A Qualitative Study on the Meaning of Participation in Public Administration: A Case Study of the Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lots of good research with serious methodological implementation. Way too long. Too many long quotes that were not that interesting in the presentation of results. Poor lit review not focused on the research question. 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The contested meanings of participation among administrators in the case study, to quote: "investigates how local project managers interpret the concept of participation when implementing participatory processes." 2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What
specific gap in the field does the paper address? Over 40 interviews with administrators involves a lot of work  3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? I am well versed in the U.S. literature on this topic, I do not see any contribution.  4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology?  There were two interesting threads: gender differences and the hollowness of participation (indeed, the interviews generated platitudes from the respondents for the most part). But there was no analysis of this. There was no focus on independent variables (other than the passing reference to gender) such as: the sorts of projects the 41 worked on, their educational credentials, political orientations, etc as a form of explanation.  The long literature is completely disconnected from the analysis that follows.  The interesting thing here is also the specifics of the region's effort to increase participation but there is only passing reference to the case — this is quite unusual in a case study  5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments? The conclusions were not connected to the research. One example: "The interviewees described a range of meanings and interpretations, which are not only shaped by regional guidelines, but also reflect their work context, values and experience." But those independent variables were not discussed.  6. Are the references appropriate? No, the literature review did not situate the specific research question of the view of public administrators about community participation. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Way too long.

Response: The manuscript has been significantly shortened and tightened in all of its parts (Introduction, Results, Discussion)

Comment 2: Too many long quotes that were not that interesting in the presentation of results

Response: We deleted six quotes and shortened additional eight quotes

Comment 3: Poor lit review not focused on the research question

Response: We significantly revised the literature review, adding contents and references that are more relevant for the study and removing some of the contents and articles that were not directly related to the topic.  

Comment 4: I am well versed in the U.S. literature on this topic, I do not see any contribution

Response: We regret that the reviewer does not perceive a contribution. However, we acknowledge that we may not have sufficiently explained the nature of the contribution we believe the paper offers. In revising the introductory section to ensure greater consistency with the results and discussion, as requested by the reviewer, we aimed to better clarify the study’s original contribution. In particular, we emphasize that adopting a community psychology perspective to the study of participation processes complements the public governance approach by focusing more deeply on participants’ perceptions, representations, and experiences of participatory processes, as well as their impacts in terms of competence development, empowerment, sense of community, and strengthened trust in institutions. These are key factors for sustaining and motivating civic engagement and, ultimately, for improving outcomes (e.g., representative democracy). We attempted to make this point clearer in the introduction by adding content and references on the community psychology approach.

A second point concerns the uniqueness of the context and population under study, making this a case study that, to our knowledge, has not been conducted before. As we noted in our review of existing studies that have addressed similar populations and contexts, there is a need for additional research capable of explaining the processes—including psychological factors—through which policies and guidelines aimed at improving participatory processes translate into outcomes. The study was conducted in collaboration with the Emilia-Romagna Region, which has a direct interest in understanding the impact of its policies on citizens’ engagement. Thus, this case study is also of direct local relevance.

Comment 5: There were two interesting threads: gender differences and the hollowness of participation (indeed, the interviews generated platitudes from the respondents for the most part). But there was no analysis of this. There was no focus on independent variables (other than the passing reference to gender) such as: the sorts of projects the 41 worked on, their educational credentials, political orientations, etc as a form of explanation

Response: We thank the reviewer for their remarks. We have attempted to describe better and explain the results concerning differences across the participants, also in the discussion section. We have collected some sociodemographic characteristics from the 41 participants. We did not ask them about political orientation, due to the “sensitive” nature of this variable, so this information was not available for comparisons across responses. In the analysis, it was noticed that we could detect differences that could be attributed to relevant participants’ characteristics (e.g. gender, role, type of organization, age). However, for the specific contents investigated (representations about participation), we could find less variability (and more homogeneity) than we had expected.

