scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

William Voorberg

Bio: William Voorberg is an academic researcher from Erasmus University Rotterdam. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public sector & Co-creation. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 23 publications receiving 1303 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review of 122 articles and books (1987-2013) of co-creation/co-production with citizens in public innovation is presented in this article, where the authors analyze the objectives and outcomes of the process.
Abstract: This article presents a systematic review of 122 articles and books (1987–2013) of co-creation/co-production with citizens in public innovation It analyses (a) the objectives of co-creation and co-production, (b) its influential factors and (c) the outcomes of co-creation and co-production processes It shows that most studies focus on the identification of influential factors, while hardly any attention is paid to the outcomes Future studies could focus on outcomes of co-creation/co-production processes Furthermore, more quantitative studies are welcome, given the qualitative, case study, dominance in the field We conclude with a research agenda to tackle methodological, theoretical and empirical lacunas

1,257 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyse how the emergence of new welfare services is mutually shaped by factors that stimulate self-organization among citizens and by meta-governing interventions by local governments.
Abstract: Self-organization is a concept that is often used to legitimize a government’s retreat from sectors in which it has traditionally played a vital role In this article, we analyse how the emergence of new welfare services is mutually shaped by factors that stimulate self-organization among citizens and by meta-governing interventions by local governments Self-organization seems to takes place in the shadow of a government hierarchy: either a fear-based one or a benevolent one Boundary spanners play an important role in establishing these new arrangements, thereby making use of, and developing, trustworthy relationships between citizen groups and government

77 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a comparative case study of co-creation examples within the welfare domain in childcare (Estonia), education (Germany), and community work (the Netherlands) is presented.

52 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the use of design approaches in public administration, and distinguish between three ideal-type approaches of design currently characterising the discipline: design as optimisation, design as exploration and design as co-creation.
Abstract: In recent years, design approaches to policymaking have gained popularity among policymakers. However, a critical reflection on their added value and on how contemporary ‘design-thinking’ approaches relates to the classical idea of public administration as a design science, is still lacking. This introductory paper reflects upon the use of design approaches in public administration. We delve into the more traditional ideas of design as launched by Simon and policy design, but also into the present-day design wave, stemming from traditional design sciences. Based upon this we distinguish between three ideal-type approaches of design currently characterising the discipline: design as optimisation, design as exploration and design as co-creation. More rigorous empirical analyses of applications of these approaches is necessary to further develop public administration as a design science. We reflect upon the question of how a more designerly way of thinking can help to improve public administration and public policy.

50 citations


Cited by
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation as mentioned in this paper provides a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation, with a focus on firms and networks, and the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment.
Abstract: This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg

3,040 citations

01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: This book will be essential reading for all those who loved (or loathed) the arguments developed in Realistic Evaluation and offers a complete blueprint for research synthesis, supported by detailed illustrations and worked examples from across the policy waterfront.
Abstract: Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies can be properly targeted and developed to counter an ever-changing landscape of social problems. The book will be essential reading for all those who loved (or loathed) the arguments developed in Realistic Evaluation (Sage, 1997). It offers a complete blueprint for research synthesis, supported by detailed illustrations and worked examples from across the policy waterfront.

1,037 citations