Suchergebnisse

AbstractPublic value theory has become a hot topic in public administration research, but its proponents have long recognised difficulties in empirically testing the theory's central propositions. There has been a lack of clarity about how to measure the extent to which organisations are generating public value, which has rendered researchers unable to quantitatively study the causes, consequences and correlates of public value. The current study systematically reviews the growing literature on public value measurement to identify, evaluate, and synthesise available measures. Through a qualitative synthesis of the themes present in published measures, we identify four key components for measuring public value that appear to be important across a range of policy and national contexts. Our review identifies a promising framework that could be used to structure a comprehensive measure of public value and, in doing so, provides a means to progress theoretical development and testing of the public value approach.

PurposeThis article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process in the specific context of climate change in Australia. This process was led by an interdisciplinary research team who struggled with the limitations of the prevailing deterministic behaviour change paradigms, such as the "test, learn, adapt" model, which often focuses narrowly on individual behaviours and fails to integrate multiple interpretations from diverse stakeholders into their knowledge co-production process.Design/methodology/approachThis article uses collaborative reflection as a method of inquiry. We document the team's experience of a recent challenge-led, programatic research initiative that applied behaviour change strategies to reduce climate vulnerabilities. We demonstrate the necessity of critical reflection and abductive reasoning in the face of the complexities inherent in knowledge co-production addressing complex problems. It underscores the importance of accommodating diverse perspectives and contextual nuances over a one-size-fits-all method.FindingsThe article shares lessons learnt about integrating collaborative and critical reflection throughout a project cycle and demonstrates the capacity of abductive reasoning to ease the challenges arising from the tension between behaviour change paradigms and knowledge co-production principles. This approach allows for a more adaptable and context-sensitive application, acknowledging the multiplicity of understandings and the dynamic nature of behavioural change in relation to climate adaptation.Originality/valueThis reflection contributes original insights into the fusion of pragmatism with behaviour change strategies, proposing a novel framework that prioritises flexibility, context-specificity and the recognition of various stakeholder perspectives in the co-production of knowledge.

AbstractEmergency risk communication (ERC) for smoke emitted from major fires continues to challenge governments. During these events, practitioners (including scientific, communication, and emergency response government staff) are tasked with quickly making sense of the public health risks and the communication options available. Practitioners' sensemaking—the process of creating meaning from information about an unfolding emergency—is key to effective ERC. This article identifies the factors that ERC practitioners consider the most important to their sensemaking for smoke events. A survey of practitioners (n = 86) was conducted to elicit their views on the level of importance of 22 different factors (individual, organizational, and contextual) on their sensemaking. The results indicate that the majority of the factors tested are very important to practitioners. This finding likely reflects the multidimensional nature of emergency smoke events and provides evidence as to why practitioners are challenged when trying to make sense of emergency situations. Despite multiple factors being considered very important to practitioners, the time‐limited nature of emergencies means that practitioners will inevitability be forced to prioritize in their sensemaking efforts. Our results also provide insight into practitioners' prioritization of different information sources. Specifically, practitioners prioritize their own knowledge and the knowledge of other practitioners. The two most important factors were information from other incident management stakeholders and the practitioners' past experience. Other information, including community‐based and academic knowledge, appear to be of lower priority for practitioners. Based on the study results, recommendations for practice and future research are discussed.

AbstractDuring public health emergencies, government practitioners must rapidly make sense of the risk to human health and the emergency risk communication (ERC) options available. These practitioners determine what, how, and when information is communicated to the public. Recurring criticism of ERC indicates that the communication is not meeting the needs of the community. To improve ERC practice, it is therefore critical to understand practitioners' sensemaking in these complex and time‐critical settings. This article unpacks the realities and complexities of sensemaking, the process by which practitioners create meaning from the information they receive about an emergency as it unfolds. Qualitative interviews gathered practitioners' lived experiences of public health emergencies, namely, smoke events (e.g., wildfires and industrial facility fires), and thematic analysis drew on sensemaking literature. The evidence shows that sensemaking is challenging, as practitioners experience pressure from the emergency context and organizational, political, and social expectations. Sensemaking for ERC comes with an underlying imperative to accurately make sense of the situation, in a timely manner and in a way that leads to the best health outcomes. Practitioners must balance creating plausible meaning (sensemaking) with the accuracy expected by stakeholders. The analysis also highlights how sensemaking scope is delimited by professional expert identities and roles within the emergency management system; that is, practitioners' understanding of their expertise and role, and that of other practitioners. Past lived experiences are viewed as key facilitators of both individual and collective sensemaking, and the history of similar public health events shapes sensemaking in this context.