Public input methods impacting confidence in government

Purpose - Municipalities commonly ask the public to give input by answering questions about their preferences. There is some belief that input enhances the public's confidence in government. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether different types of input activities (obtained by phone o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transforming government 2012-01, Vol.6 (1), p.92-111
Hauptverfasser: PytlikZillig, Lisa M, Tomkins, Alan J, Herian, Mitchel N, Hamm, Joseph A, Abdel-Monem, Tarik
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 111
container_issue 1
container_start_page 92
container_title Transforming government
container_volume 6
creator PytlikZillig, Lisa M
Tomkins, Alan J
Herian, Mitchel N
Hamm, Joseph A
Abdel-Monem, Tarik
description Purpose - Municipalities commonly ask the public to give input by answering questions about their preferences. There is some belief that input enhances the public's confidence in government. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether different types of input activities (obtained by phone or online surveys, or via face-to-face engagements) differentially impact confidence.Design methodology approach - Data were collected over two years from different input activities undertaken to inform a city's budgeting and performance measures' determinations.Findings - Significant amounts of variance in the public's confidence in municipal governments are accounted for by independent predictors such as current satisfaction, perceived trustworthiness, legitimacy, and loyalty to the institution. Compared to online and phone surveys, face-to-face input methods seem to have a particularly strong, positive relationship with the public's perceptions of the trustworthiness (e.g. competence, integrity, benevolence) of municipal government officials. Persons who participate in face-to-face, online, or phone events differ both in extent of confidence and, to a small extent, in the bases of their confidence.Research limitations implications - The study design is correlational rather than experimental and data were not originally gathered to test the identified hypotheses. In addition, it is not prudent to put too much stock in results from only one jurisdiction that relied primarily on convenience samples.Originality value - In instances in which enhancing confidence in the institution is a specific objective of public input, this work provides researchers and practitioners with guidance to better anticipate which input technique(s) works best and why.
doi_str_mv 10.1108/17506161211214840
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1037893416</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1037893416</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-30fd7a0ffabb9668a75011964aca3b56304c827b3023bbc3b16c597586a9aca63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEFLxDAQhYMouK7-AG_FkwermaadpEdZXBUW9KDnkqTJ2qVNa9IK_nuzrHhYEYSBGYbvPR6PkHOg1wBU3AAvKAJCBnFykdMDMtv-UgSeH_7ciMfkJIQNpSiA4ozw50m1jU4aN0xj0pnxra9D0nSD1GPj1onunW1q47SJSLLuP4x3nXHjKTmysg3m7HvPyevy7mXxkK6e7h8Xt6tUM8HGlFFbc0mtlUqViELGGAAl5lJLpgpkNNci44rRjCmlmQLURckLgbKMCLI5udz5Dr5_n0wYq64J2rStdKafQgWUcVGyHLboxR666SfvYrqqzATPCxQ0QrCDtO9D8MZWg2866T-jU7VtsvrVZNTQncZ0xsu2_pfk6g_JPloNtWVfDeZ_xQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>928745680</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Public input methods impacting confidence in government</title><source>Emerald Journals</source><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>PytlikZillig, Lisa M ; Tomkins, Alan J ; Herian, Mitchel N ; Hamm, Joseph A ; Abdel-Monem, Tarik</creator><creatorcontrib>PytlikZillig, Lisa M ; Tomkins, Alan J ; Herian, Mitchel N ; Hamm, Joseph A ; Abdel-Monem, Tarik</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose - Municipalities commonly ask the public to give input by answering questions about their preferences. There is some belief that input enhances the public's confidence in government. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether different types of input activities (obtained by phone or online surveys, or via face-to-face engagements) differentially impact confidence.Design methodology approach - Data were collected over two years from different input activities undertaken to inform a city's budgeting and performance measures' determinations.Findings - Significant amounts of variance in the public's confidence in municipal governments are accounted for by independent predictors such as current satisfaction, perceived trustworthiness, legitimacy, and loyalty to the institution. Compared to online and phone surveys, face-to-face input methods seem to have a particularly strong, positive relationship with the public's perceptions of the trustworthiness (e.g. competence, integrity, benevolence) of municipal government officials. Persons who participate in face-to-face, online, or phone events differ both in extent of confidence and, to a small extent, in the bases of their confidence.Research limitations implications - The study design is correlational rather than experimental and data were not originally gathered to test the identified hypotheses. In addition, it is not prudent to put too much stock in results from only one jurisdiction that relied primarily on convenience samples.Originality value - In instances in which enhancing confidence in the institution is a specific objective of public input, this work provides researchers and practitioners with guidance to better anticipate which input technique(s) works best and why.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1750-6166</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1750-6174</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/17506161211214840</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Government and politics ; Jurisdiction ; Legitimacy ; Loyalty ; Methods ; Municipalities ; Perceptions ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Procedural justice ; Public opinion ; Public policy ; Studies ; Surveys ; Trust ; Value</subject><ispartof>Transforming government, 2012-01, Vol.6 (1), p.92-111</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-30fd7a0ffabb9668a75011964aca3b56304c827b3023bbc3b16c597586a9aca63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-30fd7a0ffabb9668a75011964aca3b56304c827b3023bbc3b16c597586a9aca63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17506161211214840/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17506161211214840/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,961,11614,21674,27842,27843,27901,27902,52661,52664,53219,53347</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>PytlikZillig, Lisa M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomkins, Alan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herian, Mitchel N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Joseph A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdel-Monem, Tarik</creatorcontrib><title>Public input methods impacting confidence in government</title><title>Transforming government</title><description>Purpose - Municipalities commonly ask the public to give input by answering questions about their preferences. There is some belief that input enhances the public's confidence in government. