On 25 & 26 October the three SÖF junior research groups with a focus on mobility met in Hannover to exchange insight from their current research, identify common themes and discuss possible future opportunities for collaboration.
There is more information available in German.
In this article in the journal Raumforschung und Raumordnung, Laura Mark, Katharina Holec and Tobias Escher present the results of a survey on the scope and organisation of consultation in mobility-related municipal planning. From these results, conclusions can be drawn about the participation landscape in Germany.
The results were presented in an earlier version at the 18th annual conference of the Mobility and Transport Working Group (AK MoVe) in June 2023.
Municipalities as key actors in the transport transition are increasingly using consultative public participation in planning. So far, however, it is unclear to what extent they use participatory processes in mobility-related planning and how these are designed. Given the challenges associated with the transition to a climate-neutral transport system, taking stock of existing efforts is highly relevant in order to assess the practical significance of participation processes and to better investigate the role of different types of procedures and contexts.
This study fills this gap based on an analysis of the consultative, discursive participation processes for mobility-related planning in German cities since 2015. The study examined ‘participation-oriented’ cities with guidelines for citizen participation, which were compared to a random selection of ‘typical’ municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Württemberg and Saxony as well as the three German city states.
Based on these approximately 180 cities and 350 procedures, it becomes clear that discursive consultations are carried out regularly, in particular in municipalities with guidelines and larger cities. Worth criticizing is that the formats used can usually reach only certain groups of the population and that for a significant proportion of the processes examined no information on the results of participation can be found. This means that the potentials of discursive citizen participation in addressing the municipal transport transition have not yet been sufficiently utilised.
Mark, Laura; Holec, Katharina; Escher, Tobias (2024): Die Beteiligung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern bei kommunalen Mobilitätsprojekten: Eine quantitative Erhebung konsultativer Beteiligungsverfahren in Deutschland. In: RuR (Spatial Research and Planning). DOI: 10.14512/rur.2239 
The database, i.e. the systematically collected compilation of the participation processes and their coding according to specific aspects, can be researched and downloaded here.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Tobias. As political sociologist his research focuses in particular on the role of citizen participation for legitimacy beliefs and how these are related to the substantial “quality” of citizens’ contributions to such participation processes. In addition, he is leading the research group. More infos on his research are available here.
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I think it has always been important to me how people can determine their fate and how to ensure that societies agree on how they want to live together. That is why early on in my studies I was interested in political participation and its role in political decision-making. At the beginning of my research, the main focus was on the influence of the Internet. Many questions were still open at that time. One of them was, for example, whether more people would participate through these digital possibilities, or whether online participation could achieve anything at all. Meanwhile, the new media are no longer new and I’m pursuing other questions beyond that, but I’ve remained true to the topic of participation.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
In our current research project, the fundamental question is how local authorities can succeed in making the transition to sustainable mobility and adapting to climate change. After all, mobility is a major factor for emissions. From my point of view, the complex issue of climate change and what we can do about it is not a technical question, but rather a social one. To be precise: How do we manage to do these things – which we know we have to do – in such a way that they are ecologically, socially and economically sustainable and accepted by the population?
How do you go about your research? What methods, theories or frameworks do you use?
Well, I think what’s exciting is that our research group works together with Sociology, Urban Planning and Computer Science in a very interdisciplinary way, and each discipline has its own theories and methods. In the field of participation research, the fundamental question is what function the participation of citizens actually has beyond elections. Of course, participatory theories of democracy provide different answers to this question than liberal or even elitist understandings of democracy. Furthermore, we deal a lot with the question of who participates at all and why, or rather why not. In my research, we are mainly relying on the Civic Voluntarism Model. Otherwise, I am primarily interested in the extent to which participation leads to greater acceptance of decisions and also of those responsible for the decision. We talk about legitimacy and work a lot with Easton, Scharpf and Norris.
