup de bruit pour rien ? Participations, 1(1), 8–35. https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.001.0008 · DOI
  7. Boswell, J. (2016). Deliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process. Perspectives on Politics, 14(03), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592716001146 · DOI
  8. Brady, H. E. (1999). Political participation. Measures of Political Attitudes, 2, 737–801.
  9. Bua, A. (2017). Scale and policy impact in participatory deliberative democracy: Lessons from a multi-level process. Public Administration, 95(1), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12297 · DOI
  10. Bua, A. (2019). Democratic innovations and the policy process. Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  11. Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769–784. · DOI
  12. Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300. · DOI
  13. Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2019). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  14. Falanga, R., & Ferrão, J. (2021). The evaluation of citizen participation in policymaking: Insights from Portugal. Evaluation and Program Planning, 84, 101895. · DOI
  15. Fernández-Martínez, J. L., García-Espín, P., & Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2020). Participatory frustration: The unintended cultural effect of local democratic innovations. Administration & Society, 52(5), 718–748. · DOI
  16. Fielding, N., Fielding, J. L., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data (Vol. 4). Sage Beverly Hills, CA. · DOI
  17. Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. A Companion to Qualitative Research, 3, 178–183.
  18. Font, J., Pasadas del Amo, S., & Smith, G. (2016). Tracing the impact of proposals from participatory processes: Methodological challenges and substantive lessons. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(1), 3.
  19. Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcon, P. (2018). Cherry-picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes: Cherry-Picking Participation. European Journal of Political Research, 57(3), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12248 · DOI
  20. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001002 · DOI
  21. Gastil, J., Jr, R. C. R., Ryan, M., & Smith, G. (2017). Testing Assumptions in Deliberative Democratic Design: A Preliminary Assessment of the Efficacy of the Participedia Data Archive as an Analytic Tool. 31. · DOI
  22. Geißel, B., & Heß, P. (2018). Determinants of successful participatory governance: The case of Local Agenda 21. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  23. Gundelach, B., Buser, P., & Kübler, D. (2017). Deliberative democracy in local governance: The impact of institutional design on legitimacy. Local Government Studies, 43(2), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1261699 · DOI
  24. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 275–296. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, participation. Policy Press. · DOI
  26. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46.
  27. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press Oxford.
  28. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. (2018). Thirty years of research on policy instruments. In Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing (p. 147). Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  29. Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge. · DOI
  30. Hubert, M., Corijn, E., Neuwels, J., Hardy, M., Vermeulen, S., & Vaesen, J. (2020). From pedestrian area to urban and metropolitan project: Assets and challenges for the centre of Brussels (new edition). BSI synopsis. Brussels Studies. La Revue Scientifique Pour Les Recherches Sur Bruxelles/Het Wetenschappelijk Tijdschrift Voor Onderzoek over Brussel/The Journal of Research on Brussels. · DOI
  31. Jacquet, V. (2017). Explaining non-participation in deliberative mini-publics. European Journal of Political Research, Fishkin, 2009, 640–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12195 · DOI
  32. Jacquet, V., & van der Does, R. (2020a). Deliberation and Policy-Making: Three Ways to Think About Minipublics’ Consequences. Administration & Society, 0095399720964511. · DOI
  33. Jacquet, V., & van der Does, R. (2020b). The Consequences of Deliberative Minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. Representation, pp 1–11. · DOI
  34. Jager, N. W., Newig, J., Challies, E., & Kochskämper, E. (2020). Pathways to implementation: Evidence on how participation in environmental governance impacts on environmental outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 383–399. · DOI
  35. Jäske, M., & Setälä, M. (2019). Referendums and citizens’ initiatives. Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  36. Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy analysis: A political and organisational perspective. M. Robertson.
  37. Johnson, G. F. (2015). Democratic illusion: Deliberative democracy in Canadian public policy (Vol. 49). University of Toronto Press.
  38. Lafont, C. (2019). Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press. · DOI
  39. Mazeaud, A., & Boas, M.-H.S.V. (2012). Penser les effets de la participation sur l’action publique à partir de ses impensés. Participations, 1, 5–29. · DOI
  40. Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399851 · DOI
  41. Michels, A., & Binnema, H. (2018). Assessing the impact of deliberative democratic initiatives at the local level: A framework for analysis. Administration & Society, 009539971876058,. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718760588 · DOI
  42. Mitchell, E. S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science. · DOI
  43. Mutz, D. C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 11, 521–538. · DOI
  44. Natow, R. S. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160–173. · DOI
  45. Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(01), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877 · DOI
  46. Pogrebinschi, T. (2013). The squared circle of participatory democracy: Scaling up deliberation to the national level. Critical Policy Studies, 7(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.805156 · DOI
  47. Pogrebinschi, T., & Ryan, M. (2018). Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making?: MOVING BEYOND INPUT LEGITIMACY. European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12219 · DOI
  48. Richardson, L., Durose, C., & Perry, B. (2019). Moving towards hybridity in causal explanation: The example of citizen participation. Social Policy & Administration, 53(2), 265–278. · DOI
  49. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101 · DOI
  50. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(4), 512–556. · DOI
  51. Ryan, M. (2019). Comparative approaches to the study of democratic innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  52. Setälä, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 846–863. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Setälä, M., & Smith, G. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, 300–314.
  54. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  55. Spada, P., & Ryan, M. (2017). The Failure to Examine Failures in Democratic Innovation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(03), 772–778. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000579 · DOI
  56. Vrydagh, J., Devillers, S., Talukder, D., Jacquet, V., & Bottin, J. (2020). Les mini-publics en Belgique (2001–2018): Expériences de panels citoyens délibératifs. Courrier Hebdomadaire Du CRISP, 32, 5–72. · DOI
  57. Vrydagh, J., & Caluwaerts, D. (2020). How do Mini-publics Affect Public Policy? Disentangling the Influences of a Mini-public on Public Policy Using the Sequential Impact Matrix Framework. Representation, 1–20. · DOI
  58. Vrydagh, J., Bottin, J., Reuchamps, M., Bouhon, F., & Devillers, S. (2021). Les commissions délibératives entre parlementaires et citoyens tirés au sort au sein des assemblées bruxelloises. Courrier Hebdomadaire Du CRISP, 2492. · DOI
  59. Walker, E. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants in American democracy. Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  60. Walsh, J. I. (1994). International constraints and domestic choices: Economic convergence and exchange rate policy in France and Italy. Political Studies, 42(2), 243–258. · DOI
  61. Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041508X12911362383679 · DOI
  62. Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3–13. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Vrydagh, J.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Vrydagh, Julien
ORCID
Vrydagh, Julien
Venue
Policy Sciences
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-02-24
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
65-88
ISSN
  • 0032-2687 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0891
DOI
10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w
PMC
PMC8869347
OpenAlex
W4213456614
Cited by
51
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 1
FWCI
29.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Policy Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
vrije universiteit brussel
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
citizen participation, impact assessment, participatory democracy, policy uptake, deliberative mini-publics, democratic innovation, decision maker preferences, mixed methods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w
The paper
Vrydagh, J. (2022). Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.