Comment 6: The long literature is completely disconnected from the analysis that follows

Response: We have attempted to improve the connection between the literature review and the analysis. In particular, some paragraphs in the introduction that were less relevant have been deleted (e.g. section “The different types of public participation: from consultation to deliberation”). Second, we integrated the review with a few studies focusing on the meaning of participation among public officials, better clarifying that the available evidence is still limited and further research is needed.

Comment 7: The interesting thing here is also the specifics of the region's effort to increase participation but there is only passing reference to the case — this is quite unusual in a case study 

Response: A more detailed description of the Region’s activities regarding participation was incorporated, as well as some examples of participatory projects.

Comment 8: The conclusions were not connected to the research. One example: "The interviewees described a range of meanings and interpretations, which are not only shaped by regional guidelines, but also reflect their work context, values and experience." But those independent variables were not discussed.

Response: The interviews offered rich data, and for the purposes of the current study, we focused our analyses on data on participants’ representations of participation. Many participants described their representations relating also to the concrete experiences in the projects they managed (e.g. those who worked on projects with young people generally made this explicit). We did not systematically report the differences across types of projects, as the key features of the projects that appeared relevant to differentiate representations were limited.  The sentence mentioned as an example was revised to make it clearer.  

Comment 9: The literature review did not situate the specific research question of the view of public administrators about community participation.

Response: References were modified adding specific articles on the meaning of participation with a focus on public officials.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports a qualitative study examining how local project managers and key personnel interpret the concept of public participation within the Emilia-Romagna regional framework for participatory governance in Italy. Drawing on 41 in-depth interviews, the study reveals nuanced insights into how practitioners see participation as co-responsibility, community-building, empowerment, and horizontal governance, while also acknowledging institutional and cultural barriers that can hollow out the meaning of participation.

The paper’s main strength is its clear empirical contribution. It provides rich, thematically organized interview material that brings forward the multiple situated meanings of participation, going beyond the formal institutional definitions found in policy. The detailed breakdown of gendered perspectives, the link to community psychology, and the discussion of how administrative culture shapes or constrains participatory practices add depth and relevance for readers interested in democratic governance and citizen engagement.

The manuscript is also well situated in the literature. It demonstrates good awareness of classic and contemporary frameworks and positions the regional context effectively. The methodological approach is sound for a qualitative study. The interview guide is appropriate, sampling is credible for an interpretive study, and the thematic analysis is explained clearly enough to follow.

However, there are a few limitations. First, while the findings are rich, the manuscript repeats some well-established theoretical points too extensively in the introduction and literature review sections. Some sections restate known distinctions between consultation, deliberation, and participatory budgeting without sufficiently connecting these to the specific empirical context. Tightening these sections would make the contribution stand out more clearly.

Second, although the empirical results are well organized by themes, the paper could do more to link these back to concrete examples of how these meanings shape actual practices or project outcomes. The reader is left wondering how different interpretations of participation manifest in real decisions, conflicts, or innovations on the ground. More direct excerpts or short vignettes illustrating these links would enhance the paper’s impact.

Finally, the conclusion could benefit from clearer practical implications. While the study shows a policy–practice gap and the risks of rhetorical participation, it could more explicitly discuss what institutions might do differently to strengthen meaningful participation in light of the insights gained. For example, what changes in training, funding criteria, or monitoring might address the mismatch between policy ideals and administrative realities?

In terms of English, the manuscript is generally well written and easy to follow. Minor editing could tighten some long sentences and repetitive formulations but no major language flaws were noted.

Author Response

Comment 1. The manuscript repeats some well-established theoretical points too extensively in the introduction and literature review sections. Some sections restate known distinctions between consultation, deliberation, and participatory budgeting without sufficiently connecting these to the specific empirical context. Tightening these sections would make the contribution stand out more clearly.

Response: The manuscript has been significantly shortened and tightened in all of its parts (Introduction, Results, Discussion). The section describing distinctions between consultation, deliberation, and participatory budgeting (“The different types of public participation: from consultation to deliberation”) has been deleted.