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether different types of input activities (obtained by phone or online surveys, or via face-to-face engagements) differentially impact confidence.Design methodology approach - Data were collected over two years from different input activities undertaken to inform a city's budgeting and performance measures' determinations.Findings - Significant amounts of variance in the public's confidence in municipal governments are accounted for by independent predictors such as current satisfaction, perceived trustworthiness, legitimacy, and loyalty to the institution. Compared to online and phone surveys, face-to-face input methods seem to have a particularly strong, positive relationship with the public's perceptions of the trustworthiness (e.g. competence, integrity, benevolence) of municipal government officials. Persons who participate in face-to-face, online, or phone events differ both in extent of confidence and, to a small extent, in the bases of their confidence.Research limitations implications - The study design is correlational rather than experimental and data were not originally gathered to test the identified hypotheses. In addition, it is not prudent to put too much stock in results from only one jurisdiction that relied primarily on convenience samples.Originality value - In instances in which enhancing confidence in the institution is a specific objective of public input, this work provides researchers and practitioners with guidance to better anticipate which input technique(s) works best and why.</description><subject>Government and politics</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Legitimacy</subject><subject>Loyalty</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Municipalities</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Procedural justice</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Trust</subject><subject>Value</subject><issn>1750-6166</issn><issn>1750-6174</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEFLxDAQhYMouK7-AG_FkwermaadpEdZXBUW9KDnkqTJ2qVNa9IK_nuzrHhYEYSBGYbvPR6PkHOg1wBU3AAvKAJCBnFykdMDMtv-UgSeH_7ciMfkJIQNpSiA4ozw50m1jU4aN0xj0pnxra9D0nSD1GPj1onunW1q47SJSLLuP4x3nXHjKTmysg3m7HvPyevy7mXxkK6e7h8Xt6tUM8HGlFFbc0mtlUqViELGGAAl5lJLpgpkNNci44rRjCmlmQLURckLgbKMCLI5udz5Dr5_n0wYq64J2rStdKafQgWUcVGyHLboxR666SfvYrqqzATPCxQ0QrCDtO9D8MZWg2866T-jU7VtsvrVZNTQncZ0xsu2_pfk6g_JPloNtWVfDeZ_xQ</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>PytlikZillig, Lisa M</creator><creator>Tomkins, Alan J</creator><creator>Herian, Mitchel N</creator><creator>Hamm, Joseph A</creator><creator>Abdel-Monem, Tarik</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Public input methods impacting confidence in government</title><author>PytlikZillig, Lisa M ; Tomkins, Alan J ; Herian, Mitchel N ; Hamm, Joseph A ; Abdel-Monem, Tarik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-30fd7a0ffabb9668a75011964aca3b56304c827b3023bbc3b16c597586a9aca63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Government and politics</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Legitimacy</topic><topic>Loyalty</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Municipalities</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Procedural justice</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Trust</topic><topic>Value</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>PytlikZillig, Lisa M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomkins, Alan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herian, Mitchel N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, Joseph A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdel-Monem, Tarik</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Transforming government</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>PytlikZillig, Lisa M</au><au>Tomkins, Alan J</au><au>Herian, Mitchel N</au><au>Hamm, Joseph A</au><au>Abdel-Monem, Tarik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public input methods impacting confidence in government</atitle><jtitle>Transforming government</jtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>92</spage><epage>111</epage><pages>92-111</pages><issn>1750-6166</issn><eissn>1750-6174</eissn><abstract>Purpose - Municipalities commonly ask the public to give input by answering questions about their preferences. There is some belief that input enhances the public's confidence in government. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether different types of input activities (obtained by phone or online surveys, or via face-to-face engagements) differentially impact confidence.Design methodology approach - Data were collected over two years from different input activities undertaken to inform a city's budgeting and performance measures' determinations.Findings - Significant amounts of variance in the public's confidence in municipal governments are accounted for by independent predictors such as current satisfaction, perceived trustworthiness, legitimacy, and loyalty to the institution. Compared to online and phone surveys, face-to-face input methods seem to have a particularly strong, positive relationship with the public's perceptions of the trustworthiness (e.g. competence, integrity, benevolence) of municipal government officials. Persons who participate in face-to-face, online, or phone events differ both in extent of confidence and, to a small extent, in the bases of their confidence.Research limitations implications - The study design is correlational rather than experimental and data were not originally gathered to test the identified hypotheses. In addition, it is not prudent to put too much stock in results from only one jurisdiction that relied primarily on convenience samples.Originality value - In instances in which enhancing confidence in the institution is a specific objective of public input, this work provides researchers and practitioners with guidance to better anticipate which input technique(s) works best and why.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/17506161211214840</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1750-6166
ispartof Transforming government, 2012-01, Vol.6 (1), p.92-111
issn 1750-6166
1750-6174
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1037893416
source Emerald Journals; Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection; PAIS Index
subjects Government and politics
Jurisdiction
Legitimacy
Loyalty
Methods
Municipalities
Perceptions
Polls & surveys
Procedural justice
Public opinion
Public policy
Studies
Surveys
Trust
Value
title Public input methods impacting confidence in government
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T12%3A24%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20input%20methods%20impacting%20confidence%20in%20government&rft.jtitle=Transforming%20government&rft.au=PytlikZillig,%20Lisa%20M&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=92&rft.epage=111&rft.pages=92-111&rft.issn=1750-6166&rft.eissn=1750-6174&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/17506161211214840&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E1037893416%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=928745680&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true