Methodologically, the project is also quite exciting, because we work both quantitatively and qualitatively and try to combine both. In my research, we mainly work quantitatively, with standardized surveys and corresponding quantitative analysis methods.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
That we always have to keep a balance between the actual research, the management of it and the rest of the self-management. In addition, a whole series of challenges arise when science and practice collide, for example in terms of time, because we are often dependent on the planning of the cities with which we work together. In the project itself, it’s extra special because we work with different disciplines. You have to find a common language there. That’s not always easy.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
For us as scientists this can be the direct exchange with colleagues, i.e. at conferences. Otherwise, I receive regular updates on the latest articles from journals that I read and that are relevant and pertinent to my topic. I consider this to be a very good way to gain insight into current topics, methods and debates that interest me.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
I think it is important that we regularly gather feedback, such as at colloquia for dissertations or in workshops that we organize. In the process, we then also receive feedback from people outside our project. In addition, we have a scientific advisory board for our project that gives us valuable tips. In my opinion, it is primarily the constant exchange with others that is important. This can happen informally in the university environment, by meeting in the hallway and talking about some issues, or formally at conferences.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
Personally, I consider climate change to be the greatest challenge facing humanity. From my perspective, it is less a technical problem and more a social problem that needs to be solved. We have, for the most part, the technology to do so, but fail to agree on the necessary measures, such as a speed limit. Ideally, our research will help identify a few aspects that are likely to help with this. But we may also find situations for which it turns out that citizen participation is not the right thing to do and other formats or means need to be explored. The big question is how to succeed in bringing about the transformation to more sustainability, and we are trying to provide a small piece of the puzzle.
Can you tell us about any interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
What distinguishes us is our collaboration with practice. It is always exciting to step out of academic debates and be confronted with reality. This might also give new insights. As I said, it’s not always easy, but that’s what I really appreciate. Perhaps a bit more general, but what I also find an important experience: learning how nice it is when other people you accompanied at the beginning of their scientific career do a good job and that you perhaps had a certain part in helping them develop their potential.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
The first question to ask yourself is: What interests me? The balance between openness and perseverance is important here. In other words, not blindly following trends and hastily dropping topics, but also not being resistant to advice and suggestions of others. The second is more of a formal thing. Academic research holds an incredible amount of possibilities. The upside is, you can always work, the downside is, you will always work: these thoughts and ideas regarding your research cannot be switched off. You have to be aware of that and decide for yourself if it fits with your personal plans in life.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
The topic of environmental protection is also one that accompanies me personally. To ask what we can do, and how we can perhaps also convince others to do a bit more than they are doing now. That‘s a nice connection between what is important to me personally and what I can do in my research. And that’s the way it should be. Apart from that, I have a family and can therefore rarely complain about boredom.
In her thesis for the MA Social Sciences: Social Structures and Democratic Governance at Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Maria Antonia Dausner has investigated the possibilities of pupil participation during the Covid-19-related school closures, focusing on an analysis of selected elementary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia.
More information is available in German.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Katharina Holec. She is a sociologist and works on descriptive and substantive representation in participatory decision making and legitimacy beliefs. More information on Katharina’s research can be found here.
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I started studying social sciences because I was interested in the dynamics of social inequality. During my studies, I realized that it is really interesting how researchers try to make these dynamics measurable. I learnt a lot about statistics and especially tried to acquire the necessary methods to research them myself. I did not want to stop researching these dynamics at the end of my studies, so I decided to explicitly try to measure how they might be (re)produced by political decisions in the context of political consultation.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
My research is about the current biases in consultative participation. I work on questions like (1) who is involved in consultative participation procedures, (2) how are these people involved and (3) how their involvement relates to their legitimacy beliefs. Democracy is built on the thought of inclusion of citizens into the policy-making process through participation. While the approach of consultative participation of issues relevant to questions of everyday life may be a good idea at first, it does not always work. While some (usually resource rich individuals) participate, others do not. So, in the end not every interest is represented. This stands in contrast with the idea of equal democratic participation and is therefore interesting and important to explore.
Wie gehst du bei deiner Forschung vor? Welche Methoden, Theorien oder Frameworks verwendest du?
I try to make differences between socio-economic groups in the field of mobility visible by looking at their social practices. I am particularly interested in the conceptualization of the outcome, i.e., the question for whom living conditions are improved by consultative participation procedure. Methodologically, I take a quantitative approach and work with a mixture of confirmatory factor analyses, OLS-regression, and panel regressions.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
During the collection of data, I am always confronted with the problem of not being able to represent all social groups equally well, as some participate in surveys while others do not. This makes research in a field that aspires awareness regarding inequality dynamics a bit more difficult. Further, I wonder how to address the issue that data is a great way to approximate realities, but should be interpreted with caution especially when some groups tend to participate more often in surveys than others. Of course, good data and good analysis remain the best way to approximate reality.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
Mainly through platforms like Twitter and ResearchGate, but also by meeting with research groups and attending colloquia and conferences, as well as regularly searching for new articles in relevant journals.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
Primarily through colloquia and conferences, but also through regular exchange with the colleagues from the CIMT project. It definitely helps to establish routines through which one maintains discussion on the research topic.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
I am hoping that based on various research (not only done by me) tools can be developed that help to make more perspectives visible in consultative participation.
Can you tell us about any interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
I had some very interesting experiences during the collection process for the survey data in the project. I was the contact person for those who were asked to participate. However, learning about these reasons helps to understand why some groups are less well represented by research than others, which ultimately also enables a better interpretation of the results.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
I would recommend to be curious and have fun with the topic you are working on. Good research is not produced under much time pressure but with constant and intense work.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
I DJ in clubs and am a guitarist/singer in two bands. guitar in two bands and sing. These activities make my everyday life much better.
Legitimacy is the voluntary recognition of political authority, which plays an important role in the stability and governance of political systems. At the system level, it is strongly conditioned by individual legitimacy attitudes at the micro level. The goal of our presentation is to illustrate and understand
To measure these relationships, we used survey data collected in the project to first operationalize the constructs of satisfaction with authority, trust in institutions, and legitimacy attitudes at the local and national levels. Methodologically, we use a confirmatory factor analysis and OLS regression.
In my PhD thesis at the University of Düsseldorf I look at the effects of decriptive and substantive representation in consultative citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs of individuals.
Legitimacy – as a sum of individual beliefs about the appropriateness and acceptability of a political community, its regime and authorities – is the key element in stabilizing nowadays democratic systems. But, dissatisfaction with the performance of political systems is increasing and understandings of democracy can be divergent. Especially when political involvement is reduced to the possibility of choosing representatives legitimacy beliefs remain hard to rebuilt and understandings of democracy remain hard to align between different citizens. To solve this “legitimacy problem” plenty democratic theorists and researchers suggest more possibilities for political participation in the democratic process. Consultation is one mean often used by local municipalities to increase satisfaction and understanding of political processes. But consultative participation often promises too much. Like all political participation consultation is biased. Social inequality in society influences who participates. And who participates will ultimately influence a processes outcome. . The risk of losing marginalized voices in the process is high.
I want to enable a detailed understanding of the advantages of including these voices for local democratic legitimacy beliefs. Therefore, I follow Pitkin’s (1972) ideas on descriptive and substantive representation applying them to a consultative participation process. I ask
(a) Does descriptive representation in the input of a consultative participation process increase substantive representation in the throughput and outcome of a political process?
(b) How important are descriptive and substantive representation for increasing legitimacy beliefs after the political process?
I focus specifically on three levels of the policy making process (1) the input level, where I consider descriptive representation to be relevant, (2) the throughput level, where I consider substantive representation as ‘speaking for’ relevant and (3) the outcome level, where I consider substantive representation as ‘acting for’ by local municipalities relevant. While I consider (1) and (2) to be relevant criteria for increasing legitimacy beliefs by improving the political process, I consider (3) to be relevant for increasing legitimacy beliefs by improving real life living conditions.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Laura Mark. She is an urban planner and works on the effect of participation on political and planning decisions. More information on Laura’s research can be found here.
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I first studied urban and regional planning. What I found exciting about it was that it unites different subject areas, such as ecology and social and cultural aspects. The task then is to take all these different aspects into account at the same time. After graduating, I worked in an engineering office in the field of transportation and realized that it was a little too technical and focused on numbers for me and that I was missing the social aspect. So now I’ve ended up in this intersection between planning science and social science.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
I’m currently looking at the impact of public participation on planning projects for sustainable mobility. What interests me most about it is that it is a topic of current interest. Participation is widely discussed at the moment, and although research on it is still quite thin, the substantive effect on a decision is often taken for granted. Some parties also have little interest in taking a closer look.
How do you go about your research? What methods, theories or frameworks do you use?
I am doing qualitative research and look at two case studies in particular. My approach is modelled on process tracing. Unlike the various studies that have been done, it’s a very detailed approach and takes a lot of different influences on effect into focus. I work mainly with interviews and media analysis as well as participatory observation and partly with project survey data.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
The biggest challenge is that the planning processes do not work in practice as they do in theory. For me, it’s important to do in-process research, because I mainly look at the substantive effect. However, some of the planning processes have been severely delayed, and not only because of Corona. Therefore, realistic time planning is definitely a challenge. Thus, schedules must always be flexibly adapted to the progress of the project and the situation in the case studies.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
I am connected with other researchers on Twitter, and I am also at conferences and in a working group of the Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association (ARL) with a focus on mobility and social participation.
As my field is not only about science, and since a lot is happening in practice right now – the topic of the transport transition is very much in discussion regarding climate change, etc. – I am of course also staying informed through newspapers and podcasts. There are also often free webinars or workshops from various (‘practitioner’) organisations where you can get further training.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
The working group I mentioned before is definitely important because although it mainly discusses mobility as a topic, I can also contribute with the aspect of participation. I also participate in various interdisciplinary colloquia and regularly present my work. For example, there is one on socio-ecological transformations with different topics. In addition, we work together closely in the research group and, for example, present our results at conferences together.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
I hope that my research will contribute to a better understanding of participation processes and perhaps to better planning for the public sector. I also hope that the research about substantive effects of participation will make public authorities consider this issue more closely. In the future I hope that civil society is taken more seriously and there will be more accountability on how the contributions are used.
What are some emerging trends or future directions you see in your research area?
The focus on participation of civil society is becoming stronger in practice and research. The important question is how this participation can be improved and how to deal with conflicts over urgently needed changes, for example in urban space. In addition, the question of how to reach certain groups that traditionally do not participate much.
Trends in the field of mobility are (among many others), on the one hand, technical aspects such as autonomous driving. In addition, a large part of the issue is how knowledge about the mobility transition can now be implemented in practice – the role of the municipalities is particularly relevant here, as they are trying harder to get more leeway to expand the 30 km/h speed limit or to make certain areas car-free.
Can you tell us about an interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
For me, the most interesting thing was the experience that practice is completely different from theory. What I also found surprising is that the different interviewees contradicted each other very strongly, because their perceptions of the planning process were very different. In the minutes, for example from committee meetings, things looked completely different again; these are all truths and perspectives that I can then use to approach the process.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
I think you shouldn’t plan too much but go by what interests you. You should have confidence that everything will come together in the end to form something coherent.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
I really enjoy being outside, I like hiking and biking; I do martial arts and yoga in my spare time. It definitely complements my research in the sense that I can switch off my head. It’s something completely different, not as intellectual. Sometimes it’s stressful, though, because every now and then when I’m riding my bike, I think to myself, “who approved that, that’s way too narrow, that doesn’t even comply with the standard width, who would do something like that!”.
In the meet the team series, we introduce a member of the research group every week to give an impression beyond the scientific work. For this purpose, our student assistant Philippe Sander asked us a few questions.
Today in the interview: Julia Romberg. As a computer scientist, she develops methods for the (partially) automated classification of contributions in participation processes. More info on Julia’s research can be found here.
What inspired you to pursue a career in your research field, and how did you get started in your field?
I studied computer science because I enjoyed math at school and wanted to try something technical. In my master’s degree I started working with language data. Since I always found human language very interesting, I stuck with it.
Can you describe your current research project and what you hope to achieve with it? What do you personally find the most interesting about it?
