Evaluating the Mechanisms Impacting the Effectivity of Participatory Budgeting Initiatives:
Using a Comparative Analysis of Participatory Budgeting Initiatives in Orçamento Participativo, Porto Alegre, Brazil and Decidim, Barcelona, Spain
Loughborough University
F313904, 23LLP003 - A2
2024
Participatory budgeting, or PB, has emerged as a prominent ‘innovative policymaking process[es]’ (Wampler, 2000) for democratising decision-making, in local governance. The common technocratic approach to budgeting often emphasises the prioritisation of efficiency and expertise over public input (Clift, 2022), however participatory budgeting (PB) goes against this notion. PB is defined as citizens actively engaging in decisions regarding public resource and fund allocation, since its inception, tracking back to 1989 Porto Alegre Brazil, presented by Workers’ Party aiming to confront the persistent decade-long pattern of marginalisations, leaving them with many antecedent issues to address. As a response, grassroots movements, non-governmental organisations, and political parties all embraced the principles in the ‘experimental process’ to fortify Brazil’s younger demographic (Shah, 2007).
These initiatives provide avenues for community engagement, educational development, and empower citizens through transparency from the government, thereby contributing to a flourishing civil society. As ‘clientelism’ and ‘social exclusion’ are everyday realities in many parts of the developing world, this model can be adopted by other countries with a similar sociopolitical context. Eventually, forums progressed to over ‘20,000 people’ annually due to the citizens acknowledgement of its value proposition (Wampler, 2007a).
This paper outlines a ‘mock’ proposal regarding PB initiatives which significantly vary depending on mechanisms [Figure 1] within strategy and implementation context. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the mechanisms impacting the effectiveness of PB initiatives, aligning with the theory of change (ToC), through a comparative analysis of two separate programs in distinct urban contexts: the Orçamento Participativo program in Porto Alegre, the birthplace of PB, and Decidim in Barcelona [Figure 3].
Since there is no precise model for these PB programs, the selected case studies share the same aims; enabling citizens to impact the decision-making processes, pose propositions and democratically exercise influence in strategies for government funding – the second following a virtual model. These case studies, or ‘scholarly enquir[ies]’, as characterised by Dooley (2002), are an investigation that examine the initiatives with a closer lens via a participatory design approach [see 2.2]. The strategy implemented is ‘research through design’ as this study presents as a frame of ‘reflection and inquiry’ (Frankel & Racine, 2010, p.6).
1: Types of Mechanisms Impacting
4: Questions to Consider
To accomplish the goal and incorporate key interests [Figure 4], this proposal centres on the research question: ‘How do the Key Mechanisms Influence the Effectiveness of Participatory Budgeting Initiatives in Orçamento Participativo, Porto Alegre, and Decidim, Barcelona?’.
The study critically appraises this concept, as despite the growing attention to PB, the corpus is ‘unsystemati[s]ed’ (Bartocci et al., 2022), evidenced by absence of reliable reviews on this subject, predominantly findings from the private sector [Figure 5]. The scope of this study lies in addressing how truly effective mechanisms are in PB initiatives within South America and Europe.
5: Key Concepts and Research Interests
This section outlines the methodology employed to investigate the research question: ‘How do the Key Mechanisms Influence the Effectiveness of Participatory Budgeting Initiatives in Orçamento Participativo, Porto Alegre, and Decidim, Barcelona?’
This study’s research philosophy requires a consideration of ‘cultures, circumstances’ and ‘development of different social realities’ (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Therefore, the paradigm, interpretivism is adopted emphasising how individuals actively construct subjective interpretations attached to social standing.
Interpretivism acknowledges the interrelated complexity and context-dependent social phenomena with respect to different stakeholder perspectives involved (Chowdhury, 2014). This elicits underlying nuances to uncover motivations for the success or failure of the PB initiatives in varying institutional and cultural contexts.
