Revisión sistemática descriptiva de los métodos empleados para investigar la confianza ciudadana en la coproducción de servicios públicos

Bibliographische Referenzen

• Alsaawi, A. (2014). A critical review of qualitative interviews. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(4), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819536
• Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2013). Social Capital, Management Capacity and Public Service Performance. Public Management Review, 15(1), 19-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662445
• Barrows, C. W. (2000). An exploratory study of food and beverage training in private clubs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3) 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110010320751
• Bastien, C. J. M. (2010). Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(4), e18-e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
• Bockmeyer, J. (2000). A Culture of Distrust: The Impact of Local Political Culture on Participation in the Detroit EZ. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2417-2440. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43196507
• Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
• Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokysz, C., Nosek, B.A., Flint, J., Robinson, E.S.J., & Munafò, M.R. (2016). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
• Canel, M. J., & Luoma-aho, V. (2020). Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication. En V. Luoma-aho, & M.J. Canel (Eds.), The Handbook of Public Sector Communication (pp. 277-287). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
• Canel, M. J., Piqueiras, P. & Ortega, G. (2017). La comunicación de la Administración Pública: conceptos y casos prácticos de bienes intangibles. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública.
• Cené, C. W., Aker, A. Y., Llyod, S. W., Albritton, T., Powell Hammond, W., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2011). Understanding Social Capital and HIV Risk in Rural African American Communities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 737-744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1646-4
• Cheng, Y. (2018). Exploring the Role of Nonprofits in Public Service Provision: Moving from Coproduction to Cogovernance. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12970
• Den Broeder, L., Lemmens, L., Uysal, S., Kauw, K., Weekenborg, J., Schönenberger, M., Klooster-Kwakkelstein, S., Schoenmakers, M., Scharwächter, W., van de Weerd, A., El Baouchi, S., Schuit, A.J., & Wagemakers, A. (2017). Public health citizen science: perceived impacts on citizen scientists. A case study in a low-income neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.89
• Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – Long live digital era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
• Filkowski, M. M., Anderson, I. W., & Haas, B. W. (2016). Trying to trust: Brain activity during interpersonal social attitude change. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 325-338. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0393-0
• Fledderus, J. (2015a). Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 550-565. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118
• Fledderus, J. (2015b). Does User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery Increase Satisfaction and Trust? Evidence From a Vignette Experiment. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 642-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.952825
• Fledderus, J., & Honingh, M. (2016). Why people co-produce within activation services: the necessity of motivation and trust – an investigación of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1) 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566006
• Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2014). Restoring Trust Through the Co-production of Public Services: A theorical elaboration. Public Management Review, 16(3), 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
• Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance – Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010
• Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4) 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
• Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., & y Enquist, B. (2010). Value Co-Creation as a Determinant of Success in Public Transport Services: A Study of the Swiss Federal Railway Operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality, 20(6), 511-530. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521011092866
• Gorman, G. E., & Clayton, P. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional (2a ed.). Londres: Facet.
• Güemes, C., & Resina, J. (2019). ‘Come together?’ Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12377
• Harrel, M.C., & Bradley, M.A. (2009). Data Collection Methods. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Santa Mónica: RAND Corporation & National Defense Research Institute. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512853.pdf
• Hughes, R. (1998). Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(3), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00107
• Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1921/17466105.11.1.36
• Jakobsen, M. (2012). Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036
• Jingwei He, A., & Ma, L. (2020). Citizen Participation, Perceived Public Service Performance, and Trust in Government: Evidence from Health Policy Reforms in Hong Kong. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(3), 471-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1780138
• Kang, G. J., & Pakr, E. H. (2018). Effects of Expectation-Disconfirmation regarding the Role of Government on Trust in Government and the Moderating Effect of Citizen Participation. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 33(3), 1-22. https://hdl.handle.net/10371/146811
• Kang, S., & Van Ryzin, G. (2019). Coproduction and trust in government: Evidence from survey experiments. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1646-1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619812
• Kenning, P., & Linzmajer, M. (2011). Consumer neuroscience: an overview of an emerging discipline with implications for consumer policy. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 6, 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-010-0652-5
• Kiecolt, K. J., & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. Newburry Park: Sage Publications.
• Kim, C., Nakanishi, H., Blackman, D., Freyens, B., & Benson, A. M. (2017). The effect of social capital on community co-production: Towards community-oriented development in post-disaster recovery. Procedia Engineering, 180, 901-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.251
• Lam, B., Chen, Y. P., Whittle, J., Binner, J., & Lawlor-Wright, T. (2015). Better Service Design for Greater Civic Engagement. The Design Journal, 18(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630615X14135446523224
• Lau, P. H., & Ali, K. (2019). Citizen participation in crime prevention: a study in Kuching, Sarawa, Malaysia. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 5(2), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-01-2019-0005
• Lekti, N., & Steen, T. (2020). Social-Psychological Context Moderates Incentives to Co-produce: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment on Park Upkeep in an Urban Setting. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 935-950. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13340
• Luoma-aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124-143. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550043
• Moon, J. M. (2018). Evolution of co-production in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society, 37(3), 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1376475
• Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
• Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). Finding Open Access Articles Using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR. Online Information Review, 32(6), 709-715. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810923881
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
• Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2003). Una perspectiva del capital social desde las ciencias sociales: capital social y acción colectiva. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 65(1), 153-233. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rms/v65n1/v65n1a5.pdf
• Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and Co-Production of Welfare Services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022882
• Piqueiras, P. (2017). El bien intangible compromiso (engagement: los beneficios de la coproducción. En M.J. Canel, P. Piqueiras, & G. Ortega (Eds.), La comunicación de la Administración Pública: conceptos y casos prácticos de bienes intangibles (pp. 75-94). Madrid: Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública.
• Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42. http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/590/Readings/Putham%201993%20Am%20Prospect.pdf
• Ramírez-Vega, A., & Meneses-Guillén, P. (2017). Google Scholar y su importancia en la visibilidad de la investigación del Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. Investiga. TEC, 28, 13-17. https://revistas.tec.ac.cr/index.php/investiga_tec/article/view/3028
• Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 815-823. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
• Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
• Sudhipongpracha, T. (2018). Exploring the effects of coproduction on citizen trust in government. A cross comparison of community-based diabetes prevention programmes in Thailand and the United States. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(3), 350-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2018.1429237
• Suebvises, P. (2018). Social capital, citizen participation in public administration, and public performance in Thailand. World Development, 109, 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.007
• Thijssen, P., & Van Dooren, W. (2016). Who you are/where you live: do neighbourhood characteristics explain co-production? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 88-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315570554
• Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, n°45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
• Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq092
• Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas, 23, 1083-1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
• Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L.G. (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
• Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007
• Weaver, B. (2019). Co-production, governance and practice: The dynamics and effects of User Voice Prison Councils. Social Policy & Administration, 53(2–Special Issue), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12442
• Webster, C. W., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
• Yen, C., & Chiang, M. C. (2021). Trust me, if you can: a study on the factors that influence consumers’ purchase intention triggered by chatbots based on brain image evidence and self-reported assessments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(11), 1177-1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1743362