 

Comment 2. Second, although the empirical results are well organized by themes, the paper could do more to link these back to concrete examples of how these meanings shape actual practices or project outcomes. The reader is left wondering how different interpretations of participation manifest in real decisions, conflicts, or innovations on the ground. More direct excerpts or short vignettes illustrating these links would enhance the paper’s impact.

 

Response: Some examples of projects were added to clarify better the context of the research and the participatory activities funded by the Emilia-Romagna Region. Drawing from the projects managed by the sample we interviewed, we chose the most relevant and diverse ones as an example. We decided not to describe all of them to avoid redundancy. 

 

Comment 3. Finally, the conclusion could benefit from clearer practical implications. While the study shows a policy–practice gap and the risks of rhetorical participation, it could more explicitly discuss what institutions might do differently to strengthen meaningful participation in light of the insights gained. For example, what changes in training, funding criteria, or monitoring might address the mismatch between policy ideals and administrative realities?

Response: Some practical examples were added, such as training activities that the Region could implement

 

Comment 4. In terms of English, the manuscript is generally well written and easy to follow. Minor editing could tighten some long sentences and repetitive formulations but no major language flaws were noted.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. Long sentences were shortened in order to make the work easier to read. Overall, English was reviewed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, which focuses on participation in public administration, is undoubtedly of interest to the reader, but it presents some critical points that should be addressed before publication. These critical points are summarized below:
1) The title does not fully reflect the content of the article, which is based on a case study involving the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy. It would be better to specify the title in more detail;
2) The introduction paragraph is too long and should at least be divided into two parts: a first part presenting the entire definitional problem and a second describing the context of the case study;
3) Regarding the results, it would be better to clarify how the five dimensions presented were arrived at, as they cannot be solely the result of the coding procedure performed for the NVivo software;
4) The discussion section should be approached in a more critical and less descriptive manner;
5) Finally, the paper completely lacks conclusions that could define some guidelines that could support public administrations in improving participation.
In light of this, I believe major revisions are necessary before the article can be deemed publishable.

Author Response

Comment 1. The title does not fully reflect the content of the article, which is based on a case study involving the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy. It would be better to specify the title in more detail.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the useful suggestion, with which we agree. The title has been changed to better reflect the location of the study

Comment 2. The introduction paragraph is too long and should at least be divided into two parts: a first part presenting the entire definitional problem and a second describing the context of the case study.

Response: The manuscript has been significantly shortened and tightened in all of its parts. The introduction was restructured to better distinguish the part presenting the definitional problem and the part on the case study.

 

Comment 3. Regarding the results, it would be better to clarify how the five dimensions presented were arrived at, as they cannot be solely the result of the coding procedure performed for the NVivo software.

Response: We added a paragraph to better clarify the coding process.

Comment 4. The discussion section should be approached in a more critical and less descriptive manner.

Response: The discussion session was approached in a more critical way.

Comment 5. Finally, the paper completely lacks conclusions that could define some guidelines that could support public administrations in improving participation.

Response: Some practical suggestions were added to support public administrations (including the Region Emilia Romagna) in improving participation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting and innovative, especially its empirical section. I have two suggestions. First, the title should indicate the publication location. It should therefore read: "A qualitative study of the Meaning of participation in Public Administration – a case study of the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy." Second, the article should include an objective (for example, the main objective of this article), research questions, and hypotheses.

I found one typo in line 164 (page 4) in the word "partecipation."

 

Author Response

Comment 1. The title should indicate the publication location. It should therefore read: "A qualitative study of the Meaning of participation in Public Administration – a case study of the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy."

Response: We thank the reviewer for the useful suggestion, with which we agree. The title has been changed as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 2. The article should include an objective (for example, the main objective of this article), research questions, and hypotheses.

Response: We better clarified the objective and the research questions. Being an explorative study, we did not include specific hypotheses.

Comment 3. I found one typo in line 164 (page 4) in the word "partecipation."

Response: The typo has been corrected.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's clarity and claims improved so as to merit publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the article have diligently modified the article based on the suggestions provided, therefore, I am satisfied and the article can be published.