2.2.1
Implementation of a participatory design methodology, across a year, as a collaborative approach, actively involves stakeholders to co-design knowledge, reflection, and solutions employing‘academics, practitioners, and communi[ty members]’ as participants (Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). This methodology constitutes a framework to assess stakeholder perceptions of initiative effectiveness in the case studies by examining transparency and accountability within governing bodies, evaluating the success of mechanisms, metrics defining success, and understanding best practices. This builds a holistic understanding of the perceptions attributed with the case studies, rather than a purely deskbased approach which may not be up-to-date (Barbara, 2022) and does not offer opportunities for follow-up questions in the manner stakeholder participation will do.
This applied research proposal aims to evaluate, and potentially alter, increasing success in the chosen PB cases (Hedrick et al., 1993), hence having attributes of participatory action research. Although, the study is primarily exploratory - the degree of community participation is based within co-design. The Global PB Research Agenda (Global Hub for Participatory Democracy, 2023), crafted the Participatory ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) to collate findings and hypotheses of researchers and practitioners, loosely relating to absorptive capacity conceptually. Therefore, this proposal can be considered action research if new theory is derived from the data collection and the ‘PAR cycle’ is implemented (Cornish et al., 2023). As the ToC model identifies casual pathways between the ‘inputs, activities, outcomes, and impacts’ (Hagelskamp et al., 2021), articulation of stakeholder opinions and hypotheses allow underlying assumptions about the ‘plausibil[ility]’ of the mechanisms’ operation to surface (Connell & Kubisch, 1998, p.5).
In laying the groundwork for this proposal, it is essential to acknowledge researcher positionality (Crouch & Pearce, 2012) especially when navigating concepts regarding governance and community. As the primary researcher’s background is British Asian, the research lens is based in understanding importance of equitable representation within the participant sample. Thus serving as an anchor to explore how PB autonomises communities, though it may bring social and confirmation bias mitigated by reflexivity (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022).
2.2.2
Design research, often employing qualitative research methods, for instance case studies, include ‘collection of heterogeneous data’: ‘observations, interviews, documents, [and] artifacts’ (Costa, Patrício and Morelli, 2018). In this study, data will be collected via participatory design workshops followed by semi-structured interviews. Construction of insights require evaluation of prior fact which will lead to ‘confirmation or disconfirmation of the new theory’ (Dooley, 2002). Therefore, the current initiatives will be evaluated and questioned by the participants, including the experts and citizens.
The sampling will be of a non-probabilistic nature as cooperation with stakeholders throughout differentiating organisational hierarchy and relations to the case studies will be onboarded as participants (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998) – [detailed in Figure 7].
2.2.4
Inductive reasoning, an iterative ground-up approach, will be used to code themes that arise in the charrette-style workshops and interviews allowing for an exploratory lens to thematically code and generate insights (Hayes et al., 2010).
This will be used in tandem with grounded theory as it pertains to ‘theory building’ (Khan, 2014). It involves multifaceted processes creating an ecology of its own including, community dynamics, institutional structures and power, and political standing. Grounded theory fosters comprehensive exploration of interrelations with systematic analysis without bias or preconceived concepts obscuring the data. Grounded theory leaves room for development of new theories or concepts via new patterns and themes identified based on empirical evidence (Dooley, 2002) gathered from the workshops.
2.2.5
Data from the workshops will be funnelled iteratively through the process of systematic categorisation to fit into the ToC model of ‘inputs, activities, outcomes, and impacts’. Final themes generated will inform development of interview questions to ensure the line of further questioning is relevant and probing, avoiding digression. The interviews will then undergo critical discourse analysis to determine participants’ real perceptions regarding the basis for the research question [see Figure 10]
Kress (1990) states that for ‘socially situated accounts’, critical discourse analysis reveals linguistic discursive practices. Discourse: ‘-as-text’, ‘as-discursive-practice’, and ‘as-social-practice’ (Fairclough, 1992), with detailed analysis of the workshop recording(s) and transcript may disclose underlying contention between stakeholders.
