Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitating Stakeholder Participation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

Few organizations purposefully design processes for facilitating stakeholder interactions. Doing this requires knowledge of stakeholders who are and who are not likely to participate as well as the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of different participation activities for gathering stakeholders’ preferences. Systematic analysis can lead to tailored opportunities for the facilitation of stakeholder interactions and the development of routines for the transmission of preference information from administrators to decision-makers. The challenges of facilitated interactions are primarily in structuring the process so that the perspectives of nonparticipants are represented and perceptions of undue influence are lowered. By carefully designing a facilitated process for stakeholder interactions, administrators can expand the quantity and quality of stakeholder preference data available for decisions. Then, they can routinely communicate this information to decision-makers. The value expected to be produced by facilitated participation is improvement in the stakeholders’ perception of organizational responsiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1978). Administrators’ beliefs about the role of the public: The case of American federal executives. The Western Political Quarterly, 31(4), 502–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/447232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. A. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. American Institution of Planners Journal, 35(7), 216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1990). Citizen groups and the changing nature of interest group politics In America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 538, 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation (Vol. 74, p. 573). Public Administration Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin, R., Khare, A., & Joseph, M. (2012). Participation, deliberation, and decision making: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in mixed-income developments. Urban Affairs Review, 48(6), 863–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412450151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R. L. (1975). Citizen participation in municipal politics. American Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 761–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. A. (2014). Behavioral determinants of citizen involvement: Evidence from natural resource decentralization policy. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12249

  • Culhane, P. (1981). Public Lands Politics: Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Baltimore, MD Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cupps, D. S. (1977). Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 37(5), 478–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C., & West, M. (2002). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, T., & Bowler, S. (2004). Reforming the Republic: Democratic institutions for the new America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C. (2000). The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(3), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C. (2002). Interactive Surveys as Tools to Combine Citizen Education and Preference Revelation [Working Paper].

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C. (2003). Citizen participation in the budget process: Exit, voice and loyalty. In Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(1), 32–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budget theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwyn, G., & Miron-Shatz, T. (2010). Deliberation before determination: The definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 13(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, Jr., R. A. (2003). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York, NY: Longman Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deliberative-practitioner

  • Franklin, A. L. (2001). Serving the public interest: Federal experience with participation in strategic planning. American Review of Public Administration, 31(2), 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A. L., & Ebdon, C. (2004). Aligning priorities in local budgeting processes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(2), 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A. L., Ho, A. T., & Ebdon, C. (2009). Participatory budgeting in midwestern states: Democratic connection or citizen disconnection? Public Budgeting & Finance, 29, 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, H. R. (2016). Democracy reinvented: Participatory budgeting and civic innovation in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, M. M. (1998). Interest Groups in the Rule-making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodsell, C. T. (2013). Public Administration as Its Own Steward in Times of Partisan Deadlock and Fiscal Stress. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12023

  • Graversgaard, M., Jacobsen, B. H., Kjeldsen, C., & Dalgaard, T. (2017). Stakeholder engagement and knowledge co-creation in water planning: Can public participation increase cost-effectiveness? Water, 9(3), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. P., & Blair, L. H. (1976). Citizen surveys for local governments: A cop-out, manipulative tool, or a policy guidance and analysis aid? In T. N. Clark (Ed.), Citizen preferences and urban public policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement: Financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, C. (1994). What planners do: Politics, power and persuasion. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, E. A., & Anderson, M. G. (2010). Implementation of community-based landslide hazard mitigation measures: The role of stakeholder engagement in ‘sustainable’ project scale-up. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irland, L. C. (1975). Citizen participation: A tool for conflict management on the public lands. Public Administration Review, 35, 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, N. (2009). Stakeholder engagement: A road map to meaningful engagement. Bedfordshire, UK: Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Cranfield University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N., & Ward, E. (1972). Citizen information systems: Using technology to extend the dialogue between citizens and their government. Management Science, 19(4), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 46–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation; toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlmeier, L. (1969). The regulators: Watchdog agencies and the public interest. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T. M. (1999). Administrators and citizens: Measuring agency officials’ efforts to foster and use public input in forest policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 251–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kweit, R. W., & Kweit, M. G. (1980). Bureaucratic decision-making impediments to citizen participation. Polity, 12, 647–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, T., & Franklin, A. L. (2018). Selection protocol for identifying and sampling from proxy populations. Social Science Quarterly, 99, 1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. J. (2018, February 19). A deliberative theory of interest representation. The Politics Of Interests. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495984-2

  • Messick, D. M., & Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90053-G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69. JSTOR.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1057/emr.2009.27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole Jr., L. J., & Hanf, K. I. (2002). American public administration and impacts of international governance. Public Administration Review, 62, 158–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. C., Lovrich, N. P., & Matsuoka, M. (1989). Support for citizen participation; A comparison of American and Japanese citizens’ activities and elites. The Western Political Quarterly, 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prohl, M. (1997). International strategies and techniques for future local government. Practical aspects towards innovation and reform. Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. B. (2002). Policy making in a democracy. In P. Kobrak (Ed.), The Political Environment of Public Management (pp. 122–149). New York, NY: AB Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rethemeyer, R. K. (2007). The empire strikes back: Is the internet corporatizing rather than democratizing policy processes? Public Administration Review, 67(2), 199–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H. (1969). No good idea goes unpunished. Social Science Quarterly, 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaller, L. E. (1964). Is the citizen advisory committee a threat to representative government? Public Administration Review, 24, 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York, NY: Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selden, S. C. (1997). The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy. Armond, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selden, S. C., Brudney, J. L., & Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward a Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and Democratic Theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 717–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg, C. W. (1972). Citizens and the administrative state. Public Administration Review, 190–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, C. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the administrative state. Administration and Society, 22(1), 86–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, J. H. (1972). The impact of citizen participation on public administration. Public Administration Review, 32(Special), 457–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurmaier, K., & Ceka, E. (2019, July). Nattering nabobs of negativism are no match for participatory budgeting. Local Government Review, 100(6), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, E. C. (1975). Citizen participation in the policy management process. Public Administration Review, 35, 804–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Yammanno, F. J. (1999). CEO Charismatic Leadership. Levels of Management and Levels of Analysis Effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1169–1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., Manning, N. J., & Crowfoot, J. W. (1996). Teetering at the top of the ladder: The experience of citizen group participants in alternative dispute resolution processes. Sociological Perspectives, 39(2), 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, D. (1972). Neighborhood Government. Policy Sciences, 3(2), 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Aimee L. Franklin

Authors
  1. Aimee L. Franklin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Franklin, A.L. (2020). Facilitating Stakeholder Participation. In: Stakeholder Engagement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47519-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation