Misaligned expectations in public sector innovation: differences between citizens and public servants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public sector innovations often fail if they do not meet citizens’ expectations. However, little is known about how well public servants understand these expectations. This study identifies a perception gap between citizens and public servants regarding innovation characteristics, which are specific attributes of public sector innovations that shape citizen support and legitimacy. Using Q-methodology with Swiss citizens and public servants, we identify four distinct citizen groups: result-centric, trust-centric, certainty-centric, and cost- and rule-of-law-centric. Each group emphasizes different characteristics, such as ease of use, efficiency, trialability, and trust. By contrast, public servants perceive only three homogenized citizen groups – customer-centric, trust-centric, and result-centric – overlooking expectations related to democratic participation and co-creation. This mismatch risks undermining the legitimacy and adoption of innovations. The study advances a citizen-centred view of innovation characteristics, highlights the importance of citizen heterogeneity, and provides practical guidance on designing innovations that align with diverse citizen expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".