This amalgamation of interpretivist participatory design, bottom-up reasoning, and iterative grounded theory, though with its limitations [see Figure 6], provides a robust framework for analysis and reasoning, allowing emergence of themes to evaluate the mechanisms impacting the effectivity of PB initiatives.
Critical Appraisal of Design Research Methodologies
This section details the intricacies of the method used to collect data to evaluate the mechanisms impacting the effectiveness of PB initiatives in Orçamento Participativo and Decidim The process is outlined roughly following Kallet’s (2004) research method guidelines, for a valid and repeatable study – the phases are illustrated in Figure 10.
Some participatory design methods include: ‘community meetings’, ‘problem identification’, ‘engagement with state authorities’, ‘events and processes to reflect and learn’ about the issues at hand, ‘community exchange’, and ‘documenting’ (Hall et al., 2017). These have been weaved throughout this proposed method in a participatory design workshops and semi-structured interviews.
A participatory design workshops will be used as a method for data collection iteratively through the course of the study [See Appendices: 7.2]. The method protocol framework illustrates the objectives and outline for the set-up [Figure 7].
It is important to adopt the most appropriate method of primary data collection to suit the study as it directly impacts the ‘validity’, ‘authenticity’, and ‘reliability’ (Immadi, 2020). Using unsuitable methods could lead to bias inaccuracy derived after coding the data. Therefore, a critical appraisal is paramount to understanding the degree to which the research method suits the study. In this case, the use of participatory design workshops is outlined, with advantages and limitations anticipated [Figure 8].
Critical Appraisal of Method
The objective of the semi-structured interviews is to determine the underlying perceptions regarding the research question. This method of primary data collection consists of one-to-one conversations virtually to underpin the difference between what the participants say and do (Lankshear, 1993).
The expected final outputs [detailed in Figure 9] will include a recording and transcript to analyse via critical discourse analysis, examining aspects such as registers, language, insinuation.
Ethics are impertinent to consider through the course of any research. Varkey (2021) defines the four key ethical considerations as ‘beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice’. Firstly, research approval and informed consent for all data collection will be approved beforehand by participants, regarding privacy, confidentiality, and recordings creating emotional safety. The consent should be ‘expressed with the caveat that it should be a willing participation’ (Kelly, 2018).
The diversity of thought, age, gender, race, and accessibility will be respected and accommodated for – audio content, text descriptions for activities, and inclusive language will be incorporated.
Power dynamics within the group will be addressed and all participants should have equal opportunity to express their thoughts. However, the game as part of a workshop, should be kept natural to determine whether there was any discourse between stakeholder opinions. All participants should be encouraged to speak truthfully regardless of opposing opinions.
For a holistic understanding, a long-term ethnographic approach is essential to truly immerse into the impacts of PB. Through workshops and interviews carried out during the initial steps of this proposal, the initiatives effectiveness was measured from the standpoint of the stakeholders involved in the strategic side of PB. The community should be studied in intensive detail via fieldwork (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007), to understand longer-term impacts of whether the PB initiatives were truly effective through the lens of those directly impacted.
Therefore, this ethnographic research would range from two to four years; two years assigned per case study respectively. This period would be spent building a dyadic rapport with communities etically alongside a translator.
While ethnography has its strengths and matches the requirements for the development of this study, it is important to acknowledge that not all challenges can be foreseen and conveniently addressed (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007). There may be discrepancies between the information given by participants from the workshops and the emic perspective of the community itself, which would have to be addressed and analysed further through critical discourse analysis.
This ‘mock’ proposal function as an outline for the methodological approach delineated to aptly address the research question ‘How do the Key Mechanisms Influence the Effectiveness of Participatory Budgeting Initiatives in Orçamento Participativo, Porto Alegre, and Decidim, Barcelona?’. The triangulation of workshops, interviews, and desk-based case study research (Heale & Forbes, 2013) consolidate the primary and secondary qualitative data collection methods elaborating this study.
