Network forms of governance enable public managers to exercise considerable agency in shaping the institutions through which government interacts with citizens, civil society organizations and business. These network institutions configure democratic legitimacy and accountability in various ways, but little is known about how managers‐as‐designers think about democracy. This Q methodology study identifies five democratic subjectivities. Pragmatists have little concern for democracy. Realists regard networks as one of a number of arenas in which the politics is played out. Adaptors identify the potential for greater inclusiveness. Progressive Optimists think that network governance will fill the gap between the theory and practice of representative democracy, while Radical Optimists focus on its potential for enabling direct dialogue. Institutional design alone is not sufficient to enhance the democratic possibilities of governance networks. The choice of public manager is also salient. Adaptors or, preferably, Progressive or Radical Optimists should be selected for this role.

No abstract

She is currently involved in research projects on new forms of local democracy and public deliberations in the context of urban and environmental planning. She has written articles and contributions to books on how to create institutional design for participation as well as on how to evaluate citizen participation projects.Abstract: Th is article responds to and develops the fragmented literature exploring intermediation in public administration and urban governance. It uses Q-methodology to provide a systematic comparative empirical analysis of practitioners who are perceived as making a diff erence in urban neighborhoods. Th rough this analysis, an original set of fi ve profi les of practitioners-enduring, struggling, facilitating, organizing, and trailblazing-is identifi ed and compared. Th is research challenges and advances the existing literature by emphasizing the multiplicity, complexity, and hybridity, rather than the singularity, of individuals perceived as making a diff erence, arguing that diff erent practitioners make a diff erence in diff erent ways. Th e authors set out a research agenda, overlooked in current theorization, that focuses on the relationships and transitions between the fi ve profi les and the conditions that inform them, opening up new avenues for understanding and supporting practice. Practitioner Points• Th is research develops an original set of fi ve ways in which practitioners can make a diff erence in urban neighborhoods: enduring, struggling, facilitating, organizing, and trailblazing. • By better understanding these diff erent practices, public administration can develop ways to support and generate local action. Taking this opportunity presents a strategic challenge for public administration in ensuring that neighborhood interventions are suffi ciently fl exible and open to being informed and shaped by these diff ering approaches. • At the same time, it is necessary to challenge assumptions, foster mutual respect, and generate eff ective relationships between people with diff erent ways of working and diff erent, and perhaps confl icting, views of the neighborhood, public administration, and urban governance. • Public administration needs to avoid prescribing a particular approach in urban neighborhoods and instead should aim to confi gure these practices as appropriate to diff erent neighborhoods or around a particular priority.

BackgroundPatient participation in study design is paramount to design studies that are acceptable to patients. Despite an increase in research involving pregnant women, relatively little is known about the motivational factors that govern their decision to be involved in a clinical trial, compared to other patient groups.ObjectiveTo better understand the viewpoints of pregnant women who take part in clinical trials.MethodWe chose to use Q‐Methodology, a method of exploring the structure of opinions surrounding a topic. We developed a set of 40 statements that encompassed the reasons why pregnant women might want to take part in research and 30 research participants from the PRiDE study (an observational trial investigating the role of micronutrients in gestational diabetes) were asked to rank them in order of agreement. The finished matrices from each participant were compared and analysed to produce capturing viewpoints.ResultsAbout 30 women aged 19–40 involved in the PRiDE study completed the questionnaire. There were two overarching motivators that emerged: a willingness to help medical research and improve our knowledge of medical science, and having a personal connection to the disease, therefore a potential fear of being affected by it. A third, less significant viewpoint, was that of a lack of inconvenience being a motivating factor.Conclusion and discussionUnderstanding what motivates pregnant women to decide to take part in a research study is valuable and helps researchers maximize their uptake and retention rates when designing a trial involving pregnant women.

ObjectiveThis mixed methods study set in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom demonstrates the effectiveness of Q methodology in examining general practitioners' (GPs') perception of their role in children's oncology palliative care. Methods Using data obtained from the analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs who had cared for a child receiving palliative care at home and bereaved parents, 50 statements were identified as representative of the analysis findings. 32 GPs with a non-palliative child with cancer on their caseload were asked to rank the statements according to their level of agreement/disagreement on a grid. They were then asked to reflect and comment on the statements they most and least agreed with. The data were analysed using a dedicated statistical software package for Q analysis PQMethod 2.20 (Schmolck 2012). A centroid factor analysis was undertaken initially with 7 factors then repeated for factors 1-6. Varimax and manual flagging was then completed. Results Four shared viewpoints were identified denoting different GP roles: The General Practitioner, The Compassionate Practitioner, The Team Player Practitioner and The Pragmatic Practitioner. In addition consensus (time pressures, knowledge deficits, emotional toll) and disagreement (psychological support, role, experiential learning, prior relationships) between the viewpoints were identified and examined. Conclusions Q methodology, used for the first time in this arena, identified four novel and distinct viewpoints reflecting a diverse range of GP perspectives. Appropriately timed and targeted GP education, training, support, in conjunction with collaborative multiprofessional working, have the potential to inform their role and practice across specialities.

The continued prevalence of different forms of collaborative working within public policy requires adaption in evaluation practices. In recent years evaluation toolkits, audits and guides have migrated online, but with varying success. At their worst, such tools can offer a disengaging user experience, limited coverage of issues or normative bias. This article outlines POETQ, designed to be engaging, comprehensive and methodologically robust. An overview of this approach is set out alongside an analysis of its merits. The article concludes by reflecting on the kinds of evidence that policy makers actually want to generate in relation to the topic of collaboration.

Nowadays, media and media logic have become important and inherent elements in everyday practices of public administration and policy making. However, the logic of the media is often very different from, and conflicting with, the logic of political and administrative life. So the question of how public managers experience and deal with media attention is more relevant than ever. An analytical sketch of the literature on the relationship between public managers and media provides three main categories of literature (public relations, agenda, and mediatization tradition). These three categories are used to develop statements (so-called Q-sort statements) to capture the way public managers experience their relationship with the media. A group of managers involved in oversight then sorted these statements into order of preference. The research reveals three different groups of managers who show different attitudes to media attention and whom we have labeled as adaptors, great communicators, and fatalists.

No abstract