The aim of my research project is to support the evaluation of textual contributions from citizen participation processes. One challenge is that often large amounts of data are generated, e.g., as emails or via online platforms. These are supposed to be evaluated within a certain time frame, but at the same time their evaluation must fulfill certain democratic norms (e.g., every voice must be heard). These requirements are difficult to comply by a pure manual evaluation, and that’s where computational approaches come in.
How do you go about your research? What methods, theories or frameworks do you use?
I use natural language processing tools to pre-structure public contributions thematically and to identify citizens’ arguments in order to highlight them fora subsequent manual analysis.
What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your work and how do you overcome them?
We are a transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary project. Communication across different disciplines is always a bit difficult, e.g., because of different terminologies and the strong focus on very specific research questions. That’s why we took our time at the beginning of the project to build a common ground to better understand each other and raising awareness for this particular challenge. The same applies for our communication with the practice, so that people without closer connection to the research area can understand our research. My recommendation for good science communication is “learning by doing”, e.g., by regularly preparing presentations for a non-specialist audience.
How do you stay on top of the latest trends and developments in your field?
Of course, it is an advantage that AI and natural language processing have aroused the broad interest of the media by now (keyword ChatGPT). Additionally, reading the current literature is a must. At the same time, the fast pace of the research field makes it difficult to maintain a comprehensive overview. For this purpose, the exchange with colleagues as well as the participation in tutorials and workshops is important in order to stay up to date with the latest research.
How do you collaborate with other researchers or experts in your field to improve your projects?
I participate in and organize colloquia and workshops in which people exchange ideas on various thematic focal points. Suggestions from such talks and discussions naturally flow back into my own work and sometimes even result in collaborations.
What impact do you hope your research will have on society or the field?
I hope that the methods developed can find application in practice.
What are some emerging trends or future directions you see in your research area?
A current trend are “prompt-based” approaches, where one consults large language models with different objectives.
Can you tell us about any interesting or meaningful experiences you had during your research?
Before I started working on the project, I worked at a chair in computer science, where rather advanced concepts were developed. However, I learned that practical use cases often need down-to-earth solutions first.
What advice do you have for students and aspiring scientists just starting out in their careers?
A good network and a clear research agenda are essential. It helps to set as narrow a scope as possible to develop a realistic project management. Even from a small delineated framework, quite a lot of research usually results. Especially in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects, it should also be ensured that there is enough time for research that is relevant within one’s own discipline.
Lastly, can you tell us a little about yourself outside of your work? What hobbies or interests do you pursue in your spare time, and how do they complement your research?
I play bass guitar in a band and do Ashtanga yoga, where you only get ahead if you persevere. It’s the same as in science: you have to stick with something until it pays off.
In this publication in Digital Government: Research and Practice Julia Romberg and Tobias Escher offer a review of the computational techniques that have been used in order to support the evaluation of contributions in public participation processes. Based on a systematic literature review, they assess their performance and offer future research directions.
Public sector institutions that consult citizens to inform decision-making face the challenge of evaluating the contributions made by citizens. This evaluation has important democratic implications but at the same time, consumes substantial human resources. However, until now the use of artificial intelligence such as computer-supported text analysis has remained an under-studied solution to this problem. We identify three generic tasks in the evaluation process that could benefit from natural language processing (NLP). Based on a systematic literature search in two databases on computational linguistics and digital government, we provide a detailed review of existing methods and their performance. While some promising approaches exist, for instance to group data thematically and to detect arguments and opinions, we show that there remain important challenges before these could offer any reliable support in practice. These include the quality of results, the applicability to non-English language corpora and making algorithmic models available to practitioners through software. We discuss a number of avenues that future research should pursue that can ultimately lead to solutions for practice. The most promising of these bring in the expertise of human evaluators, for example through active learning approaches or interactive topic modelling.
Romberg, Julia; Escher, Tobias (2023): Making Sense of Citizens’ Input through Artificial Intelligence. In: Digital Government: Research and Practice, Artikel 3603254. DOI: 10.1145/3603254.