Embracing the ToC model within PB initiatives has served as a mapping framework of ‘inputs, activities, outcomes, and impacts’ to address within the comparative case study analysis and primary accounts collated. It fills the research gap for perceptions of a range of stakeholders within the process of PB in the chosen case studies.
Participatory design as the methodology affords a platform for deeper comprehension of the social phenomena of PB as they are concurring and closely linked; both empowering individuals, providing autonomy, and expanding the understanding of community dynamics, parallel to the Japanese philosophy of Ma (Akama, 2015). Consequently, researcher positionality, decolonisation of the process and genuine co-design must be administered throughout the design research.
While the proposed design research proposal promises yielding valuable data adding to the existing corpus, the etic perspective risks the subconscious dismissal of nuanced insights. Hence, the future steps being an ethnographic, observational approach.
Akama, Y. (2015). Being awake to Ma: designing in between-ness as a way of becoming with. CoDesign, 11(3-4), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081243
Alharahsheh, H., & Pius, A. (2020). A Review of Key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2020.v02i03.001
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography : Principles in Practice. In idp.lboro.ac.uk (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lboro/detail.action?docID=308687
Barbara, B. (2022). Doing Qualitative Desk-Based Research: A Practical Guide to Writing an Excellent Dissertation. In Google Books. Policy Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_CFfEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=deskbased+research+articles&ots=tZlLFyV7Ox&sig=bRXyu0H_vBliNd4e2r_yHs4mWwI#v=onepage &q=desk-based%20research%20negatives&f=false
Bartocci, L., Grossi, G., Mauro, S. G., & Ebdon, C. (2022). The journey of participatory budgeting: a systematic literature review and future research directions. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(3), 002085232210789. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221078938
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 1–16.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00165
Boas, F. (1995). Race, Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chowdhury, M. F. (2014). Interpretivism in Aiding Our Understanding of the Contemporary Social World. Open Journal of Philosophy, 04(03), 432–438. researchgate. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2014.43047
Clift, B. (2022). Technocratic economic governance and the politics of UK fiscal rules. British Politics, 18, 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-022-00204-z
Connell, J., & Kubisch, A. (1998). Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems. https://cnxus.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/08071320ApplyingTheoryofChangeApproach.pdf
Cornish, F., Nancy Nyutsem Breton, Ulises Moreno-Tabarez, Delgado, J., Rua, M., Ama de-Graft
Aikins, & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1
Costa, N., Patrício, L. And Morelli, N., (2018), July. A Designerly-Way Of Conducting Qualitative Research In Design Studies. In Servdes2018. Service Design Proof Of Concept, Proceedings Of The Servdes. 2018 Conference, 18-20 June, Milano, Italy (No. 150, Pp. 164-176). Linköping University Electronic Press. Available at: https://servdes.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/13.pdf (Accessed: 12 April 2024).
Crouch, C., & Pearce, J. (2012). Doing Research in Design. Bloomsbury Publishing. Decidim. (2021). Modules | Decidim. Decidim.org. https://decidim.org/modules/
Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case Study Research and Theory Building. In Advances in Developing Human Resources (Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 335–354). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043007. need to add volume no. to final bib: add for final bib:
Dooley, L.M. (2002) “Case Study Research and Theory Building”, in Advances in Developing Human Resources. Sage Publications, 4(3), pp. 335–354. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043007..
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (2nd ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1989) Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design. Proceedings of Design Research Society. DRS International Conference, Montreal, Canada. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conferencepapers/drs2010/researchpapers/43/
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. In Google Books. MIT Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JEGzE6ExNgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=George Global Hub for Participatory Democracy. (2023). Global PB Boards. People Powered. https://www.peoplepowered.org/global-pb-hub/global-pb-boards
Hagelskamp, C., Lerner, J., & Kumar, N. (2021, October 4). Introducing a Global Theory of Change for Participatory Budgeting. People Powered. https://www.peoplepowered.org/newscontent/introducing-a-global-theory-of-change-for-participatory-budgeting Hall, R., Brent, Z., Franco, J., Isaacs, M., & Shegro, T. (2017). A Toolkit for Participatory Action Research (K. Sandwell, Ed.; pp. 1–16). https://www.tni.org/files/publicationdownloads/a_toolkit_for_participatory_action_research.pdf
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2016). Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers. In idp.lboro.ac.uk (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lboro/detail.action?docID=4803495#goto_toc. need to add ISBN number in final bibliography (9780807758137 (print), 9780807775554 (ebook).
Hayes, B. K., Heit, E., & Swendsen, H. (2010). Inductive Reasoning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(2), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.44
Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding Triangulation in Research. Evidence Based Nursing, 16(4), 98. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101494
Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied Research Design: A Practical Guide. In Google Books (Vol. 32). Sage Publications. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JOEXCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=appli ed+research&ots=bJZhIarxJ4&sig=FmT1aZ6u2dYnnmxsuy5ax1Y04M&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=applied%20research&f=false
Hegeman, S. (1998). Franz Boas and Professional Anthropology: On Mapping the Borders of the “Modern.” Victorian Studies, 41(3), 455–483. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3829344
Immadi, G. (2020, June 4). Importance of Primary and Secondary Data. Medium. https://gayathrii.medium.com/importance-of-primary-and-secondary-data-f8816ffe839f
Kallet, R. H. (2004). How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1229–1232. https://rc.rcjournal.com/content/49/10/1229/tab-pdf
Kelly, J. (2018). Towards ethical principles for participatory design practice. CoDesign, 15(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1502324
Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3-4), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008689307411
Khan, S. (2014). Qualitative Research Method: Grounded Theory. International Journal of Business Management. Research Gate. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p224
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299–302. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29728251
Kress, G. (1990). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190500001975
Lankshear, A. J. (1993). The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(12), 1986–1989. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.13652648.1993.18121986.x
Lobe, B., Morgan, D. L., & Hoffman, K. (2022). A Systematic Comparison of In-Person and Video-Based Online Interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(1), 160940692211270. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221127068
Local Government Association. (2016). Case study: Porto Alegre, Brazil | Local Government Association. Www.local.gov.uk. https://www.local.gov.uk/case-studies/case-study-portoalegre-brazil
Malpass, A., Breel, A., Stubbs, J. R., Stevens, T., Persis-Jadé Maravala, Shipman, E., Gross, Z., & Farr, M. (2023). Create to Collaborate: using creative activity and participatory performance in online workshops to build collaborative research relationships. Research Involvement and Engagement, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00512-8
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2022). A Practical Guide to Reflexivity in Qualitative research: AMEE Guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(149), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287
Palacin, V., McDonald, S., Aragón, P., & Matti Nelimarkka. (2023). Configurations of Digital Participatory Budgeting. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 32(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635144
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. In Google Books (pp. 1–24). University of California Press.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2akwDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Ragin (Original work published 1987)
Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780203108543/routledge-internationalhandbook-participatory-design-jesper-simonsen-toni-robertson?refId=f218c0d3-8f54-433d9c86-e9c697211273&context=ubx
Sanders, E. B.-N. ., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Options Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative. Political Research Quarterly, 61(294), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
Serramia, M., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Rodrí, guez-Aguilar, J. A., & Escobar, P. (2019). Optimising Participatory Budget Allocation: The Decidim Use Case. Ebooks.iospress.nl; IOS Press. https://www.iiia.csic.es/media/filer_public/dd/07/dd078d19-b80e-4723-a2eea7130e491ac6/ccia19_decidim_optim.pdf
Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Participatory Budgeting: Public Sector, Governance, and Accountability Series. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anwar-Shah7/publication/268576718_Participatory_Budgeting_V1/links/5470c6060cf2d67fc033fa7b/Parti cipatory-Budgeting-V1.pdf
Shields, J., & Shields, M. D. (1998). Antecedents of Participative Budgeting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 23(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00014-7
Sica, A., & Eliaeson, S. (2003). Max Weber’s Methodologies: Interpretation and Critique. Contemporary Sociology a Journal of Reviews, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1556607
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x
Sousa Santos, B. de. (1998). Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a Redistributive Democracy. Politics & Society, 26(4), 461–510.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329298026004003
Stefano, G. da S., Lacerda, D. P., Veit, D. R., & Pantaleão, L. H. (2017). Identifying Constraints to Increase the Resilience of Cities: A Case Study of the City of Porto Alegre. Journal of Homeland and Security and Emergency Management, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2016-0057
Stolterman, E. (2008). The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research. International Journal of Design, 2(1). International Journal of Design. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/240/148
Telles, E. E. (2007). Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 36(1), 65–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009430610703600140
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119
Wampler, B. (2000). A Guide to Participatory Budgeting. International Budget Partnership. https://www.changetomorrow.io/docs/a-guide-to-participatory-budgeting-wampler.pdf
Wampler, B. (2007a). A Guide to Participatory Budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting: Public Sector, Governance, and Accountability Series (pp. 21–53). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anwar-Shah7/publication/268576718_Participatory_Budgeting_V1/links/5470c6060cf2d67fc033fa7b/Parti cipatory-Budgeting-V1.pdf
Wampler, B. (2007b). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. Pennsylvania State University.
Weber, M. (1981). Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology. The Sociological Quarterly, 22(2), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb00654.x
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The Art of Coding and Thematic Exploration in Qualitative Research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45.
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2018). Co-design as collaborative research. University of Bristol/
AHRC Connected Communities Programme. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330259259_CODESIGN_AS_COLLABORATIVE_RESEARCH
Zumkeller, D., & Ottmann, P. (2009). Moving from Cross-Sectional to Continuous Surveying: Synthesis of a Workshop. In Transport Survey Methods (pp. 533–539). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/9781848558458-030/full/html
6 Figures
(all figures illustrated by Author)
[1] Types of Mechanisms Impacting PB
[2] Mechanisms Impacting the Success of PB Initiatives
[3] Comparative Analysis of Orçamento Participativo and Decidim
[4] Questions to Consider
[5] Key Concepts and Research Interests
[6] Critical Appraisal of Design Research Methodologies
[7] Method Protocol Framework for Workshops
[8] Critical Appraisal of Method
[9] Method Protocol Framework for Interviews
[10] Phases of Method
7.1 Case: ‘‘Introducing a Global Theory of Change for Participatory Budgeting’
7.2 Participatory Workshop Exemplar Set-up
7.3 Ethical Consent Exemplar Form
7.1 Case:‘‘Introducing a Global Theory of Change for Participatory Budgeting’
Segment Duration Activities
Introduction 15 minutes
Ice Breaker 15 minutes
▪ Welcome participants and introduce the context of the research proposal, objectives, and agenda for the workshop.
▪ Provide a detailed overview of the participatory budgeting initiatives in Porto Alegre and Barcelona alike indepth.
▪ Explain why this proposal has decided to focus on evaluating the mechanisms that impact the effectivity of the participatory budgeting initiatives and why it is important to the researcher.
▪ Foster rapport with all participants (research-participant as well as participant-participant)
▪ Ask participants to introduce themselves and their occupation, followed by what their individual experience with participatory budgeting is.
▪ Ask participants to share their motivation of taking part in this workshop and what they wish to gain out of the experience.
Justification
▪ Provides clarity to all participants as to what exactly they are contributing to.
▪ Providing context to what the research is may drive more insights specific to what the objective is.
Equipment/ Resources
▪ Recording device (Teams recording)
▪ Laptop and second screen with presenter view and presentation
▪ Working mic and audio
▪ Audio content, text descriptions
▪ Building a sense of community engagement and warm-up will help drive ideas offered up during key segment of the workshop.
▪ Teams (recording ongoing throughout workshop)
Presentation of Case
Studies with Direct 20 minutes
▪ Facilitator presents the key findings from the comparative analysis of Porto Alegre and Barcelona – ask
▪ By asking participants to make notes throughout, it reduces the chances of them forgetting their
▪ Teams – share screen
Comparison and Analysis participants to note down their thoughts throughout).
▪ Highlight similarities and differences in structure, processes, and stakeholders of the participatory budgeting initiative.
▪ Focus on the similarities and differences in the impacts of the participatory budgeting initiatives.
Structured Discussion on Thoughts
Brainstorming Session: Groups
30 minutes
▪ Facilitator asks structured questions on participant thoughts on the comparison analysis. What are their perceptions? Do they agree or disagree with any findings, why?
40 minutes Participants divided into smaller groups –randomly assigned breakout rooms (each group is provided with a separate section of a Miro board).
▪ Prompt participants to brainstorm on the Miro board divided into sections: ‘ideas’, ‘insights’, and ‘potential solutions’ (then categorised into theory of change model: ‘inputs, activities, outcomes, and impacts’) for improving the effectiveness of the participatory budgeting initiatives based on the presentation given at the start and their own personal experiences.
▪ On the Miro board there will be probing questions to start their thought process: 1. What mechanisms, in your experience, are critical for the
thoughts by the end of the presentation.
▪ Gathering participants’ initial reactions provides key insights into their perceptions.
▪ Teams – allows each participant to speak/ unmute one at a time.
▪ Encouraging discussion within each breakout room will generate insights from the interaction between different stakeholders.
▪ Teams breakout rooms – make sure the each individual room is being recorded for further analysis.
▪ Miro board link sent on Chat section of Teams
▪ Send the link to the Miro board by email if there are technical issues.
success or participatory budgeting?
2. List all mechanisms impacting participatory budgeting in this box – keep those deemed successful in green and those deemed unsuccessful in red. Write a short description underneath stating your reasons why.
3. Have you taken previous action to address the challenges identified in the comparative analysis? If so, list and explain them.
4. What innovative approaches can be implemented to determine a successful and effective participatory budgeting strategy?
Group
Presentation and Discussion 20 minutes
Feedback 40 minutes
▪ Breakout rooms are closed, and all participants are brought back into one room/call on Teams.
▪ Each group/breakout room presents their discussion – the facilitator probes the key points to be discussed and summarised: the feasibility and predicted impacts of proposed solutions.
▪ Encourage participants to provide feedback on each other’s ideas –allow/encourage intergroup discussions
▪ The Miro Board alongside the discussion allows for more insights to be produced which will later inform the coding of key themes.
▪ Make sure the main room/call is being recorded on Teams.
▪ Feedback allows ideas to be built upon in greater depth
▪ Faciliator only encourages interaction between stakeholders and does not ask any structured questions during this segment.
Reflection and Future Steps 20 minutes ▪ All participants reflect on the insights generated on a voluntary basis so that one idea leads onto another.
▪ Facilitator prompts participants to think of the future steps and processes
– e.g., ‘How will the insights generated during this workshop inform further exploration of effective mechanisms of participatory budgeting initiatives?’
▪ Allowing participants to speak up voluntarily rather than everyone in a list allows for a smoother transition from one idea to another, making the coding process simpler and more detailed for each theme identified.
▪ Teams recording
▪ Allow participants to share screen to showcase Miro collaboration
End 5 minutes
▪ Thank participants for their contribution and collaboration.
▪ Encourage participants to stay engaged in the research process and provide contact information for followups.
Objective
Equipment
▪ Make sure Teams recording is stopped and saved for further analysis and coding – add a transcript alongside the audio and video.
▪ Save back up of recording.
The objective is to identify what the perceptions of the participants are of mechanisms impacting the effectiveness of participatory budgeting initiatives.
All participants online engaged. Equipment:
- Miro boards with all participants able to access.
- Stable Wifi for all participants.
- Accessibility accounted for.
- Fake/play virtual money
Duration 60 minutes
Roles
Randomly assigned roles: (if there are 15 participants)
- Residents (8)
- Government bodies (4)
- Observers (3)
Game Structure Introduction (10 minutes)
Introduce the game rules to the participants and split them into groups according to the roles.
Round 1: Choose priorities: (10 minutes)
- Residents: discuss and note down their priorities for city funding
- Government Bodies: organise a forum or community meeting
- Observers note down what disagreements they notice
Round 2: Proposal for Budgeting (15 minutes)
- Residents: use the fake money allocated and place them in the different funding categories listed
Round 3: Voting (10 minutes)
- Residents: Vote on final allocations for the participatory budgeting initiative
- Government Bodies: Propose their final choices to go ahead with according to resident votes.
Round 4: Reflection (15 minutes)
All groups join to discuss how the final initiative would play out in reality and how each mechanism would impact how the PB initiatives play out.
Thank you for considering taking part in these workshops.
Before you decide, we would like you to understand why this research is being conducted and what it would mean for you. Please contact one of the researchers using the contact details below if you have any questions.
The study aims to evaluate the mechanisms impacting the effectiveness of participatory budgeting initiatives through a comparative analysis of two separate programs in distinct urban contexts: the Orçamento Participativo program in Porto Alegre, and Decidim in Barcelona.
This study is a part of a student research project supported by Loughborough University. The student will be undertaken by [INSERT NAME] and supervised by Professor [INSERT NAME].
You will be asked to attend 5 workshops throughout the course of the year – each approximately held for three to four hours. You do not need to do anything to prepare for workshops. This is a relatively low-risk activity and no disadvantages or risks have been in association with participating.
You must be over the age of 18 and have the capacity to fully understand and consent to this research.
Loughborough University will be acting as a data controller for this study - the University is responsible for looking after your information and using it fairly. No identifiable personal information will be collected and so your participation in the study will be anonymous and confidential.
The data will be used in this research. No individual will be identifiable by any report, presentation, or publication. All information will be securely stored on the University computer systems. Data will be retained until the final project marks have been verified, expected till the end of September 2024.
After you have read this information and asked any queries you may have regarding the process, if you are happy to participate, please read the consent page and confirm your consent by checking the tick box at the bottom of the page.
You can withdraw from the workshops at any time. However, once you have attended a workshop it will not be possible to withdraw your data from the study.
Supervisor Professor [NAME SURNAME], (Role), Loughborough University, Loughborough Address, EMAIL
[STUDENT NAME], (Student Researcher), [PROGRAMME], Loughborough University, Loughborough Address, [EMAIL]
What if I am not happy with how the research was conducted?
If you are not happy with how the research was conducted, please contact the Secretary of the Ethics Review Sub-Committee, Research and Innovation Office, Hazelrigg Building, Epinal Way, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, Tel: 01509222423. Email: researchpolicy@lboro.ac.uk
The University also has policies relating to Research Misconduct and Whistle Blowing which are available online at https//www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/research-ethics-integrity/research-integrity/
If you require any further information regarding the General Data Protection Regulations, please visit: https//www.lboro.ac.uk/privacy/research-privacy/
Informed Consent Form
I have read and understood the purpose of this study.
I understand that I am under no obligation to take part in the study and can withdraw at any time but will not be able to withdraw data from a workshop already attended.
I understand that information I provide will be used for the student’s dissertation with strict confidence.
I agree to participate in this workshop.
Your name